New Operational Service Medal Announced

[aesop081]

First off there is absolutely no call for an angry or aggressive tone. I simply stated my opinion, which I am entitled to do. I spent 3months in Mirage, and then 6months in Afghanistan. Having seen both sides of the fence that is my opinion. I understand each side of the coin, and I value all of your points. At the end of the day none of us have a say on it, but I take offense at people trying to flame me for stating an opinion.

I didnt flame you.........i read your opinion and offered you mine. Frankly i'm offended that you are offended.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The fact of the matter is that tax free status is linked to the risk factor on missions.  No risk, no tax free - it's that simple.  IIRC, Bosnia was also refused tax free status when the system came out, simply because the risk level there had dropped.  It isn't a "reward" or an entitlement, it's another recognition of the hazards of deploying to certain locations.

Until the system linking tax free status with hardship and risk allowances changes, those serving in locations such as Mirage will have to be content with the current level of financial benefits.

 

[PhilB]

Aviator, my apologies I should have clarified. I was addressing the Librarian. I agree your points were definitely valid and not a flame at all.

 

[Roy Harding]

You know what, folks?

Every serviceman goes where he is told he'll go, and he does what he's tasked to do.  The medals that accrue are not of his choice.

I'm retired now, but during my service I did seven tours, one of which was a "jammy" tour - and I don't apologize for it.  During that tour I worked (no kidding) 12 - 18 hours a day, for seven months straight.

My other tours were Roto Zero's, in austere circumstances - all of which entailed their own special circumstances and conditions.

My last tour was APOLLO 0 in '02, with 3VP - we had beefs with those in Camp Mirage getting the same medal, and we had reasons for those beefs.

In retrospect, I believe some of our complaints and beefs were valid.  Also in retrospect, some weren't.

Here's the point:  doesn't matter who you are, doesn't matter what your trade is, doesn't matter what your rank is, doesn't matter what your circumstances are, what matters is that you SERVED; in the position that the CF wanted you in.  You didn't have a choice regarding where you served, you went where you were required - ALL service is honourable.

For what it's worth, when I first served overseas, we didn't have "tax free status", and when I first went overseas we didn't have "welfare phones", we used "CFARS", and our allowances CERTAINLY weren't what they are now. 

So what?  We served as the CF (through the Government), required us to serve - as do those currently serving.

The petty bickering you are engaged in is pointless - all soldiers go where they are told to go, do what they are told to do, and if they are Canadian, they do it very well.

Bless all of you - you continue to do it very well.


Roy

 

[armyvern]

Aviator, my apologies I should have clarified. I was addressing the Librarian. I agree your points were definitely valid and not a flame at all.

That's ripe. Your offended by me calling you out for insulting the personnel serving in Camp Mirage. Whom YOU insinuated were non-worthy because they spend 6 months eating 'excellent' food, with semi-private rooms and shopping all day. Which is a load of el-toro-poo-poo. Your comment was the flame, not mine; I just addressed it.

Funny, seems that you don't mind slamming people but God forbid one of them bites back.

And as Mr Harding has said below and as I stated in my original post to you...I am tired of the slamming of the miltary personnel who are serving their country, with comments likes yours, based on where they are serving at. It's BS.

 

[PhilB]

I in no way insinuated or stated that they were unworthy. I simply pointed out the duality of the two deployments, and further went on to state that the disparity between the two was the reason for the difference in financial compensation.

I spent three months in Mirage, not getting tax free pay and although I wished I was making more money, I realized why I was not being payed the same, both in allowances and tax break, as Afghanistan.

Now, as I stated in my original post, these are my opinions. I am not saying that those in Mirage aren't serving. I am not saying that they are not providing a valuable service, and I am definitely not saying they are un-worthy or in anyway less than soldiers serving in Afghanistan. I have the TSE certificate to prove that I have no bias. I am simply saying that IN MY OPINION the differences in dangers and hardships between the deployments merit that differences in pay.

Librarian, you went on to personally attack me in two posts, that is your prerogative. I agree with Roy and will not continue this online argument, as it is pointless. You have heard my opinion and I have heard your response. If you disagree with it, great, dissenting opinion and the ability to voice it is one of the things that makes this country great. Please counter my points with your own in a rational, professional manner. If, on the other hand, you would like to continue this petty argument further, please feel free to pm me.

 

[armyvern]

So here's the facts:

Prior to the CF obtaining Tax-free status based upon the risk of the mission they were deployed in, here's how it worked for every single other Canadian Citizen who was outside of the country for 183 days or more.

