Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[Eye In The Sky]

The CAF, and areas around bases, don’t want mbrs in RHUs. Banks want people paying mortgages, local economies want people paying property tax etc.

If the CAF does construct new RHUs, the rental cost will likely be comparable to renting on the economy. There is no way CAF mbrs will “have a cake and eat it too” on this one.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The CAF, and areas around bases, don’t want mbrs in RHUs. Banks want people paying mortgages, local economies want people paying property tax etc.

If the CAF does construct new RHUs, the rental cost will likely be comparable to renting on the economy. There is no way CAF mbrs will “have a cake and eat it too” on this one.

And this is part of the bigger issue of why we suck as a nation when it comes to defence spending.

The CAF isn't an economic stimulus apparatus for local economies, defence contractors, or MPs looking to get votes for re-election. It's a government service provided to the populace to maintain national security. That in and of itself demands that "I see it, I need it, I got it, thanks TB" should be the mantra for spending defence dollars.

Short of a Militia Act 2023, that would demand training every fighting age Canadian in the business of Territoral Defence; we have a regular Full Time volunteer military to maintain. You don't get volunteers by making the conditions of service worse for folks because "well what about the economy?"

There are enough businesses that see dollar signs whenever Bloggins walks through the door (29% APR is our preferred rate for car loans. Thank you for your service). The CAF/DND/GoC shouldn't be allowing that to cross over into how it provides basic things like housing it's troops.

Build the damn RHUs and be done with it

 

[Stoker]

Vets were really looked after back in the day.


Postwar gable-roof houses, (that became known as “war-time houses), date back to the 1940s and are scattered throughout Canada. Most were smaller than 900 square feet, but they were family homes.

The story of this house design is one of returning soldiers, and a country’s foresight into the need to house them.
Around 1942, (in an era when we actually had innovative, caring, and efficient governments), federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada started preparing for more than one million Second World War soldiers to come home.
They called it planning for "reconstruction," a time when veterans would return to their pre-war lives.
There was an enormous housing crunch and the soldiers would need places for them and their families to live.
Designed by staff at Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., financed by Wartime Housing Ltd., a Crown corporation created to build and manage houses for rent to veterans, they built a million of these homes across the country. It was really the start of planned housing in Canada.

Most of the houses had two bedrooms, some had three, and just a few had four. But they all looked very much alike. The houses would be rented to veterans for $24 to $30 per month and after 15 months could be purchased for about $5,000 each. The Veterans' Land Act was passed in parliament on 20 July 1942, which would carry the mortgage at 3.5% for 25 years.
Veterans were also encouraged to settle small rural or suburban holdings as part-time farmers or to substitute commercial fishing for full-time farming. In 1950 the VLA began to provide loans to veterans who wished to construct their own homes. Under the Veterans' Land Administration, a branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs, over 140,000 ex-servicemen had sought assistance before new loans were terminated in 1977.

 

[Rifleman62]

My first house, purchased in 1972 or so. $10,500.
First time I lived in a house.

 

[Remius]

Vets were really looked after back in the day.


Postwar gable-roof houses, (that became known as “war-time houses), date back to the 1940s and are scattered throughout Canada. Most were smaller than 900 square feet, but they were family homes.

The story of this house design is one of returning soldiers, and a country’s foresight into the need to house them.
Around 1942, (in an era when we actually had innovative, caring, and efficient governments), federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada started preparing for more than one million Second World War soldiers to come home.
They called it planning for "reconstruction," a time when veterans would return to their pre-war lives.
There was an enormous housing crunch and the soldiers would need places for them and their families to live.
Designed by staff at Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., financed by Wartime Housing Ltd., a Crown corporation created to build and manage houses for rent to veterans, they built a million of these homes across the country. It was really the start of planned housing in Canada.

Most of the houses had two bedrooms, some had three, and just a few had four. But they all looked very much alike. The houses would be rented to veterans for $24 to $30 per month and after 15 months could be purchased for about $5,000 each. The Veterans' Land Act was passed in parliament on 20 July 1942, which would carry the mortgage at 3.5% for 25 years.
Veterans were also encouraged to settle small rural or suburban holdings as part-time farmers or to substitute commercial fishing for full-time farming. In 1950 the VLA began to provide loans to veterans who wished to construct their own homes. Under the Veterans' Land Administration, a branch of the Department of Veterans Affairs, over 140,000 ex-servicemen had sought assistance before new loans were terminated in 1977.
View attachment 79331

Today these are shacks apparently…

 

[Rifleman62]

Build the damn RHUs and be done with it.

Priority, an estimated $1.1 Billion for a new Ottawa HQ building for 4500 employees. Cost overrun to be expected.

