• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pay: Statements, Backpay, Benefits, Deductions (Taxes, T4), Deployed ect... [MERGED]

  • Thread starter Thread starter humint
  • Start date Start date
Originally posted by Armymedic:
[qb] Before anyone puts in thier 2 cents worth:
1. If you have no overseas experience,
2. Have no clue how they determine Risk and Hardship points, and
3. Unless you have something interesting to say how they will implment it,

Then just sum up before you start... [/qb]
Heh, you forgot some other qualifications for participating in your bitchfest

4. If you don‘t have a proclivity to whining
5. If you are likely to disagree with me
6. If you fail to see the brilliance and logic behind my post

Hmmm, I suppose I could draw up my own caveats for which you can obtain permission to comment on this.

1. If you have never held public office,
2. If you have never been responsible for a budget in excess of 100 million dollars,
3. If you have never had to make tougher decisions than what kind of beer to buy in the mess,
4. If any decision you have ever made has not affected more than 1000 lives or the personal incomes of those people

Maybe you should just sum up before you start.
 
Rather than the income tax break for soldiers serving overseas, I‘d rather see that money they would be paying for taxes go to fund new equipment that is desperately needed in the CF.
 
Paul F,
Kinda what we expected to hear from you. Not much sense having all that new equipment if everyone gets out or is too burnt out to use it. Although, I‘m quite sure you‘d be more than willing to step up to the plate and fill the gap, eh? Besides, how much, if any, of the criteria posted here do you fit into to be able to speak on the subject?
 
You heading into work tomorrow paul? If your at the kingston armories i‘ll be the guy ringing the bell buying all the cheap students some booze and harassing all the new harry potterish looking privates, you should say hello.

Michael i don‘t think armymedic asked for anything crazy. Seems to me he simply wanted the opinion of someone with overseas experience or knowledge about what hardship allowence is. Some questions can be answered by everyone and others i‘d say best left to people int he military. This is an army forum after all. If it‘s his post he should be able to make up it‘s guidelines, no?
 
Rather than the income tax break for soldiers serving overseas, I‘d rather see that money they would be paying for taxes go to fund new equipment that is desperately needed in the CF.
Rather than the income tax break for a certain student studying in Kingston, I‘d rather see that money they would be paying for taxes go to fund an attitude adjustment that is desperately needed in the aforementioned moron.
 
Come on Armymedic! SFOR is past being an exceptionally dangerous operation. However, that being said, I completely agree with Ex-Dragoon. It should be all or none. Besides, it‘s just another little piddley offering to take the publics eye off the main issues anyway. While the public is thinking Hooray for the military we‘re thinking WTF!? All most of our military ever gripes about is "give us more money". Why? I get paid pretty well. I knew that DND wouldn‘t make me rich, but I certainly don‘t have any problems with money other then my own mismanagement. Talk about fair? What in this "military" can you call fair? Doesn‘t sound very professional to me to be getting all sad that you‘re missing an opportunity to get some more money. We still get allowances, right? Anyway‘s, what I was saying was that its all just smoke and mirrors anyway, no real benefit other then a little "good press" for the government.

And about this "roto that the world forgot".(Don‘t worry, this isn‘t aimed at you Medic) When I heard about this, in Afghanistan, it was all I could do to restrain myself from writing a bunch of nastygrams. Whoever thought of this clever little ploy was a complete idiot. If I was in Bosnia I would be completely embarrassed to be on that ROTO. I‘ve done 2 SFOR ROTO‘s, one was over Christmas. We weren‘t competing with any other operations, but I can assure you that we received no special treatment, no extra news coverage. Two soldiers died on my first tour, from my camp, there was no fanfare. What makes ROTO whatever any different? All I can think about to explain this forgotten "phenomenon" is that maybe there were a lot of first timers on this tour. The fact the both tours were predominantly out of Petawawa? Some hard feeling that maybe some would have liked to have gone to Afghanistan instead. I can think of at least 10 people who wished, or would have wished that they had gone to Bosnia instead. Lets try to be soldiers and get on with our job without constantly complaining that someone might possibly have it better then you.

