I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)

[Pusser]

The only renovations that are accounted for in the adjusted purchase price (i.e. that which helps determine your loss in a home equity claim) are capital improvements, which are things that actually raise the value of the property.  Maintenance is considered a responsibility of home ownership and as such is not a capital improvement.  Fixing the electrical system, replacing an old roof, painting etc. are all considered maintenance.  You won't increase the value of the property by doing them, but you will increase your ability to sell it.

 

[PuckChaser]

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.

That's what a home inspection is for?

 

[TCM621]

That's what a home inspection is for?

Exactly. Caveat emptor.  The CAF is not liable for you not doing due diligence.  By recognizing improvements,  they recognize that the purchase price would have been more than it was paid for.

 

[c_canuk]

The statement that major capital repairs towards problems that existed at the time of the sale, do not increase the equity of a property is stunning. I'm amazed someone can let that flow from their fingertips with conviction.

Upgrading electrical from a badly maintained fuse box, to a brand new electrical panel will indeed improve your property's value.
Fixing any improper installations will indeed increase your property value.
Repairing any faults that existed in plain sight during the sale of the residence will indeed increase it's value.
The same house with a 20 year old roof will not have the same appraised value as if it had a new roof.

The fact that the appraised value of my house went up 16 grand in 4 years attests to that. My house is the only one in the area that has sold since the spring. I sold for 12 K less than the appraised value. My house was the most viewed in the area and I had 8 viewers in 3 months. I was able to sell in the current market which many have not been able to do yet. Had I not accepted the offer I could have waited up to 24 months to get what it's worth according to market reports.

For that time I could have remained on IR and cost the military 1700 a month until a buyer was willing to pay what I put into it but I felt the ethical thing to do was take the sale (even though the closing date was 3 weeks from the offer, that wasn't fun!). I didn't expect to recoup all my costs but some would have been nice.

As for implying I didn't perform due diligence, Home inspections do not and cannot find problems located behind a finished wall if there are no external tells. They can only look for surface problems. Anything hidden (unsafe electrical, no P Traps on drains, compromised joists, removed posts, improper window headers) they cannot always detect and they do not accept responsibility for any problems they missed. Also see my comment about never buying a place with a finished basement ever again.

Upgrading the visible fuse panel from the 50s to a brand new to code panel with permits and inspections does increase a properties value. Stating otherwise is absurd. Keep in mind, that was not maintenance as the old system was grandfathered, it was an upgrade. The wiring had been fixed prior to the panel upgrade and the reason I upgraded the panel is that one of the key things on my home inspection report was the age of the panel. One main item people are looking for in a home is new to code electrical.

That said, I now view the situation in a different way. I traded 12 Grand to relocate my family to my new place of work, and in that frame of reference, it's well worth it despite the fact that my range of replacement residence was a steep step downward as I lost equity and have moved to a higher cost of living area.

Now that I'm better acquainted with what IRP considers a capital improvement vs reality, I will shop in the future with those points in mind. Not being familiar with that part of the program and trusting a home inspection to catch all problems was a failure on my part.

In my defense, I would have done all the repairs anyway. I vaguely knew of the equity reimbursement section and had undue confidence I wouldn't loose any money while completing the upgrades and maintenance that needed to be done anyway. Oh well, learning has occurred.

 

[captloadie]

Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.

 

[TCM621]

Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.

This is my point. Upgrading the electrical system to take advantage of new technology is an upgrade. Repairing substandard wiring is regular home maintenance. Adding a new deck or updating a deck is an improvement.  Replacing rotted wood and repainting is regular maintenance.

While doing maintenance the old owner didn't do is going to increase the value of the house, it is expected that it would be reflected in the appraisal price both before and after.

 

[c_canuk]

Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.

It was negotiated at the time of sale, then I poured money into it to fix the problems, which raised my equity 16 grand.

Fast forward to four years later when it's time to sell, I had to sell below my appraised value, but because none of the items save windows, were on the list of approved capital improvements, I didn't get to claim any of the lost equity.

