CF Embassy Gds in Kabul Get No Cbt Tax Break?

[KevinB]

Acorn is NOT an MP.  From my understanding Jumper is Bang on with his assesment of the PER issue. 

Personally having had dealing the the MSG's I think they have a good go compared with a lot of other postions (damn eating at the residence and embassy was th eonly time I got REAL plates and utensils while in Afghan)

But realistically since we allow a tax break to all the people on mission behind the wire - the MSG's are much more under the gun than a LOT of trades...

 

[Sandbag]

I have a couple of questions hopefully someone can answer.  First, are the Gds posted with families?  Why is PDA/hardship only level 4 and not 5?  In my opinion, bumping up a level might be a quicker solution to more monetary benefits than trying to get the total tax-free benefits. (The whole we-they thing with FAC comes into play here.) My next stupid point, and speaking as someone who just came from a level III country, if their families are there, anyone posted to a level 3 or higher rated country gets VLTA, (basically a tax free allowance to fly you and your family home every year, or to be used to travel out of country).  No doubt it is extremely difficult for the guards, but it is a posting.  I was a weird-fish not attached to an embassy, yet in another country and many times the shoe was on the other foot...(okay a little bit of sour grapes, cut me some slack).  The "embassy guys" received more non-monetary benefits and support than I and explained that it was because I was not "embassy".  Tough luck for my family, however my choice, so I had to soldier on.

Why is Afghanistan any different than people who are posted to..say Columbia...where you have to worry about your family being kidnapped or killed all the time?  Where routine bombings also go off?  The problem is it is an embassy posting, which one is more dangerous than another?  Unfortunately FAC decides, and anyone who goes to one of these positions, IMHO, they are well briefed and know the risks.  Just my ramblings on a friday night.  I await the proverbial rockets.

 

[Acorn]

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.

As pointed out, I'm not an MP. I know a few guys who've done the MSG "tour." None got an "easy" posting like Rome - do they have MPs at the Embassy in Rome? I know for a fact that not all missions get MSGs - it's based on threat (as determined by FAC). I do know a couple of guys that earned their pay and benefits, and the undoubtedly good PERs they got. It's a challenging job - not "community policing" and strutting around in gucci new black uniforms.

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

Absolutely, but don't they also get selected based on their PERs? Or is the MP branch just another bunch of good ol' boys who promote the welfare of the ones with the secret handshake, and keep the the rest of the po' cpls down.

Some of your comments have a vinegar smell to them.

As Kevin pointed out - however cushy you think their posting is, they're "in the sh*t" more than the average CF member "behind the wire" in a nice camp like Julien, or better, the Golan (great suntan tour, and a tax break!)

Sandbag:
MSGs get posted accompanied by family unless the posting itself is restricted (like Kabul and, I think, Islamabad). The PDA is determined by the same hardship and risk committee as does it for ops, and they do it based on a variety of criteria. They don't just "bump it up" to compensate for something we might think is unfair.

They get "VTA," which is also available to those who are attach-posted for an Op (and who may go accompanied if it is a one-year position - like UNMOs is some places).

I'm not sure what your circumstances were, though I can risk a guess. However, I'm trying to think what non-monetary benefits you might be talking about. Can you elabourate?

Acorn

 

[Sandbag]

Thanks Acorn, excuse my stubby fingers regarding VTA.

The non-monetary are the benefits of access to embassy, embassy staff organizing moves, clearing customs, dip id, dip plates, and the accompanying protection your family is afforded as a member of the FAC/CDA/DND team.  For those not part of the mission staff, but still posted in country, if there is a SOFA then no problem, if not and something happens, problems.  Problems for NEO evacuation, problems one could have with local police authorities, problem with medical evacuation of your family if something happens.  Though I was fortunate enough to be "adopted" by the embassy and well supported by CDA staff, the people following me may not be so lucky from what I hear because FAC are raising the issue of "why are we involved/supporting these DND pers in country when they are not on mission staff?".  Good question, but bad for the army guy/family involved.  Unlike mission staff, we don't get pre-country briefings unless we organize it or have the fortune to know someone for a handover. (We also don't get to do that nifty driving course)

Anyway, it is a concern I raised officially, and one I threw out here to get feedback.  My apologies for hijacking the thread...back to the MPs...