Dorosh, instead of spouting off a bunch of political crap, try posting something that shows you can actually think for yourself.

Paul, your right, we do need equipment. Unfortunately, it seems that too often the wrong products are acquired for the wrong reasons. This "tax cut" is only trying to draw attention away from this sad state of affairs. But we need more soldiers to do the job as well, our military doesn‘t have the size to do the tempo of operations that we continue to commit ourselves to. Time between deployments is only getting shorter and shorter. Sometimes it seems as though there are more people getting out then in. We won‘t last long at this rate. So few promotion opportunities, only 10-15% of our soldiers get a fair chance at advancing. I really hope that things will get better, but I‘m afraid that we‘re still on our way to the bottom now...
 
Doug and Ghost:

With regards to "political crap" - this entire conversation is about a political decision. The fact that armymedic wanted input only from people overseas kind of indicates that armymedic realizes they don‘t have a leg to stand on, and just wants to commiserate with some fellow pissers and moaners.

Personally, I don‘t have an opinion one way or the other, but it baffles me to see discussion of a political decision based solely on the perspective of the grunts. And from what you‘ve posted, Doug, it sounds like you agree with the basis for the decision - that those in Bosnia are not in any real danger.

So the question is - what does this tax exemption represent. If it is seperation pay, than yes, it should be all or nothing.

If it is danger pay, then the risk assessment seems - from what has been posted in this thread by those who have been there - about accurate.

If those who have not served overseas aren‘t "entitled" to express an opinion, it follows that those who have never had to make decisions like this are equally unentitled to have an opinion. Walk a mile in each other‘s shoes? I doubt either side would really care to.

I think the wisest comment here has been putting the money to new equipment, and yes, I agree this does seem a little like vote buying - much like the farm aid in Alberta the other day.

We really won‘t be in a position to judge til after the next election.

So Doug, if you don‘t want politics to enter into the thread, why mention the vote-buying? ;)
 
What are we argueing about? Who ever got into this job for the money anyways?

Bosnia is no more dangerous than being on the LAPD beat.
 
Sorry Mike, a little venting! This is what I meant was crap:

1. If you have never held public office,
2. If you have never been responsible for a budget in excess of 100 million dollars,
3. If you have never had to make tougher decisions than what kind of beer to buy in the mess,
4. If any decision you have ever made has not affected more than 1000 lives or the personal incomes of those people
Sure their job isn‘t easy, but neither is mine. I wouldn‘t expect them to be able to fill my shoes either. But I can tell you that I‘ve had to make quick decisions on the spot that affected the lives of my friends and myself. Almost every profession has that tough decision lurking around the corner. The question is will you rise to the challenge, or fall apart?
 
Regardless of anyones opinion of how dangerous a place is on a given day, or has been in the past, lets break it down for future missions...

I find it unfair that this excellent tax break is exclusive. It should include all members of the CF who are serving overseas in any operation, and then the benifits of increase risk and hardship are then providing the additional finacial benifit for being in the "shite".
Is one soldier serving overseas away from his family in any given zone of operations better then another?

Doug, MG34,
I was talking about the added finacial incetives for those tours with risk factor of 3 and 4 vs tours like Bosnia (level 2). Roto 13 has been no more or less dangerous (in my humble opinion) then it was for us on Roto 8. And I agree that we shouldn‘t be here anymore, but will be for the next yr or so, until they can pull us all out of here.
And Doug, you know me, like I had a choice on which tour I could go..."Your previous experience there will be valuable, MCpl" followed by more hot air up my....

More: that "roto the world forgot" stuff started back home because of the total lack of news and support for families of people in Bosnia, especially compared to Afghanistan. Cassie Campbell, Kirk Maclean, and the Tiger stopping over in VK on route to Kabul and telling people there that they had no idea there were Canadians in Bosnia, did help either. But if this discussion was worthy of a thread, it would have been discussed. So let us let it die.

Lets get back on track now...
 