Your last sentence is a gross lack of understanding of the situation. One cannot get reimbursed on work that increases their equity if their house sells at or above appraised value. The whole point of the section is to protect you against loss of equity for work put into a residence. Why the hell shouldn't you be able to use the section for exactly what it was meant for?

Look, let me illustrate further.

I paid out Purchase price + repairs = X, which resulted in appraised value Y as of june 2014. Keep in mind, Y is still smaller than X

So I'm already technically out money, however that's the nature of renovations.

I was able to sell for Y - 12 K.

A loss of 12K in equity. Even if I got the appraised value I'm still out money paid into renos that did not return 100% of value put in, but like I said, that's very common with renovations.

Now, because the original purchase price was on par with the sale price and none of the 20K + of repairs and upgrades are on the IRP programs cherry picked list there is no loss of equity coverage for me. I don't get to claim it even though the real appraised value for the house to sell at if it remained on the market for the current average local sale time (12-24 months) would not have seen the loss.

Also keep in mind that in purchasing a discounted residence and fixing it up myself, I saved the CF some in real estate fees as well.

This is not about doing repairs and putting it on the tax payer, this is I built equity but lost it due to uncontrolled circumstances and being irritated that major capital upgrades don't count while things like building a gazebo do.

I know some of you like to put your blinders on the instant someone is less than thrilled about a situation and warp your view of reality so you can blame the person commenting, but really? To imply attempting to use a program in exactly the way it was meant to be used is dishonest? Get real.

 

[upandatom]

You cant Cap it-

If that Cpl has a spouse or family money that they can afford to purchase that million dollar home then good for them. Why should they get punished or not the same benefits due to their financial stability. That opens a whole new can of worms for a new type of discrimination.

 

[PuckChaser]

You cant Cap it-

If that Cpl has a spouse or family money that they can afford to purchase that million dollar home then good for them. Why should they get punished or not the same benefits due to their financial stability. That opens a whole new can of worms for a new type of discrimination.

Are you that bored at work that you're going around necroposting with your  :2c: on topics that have literally been dead for months?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

According to another thread he is releasing...gotta do something now that there's no need to worry about RMs and adverse PERs.  8)

 

[MilEME09]

I just read an article that the US military is considering pay incentives for drone pilots in order to attract more people to the trade. Wondering what this community thinks of add something like a bonus pay for a trade that might be short on personal and having a hard time recruiting people.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When it is needed, the CAF does already do this.  recruiting bonus, CT bonus, etc.

 

[SupersonicMax]

A USAF pilot friend of mine signed a 400K bonus for a 9 year commitment.  Not a bad deal.  We, in the CAF, would rather see experienced pilots release so we can train a brand new pilot and keep him for 9 years.  While there are no figures attached, I bet training a pilot to the level of experience that the releasing ones have is much more expensive than 400K.  And I am sure it would keep quite a few guys in.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The US does that as a general rule as I understand, you get a bonus for re-upping.  I was comparing this with an American Capt. at the boardwalk over a coffee.  He was hoping to get his re-enlistment offer while he was in country because it would then be tax free on top of it all.  I said that I had signed my IPS before going on deployment.  I explained the terms of an IPS offer and he got quite excited and asked me what I got the making that commitment.  I laughed and replied that I got to keep my job.  He was rather crestfallen by that.

 

[Tibbson]

I just read an article that the US military is considering pay incentives for drone pilots in order to attract more people to the trade. Wondering what this community thinks of add something like a bonus pay for a trade that might be short on personal and having a hard time recruiting people.

You either have to add the pay incentive, it and be prepared to keep it, or expect to chase the problem around the trades.  Put in some incentive because of shortfalls and once the shortfall is addressed you remove the incentive and people get ticked with what is essentially a pay cut. 