I wonder what happened to jump the cost? This from

New Headquarters of the Department of National Defence (Carling Complex)

In 2010, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) addressed the need to consolidate its administrative and strategic functions as a National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ).

www.stantec.com

New Headquarters of the Department of National Defence (Carling Complex)​

In 2010, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) addressed the need to consolidate its administrative and strategic functions as a National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ). Which meant they’d have to find a facility fit for 8,500 employees. To that end, PWGSC acquired the Carling Ottawa Complex—a building that use to house Nortel’s headquarters—to become their new NDHQ. There was only one problem. Consolidating different government departments created a need for strong security, and the existing facility didn’t offer adequate safety measures. That’s where we came in.

Our team of physical security experts helped to deliver a headquarters that promotes safe, secure, and practical use for the Department of National Defence (DND). How? By coordinating with several stakeholders to establish a comprehensive understanding of the NDHQ and its processes.

Together with a team of consultants, we broke the project down into three main phases. Firstly, we performed a site analysis to determine safety essentials. After that, we’d devised six development scenarios that took safety, landscaping, and traffic all into account. Then when PWGSC chose their desired strategy, we implemented it. Completed in December 2014, the new NDHQ will serve as a secure home base for the DND and PWGSC.

 

[Furniture]

Priority, an estimated $1.1 Billion for a new Ottawa HQ building for 4500 employees. Cost overrun to be expected.

I wonder what happened to jump the cost? This from

New Headquarters of the Department of National Defence (Carling Complex)

In 2010, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) addressed the need to consolidate its administrative and strategic functions as a National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ).

www.stantec.com

New Headquarters of the Department of National Defence (Carling Complex)​

In 2010, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) addressed the need to consolidate its administrative and strategic functions as a National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ). Which meant they’d have to find a facility fit for 8,500 employees. To that end, PWGSC acquired the Carling Ottawa Complex—a building that use to house Nortel’s headquarters—to become their new NDHQ. There was only one problem. Consolidating different government departments created a need for strong security, and the existing facility didn’t offer adequate safety measures. That’s where we came in.

Our team of physical security experts helped to deliver a headquarters that promotes safe, secure, and practical use for the Department of National Defence (DND). How? By coordinating with several stakeholders to establish a comprehensive understanding of the NDHQ and its processes.

Together with a team of consultants, we broke the project down into three main phases. Firstly, we performed a site analysis to determine safety essentials. After that, we’d devised six development scenarios that took safety, landscaping, and traffic all into account. Then when PWGSC chose their desired strategy, we implemented it. Completed in December 2014, the new NDHQ will serve as a secure home base for the DND and PWGSC.

The CAF needed a better HQ setup, it isn't an "either/or" situation.

The entire CAF needs major infrastructure upgrades across the country, including RHUs and barracks.

 

[CBH99]

The CAF, and areas around bases, don’t want mbrs in RHUs. Banks want people paying mortgages, local economies want people paying property tax etc.

If the CAF does construct new RHUs, the rental cost will likely be comparable to renting on the economy. There is no way CAF mbrs will “have a cake and eat it too” on this one.

Not criticizing your post at all, you just mentioned that members can't "have a cake and eat it too..."

I've ALWAYS wondered this and nobody has ever explained it to me (maybe I've asked this before and my brain just blocked it out) but what is the point of having a cake if one cannot eat it??


(The metaphor has always been lost on me, and the statement taken as is has never made sense to me. Like I can't have cake AND eat it? Wtf is the point of the cake then?)

 

[Remius]

Not criticizing your post at all, you just mentioned that members can't "have a cake and eat it too..."

I've ALWAYS wondered this and nobody has ever explained it to me (maybe I've asked this before and my brain just blocked it out) but what is the point of having a cake if one cannot eat it??


(The metaphor has always been lost on me, and the statement taken as is has never made sense to me. Like I can't have cake AND eat it? Wtf is the point of the cake then?)

It’s a commonly misused saying.

It’s basically a saying that you can’t have two things that are incompatible.

So you can either eat the cake and it’s gone. Or just have the cake and not eat it. But you can’t have both.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not criticizing your post at all, you just mentioned that members can't "have a cake and eat it too..."

I've ALWAYS wondered this and nobody has ever explained it to me (maybe I've asked this before and my brain just blocked it out) but what is the point of having a cake if one cannot eat it??


(The metaphor has always been lost on me, and the statement taken as is has never made sense to me. Like I can't have cake AND eat it? Wtf is the point of the cake then?)

It's cool,....at least you didn't swerve the thread to dress and deportment.

 

[Furniture]

It's cool,....at least you didn't swerve the thread to dress and deportment.

If they brought back the uniform allowance, that would be the icing on the cake. (That we can have, but not eat)

 

[rmc_wannabe]

If they brought back the uniform allowance, that would be the icing on the cake. (That we can have, but not eat)

Pass.