How this for how we here in Bosnia feel. Heres proof its not just the Jr NCO‘s who think this is unfair:

http://www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=17f4c075-3a73-4bff-8a2a-18f03d1696ce

Troops in Bosnia rate tax break too, boss says
It‘s not Afghanistan, but it‘s still dangerous

Mike Blanchfield
Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service

Thursday, March 25, 2004

OTTAWA - The commander of Canadian soldiers in Bosnia says his hardworking troops deserve the same tax break as their comrades in Afghanistan.

"I‘d like to see my soldiers get it," Col. John Tattersall, 44, said Wednesday from Velika Kladusa, Bosnia, where he commands 900 troops.

"I think they‘ve earned it. But that‘s a decision, the government has to decide. I‘ll accept what the government decides. But would I like my soldiers to get it? Yes. They‘ve worked hard for it. They‘ve earned it."

The government announced in Tuesday‘s budget that military personnel serving on foreign assignments -- officially classified as dangerous -- would not have to pay income tax for the duration of their deployments.

But the Defence Department‘s classification criteria has come under fire because certain world hotspots are not designated as dangerous -- namely Bosnia, which has achieved a relative stability after more than a decade of turmoil, marked by ethnic cleansing and genocide.

"The soldiers‘ attitude is they know we‘re not as sexy as Afghanistan, but we‘re doing just as an important a mission," said Tattersall, pointing out that 40,000 Canadian soldiers have rotated through the Balkans in the last 12 years to help restore stability.

"There‘s been 25 who have died here. As soldiers, we‘ve gone to **** and back, literally, in this theatre of operations," said Tattersall.

"War broke out around Canadian soldiers here in 1993 in the initial breakup of the former Yugoslavia. They were here when the ‘95 war broke out. They were here and saw it and imposed the peace. They‘ve very proud of what they‘ve done."

The test of that success, said Tattersall, came in the last week when the worst ethnic violence in five years erupted in neighbouring Kosovo but did not spread to Bosnia. The flareup left 28 dead and forced the evacuation of 3,600 Serbs to protected enclaves.

Currently, the tax break would apply to about 1,800 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, the Congo, Lebanon and Israel, according to senior defence officials. The Haiti mission has yet to be classified.

But air force crews of a Hercules supply aircraft, for instance, would only be exempt from paying tax on the days that they fly in and out of an area such as Afghanistan, not the full duration of their deployments.

A soldier wounded in a dangerous location would also have to start paying tax once they are evacuated to a more secure area, said senior military officials.

The tax breaks are retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004, which also means that some 2,000 soldiers who served in Afghanistan in the first rotation of the ongoing deployment and returned to Canada in February would only qualify for a few weeks of the tax break.

"We have a stable and a secure peace here. I‘d call it fragile. I certainly wouldn‘t call it self-sustaining. There‘s still a military mission here," said Tattersall, who was also speaking on the fifth anniversary of the commencement of a NATO bombing campaign to free ethnic Albanians from Serb aggressors in Kosovo.

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan learned many of their peace-building techniques -- such as patrolling and reaching out to local ethnic communities -- from their predecessors in the Balkans, said Tattersall.
 
You can only read this if you are cleared to "RUMOUR" ...

Ottawa may extend tax break to more soldiers
Last Updated Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:38:15
OTTAWA - Ottawa says it may expand the tax exemption granted to police officers and soldiers in this week‘s budget.

Soldiers in Bosnia and sailors aboard Canadian warships in the Persian Gulf, however, are not eligible. Their assignments were seen as less dangerous. Defence Minister David Pratt now says the government is rethinking that.

"There was always the understanding that the minister of national defence would be able to go back to cabinet at some point if he wished to have another mission looked at from the standpoint of its rating," he told reporters outside the House of Commons.

The minister says he expects the measure to cost about $30 million. "I don‘t think it‘s going to break the bank," he said.

Pratt says he also wants to hear from the provinces. He wants to know whether they will match the federal measures.