Canadian Taxs are based on Residency not on Citizenship.

Live in Bermuda 184 days that year? No taxes for them required.

Finally, this exact same "tax-break" was given to the CF, the same one every other Canadian Citizen had been enjoying, and entitled to for years if they were outside Canada 183 days or more.

When we finally do get this "tax-break" it is applicable only to certain mission areas, based upon risk, as pointed out.

As I pointed out in my original post to you; WHY is this? Every other Canadian citizen outside the country for 183 days or more enjoys this tax-break, not just the guys in Afghanistan. So why then, are the troops in CM being precluded from it? Because we are members of the CF and employed by the federal government that's why. The TB/Revenue Canada has ruled that, for us in the CF anyway, only certain risk levels will be tax-free.

Yet my neighbour across the street can take off to his villa in the Riviera for 6.5 months a year and enjoy the very same benefit the troops in Afghanistan are getting. So techniclly, it's got to do with "Risk-Level"...but obviously only if you are in the Canadian Forces. Last I heard, they sometimes even had bathrooms right off their master bedrooms on the Riviera, and I guarantee you they've got much better food than Camp Mirage.

 

[PhilB]

Fair enough, I know very little about the Canadian tax system. I was under the impressions that if you are abroad you are exempt from tax for all of the time you are out of the country after 6months. i.e. taxed for the first 6months. Additionally I believe, but could definitely be wrong, that there are restrictions on bringing the money earned abroad back into Canada.

If what is stated above is correct then the tax break we receive is above and beyond what an average civvy receives. If it is not correct, which is quite likely, then I agree. It is not fair to exempt those pers who are deployed to CM for 6months or more from the tax break if you civvy receives it. Then the question comes in, what about those AF pers that only deploy for roughly 3months i.e. Pilots, TAU ground pers etc.?

I apologize for the harsh words ealier, this is the dialogue that I hoped for. One question, where do you live that you have neighbors going to the french Riviera and can I come! ;D

 

[armyvern]

Your residency status affects how you complete income tax returns and what types of income you have to report. There are three residency classifications for tax purposes:

Non-resident: any person who spends less than 183 days in one calendar year in Canada. A non-resident reports only Canadian income and does not qualify for the GST credit.

Deemed Resident: any person who spends more than 183 days in a calendar year in Canada and does not work in Canada. Deemed residents, whether they are citizens or not, must take into account their "world income," which they receive from all sources inside and outside Canada. Taxes paid to a foreign government can usually be deducted from federal tax payable. Deemed residents qualify for the GST credit.

Resident: any person who spends more than 183 calendar days in year in Canada and also works in Canada. Residents file their resident income tax return form. Residents qualify for the GST credit.

 

[Krosis]

Fair enough, I know very little about the Canadian tax system. I was under the impressions that if you are abroad you are exempt from tax for all of the time you are out of the country after 6months. i.e. taxed for the first 6months. Additionally I believe, but could definitely be wrong, that there are restrictions on bringing the money earned abroad back into Canada.

If what is stated above is correct then the tax break we receive is above and beyond what an average civilian receives. If it is not correct, which is quite likely, then I agree. It is not fair to exempt those pers who are deployed to CM for 6months or more from the tax break if you civvy receives it. Then the question comes in, what about those AF pers that only deploy for roughly 3months i.e. Pilots, TAU ground pers etc.?

I apologize for the harsh words ealier, this is the dialogue that I hoped for. One question, where do you live that you have neighbors going to the french Riviera and can I come! ;D

    To my knowledge the civilian employee's at Tim Hortens will receive the Tax break as long as they are in theater for more then 183 days. The fact that they have tied the Tax break system for serving members to Risk level is where they went wrong. The people up north in KAF / PRT ect already receive more compensation for Risk / Hardship then we do in Mirage.... in fact its about double what we get in mirage if you compared them to each other and this does not include the tax break which adds another $1000 + /month and probably another $3000-$5000 at tax time.

 

[aesop081]

Granted i sound like i am complaining sometimes but, at the heart of the matter, i didnt join or want to serve overseas again for money.......

 

[vonGarvin]

Ummmmm....trying to get back on track here: any word of a medal for Op HALO (for either MINUSTAH or MIF?)

 

[George Wallace]

The hardship and risk allowances are already higher for the guys in Afghanistan because they obviously have a much higher risk and hardship. What the Heck is the problem with giving those Canadian military pers posted in Camp Mirage the exact same tax-free status that yourself in Afghanistan, or any other Canadian citizen who is outside the country for 6 months enjoys? You are bitching at the wrong tree. You've got Canadians living a really good life on the Riviera's of France etc for 7 months saving those taxs too, yet your going to slam your fellow soldiers for doing their jobs in the place where their government sent them to? Unbelieveable.