As for signing bonuses, or something like that upon enrollment, its been done before and while it may have worked to solve manning issues it still created plenty of hard feelings.  Back in the 90s the MP Branch changed to require a community college diploma in Police Foundations to join as an MP NCM.  At around the same time they offered a "signing bonus" of (I believe) $20,000 to new recruits who would get half upon signing and half upon completing their QL3 (or half upon completing QL3 and the rest at the end of their BE).  The amount may have been lower, in the $10,000 range but 20k comes to mind.  The point is new recruits received a pretty good chunk of money for joining

In any event that, and the intro of Spec pay, went a long way towards solving the manning issue but the bitterness from others still continues today.  Many, if not all, in the Branch complained about the money being paid to get new people but nothing for those already in the Branch as a "retention bonus" or whatever you wanted to call it.  Those with 5, 10 or more years of experience were left to feel like the new people were valued more then those who had already put in a great amount of time and who may be considering a career choice.  There was nothing to keep them from making that career change. 

Not strictly because of this but because of some other factors combined with it we now have 4-5 year MCpls and 7-8 year Sgts without the required experience to do their jobs effectively because they have a vacuum to fill and they don't do 4 years as a Pte.  They are all good people but we've ended up doing them a disservice by forcing them through the ranks too quickly into positions they may not be properly prepared for. 

So no, I don't believe signing incentives work in the long run.  They may solve an immediate shortfall/problem but if not properly implemented they can cause a whole host of others.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

The US does that as a general rule as I understand, you get a bonus for re-upping.  I was comparing this with an American Capt. at the boardwalk over a coffee.  He was hoping to get his re-enlistment offer while he was in country because it would then be tax free on top of it all.  I said that I had signed my IPS before going on deployment.  I explained the terms of an IPS offer and he got quite excited and asked me what I got the making that commitment.  I laughed and replied that I got to keep my job.  He was rather crestfallen by that.

I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.

 

[George Wallace]

....... Kinda backwards really.

Even more so if you remember FRP and actually paying bonus' for pers to Release.    >

 

[Tibbson]

I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.

I once had it put to me this way:  To bring in and train a new recruit can take months if not years but it's done at a recruits pay level.
To replace an experience senior NCO takes a promotion message.  In other words, it's easier to replace someone then it is to hire someone new so they can concentrate more on bringing in new people at a lower wage than keeping the experience.  We've never really valued that experience as much as I think we should.  Especially when we've paid people to leave early in the past.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think it depends on the trade as well; when I joined they had a signing bonus for a number of DEOs for distressed trades.  It was enough that, after taxes, it wiped out my student debts, but was still cheap in comparison to four years tuition and salary.

If you start including the cost of facilities, personnel running the training etc, it can really get really expensive to increase your training capacity.  So if one of the reasons a trade is short is because of lack of capacity to get people through the system, then signing bonuses make sense for new members.

I think for most trades we're at the point where the pay system should be looked at for overhaul though.  Aside from a few specialized trades like doctors and pilots, everyone else is on the same pay scale.  If you do a direct comparison to the PS equivalent designations doing similar jobs (where applicable) we usually come up short by a fair bit.  They used to balance that out with spec pay for the NCMs, but that is now such a sh*t show that it is directly affecting retention in a huge way. 

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I think it depends on the trade as well; when I joined they had a signing bonus for a number of DEOs for distressed trades.  It was enough that, after taxes, it wiped out my student debts, but was still cheap in comparison to four years tuition and salary.

If you start including the cost of facilities, personnel running the training etc, it can really get really expensive to increase your training capacity.  So if one of the reasons a trade is short is because of lack of capacity to get people through the system, then signing bonuses make sense for new members.

I think for most trades we're at the point where the pay system should be looked at for overhaul though.  Aside from a few specialized trades like doctors and pilots, everyone else is on the same pay scale.  If you do a direct comparison to the PS equivalent designations doing similar jobs (where applicable) we usually come up short by a fair bit.  They used to balance that out with spec pay for the NCMs, but that is now such a **** show that it is directly affecting retention in a huge way.

I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.