CF Embassy Gds in Kabul Get No Cbt Tax Break?

[The Bread Guy]

WTF?

http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/index.php?wiki=99565

"Military guards at Canada's heavily fortified embassy in Afghanistan have been denied the same tax-free status granted to their fellow soldiers in the Canadian headquarters in Kabul, just a few kilometres up the road. That has irked some of the members of the Military Security Guard Unit, a little-known elite unit that guards Canadian embassies around the world, who say they are doing a job that is at least as dangerous as those done by the regular forces....."

I guess if you wait for the bad guys to come to you, you're not in combat.... ???

 

[teddy49]

Their MPs.  Maybe it's Karma. :evil:

Now excuse me while I go put on my Nomex suit :nana:

 

[medicineman]

I think it has something to do with the technicality that, as Embassy Staff, they are now employed by DFAIT - Dept Foreign Affairs and Int'l Trade.  Strange one.

MM

 

[The_Falcon]

I think it has something to do with the technicality that, as Embassy Staff, they are now employed by DFAIT - Dept Foreign Affairs and Int'l Trade.   Strange one.

MM

Can we get an MP to verify the above info.

 

[KevinB]

Elite  :

Having worked with guys in the MSG in Kabul I think they are getting screwed with the tax issue - but they applied, no one put a gun to their head and made them go there...  Hard to go apply to a position and THEN bitch you are not making enough.

 

[Gunner]

Elite   :

Having worked with guys in the MSG in Kabul I think they are getting screwed with the tax issue - but they applied, no one put a gun to their head and made them go there...   Hard to go apply to a position and THEN ***** you are not making enough.

I agree.  If I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can find the reasoning as to why the MSG  does not receive the same benefits as other deployed members.

 

[steve-o]

Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.

 

[Donut]

I'm not an MP, or a DFAIT employee, but I have spent some time in places guarded by these fine guys under less then ideal circumstances (Hmmm, no "social" life for 3 years. have a nice posting, guys).

I'll add that my recollection of the circumstances they're employed under is the same as that of other posters, they are posted by DFAIT, and as such fall under the DFAIT C&B plan.  I'm sure Kabul is a level four or five hardship post, which is not without it's own compensation, just not the same as the other troops there are getting.  I suspect the cash bonus and repat flights the Embassy MSG det gets are nice, but would be much nicer without the tax taken off, no?

As well, aren't the "tax-exempt" missions based on specific named operations?  The MPs aren't deployed on Op Whatereveritscalledthisweek;  They're Att Posted to DFAIT.

Again, any MPs want to wade in on this?

From what I recall...

DF

 

[PPCLI Guy]

ParaMedTech - you have it exactly right - and this issue has been raised to DCDS and CDS by Comd TFA.

Dave

 

[Monsoon]

Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.

This is an off-topic flamebait, but I will respond to the point about the taxes: 60,000 people earning an average of $40,000 per year paying 20% federal income tax works out to a $480,000,000 loss of revenue.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some moron with a serious case of sour grapes vis a vis the G-G.  Being as initimately familiar with her personal schedule as I am, and am sure you are, which events from last week (26 to 30 September inclusive) did you feel were not appropriate for her to be attending?  Can you really justify the "f-uck all" description?  If not, perhaps you shouldn't be posting about her.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Put it back on track. We're talking about MP's and Emabassy taskings.

 

[S McKee]

Ok as a member of the MP branch I'll wade in. First I was really ticked off about this article, and the whining so-and so that went to the press. My fellow branch members volunteer for embassy postings and they get a heap of benefits, not to mention (although some will deny it) advanced career progression (they write their own PERs at embassies, go figure) so I have no sympathy for these guys. They knew what they were getting into when the message went out for this posting and that's that, suck it up butter-cup. Another issue is what about the guys in other nice embassies like Iran etc, do we give them tax breaks too? My 2

 

[Acorn]

Jumper, you may be a member of the Branch, but you've strayed a bit out of your lane on this one. Not surprising, the details of the MSGU are a bit sketchy.

