PDA

View Full Version : McCain gets tax-free disability pension


Trish
04-23-2008, 08:38 PM
I'm kinda torn over this. On the one hand, I think the Senator deserves the pension and the tax-free status. He was a POW for 5 1/2 years. He has permanent injuries from the treatment he received there. On the other hand, if he is permanently disabled, does that disability mean he is unfit to serve? I also question how he can earn such a big salary and still receive disability benefits. The people I know on disability can't work. If they do whatever money they earn is deducted from their disability payments. Perhaps it is different with military pensions though. I'm not really familiar with how military disability pensions work, especially the type Senator McCain receives.

John McCain gets tax-free disability pension
The disclosure of the Navy benefit for injuries incurred as a Vietnam POW may raise fitness questions.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 22, 2008

Sen. John McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff Monday termed a "disability pension" from the Navy.

When McCain released his tax return for 2007 on Friday, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.

On Monday, McCain's staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that McCain "was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW."

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.

Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain's case, the exemption is 100%.

If McCain had to pay taxes on the full amount of the pension, it would have increased his tax bill by about $18,000 based on the percentage of his income he paid to the federal government.

McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. After he was released in 1973, he returned home on crutches and began a painful physical rehabilitation. He later regained flight status and commanded a Navy squadron before retiring from the service in 1981.

McCain would be the oldest man to enter the White House if he is elected president, and questions have been raised about his health.

McCain has twice developed melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer.

The fact that he is legally designated with a disability pension may raise further questions.

"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.

If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.

McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.

In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders.

Elmo Baker, a retired colonel and president of a Vietnam War POW group, said many former POWs were receiving some type of military pension that was partly or fully tax-free.

Baker said he was receiving payments that were 70% tax-free, but that he "didn't have as many injuries as McCain did."

Many of the Vietnam POWs are receiving payment under a program known as "combat-related special compensation," which provides benefits and tax exemptions under a complex system, based on such factors as the type of injury and the years of service.

Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group, said that while McCain's injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.

"I don't know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief," Galanti said. "He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pension22apr22,1,6562984.story

potter
04-23-2008, 09:08 PM
My definition of disabled is "you cannot work".

If you can work, you shouldnt be getting disability.

He's pretty cavalier about taking the taxpayers for anything he can to be trusted as CIC

Buck Laser
04-23-2008, 11:51 PM
My definition of disabled is "you cannot work".

If you can work, you shouldnt be getting disability.

He's pretty cavalier about taking the taxpayers for anything he can to be trusted as CIC
Since his disability is service related, I don't have a problem with it. But as I've sad before, I do worry about his age and health preventing him from fulfilling his duties should he be elected president.

Despite the lackadaisical attitude Bush displays toward his job, it's actually the hardest job in the world if one does it conscientiously. I think too many of our younger posters simply don't realize that Bush has done less real work (except perhaps for cutting brush) than any president in my memory. I would certainly expect McCain, in the unlikely event that he gets elected, to work harder than Bush has.

AlonzoMourning23
04-23-2008, 11:56 PM
I think, as a matter of principal, he should refuse it or donate it. He obviously doesn't need it.

AlanC
04-24-2008, 12:00 AM
As long as his disability is based on his service related injuries and is the same as any other soldier would recieve with the same injuries, I have no problem with it. His service and sacrafice in the name of his country more than justify it.

Roosevelt suffered some pretty severe disablities and was able to perform the job. I see no reason why McCain cannot hold up equally well from a physical standpoint.

There are many kinds of disability payments. His military pension has rules and guidlines like any other. As long as there is no favoritism or extraordinary benefit accuring to him, this is a none issue.

Has anyone by the way taken notice of McCain's tax return. He voted against a congressional pay raise in 1991 I believe and has donated every dime of his pay raise to charity ever since. If you are looking to lable the man as greedy, I think you will find an empty hole.


For 2007, Senator McCain paid $84,460 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $258,800 (LINE 43), which is a 32.6% tax rate. View


Charitable Contributions:

Senator McCain donates his royalties from his books to charitable organizations. This sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal. Senator McCain's book income of $256,898 for 2006 and 2007 is comprised of earnings for Faith of My Fathers, Worth the Fighting For, Why Courage Matters, Character is Destiny, and Hard Call. .


Beginning in 1991, Senator McCain has also donated the increase in his Senate salary for that year and each subsequent year to charity because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises. The cumulative total of these donations is over $450,000.

Trish
04-24-2008, 01:52 AM
I wonder why that isn't mentioned more often? It should be - it's very noteworthy! I get pissed off every time Congress votes itself a pay raise.

potter
04-24-2008, 03:36 PM
Well, I also disagree with the notion that because you served your country voluntarily that the coountry owes you a free ride for the rest of your life.

They knew the risk and they took them. Disability is designed to provide income when you cannot work...not as a free ride so you can live the rest of your life in leisure at taxpayers expense.