Written by CBC News Online staff

++++++

Tax break for soldiers may be extended, says defence minister
Canadian Press
Thursday, March 25, 2004


OTTAWA (CP) - The government is considering extending an income tax break to more overseas soldiers, Defence Minister David Pratt said Thursday just 48 hours after the measure was announced in the federal budget.

The tax break, offered to troops and police on high-risk international missions, currently applies to about 2,000 Canadian personnel in Afghanistan. It does not cover more than 900 soldiers in Bosnia and Haiti. After hearing some complaints, Pratt said the measure could be extended as early as next week.

He said the tax break was based on the Defence Department‘s risk-measurement system, which placed the Afghanistan deployment at a riskier level than the eight-year-old Bosnia peacekeeping mission and the recent policing effort in Haiti.

"But there was always the understanding that the minister of national defence would be able to go back to cabinet at some point if he wished to have another mission looked at from the standpoint of its rating," Pratt said outside the Commons.

That‘s happening sooner rather than later due to some grumbling in the ranks.

"It‘s only natural that under the circumstances that people would ask questions about particular missions," Pratt said.

The tax-holiday program was budgeted to cost $30 million. Pratt said he didn‘t know how much more a wider program would cost.

"I don‘t think it‘s going to break the bank."
++++++
 
When I first heard of the tax breaks, I thought it was wonderful incentive. Repeated overseas tasking suck, but at least we would receive a little more compensation for the time away from home. I wasn‘t aware of the delineation of danger areas.

There are many posters above who quite rightly say that we are not in this for the money, and that we are fairly compensated.

I agree, 100%.

Point in fact, though, is that we were NOT well compensated for a long time. We did the job as we had no other choice- I for one could not have conceived of life outside the Corps. Further, I don‘t regret a second of the time I spent there, nor the sacrifices I made- besides, we didn‘t view them as "sacrifices"- everyone was gone all the time, it was the job.

Looking back, I now realise what a hardship it was on my family. I was having a ball, they were struggling along without me- I averaged 9 months a year away- and my poor wife (who NEVER complained) did my job and hers. Kid did without Dad- heck, I found out years later that even the dogs were idiots while I was gone.

Take a look at other country‘s- a Bud in the States just found out that his State has provisions for disabled Vets- first 50,000$ of property/house and two vehicles- no tax. It goes on, but the message here is plain and simple- the Soldiers, while being compensated for their time, are also recognised as making a sacrifice for their country- and as such, are exempt from certain taxes.

You young guys shouldn‘t need/want/care about this- it‘s up to us "old guys" to realise the truth, and make it happen for you idealistc young‘uns. :)

I think making all of those who serve tax free while overseas is a great idea.

Cheers-Garry
 
No active serving member of the forces should be paying an income tax in the first place, it is only a smoke screen of bureaucrats make work project, invented in the 1960‘s as another boondoggle, more waste! All things as benefits should be a no brainer not a book keepers nightmare, you serve, you get period all benefits!!!!
 
Now I had a couple days to cool down...

Micheal,
Whats up with this BS;
With regards to "political crap" - this entire conversation is about a political decision. The fact that armymedic wanted input only from people overseas kind of indicates that armymedic realizes they don‘t have a leg to stand on, and just wants to commiserate with some fellow pissers and moaners.
Give me some credit. My intent was to limit this discussion to those who:
a. would be affected,
b. understand how being deployed affected soldiers AND thier families (cause after all the family back home wins big with the cash too, dispite all the stressors you wouldn‘t understand.)
c. may actually have some constructive input to the conversation, both for and against.

It was also to limit the "I just thing is a good/bad idea, just because it is." posts from people who don‘t know the details. Details, BTW, which I am more then happy to provide if asked.

Also as political decisions go, if they would have included all deployed CF members on all operations, right from the start, then the current gov‘t would have hit a home run for supporting the military.
As it is now, it is being taken as another half hearted, morale destroying, stop-gap attempt to show the Cdn people that the Gov‘t "loves" and supports its military. If you think this sucks for me, think of how these 600 troops just arriving here now days after this announcement was made feel about serving in Bosnia for the next 6 months....not to mention the "missions not forgotten because they are totally ignored and nobody knows about them at all" in Golan Heights, ships at sea in the Persian Gulf, and UNMO‘s around the world wherever.

