World Trade Center pay outs by Income ???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

This topic was discuss some a few questions ago but this is my question for you all now. Just heard on the news that the government is going to give families of victims monies according to their projected income of their lifetime. So if the person on the 100th floor was making a Zillion dollars a year and the fellow in the basement was making $5,000 a year or the housewife that stayed home to take care of her family for 30 years and unfortunatley was having coffee there that day would get how much ??? There would be a big difference in the pay offs. What do you all think of this way of paying out money ?? Is it fair ?? Should we do it at all ??? How can you be sure there aren't people taking advantage of this as I have seen some scams about this too ??? So if I get run over by an Army tank the government will pay my family a settlement or did I need to get run over by the tank only on Sept. 11th.?? Was our government orginally "made" to become big brother to all ?? I am very upset like most Americans that what happened to the WTC and Praise God none of my family was involved. But since when did the government get into the life insurance business. And who votes on these things...or OK's them to go ahead with these ideas. Look forward to hearing from you all !!!

-- Helena (windyacs@npacc.net), December 21, 2001

Answers

Helena, A life is a life how to you place more value on one life over another. As far as the money goes I feel that they are opening a pandora's box and in years to come people will use the 9/11 situation to get all they can get for whatever. On the otherside I do believe that the children need some kind of trust set up so they can go to college or trade school to make sure they have a chance at life just as they would have if their parent was still alive. I think the government is digging a big hole that we are going to find it hard to climb out of. Sally

-- (mallardhen67@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.

The government should not give anyone money for this or any other reason. The government is forbidden to make direct payemnts to citizens, but nobody seems to care about what the constitution says anymore. The more money the politicians can give away the more votes they will get . Plain and simple.

It is sad what happened to all those people on the 11th, but it seems to me they have just all won the lottery. The donations sent by individuals are tremendous, and now government money. Many will be given more money than they probably would have made in their lifetimes. It is good that they are being helped, don't get me wrong, but this is bordering on the ridiculous. They are getting enough money to send their kids to college etc. How many of have wished that we could pay for our kids to go to college? Won't happen for most of us.

As far as differentials in payments are concerned. The amount donated by individuals should be given out evenly, this is what most people had in mind when they made their donations. To those people that are used to the high lifestyle of major 6 figure income, you may have to step down to reality, and the upper middle class lifestyle. Still probably a lot more than most of us will ever make no matter how hard we work. I want to emphasize that I am not complaining about them getting help, I am thrilled that the country showed so much compassion to these folks who truly have been through a lot. What bothers me is the amount and the total coverage for the rest of their lives.

Of courset there have been scams. With over 140 different organizations collecting money it was bound to happen. The Red Cross was cited for holding back and re-directing where the money they received for the victims was going. The folks who donated it wanted it to go to those directly affected by the tragedy. Same thing for United Way. It took them a long time to finally tell everyone the truth about what they are doing with the money. Their spokesperson did all they could to confuse the matter on a tv interview that I saw. They were spending it on things that were not related to those affected by the events of 9-11. One of the places that the money was going was for a dance troupe. I don't know about you but I think that is not what people had in mind when they made their donations to the 9-11 fund at the United Way. To me that seems absurd. I know that I will NEVER give them a dime again. They can't be trusted. They proved it to the world.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), December 21, 2001.


If they are going to give it out, it should be a flat out amount-no additional for those who had earning potential, and no less for those who had life insurance (this deduction is what really bothers me, life insurance is CHEAP! You shouldn't be penalized for planning ahead).

The sad fact of the matter is that this was New York, and a lot of political careers are riding on this. If this had happened in California it would have been the same thing. Those are the two big states in terms of political contributions, you bet they will do something more than they would do in some midwestern town.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 21, 2001.


We have a house and a little land with a big mortgage. My husband has a good job and I stay home with 2 children.We are not rich by any means but we still manage to come up with the money for life insurance. Not a million dollar policy but enough to get by on if something should happen.Now my question is WHY did these people with 6 figure incomes not have enouh lif insurance???? We gave donations for 9/11 and now they are going to take my tax money without my permission and give these people even more??!! I don't think it's right for the govt to give these people ANY money. With life insurance, donations, and now the govt giving them money we are going to see a lot more millionaires in this country in the near future. By the way did the govt give any money to the families of Pearl Harbor or Oklahoma City or any other death or injury due to accident, murder, or natural disaster??? And if not; WHY?????

-- Lou Ann in KY (homes_cool@msn.com), December 21, 2001.

For an article which explained the pay out methodology, see the thread on options on payouts for WTC victims (or similar). Remember, whatever procedure is used, it won't satisfy everyone.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 21, 2001.