Folks are given an allotment of points annually and still refuse to replace items that are well past their best before date in size, condition, or otherwise. Handing folks cash would just be worse.

Much like PLD/CFHD, throwing money at a problem that would be fixed with proper administration, logistics, and infrastructure planning has proved a mistake and should never be c9nsidered as a desirable COA

 

[Furniture]

Pass.

Folks are given an allotment of points annually and still refuse to replace items that are well past their best before date in size, condition, or otherwise. Handing folks cash would just be worse.

Much like PLD/CFHD, throwing money at a problem that would be fixed with proper administration, logistics, and infrastructure planning has proved a mistake and should never be c9nsidered as a desirable COA

I forgot to add the winking smiley face...

I remember the days of the uniform allowance, and I completely agree. I just wanted to include both dress and cake in one derailing post.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This is all my fault!!!

 

[ballz]

Our funding model is just righteously f**ked...

We have to return approx $1B of our authorised budget per year to government general revenue that we can't spend...but have to kneecap our members out of PLD during a time with the highest cost of living in our history? (To save a mere $30M? Why couldn't that $30M just come out of the $1B we have to return annually?)

I've explained before in another post somewhere and most people thought it helpful to understand this whole "why do we have to turn cash back in." The "money" received in the budget is not cash, it's what you're authorized to spend. As an example, DND gets authorized to spend $20 billion in a given year. On April 1st, the government doesn't go out and borrow $20 billion in cash and place it in a bank account - that would then increase the interest expenses it needs to pay. $20 billion at 1% annually is $200 million, no sense in borrowing $20 billion extra if you don't need it right away. The government keeps cash low enough to meet its operating needs, and borrows more as it i needs it. This is a pretty standard financial management practice.

The reason the CAF can't repurpose from the $1+ billion that is turned in is because those amounts are authorized by Parliament. Parliament authorizes the department to spend "x" amount of Vote 1 and "y" amount of Vote 5. So in order to change that, it would require Parliament to authorize it.

But your question is close to what irks me about all this, and I don't buy that it's the Treasury Board putting the screws to the CAF to save $30 million. Nope, that sounds like a cop-out answer from GOFOs (and ADM(Fin) bureaucrats, as well as many other finance people both civilian and military) who have the authority and influence to both identify the problem and solve the problem, but they didn't...

All of this (PLD, PPLD, CFDH) is Vote 1 money - so is most of the March Madness money. While the CAF actually does spend it's Vote 1 money on target based on the financial statements I reviewed, it's primarily the Vote 1 money that's also getting spent for March madness on PP&S and various other "find ways to spend our money" schemes. 1 CMBG alone probably spent around 10% of its L101 on year-end items like furniture, overstocking of various supplies, etc. in my last full fiscal year there. That's ~$2 million from one Reg Force CMBG, that's not even including all the SWE we turned in, and don't even get me started on how much PRes pay either needs to be squandered or turned in at year-end.

Shaving 30 million of Vote 1 across the Department would a budget cut of approximately ~0.17% across the department, or for 1 CMBG about $34,000 - absolutely immaterial to the Brigade, as it would be for pretty much every other entity.

So all this talk of TB putting the screws to the CAF over being overspent by $30 million on PLD seems like hot garbage from I can surmise. Treasury Board might have put the screws to the CAF for being overspent on Vote 1 because that's what Parliament approves and that's the reason TB exists... but the DND has the authority within the department to allocate that Vote 1 money to any O&M expenditures however it pleases. It just lacks the institutional competence to do so and tells everyone it's the Treasury Board's fault.

That's my read of it anyway, feel free to correct me.

This is not unlike the ILP which was overspent by $1 million.... instead of the CAF making grown-up decisions, it changed the program to the detriment of the members (and the CAF in that case...). It had all the budgetary discretion it needed to fund the program as it was, just not within CDA - it means someone would have had to been the grown-up and told another "adult(s)" they're losing some money out of their budget because that's what makes sense for the CAF as a whole.

 

[Jarnhamar]

(The metaphor has always been lost on me, and the statement taken as is has never made sense to me. Like I can't have cake AND eat it? Wtf is the point of the cake then?)

Wedding cake.
Women wanted to keep the wedding cake from their weddings but also wanted to eat it.

 

[PuckChaser]

 

[lenaitch]

I've explained before in another post somewhere and most people thought it helpful to understand this whole "why do we have to turn cash back in." The "money" received in the budget is not cash, it's what you're authorized to spend. As an example, DND gets authorized to spend $20 billion in a given year. On April 1st, the government doesn't go out and borrow $20 billion in cash and place it in a bank account - that would then increase the interest expenses it needs to pay. $20 billion at 1% annually is $200 million, no sense in borrowing $20 billion extra if you don't need it right away. The government keeps cash low enough to meet its operating needs, and borrows more as it i needs it. This is a pretty standard financial management practice.

