dojW000192.xml

dojW000192.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-07

Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:25 PM
Victim Compensation


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 Worker’s 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 Smith’s 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 Worker’s 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. I’d like to know my idea was a good one.



Thank you,


Individual Comment

2001-11-07