I think you are a little off base on those facts.  I am sure that those currently serving in places like 'France' would be paying the same Taxes that we paid when we were in Germany - Ontario Taxes.   Your Belleville Postal Address being the determining factor. 

As for medals, there are criteria set out at the beginning of Ops that will determine what, if there is to be, medal will be awarded.  Perhaps a 'generic' "Support Medal" should be created for things like that.......wait......the SSM has bars for things like ALERT, NATO, .............

 

[vonGarvin]

As for medals, there are criteria set out at the beginning of Ops that will determine what, if there is to be, medal will be awarded.  Perhaps a 'generic' "Support Medal" should be created for things like that.......wait......the SSM has bars for things like ALERT, NATO, .............

At the beginning of our Op, the last thing on our minds were medals.  Someone, somewhere, may have been thinking that, but with the inception of the General Campaign Star, Special Service Medal (with clasps), etc, why not one of them?  My neighbour got the SSM for service in the Federal Republic of Germany.  What's wrong with the SSM with a "Haiti" clasp? 

Just talking out loud....

 

[armyvern]

Well, it's been a couple of weeks and there's other threads running on tour recognition.

It's now been 4 years, that's right, 4 long years since those first members deployed into Haiti as part of Op Halo. Not the UN guys under blue mind you who already have a medal for this, but the guys who went in there FIRST ... to make things safe enough for those wearing the blue beret to enter the country.

Chapter VII. 4 Years ago. Where exactly IS their recognition for this? O Gps for months & months now have stated "it's designed -- it's in the GGs office awaiting final consent". Really? Still? If ever?? It's been 4 years!! We came up with the SWASM pretty damn quickly; as did we the General Campaign Star and the General Campaign Medal.

What, exactly, seems to be the hold up for our Chapter VII Op Halo veteran's and them receiving their proper recognition?

Sadly, IF it ever does get here -- it'll be too late for 7 of those Op Halo veterans (and, I could be wrong here ... the figures could actually be HIGHER). Six of those veteran's families will now receive any eventual recognition their departed Op Halo vet should have received years ago, posthumously as their loved one has been killed since in Afghanistan. The others' family will receive his recognition, if it ever gets here, posthumously as well since that member is also now deceased.

Some of those Op Halo vets are also still dealing with their nightmares. Can someone out there please remember that these guys exist too??!! Really, is that too much to ask?

 

[vonGarvin]

Vern:
In order to avoid a nasty spanking (as I look outside and see FRESH SNOW on the ground here in Pet), I will avoid saying "+1", and simply say:
I doubt that what you said could have been said better by anyone else.

WHAT'S THE FRIGGIN' HOLD UP?

 

[dapaterson]

Op HALO isn't the only forgotten group - OP SCULPTURE first deployed in '99 or so, and to my knowledge there has been no CF recognition yet - a few of the earliest rotos got a Brit medal that took years to get approval to wear, but to my knowledge, sweet bupkis from Canada.

 

[vonGarvin]

Op HALO isn't the only forgotten group - OP SCULPTURE first deployed in '99 or so, and to my knowledge there has been no CF recognition yet - a few of the earliest rotos got a Brit medal that took years to get approval to wear, but to my knowledge, sweet bupkis from Canada.

Wait a minute: you got SWEET bupkis?  All we got were sour grapes ;D

That's it, I'm forming the Multinational Interim Force - Haiti Veterans' Association and lobbying Parliament!  I'm also going to lobby for free beer on Fridays, but that's another matter ;D

 

[armyvern]

Wait a minute: you got SWEET bupkis?  All we got were sour grapes ;D

That's it, I'm forming the Multinational Interim Force - Haiti Veterans' Association and lobbying Parliament!  I'm also going to lobby for free beer on Fridays, but that's another matter ;D

Next time you're around --- I owe you one. 

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps I should be clearer:  I didn't receive Sweet Bupkis, because I didn't deploy on OP SCULPTURE; I do have a significant number of friends who did deploy.  Of course, as a small mission it garnered little attention, nor did we really make an effort to capture lessons learned.  Because, really, what could we learn fro ma mission where we embedded some senior folks with the SL military leadership to mentor them, and inserted Combat Arms SMEs into SL units to mentor and develop them.  It's not like we're doing that anywhere else...