dojW000295.xml

dojW000295.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-09

Friday, November 09, 2001 7:00 PM
Victim Compensation

I'm having trouble with my emails so you may already have one from


Please review my suggestion. I know it won't carry any weight, but it feels
good to "think" I'm participating.

God Bless,

Attachment 1:
Victimcomp.comments@usdoj.gov

I do not know the amount set-aside for the 911 Victims in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. However, rates of payment should be based on Current Annual Middle Individual-Income level. Those who earned less than the National Average would probably have not covered themselves with life insurance or only with a low amount. Nor might they have been working in jobs that provided employer paid medical insurance or Worker's Compensation, pensions and the like.

Pensions, Charity Awards and Workers Compensation, Life, Medical or business or State Disability insurance, and Social Security should "not" have to be exhausted in order to receive the benefit from the government. Therefore, the victims in the higher income brackets who have these things will not appear to be penalized.

I have not seen that people cannot sue any other entity. Many businesses in and around the World Trade Center are gone, or reduced. Yet there is the potential for victims or their heirs to sue. These awards should also not have to be exhausted in order to collect the government award. This is a payment made on behalf of the airlines, which would otherwise be liable regardless of any other of these compensations.

Victim Compensation should be considered a "minimal supplement" to their Loss of Income. It is meant to help the families meet the financial challenge of losing a provider through death or through disability (based on a typical insurance company schedule for disability or dismemberment/disfigurement, and medical expenses not covered by insurance) in their household. As long as you are bailing out the airlines, the limit per beneficiary should be modeled after no more than the middle individual-income base.

However, where the victim who died is a child up to age 18, (or college students to age 25) it would be assumed they had not been a primary contributor to a household, yet a compensation should be awarded. It would seem the minimum amount (1 year income) on the schedule would still be awarded as there are expenses with burial and some family members may not have had paid bereavement days through their employers. This is the case where humanity is applied to show some value to the grief.

Those injured, yet not disabled or disfigured, should also receive compensation for time lost at work, plus medical expenses not covered by insurance. Example: the Middle-Individual-Income Adjusted rate x hours missed ($14.37 x 120 hours = $1,724.40 and out-of-pocket medical expenses).

Assumption:
* 20 years old would have a projected income for 45 years
(to age 65)
· Annual National Average is somewhere near $28,000 ($13.46/hr.)
· Insurance premium for medical coverage (employer paid portion, i.e., 80%) of perhaps $.91/hour ($200 mo. x 80% /2080)
* TOTAL Adjusted First Year income: $29,889.60 ($14.37/hr.)
* .03 projected increase per year (or whatever the national average on increases actually is):

Table shows simplified increments:

1-year (Minimum): $ 29,889.60
5-year: $128,798.35
10-year: $312,761.17
20-year: $773,255.15
30-year: $1,392,120.55
40-year: $2,223,823.89
45-year (Maximum): $2,741,469.97

Payment for a Death would require an amount adjacent to the number of years they would have lived before the 65-year retirement age, but "not less" than $29,889.60 (that would cover those past the retirement age).

If Joe and Mary Smith were each 35 years old and died in the event, their heirs would be entitled to a total of $2,784,240 (2 x the 30-year rate). Which, if deposited and accrued .04 interest/year, it would provide $111,369 interest income a year on which to live, the equivalent of each earning $55,684/year. If they follow this method of preserving their award, the first year of annual income will then be near twice the National Middle-Income level, while maintaining the original award amount.

I believe this would be fair since the beneficiaries would be signing away the right to sue the airlines for wrongful death, malpractice, pain and suffering, unsafe conditions, and etc.

If you do not have $12+ Billion, use the Minimum Wage scenario because that amount is the "least any citizen could have earned":

Assumption:
* 20 years old would have a projected income for 45 years
(to age 65)
· Annual Minimum Wage is somewhere near $13,000 ($6.25/hr.)
· Insurance premium (employer paid) of perhaps $.91/hour (Employee only, paid at 80% of full medical premium by employer)
* Total first year income: $14,892
* .03 increase projected per year:

Table shows simplified increments:

1-year (Minimum): $ 14,892
5-year: $64,175
10-year: $155,836
20-year: $385,282
30-year: $693,638
40-year: $1,108,043
45-year (Maximum): $1,365,965

In this scenario, Joe and Mary Smiths heirs would receive $1,387,276. Which, if deposited and accrued .04 interest/year, would provide $55,491 interest income a year on which to live, the equivalent of each earning $27,745.50/year. If they follow this method of preserving their award, the annual income will then be near the National Middle-Income level the first year while maintaining the original award amount. It will have allowed the beneficiaries who would otherwise not have received Workers Compensation, Pensions, Charity Awards and Life, Medical or Disability insurances, or had the ability to sue the airlines, that extra margin of relief.

If you use a formula similar to one of these ideas, drop me a line. Id like to know my idea was a good one.


Thank you,

Individual Comment

2001-11-09