 

[Acorn]

My access to the 'net has been spotty lately, so sorry for the delay.

Sandbag, I know some of what you're talking about. However, I'd argue that those "benefits" (other than dip status) are what I would think the CF would provide if they had an operation similar in size to an embassy in any given country.

As for "pre-country briefings" and a few other issues of "embassy support" I think I can safely say that the CF is much better than FAC when it comes to keeping people informed and general organisation. I know (I have FAC friends) of people who have gone to so-called "hard" posts who have received exactly nothing in the form of pre-briefings, and who only got the full brief on arrival when the MSG gave his brief (and the MSG brief is at the convenience of the embassy employee, so they don't always get done).

The "nifty driving course" is available to select CF members going to embassy posts. It isn't given to all CDA/MSG mbrs. The FAC folks generally don't get that sort of thing (usually local hire drivers who have been assigned a VIP driving role get it).

Some diplomatic myths:

CDN embassy staff get a car provided. Not a chance. Typically a mission has a motor pool and driver pool which provides 24/7 service to the Head of Mission (HOM - the Ambassador/High Commissioner/Charge d'Affaires) and the rest is catch as catch can. Exception is usually the CDA det which may have a special vehicle if required. In special posts (i.e. Kabul) the MSG det may have dedicated vehicles - usually armoured.

Housing is free Nope. FAC folks pay "shelter share" the same as CF folks do, except the benchmark is Ottawa, not a national average (the CF is averaged). The result is that a FAC staffer will pay about 20% more for a flat than a CF member on the same post.

I'll leave it there, but add one thing: of the list of non-monetary benefits you gave I can agree with one - clearance of Customs. Of all the things you listed that one is probably the most benificial. The protection of one's family is a function of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Status, and while a good thing, it's application can be broadly interpreted.

Access to the Embassy and NEO issues are situation dependant. I like to think emergency situations will provide the necessary access.

Anyway, a "grass is greener" discussion isn't what is needed here. There is a lot of ignorance on all sides as to the benefits actually available to those on Diplomatic posts. I'd argue that they don't provide compensation equivalent to the tax break given to soldiers in theatre. From my perspective, the tax break should either be dependent on the status of a region as a Special Duty Area or it should be based on the actual hazard of a post - in the A'stan case only those who have an "outside the gate" mission, for example (for the record - I am unlikely to have such a mission, so it's actually against my financial interest to advocate such a restriction).

I think the Tax Free status benefit has been poorly applied, and that it is offered as a knee-jerk anyway. Do the Liberals really think the Military vote is that important? If they do, is that buy-off working?

The MPs in Kabul deserve the break (assuming "deserve" is based on risk) more than those who never leave the confines of CJ. That being said, I'll point out once more that it is legislation that determines this. Not good sense.

Acorn

 

[DAA]

Interesting as I thought this little problem had been sorted out long ago in there favour, but I guess I was wrong.

As Acorn so kindly mentions, MSG's are "seconded" to FAC and integrated as part of the Embassy Staff.

To afford them the tax break which they probably deserve, will start a game of comparing apples and oranges.  FAC will say, if the MSG is tax free, then we should be to!  The same will apply for those employed by CIDA, IT, CIC, etc.  It is a fine line to walk and one that hasn't quite been figured out yet.

It is a different world to work in that's for sure and sometimes you just have to scratch your head. ???

It won't be rectified anytime soon.

 

[Springroll]

My next stupid point, and speaking as someone who just came from a level III country, if their families are there, anyone posted to a level 3 or higher rated country gets VLTA, (basically a tax free allowance to fly you and your family home every year, or to be used to travel out of country).  

