dojN002379.xml
Title
dojN002379.xml
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Date Entered
2002-01-22
September 11 Email: Body
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:55 PM
VCF comments for      , spouse of     
Please accept these comments on behalf of my husband who was lost on September 11 in the World Trade Center:
Attachment 1:
January 22, 2002
Kenneth L. Zwick, Director
Office of Management Programs
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building, Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Zwick:
My husband,      was lost in the tragedy of the World Trade Center. I am grateful for the opportunity to be considered as part of the Victim Compensation Fund. The alternative of pursing a lawsuit seems to be an unnecessary ordeal in the time of grief for me and the nation. However, considering the significant step of waiving my rights to sue, I believe yet utmost care must be taken in the design of the process. I have reviewed the Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, December 21, 2001 and the Frequently Asked Questions, Updated 12/21/2001. Recognizing that I dont understand all that Ive read, my comments in priority order are:
First, the loss of income from my inability to work comparable hours as before. I am self employed as a consultant and only get paid if I work. With my husband gone, and my childrens needs increased, my non-working days are a non-stop whirlwind from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. While I was unable to work the first five weeks after the tragedy, I now struggle to find time to provide support to my primary client in order to retain my relationship. The only way I am able to survive is through the extensive network of support from friends, neighbors, and relatives. At best, I expect my income to be half of what it was pre-event. However, I am unsure as to how long I can keep this pace up even with ongoing support from my network; without this support it is quite unclear how much of this time I could put in. You would understand if you walked a mile in my shoes. Make no mistake, I would prefer to have the opportunity to work assuming all my childrens needs can be met. However, my children are small      ; they need me and I expect to significantly cut back my hours. I believe this would be considered if I took the litigation approach.
We note with optimism that in FAQ 1.4, the cost of pension and health insurance plans is added to salary. However, it may be impossible to know the right amount of contribution paid by the employer. Instead of your approach, I dont understand why the formula does not consider the pension that would be received at normal retirement age as the starting point before collateral sources. Using my husband as an example: he would have received 75% of final average salary at retirement - that would be significant compared to todays salary. The left hand side of the sheet labeled Example 1 in the attached file shows pro-forma calculation of your approach (the example uses $100,000 in income without counting the cost of employer contributions for pension called for in FAQ 1.4). This example is designed to give a similar answer to the published table of $1,526,662 for this example. The right side shows the calculation the way I think it should work with the starting value prior to collateral sources to reflect not only income to normal retirement age but also the expected retirement benefit at normal retirement age and anticipated life expectancy. The value to the employee, had he lived, was over $556,000. I think it would be simpler and fairer to add in this value, then to subtract the value of the pension to the spouse, but include payments through the full life expectancy, not just normal work life (total of $294,000). Using this alternate pension calculation, the comparable loss is $1.8 million. To get a similar value using your method, the employer cost of pension would have to be 40%. I am not saying that the cost of pensions were 40% of salary. However, I do believe it shows the flaw in the special Masters formula. The alternative calculation is simpler and more accurate.
Relative fairness for high-benefit victims vs. low benefit victims. Part of the competitiveness of the Port Authority as an employer was that the level of benefits and vacation benefits offset the lower salary. Now, these benefits are counting against us as compared to higher-paid but lower benefit victims. A victim with no pension would have significantly more in direct assets as compared to workers with pension benefits. Please refer to example 2 of the attached file. The differences between an employee with pension and one without can be substantial. These differences can be mitigated somewhat with the alternate pension calculation described in Example 1. However, the difference is not completely eliminated because the employee with savings and no pension is still better off.
I understand that replacement services would usually be part of economic loss (this would be separate from the a non-economic piece that is considered in FAQ 1.5). As I think of this issue, I cant help but think not only of the numerous remodeling projects, upgrades and repairs that came so easily to my husband and so inexpensive to our household. In the past 6 years, my husband more than doubled the square footage of our modest home, for a fraction of the cost of estimates we received from contractors. We were scheduled for him to begin a family room addition this spring. Beyond this, he was truly a partner to me as he helped giving the children quality time: getting our oldest child off to kindergarten on days that I worked, helping with meals and putting the kids to bed. Obviously, there is no replacement for the emotional support. However, the time lost from a true sharing of the everyday responsibilities is time taken away from my opportunities for employment or time that I need to hire someone to replace these individual tasks. As an example, I have already missed two days of work since returning, due to the fact that my children were too sick to be at daycare. My husband, who enjoyed 5 weeks of paid vacation, was always the one to take a day off when these anticipated emergencies occurred.
Life Insurance post event, it frightens me to think of providing for my children if something were to happen to me. Therefore, I am already paying for additional life insurance in an amount I would have never thought necessary before. I am also finding out about the lunacy of our estate tax laws even people of modest means who want to care for their children could be faced with an onerous estate tax, not when one parent is living but if my children were orphaned. I understand that there are expensive legal ways around this via life insurance trusts (what ever that is) but there is a three-year waiting period. I find it troubling that you would offset life insurance at all. If you do so, you must consider not only past premiums paid but also future premiums to be paid on my life. I also resent the possibility that estate tax would be due on this award if my children were orphaned.