First off, they are seconded to FAC (former DFAIT) not hired by them. They still get pay and benefits from the CF at CF rates. I'd be interested to know what people think the heap of benefits is, beyond:

a. FSP at a lower rate than Ops FSP, and which doesn't advance by 6 month sub-levels (regular FSP, some may remember, advances in 2-3 year increments, meaning an MP posted to an Embassy may not even get an FSP increase while on Post).

b. Post Differential Allowance (PDA)  also called Hardship allowance. The rate for this combines Hardship and Risk and is paid at the Treasury Board rate. The PDA for a post may be at level 4 (for example) while a CF Op in the same area is at Hardship and Risk of 4 each. The total of the two is more $ than the "one rate" PDA an MSG would get.

c. HLTA and VTA is granted at the same level and rate that it is granted for CF members on Ops.

d. They pay rent (shelter share) for acc'n - it's a posting, not attached posting.

e. a few other benefits that most deployed pers get.

2. They don't write their own PERs (where the h*** did that canard come from?) The Head of Mission (HOM - the Ambassador, Charge d'Affaires or High Commissioner) writes a letter, following certain guidelines, to the MSGU. The CO MSGU (more likely a designated regional desk NCO/Officer) writes the PER based on the letter which is also included in the file. This is only for the senior member (if more than one MP is on post), who is responsible to write any PERs for his subordinates.

Now, the Tax Break: no CF pers posted to Embassies receive it (be they MSG or CDA), regardless of the hardship or risk level. This is a function of the legislation which grants it - it is CF operation specific, and is granted on a mission-by-mission basis on the guideline that the Risk level must be at least 2.

An example of how absurd that may be: The guys on the Golan get a tax break, the MSG in Damascus doesn't. More risky for the UN? Maybe, but it wasn't by the front gate of Camp Faouar that had a firefight between police and terrorists take place a couple of years ago - the Embassy was damaged. I won't go into what the MSG was doing at the time, but you can imagine. He was also doing it while concerned for his familiy. Yes, the "perk" of getting a posting with one's familiy. It's great, until you have to worry if your kids' school is a target for terrorists.

Bottom line: just as some Ops get the break and others don't, some MSG posts probably deserve it. However, they won't get it so long as they are not under the legislation. The legislation won't get changed because they (the Gov't) don't want all the FAC folks (and others like CIDA, RCMP at Embassies, CSIS etc.) to get it. Period.

Acorn

 

[steve-o]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some moron with a serious case of sour grapes vis a vis the G-G.   Being as initimately familiar with her personal schedule as I am, and am sure you are, which events from last week (26 to 30 September inclusive) did you feel were not appropriate for her to be attending?   Can you really justify the "f-uck all" description?   If not, perhaps you shouldn't be posting about her.

What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the EDITED BY MOD- THAT WAS YOUR FREEBIE   or something?

 

[COBRA-6]

What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the EDITED BY MOD- THAT WAS YOUR FREEBIE or something?

You're off to a brilliant start on this site, well done...   :

 

[George Wallace]

steve-o

There are numerous instances of "Tax Free" or other 'benefits' accorded to many Canadians, not just the GC.  Perhaps we should have a whole topic on them?  How about how the GST got passed through the Senate?  The Senate modified the Bill to give themselves a break.  Now Senators carry a GST Exempt Card and don't pay GST.  I first ran across that in Ottawa's old AMU, when a Senator pulled out his card so he wouldn't have to pay GST on his coffee in the Snack Bar - ridiculous.  How about the Treaty Cards we give Aboriginals?  Or how about those Sailors on ship with all their Tax Free perks?  I don't think there is a level playing field to be found in any of these arguments.  Someone has fought for rights and got them, but they are exclusive to that group.  If you want them for your group, then you too will have to fight for them.  In the end Taxes go up so that the country doesn't go broke (more than it already is).