That allowance is only alotted to you if you are "posted" outside of Canada for 3 or more years, and it is a one time allowance, so you do not get that one every year. We were given that allowance while posted to the USA from 01-04. There were other financial perks to being posted out of the country, such as foreign service and such, but we would have loved it had it been a tax free posting, or at least at a reduced amount, especially when it was post 9-11 and there were constant threats going on.

 

[DAA]

That allowance is only alotted to you if you are "posted" outside of Canada for 3 or more years, and it is a one time allowance, so you do not get that one every year.

Actually VTA is paid based on the Hardship Level of the post.  If you are at a Level 1 or 2 post, then your statement above is correct, however, if you are at a Level 3 post or higher, VTA is paid yearly.  Therefore, the MSG's in Kabul, would receive VTA yearly on the anniversary of their COS date.

 

[Acorn]

IIRC at Level 5 the VTA is every six months - though that may be only for unaccompanied posts (in lieu of HLTA?) I'm not sure.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, living 100m from the guys and gals and having chatted with several from time to time, I'll note that some of them are mighty pissed off that some others of them dropped a brown envelope complaining about their lot in life and making them all sound like whiners.  They have some valid points...like why do I, 100m further down the road get tax-free salary (on the first $60k/yr) while they don't...fair enough...we're both in the same area, drive similar vehicles, etc...  On the flip side, they do get some perks through their secondment that I don't...a Red Diplomatic Passport, for example, which leads to "expedited" customs, etc...an allowance for appropriate civilan attire so they don't have to go around in overt uniformity (not sure if that's a perk, but they do get a chunk of cash to get civy kit).  They all accepted their assignment and they all know that no MP assigned to the MSGU serving at ANY Cdn embassy in the world gets a tax-free,, so they all knew that coming to Kabul was not going to be tax-free.  In this case, they happened to "draw the short straw" if you can even call it that.  They're only here for a year, and next year they could be in Brussels, or Paris, or London, or........

p.s.  Did I mention they have SIGs and I still have a piece of crap Browning?  Lucky sods!  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Acorn]

Well, living 100m from the guys and gals and having chatted with several from time to time, I'll note that some of them are mighty pissed off that some others of them dropped a brown envelope complaining about their lot in life and making them all sound like whiners.   They have some valid points...like why do I, 100m further down the road get tax-free salary (on the first $60k/yr) while they don't...fair enough...we're both in the same area, drive similar vehicles, etc...   On the flip side, they do get some perks through their secondment that I don't...a Red Diplomatic Passport, for example, which leads to "expedited" customs, etc...an allowance for appropriate civilan attire so they don't have to go around in overt uniformity (not sure if that's a perk, but they do get a chunk of cash to get civy kit).   They all accepted their assignment and they all know that no MP assigned to the MSGU serving at ANY Cdn embassy in the world gets a tax-free,, so they all knew that coming to Kabul was not going to be tax-free.   In this case, they happened to "draw the short straw" if you can even call it that.   They're only here for a year, and next year they could be in Brussels, or Paris, or London, or........

The answer to the tax issue, the only answer, is that the legislation is very specific. It's not a good answer from a logic point of view, but it's better than some answers I've had to questions to the chain of command (answers like "I'm not going to address that issue further" or "because I said so.")

The Red Passport isn't a huge perque. It means you don't have to pay for a visa while transiting/visiting most countires (a Green passport provides the same) - that can be a money-saver, but usually only in the neighbourhood of a couple of hundred bucks over a one year tour. You don't get through Canadian Customs any easier - though you can sneak into the Diplomatic immigration line (technically you aren't supposed to do so). The clothing allowance is nice, I guess, but it's a one-time career allowance. All those gucci boots and safari vests the guys in Kabul bought won't be of any use in another dip posting where they need a suit (or three).

