N001470
Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:14 PM
Proposed Final Rule
I wish to file my objections to the current proposed final rules.
First, I take issue with the proposed cap on earnings. I, as many others,
will be unduly prejudiced by this cap. My wife, , worked long and
hard to be successful and as a result, earned a salary in excess of the
proposed cap. As any worker, we all anticipate that the current salary will
grow as one continues a successful career. Limiting income to $231,000 not
only results in a drastic reduction of present salary, but it then prevents
the introduction of evidence that her salary would have continued to
increase over time. If the cap were removed, at least I would be enabled to
multiply her last years salary by the number of working years to get a more
just result.
Second, the final rules discriminate against those who did some estate
planning by reducing awards by subtracting pensions and life insurance
proceeds. Combined with the salary cap, this increases the chances that
individual families will receive zero, or the proposed minimum of $250,000.
The people who earned large salaries lived a more expensive life style. It's
not right or wrong, it just is a fact. It is not fair to allow the family of
a person who earned $75,000 (and lived accordingly) to receive a large
distribution and maintain their life style and then penalize the family of a
wage earner who made more than $231,000 (and lived accordingly)with a
smaller payment (or nothing) that will put the family at risk of selling
their home and moving to a smaller house and to change many of the facets of
their life pre 9/11.
The combination of the cap and the reduction for estate planning will only
work prejudice on those who earned large salaries. Those who earned less and
planned less will file claims with the fund and receive prompt payments.
Those who are at risk of receiving nothing (or the bare minimum) will be
compelled to choose the uncertainty of litigation--an end the fund desires
to avoid. By shunting the higher wage earners into the litigation, you
further harm the families because the limited insurance funds will be
insufficient to replace the lost income of all the high-wage earners forced
to sue.
Finally, I take issue with the proposed lessened payouts to deceased women.
had already worked for 20 years by September 11 (She was 43 when she
died) and would have worked until she was 100 if she were allowed. We have 3
children and she returned to work after each was born. At the very least,
the rules ought to allow the introduction of evidence that people would have
worked beyond any fixed age and beyond the "average working life" as
computed on some 20 year old chart.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Individual Comment
Rockville Centre, NY