J
jollyjacktar
Guest
And thus my response.DAA said:
I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)
- Thread starter Bruce Monkhouse
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
People will always try to "game" the system. If the real issue was the "optics" of senior pers purchasing expensive homes and thus paying/receiving more in fees etc. then the "correct" solution might have been to cap the benefits to reflect what a Captain or Senior NCO might be paying for housing they could afford. It's not like a person making $100+ K is going to be financially devastated because the benefits reflect smaller and more affordable housing that the median income serving members can afford.
Indeed, using a formulation where benefits reflect the median income of serving members and all receive the same benefits (no more, no less) would enormously simplify administration, and simplified administration would also translate into large savings since fewer clerks, bureaucrats etc. are needed to administer and adjudicate benefits. Since the real need is ultimately to maintain operational effectiveness with fewer resources, then any savings in administration, logistics and other overhead should be pursued aggressively to preserve monies for training and operations.
Indeed, using a formulation where benefits reflect the median income of serving members and all receive the same benefits (no more, no less) would enormously simplify administration, and simplified administration would also translate into large savings since fewer clerks, bureaucrats etc. are needed to administer and adjudicate benefits. Since the real need is ultimately to maintain operational effectiveness with fewer resources, then any savings in administration, logistics and other overhead should be pursued aggressively to preserve monies for training and operations.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Dimsum said:Somehow I see a lot of older/senior folks getting homes at the geographical limits of their base in the near future.
And I see geographical limits being lowered to 30-35 km from base.
As I have said before, I think this is a pretty reasonable move. What I object too is the " it's not us, it's the TB" tone of the message. I must have missed the class where they described their role in the CoC.
Either the CF has done things without needing TB approval for decades, directly ignored TB rules or this is another political cop out. Just take ownership. What is so hard about saying, "In an effort to combat reductions in the budget, we have recognized an inefficiency in the way we handle end of contract moves. Rather than providing moves with in the local area, which cost the CAF X dollars annually, we will work to educate and assist members in their career planning...blah blah blah"?
I don't know how anyone else feels but every time I see a message like this one I feel as if we have been let down by our leadership, military and political. Even in cases like this one where I ultimately agree with the decision, it still seems that the people who, by law, have no say in the manner are being taken advantage of. I know it's just a tone thing and I know a lot of stuff happens behind the scenes we don't see, but the feeling is still there.
Either the CF has done things without needing TB approval for decades, directly ignored TB rules or this is another political cop out. Just take ownership. What is so hard about saying, "In an effort to combat reductions in the budget, we have recognized an inefficiency in the way we handle end of contract moves. Rather than providing moves with in the local area, which cost the CAF X dollars annually, we will work to educate and assist members in their career planning...blah blah blah"?
I don't know how anyone else feels but every time I see a message like this one I feel as if we have been let down by our leadership, military and political. Even in cases like this one where I ultimately agree with the decision, it still seems that the people who, by law, have no say in the manner are being taken advantage of. I know it's just a tone thing and I know a lot of stuff happens behind the scenes we don't see, but the feeling is still there.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
Thucydides said:
I don't entirely disagree with this concept, but we have to be careful. If we accept that we pay higher ranking individuals more money (i.e. for greater workloads, responsibility, knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc. - that's the theory anyway), then presumably we accept that they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labours. However, if we curtail their benefits to the extent that they are no further ahead than their subordinates (e.g. pay two individuals different salaries, but tax the higher earner to the extent that both their take-home pay is the same), then where is the incentive to work harder? Why take on the added responsibility of being a sergeant if my lifestyle will remain the same as when I was a corporal?
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
I have known about the IPR benefit for decades and this is not the first time that "moves across the street" have been criticized. However, I have to say that this recent change definitely seems like a knee-jerk reaction for political purposes. Would there have been the same outrage had the IPR move across town of a corporal, without opposition political party affiliations, made it to the front page? I have not yet decided where I'm going to retire and in fact, should I happen to retire in same area as my last posting, the liklihood of me wanting to leave that particular house and neighbourhood is remote. However, we were all promised years ago that if we stuck it out and met certain criteria, here was an option that was available to us. I cannot help but feel somewhat betrayed. Notwithstanding that I followed all the rules, a promise has now been broken.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 149
- Points
- 710
Pusser said:
One factor that is being overlooked in this discussion, is the income of the non-military spouse. Perhaps there is validity in the above suggestions of setting benefits' caps on the medium wages of the member or groupings of pay levels. This would correct an problem where a per chance a Cpl lived in a million dollar home, that was purchased through their spouse's wages from a much higher paying civilian job, resulting in much higher than the norm IPR benefits.
This would mean that the member's Pay Level would be used to calculate benefits, not the value of the property involved in the move, within reason.
- Reaction score
- 6,260
- Points
- 1,040
I am skeptical they would be able to come up with a cap system that doesn't screw everyone, some more then others.
Rather then cap the members, why not reduce the rate at which real estate fees are paid out at? Military moves are done quickly, probably less then a week or two of work for the agents, so why not cap that as a % not to exceed some median housing value in the area. That way the members aren't out of pocket.
Rather then cap the members, why not reduce the rate at which real estate fees are paid out at? Military moves are done quickly, probably less then a week or two of work for the agents, so why not cap that as a % not to exceed some median housing value in the area. That way the members aren't out of pocket.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
There was one of those DWAN-wide spam e-mails today trying in vain to convince the masses that the changes to the policy regarding move to IPR were to bring the CF benefit in line with other federal departments (such as RCMP).
It wasn't mentioned in the CANFORGEN, but if the e-mail sent today is to be believed, then those of you who are in Crown-managed accommodations such as PMQs, exceptions will be made for you to take a move to IPR within the local area (less than 40 km), but the cost will be capped at $10,000.