I'm not sure if they get another Embassy after the trip to Kabul though. Most MPs get the MSG secondment once, do a posting, and return to Canada to the routine.

p.s.   Did I mention they have SIGs and I still have a piece of crap Browning?   Lucky sods!   ;D

Now that's one I didn't consider. That makes all the difference.  ;D

Acorn

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even out the perks across the board. EVERYONE depolyed in the same area get the same thing. So, the guys in Kahdahar get the Embassy perks, and the Embassy guys get the hardship perks. Otherwise quit bitchin, good for the goose and all that

 

[KevinB]

Yeah but their's are P225 Sig's...
  8rds is not exactly what I would want.

Just figure the first 5 in your Browning are zeroing  ;D

 

[Acorn]

That'd work if it was only an issue of military folks. Add in FAC, CIDA, RCMP and any others who get Embassy postings and it changes the equation. That's why the legislation won't change, and why it was a typical knee-jerk vote-buying exercise. It didn't even keep Pratt in office.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That'd work if it was only an issue of military folks. Add in FAC, CIDA, RCMP and any others who get Embassy postings and it changes the equation. That's why the legislation won't change, and why it was a typical knee-jerk vote-buying exercise. It didn't even keep Pratt in office.

So not really caring about the other entities that aren't military, the whole thread and argument is academic and non justifyable. Obviously, we can't change treasury policy, so this thread from the beginning has been nothing but a whiny, bitcthfest. Sounds like a lock to me. Save this one quick cause I'm filing it lost soon.

Plain and simple. All military pers get treated the same, or they get their own individual perks depending on their situation, You want what they get in Julien, get posted there. You want your embassay perks, go there. Better yet, get elected and appointed as the Foreign Minister, then you get whatever you want.Soldiers join out of a sense of duty, not the perks and pay. Get over it.

 

[Acorn]

That'd be your the typical reaction. Can't influence it, so better lock it.

I'll leave it there.

Bad attitude edited. My apologies.

Yes, this discussion could be an endless circle. Maybe a redress is necessary - if enough of the MPs involved redress the issue it may get the attention of the right people. However, that won't change the legislation either.

The rest of Recceguy's comments though:

Plain and simple. All military pers get treated the same, or they get their own individual perks depending on their situation, You want what they get in Julien, get posted there. You want your embassay perks, go there. Better yet, get elected and appointed as the Foreign Minister, then you get whatever you want.Soldiers join out of a sense of duty, not the perks and pay. Get over it.

I can't agree. You make it sound so easy - get posted where you want? As for the final point - soldiers join for many reasons. Some for the money (which looks pretty good if you're making min wage somewhere), some for travel, some for shiny uniform add-ons, and yes, some for a sense of duty. Soldiers also have an ability to detect unfairness, and call their leadership on it. If something's unfair, it should be corrected.

I say the whole tax break thing should be dropped or spread wide enough to be inclusive. Either that, or the "perks" need to be looked at, 'cause any benefits of being associated with an Embassy don't come anywhere near to not paying tax for an extended period of time.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So what's the solution? Your the one that said the legislation won't change and any talk of it is nothing more than stroking the gullable(vote buying). I don't see anything gratifying to everyone, coming across here. Seems to be all take and no give if you ask me. Keeping up with the Jones sort of thing.

 

[geo]

The only way to go about correcting this would be to file a redress on the matter and give a lot a references.
I should point out that it is probably evident to all Military types that it certainly isn't our decision. You'd have to probably have to send the redress up a couple of levels and it might become a ministerial inquiry.....
Hard to say but it is obvious that you better not hold you breath and that you're probably in for a fight with the bureaucrats.

 

[KevinB]

Acorn and geo have good points.

JUST since some injustice is out of your personal orbit does not mean you should ignore it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK. So the tire of this thread is out of it's rut, let's keep the traction going so it doesn't end up spinning it's wheels again.