I continue to be amazed that only 3,000 people were lost in the tragic event at the World Trade Center. I know this only came about because of brave people like my husband,      , who WENT BACK INTO THE building after the first plane hit and stayed until the end to help others get out. While I am not looking to be enriched at the expense of hard working tax payers, I hope that your process reflects the willingness of America to support its brave rescue workers and to make things easier for the loved ones left behind.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these comments.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
VCF comments for      , spouse of     
Please accept these comments on behalf of my husband who was lost on September 11 in the World Trade Center:
Attachment 1:
January 22, 2002
Kenneth L. Zwick, Director
Office of Management Programs
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building, Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Zwick:
My husband,      was lost in the tragedy of the World Trade Center. I am grateful for the opportunity to be considered as part of the Victim Compensation Fund. The alternative of pursing a lawsuit seems to be an unnecessary ordeal in the time of grief for me and the nation. However, considering the significant step of waiving my rights to sue, I believe yet utmost care must be taken in the design of the process. I have reviewed the Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, December 21, 2001 and the Frequently Asked Questions, Updated 12/21/2001. Recognizing that I dont understand all that Ive read, my comments in priority order are:
First, the loss of income from my inability to work comparable hours as before. I am self employed as a consultant and only get paid if I work. With my husband gone, and my childrens needs increased, my non-working days are a non-stop whirlwind from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. While I was unable to work the first five weeks after the tragedy, I now struggle to find time to provide support to my primary client in order to retain my relationship. The only way I am able to survive is through the extensive network of support from friends, neighbors, and relatives. At best, I expect my income to be half of what it was pre-event. However, I am unsure as to how long I can keep this pace up even with ongoing support from my network; without this support it is quite unclear how much of this time I could put in. You would understand if you walked a mile in my shoes. Make no mistake, I would prefer to have the opportunity to work assuming all my childrens needs can be met. However, my children are small      ; they need me and I expect to significantly cut back my hours. I believe this would be considered if I took the litigation approach.
We note with optimism that in FAQ 1.4, the cost of pension and health insurance plans is added to salary. However, it may be impossible to know the right amount of contribution paid by the employer. Instead of your approach, I dont understand why the formula does not consider the pension that would be received at normal retirement age as the starting point before collateral sources. Using my husband as an example: he would have received 75% of final average salary at retirement - that would be significant compared to todays salary. The left hand side of the sheet labeled Example 1 in the attached file shows pro-forma calculation of your approach (the example uses $100,000 in income without counting the cost of employer contributions for pension called for in FAQ 1.4). This example is designed to give a similar answer to the published table of $1,526,662 for this example. The right side shows the calculation the way I think it should work with the starting value prior to collateral sources to reflect not only income to normal retirement age but also the expected retirement benefit at normal retirement age and anticipated life expectancy. The value to the employee, had he lived, was over $556,000. I think it would be simpler and fairer to add in this value, then to subtract the value of the pension to the spouse, but include payments through the full life expectancy, not just normal work life (total of $294,000). Using this alternate pension calculation, the comparable loss is $1.8 million. To get a similar value using your method, the employer cost of pension would have to be 40%. I am not saying that the cost of pensions were 40% of salary. However, I do believe it shows the flaw in the special Masters formula. The alternative calculation is simpler and more accurate.
Relative fairness for high-benefit victims vs. low benefit victims. Part of the competitiveness of the Port Authority as an employer was that the level of benefits and vacation benefits offset the lower salary. Now, these benefits are counting against us as compared to higher-paid but lower benefit victims. A victim with no pension would have significantly more in direct assets as compared to workers with pension benefits. Please refer to example 2 of the attached file. The differences between an employee with pension and one without can be substantial. These differences can be mitigated somewhat with the alternate pension calculation described in Example 1. However, the difference is not completely eliminated because the employee with savings and no pension is still better off.
I understand that replacement services would usually be part of economic loss (this would be separate from the a non-economic piece that is considered in FAQ 1.5). As I think of this issue, I cant help but think not only of the numerous remodeling projects, upgrades and repairs that came so easily to my husband and so inexpensive to our household. In the past 6 years, my husband more than doubled the square footage of our modest home, for a fraction of the cost of estimates we received from contractors. We were scheduled for him to begin a family room addition this spring. Beyond this, he was truly a partner to me as he helped giving the children quality time: getting our oldest child off to kindergarten on days that I worked, helping with meals and putting the kids to bed. Obviously, there is no replacement for the emotional support. However, the time lost from a true sharing of the everyday responsibilities is time taken away from my opportunities for employment or time that I need to hire someone to replace these individual tasks. As an example, I have already missed two days of work since returning, due to the fact that my children were too sick to be at daycare. My husband, who enjoyed 5 weeks of paid vacation, was always the one to take a day off when these anticipated emergencies occurred.
Life Insurance post event, it frightens me to think of providing for my children if something were to happen to me. Therefore, I am already paying for additional life insurance in an amount I would have never thought necessary before. I am also finding out about the lunacy of our estate tax laws even people of modest means who want to care for their children could be faced with an onerous estate tax, not when one parent is living but if my children were orphaned. I understand that there are expensive legal ways around this via life insurance trusts (what ever that is) but there is a three-year waiting period. I find it troubling that you would offset life insurance at all. If you do so, you must consider not only past premiums paid but also future premiums to be paid on my life. I also resent the possibility that estate tax would be due on this award if my children were orphaned.
I continue to be amazed that only 3,000 people were lost in the tragic event at the World Trade Center. I know this only came about because of brave people like my husband,      , who WENT BACK INTO THE building after the first plane hit and stayed until the end to help others get out. While I am not looking to be enriched at the expense of hard working tax payers, I hope that your process reflects the willingness of America to support its brave rescue workers and to make things easier for the loved ones left behind.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these comments.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
September 11 Email: Date
2002-01-22
Collection
Citation
“dojN002379.xml,” September 11 Digital Archive, accessed November 15, 2024, https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/23309.