Should veterans and retirees be "Triple Dipping?"

After what our servicemen-and-women go through and how little they get paid to go through it, I'm surprised that there are even 11% down-voting this. Good grief. When people are hurt, they're HURT; if disabled, they're DISABLED. Since when did our culture get so heartless that we would accuse hurt and disabled people of scamming the system? Is there anyone out there scamming the system? Probably. Are they in the majority? No way. Let's give people - especially those who have served our country - the benefit of the doubt here, folks. Taking care of our veterans is tax money well spent; in my opinion it's better spent than buying more weapons to start new wars and make another whole generation of disabled veterans!

First of all what do you consider "Triple Dipping."? I draw fifty percent service connected disability, fifty one percent in military retirement, and I have lived long enough to collect my Social Security. All of these are earned entitlements. When I retired as a Regular Army Warrant Officer, if I had gone to work for the DOD I would have forfeited a percentage of my retirement pay under the Dual Compensation Act. That was to discourage "Double Dipping" where people came back to work at their old job as GS-11 or higher. I declined paying to work for the Army. Interestingly SGMs were exempt from Dual Compensation, as were all enlisted personnel. And yes they did make more money than they did on active duty, but where is the harm in that? At one time in the early seventies when DOD was reviewing the retirement program, there was discussion of an offset to retirement pay in the amount of Social Security when the service member reached the age to receive it. That was shot down because it money that had been deducted from military pay and any employment after retirement. Also, if we live long enough the chances of our retirement pay increasing to a point where it is more than our active duty pay becomes a possibility. That was the case of some senior NCOs who retired in the Early seventies who had retired before the large increases in retirement pay during those years. A question I have always asked of critics of Double or Triple Dipping is what is the difference if a retiree draws his retirement Military Disability, and works a good job or if he dose the same thing and quits when is old enough for Social Security, or continues to work and draws all three plus his salary? We are allowed to draw all three entitlements and a full paycheck if we waits until we are sixty seven. It is no sin to draw more in retirement than we did on active duty. I receive almost twice what I earned on active duty and it still isn't as much as my active duty contemporaries do today. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

what people don't understand is these people sacrificed a lot and really are still paying for it. whether its PTSD or loss of limbs, so yeah if they meet the requirements, then go for it.

I do

I tripe dip. W4 pension 26 years. OPM 18 years. Social Security. I paid my taxes. The deduct 10 percent of my SSA for medicare and I am not covered overseas.

Not exactly sure what you mean by triple dipping but here is my opinion. If you received a medical retirement or a regular retirement from the military you should not be eligible for VA compensation. You are already compensated for your injury or time. If you were found to have a service related matter after separation that is what the VA is for. If you need other VA services, go for it.

SGM Mikel Dawson, I am very confused why you lost your 40%! The reality is you shut had got more as a veteran & need to appeal your case if you have your medical records. I am at 90% hoping to get my 100% because I am n’t able to work plus three surgery. My point is it make no cents why you lost your case & why are you who work hard didn’t fight for what you earn. Good luck & hope you get back your rating.

Offered IMHO only based on my observations as an Army Brat, active duty member and now as a disabled veteran.

As for triple dipping, which I assume is retirement for the military, civil service and then disability from the VA: none of that is a reward for anything. it is *earned* by service or infirmity due to service and often paid for in blood, sweat and tears.

another observation
In any other job, if the company you work for creates a situation where they are the direct cause of an injury then that company is required, by law, to cover the expenses of your injury treatment. This does not in any way affect the retirement benefit which you pay into and can draw in the future, even if it's with the company. The only effect it may have in the future is your Social Security payout.

Taking that into consideration: why should anyone have to discontinue receiving financial compensation if it's earned?

There has to be a valid reason why some folks are "triple dipping". With that said, I don't think they're out and about going to malls or working like more fortunate individuals. And in my honest opinion, if the military squeezed 20 years out you/me, why not try to get as much as you can? 20 years is a very long time, and it is almost guarantee something is going to be wrong with you at the time of your retirement. So for those that are receiving what they need, good for them as long it is legit.

I don't have access to the statistics, but aren't most of the "Tripple Dippers" actually "Quadruple Dippers"? CRSC can be substantial when considering those who receive SSDI did not make the required 10 year average of 120K annually to qualify for the maximum amount of $2,788 per month, but might be 100% P&T by VA.

All in all, it's on the up and up as these agencies will not just give up money if they're not required. Many of us have had to try multiple times to get well documented injuries approved and spent thousands on representation to get it worded correctly.

If you feel bad for taking Uncle Sams money, donate some of it to mend your bleeding heart. Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.