This individual has a spinal cord injury. He's paralyzed from the waist down. He gets $200,000, and it says that the maximum is $250,000, depending on the extent of the disability. Frankly, I'm shocked that somebody who has a spinal cord injury, who is paralyzed from the waist down and can't walk, gets below the maximum. And this is being used as an example of how this is working.
I don't understand, as well, and other people have mentioned this, the comparison to personal injury damage awards. I was a trial lawyer for many years before becoming an MP, and I don't understand how $200,000 in any way compensates somebody who has a spinal cord injury and can't walk.
It then says, as if this is a wonderful thing that can occur, that he can get financial independence by purchasing an annuity. But let's look at this realistically. He's going to purchase an annuity for $200,000, which will give him, based on a mental calculation, only $10,000 to $15,000 per year of income. I would like to know how it can be justified that a person in a wheelchair, who can't walk, because of serving our country, gets less than the maximum and then will be entitled to an annuity of approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a year, which would taxable, I assume. Sorry, if it is an annuity, it shouldn't be taxable if he's structured it properly. But how is that right?