And as far as I'm concerned, our military does more protecting corporate interests that "protecting america's freedom"...the corporations should foot the bill.

Buck Laser
04-24-2008, 03:39 PM
Well, I also disagree with the notion that because you served your country voluntarily that the coountry owes you a free ride for the rest of your life.

They knew the risk and they took them. Disability is designed to provide income when you cannot work...not as a free ride so you can live the rest of your life in leisure at taxpayers expense.

And as far as I'm concerned, our military does more protecting corporate interests that "protecting america's freedom"...the corporations should foot the bill.
McCain has service-related injuries, so the law provides for disability compensation. I doubt that he'd have been able to remain in the service given the condition he was in after all those years in the Hanoi Hilton.

On the other hand, the fact that he's capable of being a senator suggests that the job may not be too demanding. After all, Strum Thurmond stayed in the senate until he was 100.

AlanC
04-24-2008, 04:32 PM
McCain has service-related injuries, so the law provides for disability compensation. I doubt that he'd have been able to remain in the service given the condition he was in after all those years in the Hanoi Hilton.

On the other hand, the fact that he's capable of being a senator suggests that the job may not be too demanding. After all, Strum Thurmond stayed in the senate until he was 100.


A job doesn't need to be physically hard in order to be demanding. But, that said, who ever thought being a Senator was a demanding job?

DamnYankee
04-24-2008, 04:48 PM
Well, I also disagree with the notion that because you served your country voluntarily that the coountry owes you a free ride for the rest of your life.

So much for liberal compassion.

A guy serves his country, is captured and tortured for over five years, is released from a communist prison with permanent physical injuries, and you say screw'em.

Classic liberal bitterness towards the military.

potter
04-24-2008, 06:24 PM
So much for liberal compassion.

A guy serves his country, is captured and tortured for over five years, is released from a communist prison with permanent physical injuries, and you say screw'em.

Classic liberal bitterness towards the military.


I see that no differently than someone working hard and paying taxes their entire life, and then losing his job and the system saying screw you, you're on your own.

Its personal responsibility my man. If you can't accept the consequenses, don't take the job.

PostmodernProphet
04-25-2008, 01:07 AM
Well, I also disagree with the notion that because you served your country voluntarily that the coountry owes you a free ride for the rest of your life.

They knew the risk and they took them. Disability is designed to provide income when you cannot work...not as a free ride so you can live the rest of your life in leisure at taxpayers expense.


they knew the risk, they took the risk......they also knew the terms of their "contract" of employment, which provided a disability pension if they were wounded in service to their country......

Elrathin
04-25-2008, 02:30 AM
they also knew the terms of their "contract" of employment, which provided a disability pension if they were wounded in service to their country......

In the 8 pages of my contract that I signed, nowhere did it say that.

AlanC
04-25-2008, 02:36 AM
In the 8 pages of my contract that I signed, nowhere did it say that.

So you signed it completely unaware of the benefits that acrue to disabled veterans, especially combat disability?

I knew about them and I was a draftee.

Elrathin
04-25-2008, 02:42 AM
So you signed it completely unaware of the benefits that acrue to disabled veterans, especially combat disability?

I knew about them and I was a draftee.

It was never brought up at the time I signed so I didn't think I would get anything at the end. IT wasn't until later in my career that I realized what I could get after I left or that I could get a disability.

I signed up because I wanted to serve in the military.

AlanC
04-25-2008, 02:47 AM
I applaud you for that. I applaud any who choose to serve.

PatrickHenry
04-25-2008, 03:29 AM
I applaud you for that. I applaud any who choose to serve.Heh.

I applaud the Down's Syndrome Kids, too!

PostmodernProphet
04-25-2008, 03:49 AM
In the 8 pages of my contract that I signed, nowhere did it say that.

actually, I would be surprised if that were true, though it may have looked more like...."all rights and benefits provided by subsection (3)(d) of Article IV, Manual 6.65 and following"

DamnYankee
04-29-2008, 06:51 PM
I see that no differently than someone working hard and paying taxes their entire life, and then losing his job and the system saying screw you, you're on your own.

Its personal responsibility my man. If you can't accept the consequenses, don't take the job.

No other job exist where there is a possibility of being put into prison for doing your job and being tortured for it.

potter
04-29-2008, 07:29 PM
Considering the US military rarely actually defends America any more, but protects major corporate interests at taxpayer expense, and that these people know this going in and what the consequenses are and know what kind of employer they are signing with, I have little sympathy when the government screws them. Everyone knows how fucked up our government is.

Now when they get into a situation where they are indeed protecting America, and not just capitalism, they'll have my full support.

Until then, it's just another mercenary job and they would do better to contract with Haliburton.

Truth_and_Power
04-29-2008, 09:50 PM
I think it's funny that the same people that would rail and rail on welfare cases have no problem with a disability payment to a man who demonstrably states that he is not hindered, and who holds down a full time job. It's not a matter of compassion, if he was actually disabled and down on his luck, I don't think anyone would be questioning it.