Yay, Treasury Board. Jerks.
It wasn't mentioned in the CANFORGEN, but if the e-mail sent today is to be believed, then those of you who are in Crown-managed accommodations such as PMQs, exceptions will be made for you to take a move to IPR within the local area (less than 40 km), but the cost will be capped at $10,000.
Yay, Treasury Board. Jerks.
Occam said:
And that is probably the final nail in the coffin for official residences. Last I checked, we only have a handful left, but, when retiring locally, if full Colonels and Generals have to move out of them at their own expense ($10K is not even going to cover the Posting Allowance for a Colonel), then good luck getting someone to agree to live in one.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Navy_Pete said:
I think they are 4% now for IRP moves. How well received do you think a drop would be by the realtor world and what kind of chance would people have at retaining one after a reduction?
I recall reading a thread where the poster said the IRP rate was capped at 4% but the local market rate was 5%, so they were advised to top up their realtor fees out of pocket if they really wanted their house marketed agressively.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Eye In The Sky said:
That was me. Last I looked at the table for maximum real estate commission percentages, they varied from province to province from 3.8 to 4.4%. Ontario was 4.1% when I moved last year.
The problem with the commission being capped at some rate lower than the market is commanding is that when a buyer's agent is looking at the MLS listing, and they see 4.1% (in Ontario), right off the bat they know it's a government relocation, and a resulting high likelihood that it's a military move. That immediately puts the seller at a disadvantage because the buyer knows there is a degree of urgency to sell the house, so they're more likely to lowball the offer in the hopes of catching a military family desperate to sell.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I just took a 12k hit. after 2 months of no viewings, I had 6 in a row and an offer. They knew I was military and low balled me knowing I was anxious to sell so I could get off IR what with having a 1 year old and a 5 year old.
I've sold for 12k less than the appraised value, but because I paid 14 less originally, I'm out that equity because all of my renovations were to repair existing structure, electrical and plumbing problems. According to my brookfield agent apparently I can't claim those repair receipts against lost equity.
Can anyone point out how my brookfield adviser might be out of er?
I've sold for 12k less than the appraised value, but because I paid 14 less originally, I'm out that equity because all of my renovations were to repair existing structure, electrical and plumbing problems. According to my brookfield agent apparently I can't claim those repair receipts against lost equity.
Can anyone point out how my brookfield adviser might be out of er?
- Reaction score
- 27,270
- Points
- 1,090
Per the policy:
8.2.10 Capital improvements
Custom benefit
Limited capital improvements may be reimbursed in accordance with the table below:
Capital Improvement Benefit Formula
Original purchase price
+ Eligible capital expenses
- Sale price
= Reimbursable loss (if result is negative)
The following is an all-inclusive list of eligible capital improvements:
Additions - bedroom, bathroom, deck/patio, porch, walkway, storage shed, garage.
Installations - new windows, driveway (including paving), central air conditioning.
Complete modernization – kitchen (new cupboards, countertops, sink, taps, etc) or bathroom (new cupboard/vanity, countertop, sink, shower/tub, etc).
Heating System – change from hot water radiator to forced gas or upgrade to high efficiency furnace and required ductwork.
Basic Landscaping – other than decorative including the installation of a perimeter fence. (On new home construction excludes initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy when not identified by Building Agreement.)
Personalized funds
When all custom funds have been expended.
Eligible period
Capital improvements must have been carried out after CF members have taken possession and before the sale of the residence.
Receipts
Original receipts are required for all capital improvements.
and for equity assistance:
8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:
Core benefit
80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.
Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.
HEA calculation criteria
Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
identified in the Building Agreement, and
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.
Depressed market status may be evaluated when:
A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:
Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.
For real estate information:
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
Note: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.
8.2.10 Capital improvements
Custom benefit
Limited capital improvements may be reimbursed in accordance with the table below:
Capital Improvement Benefit Formula
Original purchase price
+ Eligible capital expenses
- Sale price
= Reimbursable loss (if result is negative)
The following is an all-inclusive list of eligible capital improvements:
Additions - bedroom, bathroom, deck/patio, porch, walkway, storage shed, garage.
Installations - new windows, driveway (including paving), central air conditioning.
Complete modernization – kitchen (new cupboards, countertops, sink, taps, etc) or bathroom (new cupboard/vanity, countertop, sink, shower/tub, etc).
Heating System – change from hot water radiator to forced gas or upgrade to high efficiency furnace and required ductwork.
Basic Landscaping – other than decorative including the installation of a perimeter fence. (On new home construction excludes initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy when not identified by Building Agreement.)
Personalized funds
When all custom funds have been expended.
Eligible period
Capital improvements must have been carried out after CF members have taken possession and before the sale of the residence.
Receipts
Original receipts are required for all capital improvements.
and for equity assistance:
8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:
Core benefit
80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.
Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.
HEA calculation criteria
Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
identified in the Building Agreement, and
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.
Depressed market status may be evaluated when:
A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:
Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.
For real estate information:
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
Note: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
dapaterson said:
Thanks that's what I was talking about. I have read through the manual a bunch of times, I was just hoping someone knew of an alternate avenue of appeal.
I find it really obtuse to pay for an appraiser just to disregard his results, and only support a small pigeon hole of improvements that are generally luxuries, over genuine necessities like electrical that doesn't burn down the residence, plumbing that doesn't leak, poison or vent explosive sewer gas into the home, or repair post footings that on failure will allow the home to collapse.
Next time I won't fix anything and save my money, then when the market crashes at least I won't be out my investment and have to downsize because my potential down payment is halved.
- Status
Similar threads