 

[Monsoon]

What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the b itch or something?

You can't afford the half-cent of your tax dollars that pays for your share of her salary?  Grow up (emotionally, I mean).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Once more, we're talking about MP's and Embassy postings. Let's keep it there. Any more off topic posts will be deleted.

 

[S McKee]

First off, they are seconded to FAC (former DFAIT) not hired by them. They still get pay and benefits from the CF at CF rates. I'd be interested to know what people think the heap of benefits is

Are not embassy postings voluntary? The opportunity for assignments   like Rome, Vienna, Paris, Athens etc. seems like a good benefit to me. Yes there are the not so nice postings however nobody goes into it with their eyes closed.

a. FSP at a lower rate than Ops FSP, and which doesn't advance by 6 month sub-levels (regular FSP, some may remember, advances in 2-3 year increments, meaning an MP posted to an Embassy may not even get an FSP increase while on Post).

b. Post Differential Allowance (PDA)   also called Hardship allowance. The rate for this combines Hardship and Risk and is paid at the Treasury Board rate. The PDA for a post may be at level 4 (for example) while a CF Op in the same area is at Hardship and Risk of 4 each. The total of the two is more $ than the "one rate" PDA an MSG would get.

Your not on an OP your posted.

c. HLTA and VTA is granted at the same level and rate that it is granted for CF members on Ops.

d. They pay rent (shelter share) for acc'n - it's a posting, not attached posting.

e. a few other benefits that most deployed pers get.

2. They don't write their own PERs (where the h*** did that canard come from?) The Head of Mission (HOM - the Ambassador, Charge d'Affaires or High Commissioner) writes a letter, following certain guidelines, to the MSGU. The CO MSGU (more likely a designated regional desk NCO/Officer) writes the PER based on the letter which is also included in the file. This is only for the senior member (if more than one MP is on post), who is responsible to write any PERs for his subordinates.

Your profile does not indicate what your loadstation in life is, I'll assume it's an MP so don't try and BS me with PER issue because it's the branches' dirty little secret. While the senior MP may not actually "write" his/her PER.   PERs that are compiled as a result of the letter from the HOM, are directly influenced by the senior MP, because the HOM usually doesn't have a clue about the CF PER system. As a result embassy PERS are routinely overly inflated. This is a widely held view across the branch and has become an issue, as you have WOs coming out of embassies promoted to MWO shortly thereafter who are grossly unqualified for the rank. The request by newly promoted MP WOs in this branch to go to an embassy is often a calculated career move for advanced promotion over and above their peers because their PERs are written to a different standard. Having said that I don't begrudge any MSGU member a good PER who happens to draw a crappy posting.

Now, the Tax Break: no CF pers posted to Embassies receive it (be they MSG or CDA), regardless of the hardship or risk level. This is a function of the legislation which grants it - it is CF operation specific, and is granted on a mission-by-mission basis on the guideline that the Risk level must be at least 2.

An example of how absurd that may be: The guys on the Golan get a tax break, the MSG in Damascus doesn't. More risky for the UN? Maybe, but it wasn't by the front gate of Camp Faouar that had a firefight between police and terrorists take place a couple of years ago - the Embassy was damaged. I won't go into what the MSG was doing at the time, but you can imagine. He was also doing it while concerned for his familiy. Yes, the "perk" of getting a posting with one's familiy. It's great, until you have to worry if your kids' school is a target for terrorists.

Again no puts a gun to your head to volunteer for embassy postings, luck of the draw.

Bottom line: just as some Ops get the break and others don't, some MSG posts probably deserve it. However, they won't get it so long as they are not under the legislation. The legislation won't get changed because they (the Gov't) don't want all the FAC folks (and others like CIDA, RCMP at Embassies, CSIS etc.) to get it. Period.

I agree