01-25-2002, 02:01 PM
I heard a lawyer on the radio yesterday complaining about the $1.6 million the relatives of the 9-11 victims are getting. His wife was one of the victims and, of course, my heart goes out to him for his loss.
But I had a hard time not feeling disgusted at what he was saying.
First, he said the $1.6 million figure is not an "average," but rather the median figure, meaning half of the people are getting over that amount and half below. He claimed many aren't getting nearly that much.
Second, he said the $1.6 million is a misleading figure; the correct figure to think about is $40,000 per victim. He came up with this figure this way: $1.6 million invested in tax free municipals yields 5%, or $80,000 a year. Adjusted over the recipient's lifespan for inlfation reduces the value to $40,000 a year.
Third, he said that the settlement being offered by the government was inadequate because had the victims been allowed to sue American and United Airlines, they probably would have gotten between $2 and $5 million apiece. When questioned about whether or not this would have put the airlines out of business, he wasn't concerned, saying the airlinees that would replace these bankrupt airlines would take the examples of American and United to heart and not be derelict in their duties as American and United were about their security precautions.
What am I missing here?
Point 1) Assuming he's right and some people ar getting "only" half the $1.6 million, shouldn't someone getting $800,000 tax free from the government say "thank you" and not be bitching and moaning that it's not enough?
Point 2) $1.6 million tax free is like getting $3.2 million. $3.2 million invested in 5% earning munis makes $160,000 tax free. The inflation rate is not 75%. The $40,000 figure is bull.
Point 3) Does anyone else see anything wrong with giving a bigger settlement to the families of big wage earners than to families of lower earners? So a stock broker was making $1,000,000 a year and a janitor was making $20,000. Shouldn't the family of the stock broker have more money put away and be better able to cope with the loss of the wage earner? Why is one life worth more than another? I realize loss of earnings is commonly used in such settlements, but it sure rubs me the wrong way.
In essence, he was saying my wife was murdered and I'm not getting enough money in compensation. Very offputting.
But I had a hard time not feeling disgusted at what he was saying.
First, he said the $1.6 million figure is not an "average," but rather the median figure, meaning half of the people are getting over that amount and half below. He claimed many aren't getting nearly that much.
Second, he said the $1.6 million is a misleading figure; the correct figure to think about is $40,000 per victim. He came up with this figure this way: $1.6 million invested in tax free municipals yields 5%, or $80,000 a year. Adjusted over the recipient's lifespan for inlfation reduces the value to $40,000 a year.
Third, he said that the settlement being offered by the government was inadequate because had the victims been allowed to sue American and United Airlines, they probably would have gotten between $2 and $5 million apiece. When questioned about whether or not this would have put the airlines out of business, he wasn't concerned, saying the airlinees that would replace these bankrupt airlines would take the examples of American and United to heart and not be derelict in their duties as American and United were about their security precautions.
What am I missing here?
Point 1) Assuming he's right and some people ar getting "only" half the $1.6 million, shouldn't someone getting $800,000 tax free from the government say "thank you" and not be bitching and moaning that it's not enough?
Point 2) $1.6 million tax free is like getting $3.2 million. $3.2 million invested in 5% earning munis makes $160,000 tax free. The inflation rate is not 75%. The $40,000 figure is bull.
Point 3) Does anyone else see anything wrong with giving a bigger settlement to the families of big wage earners than to families of lower earners? So a stock broker was making $1,000,000 a year and a janitor was making $20,000. Shouldn't the family of the stock broker have more money put away and be better able to cope with the loss of the wage earner? Why is one life worth more than another? I realize loss of earnings is commonly used in such settlements, but it sure rubs me the wrong way.
In essence, he was saying my wife was murdered and I'm not getting enough money in compensation. Very offputting.