Republicans have adopted the same philosophy they condemned the Democrats for: The more needs government cares for, the more people need more government. Methinks the Republicans are hypocrites.

-- paul (primrose@centex.net), December 21, 2001.

Before we start on about the life insurance policies, maybe we should look into all the fine print some policies have in them. I know that my homeowners has an exclusion for "acts of war" which the 9/11 attack fell under.

I think my husbands term life policy (the cheap one that covers you only for as long as you make the payments) also has an exclusion for suicide, acts of war and "acts of god" (earthquakes, etc.)

There is an insurance loophole out there that they may fall under for such an unexpected death. Amy

-- Amy Richards (amysgarden2@earthlink.net), December 21, 2001.


From todays New York Times

December 21, 2001 Victims' Fund Likely to Pay Average of $1.6 Million Each By DIANA B. HENRIQUES and DAVID BARSTOW

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The overseer of the federal fund set up for the families of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks estimated today that the fund could cost taxpayers as much as $6 billion and would provide tax-free awards, on average, of approximately $1.65 million for the families of those who died in the attacks.

Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master of the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, offered the estimates as he unveiled the regulations that would guide the fund's work when it opens for business on Friday. Those rules allow Mr. Feinberg to grant larger awards if evidence shows they are justified by "extraordinary circumstances."

The likely awards by the fund, based on the economic assumptions Mr. Feinberg has adopted, range from $300,000 for an unmarried 65- year-old who earned $10,000 a year to $4.35 million for a 30-year-old who had a spouse and two children and who made $175,000 a year.

The estimated price of the no-fault compensation fund, the first of its kind ever created in the aftermath of an American disaster, is considerably lower than early, unofficial legislative forecasts, in part because the number of victims has shrunk to roughly half the number first feared lost in the attacks. Moreover, Mr. Feinberg has clearly put limits on how much the families of very high- income victims will be able to recover from the fund.

By law, the fund's awards must be reduced by whatever life insurance, pension payments, death benefits or government assistance victims' families have received — a step that could pare the public cost to roughly $4.8 billion. Charitable contributions received by the families will not be deducted from the awards, however. To seek an award from the fund, claimants must waive their right to sue over the disaster, a requirement intended to limit airline liability for the attacks.

"I have met with hundreds of claimants, families who have suffered, and I am absolutely of one mind on this," Mr. Feinberg said at a news conference at the Department of Justice. "Whatever we do is of small comfort, and I realize that. We do, however, aim to provide some appropriate compensation, some limited measure of comfort."

The fund, he said, would pay the awards within four months and would spare families the need to "revisit the tragic events of Sept. 11 over and over again during the pendency of a lawsuit in our courts."

Victims' families, lawyers and public officials, who have been waiting for months for some indication of how the fund will operate, gave the new rules and the projected payouts a widely mixed reception.

The president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which is providing free legal help for families that file a claim with the fund, applauded the program, noting that the procedures allowed families unsatisfied with a potential award to argue for more.

But some victim representatives said the estimated awards were far lower than they had hoped for, particularly with regard to the compensation for pain and suffering, which they say is much lower than they might have won in court. Mr. Feinberg, whose awards are not reviewable by any court, determined that an unmarried victim without children should get $250,000 for pain and suffering. He decided that an additional $50,000 each would be awarded for any surviving spouse or child.

"It's an absolute disgrace, and as I read it, it only gets worse," said Michael Cartier, who lost a brother in the disaster and who is a member of Give Your Voice, which represents some families of civilians killed in the attacks.

The fund, which makes its awards based largely on the lost earning power of those who died, is also likely to be of little satisfaction to the families of the uniformed rescuers, about 400 of whom died at the Trade Center. Because the families of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty receive generous lifetime pensions and a $250,000 federal award, it will be difficult for them to argue that they have suffered great economic damage. Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that the fund's treatment of the families of some uniformed services personnel "is a big question mark" but said he would take a fresh look at the rules if it appeared that such families were "walking away with nothing."

The fund's new rules also drew strong criticism from Eliot L. Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General, who said they were "unduly restrictive and subvert the intent of Congress, which was to fully compensate all victims of the tragedy." Mr. Spitzer said he was particularly concerned about the limits the rules put on who was eligible to file a claim for physical injury.

Mr. Feinberg yesterday defended his efforts, saying that the fund was a much more attractive option for families than the uncertainties of costly, protracted litigation.

Even for wealthy people, the awards contemplated here are substantial and far better than going to court, he said. "I am hard pressed to accept the argument that these awards are too low," he added. "This is a classic trade-off between administrative speed and efficiency and rolling the dice in court and going for the proverbial pot of gold."