The reason the CAF can't repurpose from the $1+ billion that is turned in is because those amounts are authorized by Parliament. Parliament authorizes the department to spend "x" amount of Vote 1 and "y" amount of Vote 5. So in order to change that, it would require Parliament to authorize it.

But your question is close to what irks me about all this, and I don't buy that it's the Treasury Board putting the screws to the CAF to save $30 million. Nope, that sounds like a cop-out answer from GOFOs (and ADM(Fin) bureaucrats, as well as many other finance people both civilian and military) who have the authority and influence to both identify the problem and solve the problem, but they didn't...

All of this (PLD, PPLD, CFDH) is Vote 1 money - so is most of the March Madness money. While the CAF actually does spend it's Vote 1 money on target based on the financial statements I reviewed, it's primarily the Vote 1 money that's also getting spent for March madness on PP&S and various other "find ways to spend our money" schemes. 1 CMBG alone probably spent around 10% of its L101 on year-end items like furniture, overstocking of various supplies, etc. in my last full fiscal year there. That's ~$2 million from one Reg Force CMBG, that's not even including all the SWE we turned in, and don't even get me started on how much PRes pay either needs to be squandered or turned in at year-end.

Shaving 30 million of Vote 1 across the Department would a budget cut of approximately ~0.17% across the department, or for 1 CMBG about $34,000 - absolutely immaterial to the Brigade, as it would be for pretty much every other entity.

So all this talk of TB putting the screws to the CAF over being overspent by $30 million on PLD seems like hot garbage from I can surmise. Treasury Board might have put the screws to the CAF for being overspent on Vote 1 because that's what Parliament approves and that's the reason TB exists... but the DND has the authority within the department to allocate that Vote 1 money to any O&M expenditures however it pleases. It just lacks the institutional competence to do so and tells everyone it's the Treasury Board's fault.

That's my read of it anyway, feel free to correct me.

This is not unlike the ILP which was overspent by $1 million.... instead of the CAF making grown-up decisions, it changed the program to the detriment of the members (and the CAF in that case...). It had all the budgetary discretion it needed to fund the program as it was, just not within CDA - it means someone would have had to been the grown-up and told another "adult(s)" they're losing some money out of their budget because that's what makes sense for the CAF as a whole.

Good post. In public accounting, departments get 'allocations'; money they are allowed to spend, hopefully based on previous submissions up the financial ladder. That can often shrink or grow throughout the fiscal year. In Ontario government, there were two main categories; Salaries, Wages and Benefits (self-explanatory) plus Other Direct Operating Expenses (pretty much everything else). There was a third one but I can't recall. Departments were pretty much at liberty to move expenditures around within the accounts of ODOE but could not move spending between ODOE and SWB without high level approval because they reflected long-term expenditures and civil service size.

'March Madness' is also pretty much universal, because as of midnight on March 31st, the allocations expire. Around mid-February, the goal was to drain every penny out of every ODOE account, provided the invoices could be processed before March 31st. No manager ever got a prize for leaving money on the table and some suppliers were very good at working within the system. In our headquarters, it was not unusual to see crates stacked to the ceiling with computers, office chairs, etc.

 

[CountDC]

Well looks like the Aug pay won't be the tell all for people after all. With all the back pay processed we maxed our CPP and EI which resulted in no deductions for the rest of the year. This gives a false impression of what our pay really is and we wouldn't find out until Jan when everything starts for the new year. Of course with the PPLD in place it will keep a lot from realizing what their pay really is. Hoping to move next year and the loss of both PPLD and CFHD will be a big one for us along with the most likely increased cost of housing. Currently I calculate the PPLD/CFHD loss is approx $1100 and the increase in housing at approx $700. If posted where preferred would get back about $300 in CFHD so a loss of $1500.

Oops - just realized my mistake in there. that is based on current rates but the PPLD drops from 75% to 50% next year. That means the PPLD/CFHD will be approx $700 so the loss would be approx $1100.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well looks like the Aug pay won't be the tell all for people after all. With all the back pay processed we maxed our CPP and EI which resulted in no deductions for the rest of the year. This gives a false impression of what our pay really is and we wouldn't find out until Jan when everything starts for the new year. Of course with the PPLD in place it will keep a lot from realizing what their pay really is. Hoping to move next year and the loss of both PPLD and CFHD will be a big one for us along with the most likely increased cost of housing. Currently I calculate the PPLD/CFHD loss is approx $1100 and the increase in housing at approx $700. If posted where preferred would get back about $300 in CFHD so a loss of $1500.

Oops - just realized my mistake in there. that is based on current rates but the PPLD drops from 75% to 50% next year. That means the PPLD/CFHD will be approx $700 so the loss would be approx $1100.

They seduced me with another deployment anyway lol so I'm in until at least early 2025 lol.