Originally Posted by stacker1

Yes, it is an enormous amount of money. Its more than enough to live on. What more provision is needed?

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

I agree that no more provision is needed. However, we aren't talking about benefits and this isn't about 'need'. It's about doing whatever we can to demonstrate that we appreciate the sacrifice made by soldier X by making his wife and children as comfortable as is realistically possible. At a minimum, I'd say we should look at paying her the wages he would otherwise have brought in.

Whether on not it's fiscally possible to do that is another matter entirely, but I'm struggling to work out why you have an issue with the concept. It seems to me that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

I agree that no more provision is needed. However, we aren't talking about benefits and this isn't about 'need'. It's about doing whatever we can to demonstrate that we appreciate the sacrifice made by soldier X by making his wife and children as comfortable as is realistically possible. At a minimum, I'd say we should look at paying her the wages he would otherwise have brought in.

Whether on not it's fiscally possible to do that is another matter entirely, but I'm struggling to work out why you have an issue with the concept. It seems to me that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

The concept is beyond sound. In reality it wouldn't work. Where is the start point; those killed in WW1, the Falklands, NI? Then, do we restrict it just those killed in the Armed Forces or every uniformed organisation?

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

I agree that no more provision is needed. However, we aren't talking about benefits and this isn't about 'need'. It's about doing whatever we can to demonstrate that we appreciate the sacrifice made by soldier X by making his wife and children as comfortable as is realistically possible. At a minimum, I'd say we should look at paying her the wages he would otherwise have brought in.

Whether on not it's fiscally possible to do that is another matter entirely, but I'm struggling to work out why you have an issue with the concept. It seems to me that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

The average person won't have their mortgage paid off though

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

I agree that no more provision is needed. However, we aren't talking about benefits and this isn't about 'need'. It's about doing whatever we can to demonstrate that we appreciate the sacrifice made by soldier X by making his wife and children as comfortable as is realistically possible. At a minimum, I'd say we should look at paying her the wages he would otherwise have brought in.

Whether on not it's fiscally possible to do that is another matter entirely, but I'm struggling to work out why you have an issue with the concept. It seems to me that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

I think a million quid is more than enough appreciation. The average person might well earn over a million in a lifetime but they will (normally) have to work for it.
I'm not the only one saying this (or similar) so I cant really be playing devils advocate. You volunteer for the military, you know the risks, you also know the rough payouts. The state isnt forcing people to join, it is also paying out (roughly) a million quid if it all goes wrong.
I would hope that the soldier in question insured himself at the top whack would have also brought in several hundred thousands upfront for his family. We are warned often enough to make provision for others if something bad happens

Originally Posted by stacker1

I think a million quid is more than enough appreciation. The average person might well earn over a million in a lifetime but they will (normally) have to work for it.
I'm not the only one saying this (or similar) so I cant really be playing devils advocate. You volunteer for the military, you know the risks, you also know the rough payouts. The state isnt forcing people to join, it is also paying out (roughly) a million quid if it all goes wrong.
I would hope that the soldier in question insured himself at the top whack would have also brought in several hundred thousands upfront for his family. We are warned often enough to make provision for others if something bad happens

A fair argument- we know the risks.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

I agree that no more provision is needed. However, we aren't talking about benefits and this isn't about 'need'. It's about doing whatever we can to demonstrate that we appreciate the sacrifice made by soldier X by making his wife and children as comfortable as is realistically possible. At a minimum, I'd say we should look at paying her the wages he would otherwise have brought in.

Whether on not it's fiscally possible to do that is another matter entirely, but I'm struggling to work out why you have an issue with the concept. It seems to me that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of it.

So how much does she need to be given then? 10 Million, five million somewhere between? She will receive more money than she would have had he lived an worked for 40 years even if he had a middling salary of about 45k a year. Children don't HAVE to be privately educated. If you want to go and do warry stuff and have a wife and kids then it's your responsibility to go and get as much insurance over and above what they would receive from the state that you feel they would need - it's not the resposibility of everyone else to do so once you've popped your clogs.

Originally Posted by Schaden

So how much does she need to be given then? 10 Million, five million somewhere between?

It's unlike me to be anything but logical, but it is because of us (the British people) that those children have no father. We owe them.

In an ideal world, I'd like to think that we could remove the financial burden completely. I understand the realist objections, but I can't quite grasp why anyone would disagree with the principle.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

It's unlike me to be anything but logical, but it is because of us (the British people) that those children have no father. We owe them.

I am sorry DD, you're not pinning the death (murder) of this soldier or any other sodlier on me; thats a massive sweeping statement and one that needs to be challenged. He signed up, it was his choice to do so. He worked his backside off, getting promoted and climbing the chain of command and yes, he earned the rewards and some serious bling along the way. However, he was killed in the line of duty and for that his wife has been compensated. She has also recieved a large insurance payout and will also be paid £19k tax free for the rest of her life.

As I have stated previously, the concept and principle of your argument are sound.

MWA

Could you propose an amount you feel reasonable DD?

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

My point is that the average person will earn far more than a million quid in a lifetime.

yes and if she goes back to work then she will earn more on top of the 19K per year pension. Also as said before its a choice to send your children to a private school not a right. So is she expecting to never work again and to have more than the 19K pension and have the private education of a child paid for by the state?