Although the federal statute that created the fund did not explicitly require him to do so, Mr. Feinberg has clearly tried to address the disparities between the awards made to the families of the wealthiest victims and those made to families whose lost breadwinner earned far less.

The awards increase steadily as the victim's income increases from $10,000 a year to $225,000 a year — but after that, substantial increases in income do not produce substantially larger awards. Thus, the award for a victim who earned $2 million a year is not appreciably more than the one for a victim who earned $225,000 a year.

Although Mr. Feinberg insisted that he had not set a limit on the awards the fund would make, he warned that awards of more than $3 million "will rarely be appropriate." Similarly, although he said that there was no official minimum award, the rules are aimed at ensuring that — between the fund's award, life insurance, death benefits and other noncharitable compensation — no victim's family would get less than $300,000 for those without dependents, or $500,000 for those who were married with children.

The most contentious issue Mr. Feinberg faced was the task of putting a dollar figure on the "pain and suffering" and other noneconomic losses sustained by the victims and their families. Some victims' advocates had argued that this component of the awards should vary depending on how each had died — instantly and without warning, or after nearly an hour of choking smoke and fear. Such factors usually play a significant role in the determination of jury awards in court cases over wrongful deaths.

Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that "each person experienced the unspeakable events of that day in a unique way." But, he said: "I will not play Solomon. I cannot make those distinctions, and I will not make those distinctions. Every life is valuable." Instead, he said, "the most rational and just way" to deal with these variations in personal tragedy was to establish a single, uniform amount of compensation for everyone — in this case, $250,000, plus $50,000 for a spouse and for each minor child left behind.

He said he was willing to listen to arguments that this element of the awards should be higher, but he noted that this figure conformed roughly to the amounts paid under existing federal programs that compensate the families of police officers and military personnel who are killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Feinberg has clarified some uncertainties that stemmed from the hastily drafted airline bailout legislation that created the fund.

The fund is open to claims filed on behalf of anyone — other than the terrorists — who died on the hijacked jets, at the Pentagon, or at the World Trade Center, including illegal aliens. But Mr. Feinberg has now defined who can file a claim for "physical harm."

Such claims may be filed only by those who were "present at the site" — defined as any area where Mr. Feinberg concludes "there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm" — during the "immediate aftermath" of the attacks. For civilians, the immediate aftermath means within 12 hours of the attacks. But for rescue workers, that period is extended to 96 hours.

However, Mr. Feinberg defines physical harm to mean an injury that was "treated by a medical professional within 24 hours" and "either required hospitalization as an in-patient for at least 24 hours or caused, either temporarily or permanently, partial or total physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement."

Mr. Spitzer, the New York Attorney General, argues that this definition would bar claims by those who continued to work despite severe pain, by those who deferred medical treatment for more than 24 hours so that they could reunite with their families, and by those who were treated, without documentation, at the emergency triage centers that sprang up the day of the attacks.

Families seeking to file a claim have two options under the rules. They can submit documentation supporting their claim, await a decision, and then seek a hearing to argue for a higher figure. Or they can seek a hearing first, make their arguments, and then await a decision, which would be final.

Moreover, anyone eligible to file a claim can immediately apply for emergency awards of $50,000 for death or $25,000 for serious injury.

The rules permit a single claim per victim, but Mr. Feinberg declined to determine who should file that claim, deferring instead to state probate and inheritance laws. Thus, he did not specifically invite claims filed by same-sex partners, fiancés or fiancées, and others lacking a clear, documented relationship to the victims, although he did not rule out such claims.



-- Dave (something@somewhere.com), December 21, 2001.


It would make sense, if they are using a formula by age and amount of income, that they would make yearly payments, not a lump sum. I could approve of that. But this way it's a clear case of "them that has, gets."

And Bob, you mentioned college money? These people don't need college money. Gov. Pataki came right out within a week of the event to declare that all persons involved would be granted a FREE college education at the State University colleges of NYS. Of course, these people will be looking at Harvard and Yale rather than SUNY Potdam or Oswego. God forbid they go to a state school now with that kind of money.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), December 21, 2001.


I don't believe government should be involved in payments to victims of this tragedy any more than I believe they should be involved in payments to victims of any other tragedy.

That having been said, the method by which payments are being made is the most equitable available and is the method used to determine the value (monetary) of most tort claims for wrongful death. With any method there are inequities and chances for argument and disagreement. The method of taking a lump sum and dividing it equally among the victims would be even more unfair, allowing nothing for disparities in earning potential and lifestyle achieved.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), December 21, 2001.



On 9-11 and a few days after, we were all waving the flag and shouting God Bless America and God bless the souls buried under the WTC. Everyone said it brought out the best in us and we were all neighbors, bla, bla, bla. And how long did that last? Until the money came pouring in from every where and from all of us. Whole new ball game now. Now it is a money game and the government has to get in the big middle of it. What else is new?

-- Belle (gardenbelle@terraworld.net), December 21, 2001.

Why don't we give victims of the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City some money?

-- paul (primrose@centex.net), December 21, 2001.

Most of the children will be receiving Social Security Survivors benefits, and the surviving spouse receives a benefit for as long as he/she is raising the children. Those benefits are available to anyone who is covered by Social Security at their job. I heartily disagree with the idea of government handouts (excluding the SS mentioned above). Yes, it was a terrible tragedy, and I am very sorry for all the people involved; but when someone is killed in any other way, the government doesn't enrich the survivors. What do they pay to the survivors of someone killed in a war?

-- Dianne Wood (woodgoat@pacifier.com), December 21, 2001.

From the perspective of a non-American. Ever since September 11th we seem to hear of another fund raising event / movie star etc donating millions of dollars for the families of the victims. To begin with this seemed appropriate, a nice, if materialistic gesture. But very quickly we begin to wonder: what about the people in Afghanistan? They aren't getting any charity records released on their behalf.

-- Katherine (katherinedakin@aol.com), December 22, 2001.

At first glance, it does appear from most accounts, that the federal government is giving out tax dollars directly to families of those lost on 9/11. But if you read abit more, you will learn that this money is coming from a federal bail-out to the airline industries to avert financial ruin in the wake of this massive loss of life. To receive money from the fund, one must agree to NOT sue the airlines for any loss suffered due to the attack. The court cases against the airlines involved could otherwise continue until they folded. Look at the tobacco industry today. And the airlines spin off demand for many levels of the tourism (hotel, restaurant,etc) industry. So the bail-out to the airlines is an attempt to shore up the economy during this recession. My father lost his life on the job in 1973. My mother received Social Security benefits for the 4 of us children still in school. It helped put me through college. But the life insurance was about one year's wages. And at the time, a truck driver wasn't paid too much. But that money kept my mother home to care for the 3 younger kids and it also meant she didn't lose the roof over her head. No one got rich on this arrangement, but a family was able to survive the loss of its breadwinner. God bless America for being there when my family needed help. But Social Security was something my father paid into, through tax deductions, for the purpose of receiving a benefit later in life. What's going on in New York is turning tragedy into a feeding frenzy.

-- Dwight (summit1762@aol.com), December 22, 2001.


I would say there is a huge difference between the tobacco companies (which lied about the toxicity of their product from the get go) and the airlines. I wish they would close down the tobacco companies and let the farmers grow industrial (not the other kind) hemp instead, so we can buy hemp clothing and paper products from here and not from overseas, and imho, anyone who started smoking after the surgeon general's warning started appearing on packages has no case anyway.

It is still our tax money going into this bailout, I doubt the airlines are chipping in anything. I think a lot of people were taken by surprise by the enormity of the payout (I know I was thinking more like $50,000 per family, period) these people are going to be receiving.

And as for suing, realistically they should be suing the perpetrators of the crime, Osama bin Laden (who by all accounts has plenty of money), et al, not necessarily the airlines. Maybe some judge will point that out to them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 22, 2001.


Helena, the government has been in the insurance business for years. It's called Fema. When an area is flooded, fema comes in and gives you so much money for damage. Then since you live in a flood zone, you should by flood insurance through Fema (which is all government sponsered). Supposedly if another flood happens and you don't have flood insurance, you don't get anything the second time. Yes people are paying premiums, but the point is it is not a question of if another flood is going to happen, but when! And if you have Fema and a flood destroys your house, you get money. Then the next year when it floods again and destroys your house, you get money again and rebuild. It doesn't make sense to me. As for the World Trade Center/ Pentagon fiasco, see my post in it several articles down from here!

-- Michael W. Smith in North-West Pennsylvania (kirklbb@penn.com), December 22, 2001.

How much money would FEMA pay you if a member of your family drowned in the flood?

-- paul (primrose@centex.net), December 23, 2001.

Paul, I don't think Fema pays anything for a life lost. It pays for buildings demolished or damaged by flooding. My sister was involved with a flood 4 years ago and basically has a brand new house (hers was remodeled). I might be getting off the main question about WRC, but was telling Helena that the government is in the insurance business. And since it is our tax dollars paying for government, me and you are actually paying the bill. Please don't get me wrong, sometimes people do need help. But today most people don't plan, & when something terrible happens, they expect the government to help out.

-- Michael W. Smith in North-West Pennsylvania (kirklbb@penn.com), December 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