AND if you want to start including Cols and Generals (Not just Cdn, but a Brit LCol also, I was talking today to) whiners, pissers and moaners for pointing out what the Gov‘t screwed this up, then by god, feel free....

But then your defence would be, "Oh, but you‘re not entitled to that benefit"
 
Well, the politics of this may get even more interesting ...
I am NOT defending the initial decision to give the tax exemption to only certain missions - however, I do believe it might have been difficult to sell (i.e. to dis-interested civvie pukes) - thus, they used Afghanistan as a "foot in the door".
Then, when public opinion overwhelmingly supported the idea (remember, the smarmy little pukes working for the Liberal party live and breath by the polls ...), plus they started to realise they opened up Pandora‘s box vis-a-vis not giving the exemption to others who undertake equally poopy deployments ... the government can no seize the "moral high ground" by extending the benefit to more missions - thus, they dominate the headlines for a few more days, and take away some ink and print space from the sponsorship scandal (after all - the politicans are infinitely more worried about their own political fate ... right?)

Also as political decisions go, if they would have included all deployed CF members on all operations, right from the start, then the current gov‘t would have hit a home run for supporting the military.
Start thinking like a team player.
Sometimes, you score a run by getting on base first, and then somebody else hits you home ...
 
Good point.

Now MND, Rt Hon Pratt, will look like a god for getting this exemption for all CF and police personnel, regardless of the tour. Not to mention the added print and air time when it is announced.
Or maybe he did try and this was the compramise that was struck, and there will be no change to the policy. Either way...

Thats why I am not in politics.
 
Originally posted by Armymedic:
[qb] Good point.

Now MND, Rt Hon Pratt, will look like a god for getting this exemption for all CF and police personnel, regardless of the tour. Not to mention the added print and air time when it is announced.
Or maybe he did try and this was the compromise that was struck, and there will be no change to the policy. Either way...

Thats why I am not in politics. [/qb]
Pecker Checker,
IMO if your over seas you should not have to pay any income tax!
In 96/97 when I was Roto 0 they tried to screw us on our danger pay!!We engineer‘s said screw you we are not going in to a hazardous area!At that time it took six week‘s before we got our due and all was explained.

In War I will do it but not the for the grandeur of our Government,which is happening to day and this latest is a ploy to keep the young lad‘s in.
Just a ploy to stop the release from all Arm‘s.
Yes I‘m a cynic. ;)
 
Yup - "Pandora‘s Box" ...

Support staff want same tax breaks as soldiers
The civilian group is part of the Forces, but it was not mentioned in the PM's budget

(Vancouver Sun reporter Frances Bula is spending two months following Canada's troops in Afghanistan and filing dispatches for CanWest News Service.)

CAMP JULIEN, Afghanistan â ” While Canadian soldiers got the news two weeks ago that those serving on dangerous missions will be temporarily exempted from taxes â ” two other groups working at Canadian military camps in Afghanistan are anxious to hear about their tax status.
Those whose tax fate still hangs in the balance includes approximately 160 Canadians working for SNC-Lavalin and the 50 who are part of a civilian-support group within the Department of National Defence.
And, although they don't knock the federal-tax exemption the soldiers were granted in the federal budget, they feel they're going through similar risks and deserve similar treatment.
â Å“We're going through the same hardships. We live in the same conditions. We've replaced soldiers to do their jobs so they can do the hard core stuff. And bombs have a tendency not to discriminate,â ? says Dan Boudreau, the deputy project manager for SNC-Lavalin's operations. The Canadians among the 400 employees here are concentrated in construction engineering and supervision, and some have to travel through Kabul to other locations where Canadian soldiers are working.
But the two groups are waiting for decisions from different branches of the government.
The 50 people from the Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency, who staff the camp store and the welfare offices that provide recreation and entertainment, are waiting for a ruling on if they are included in the tax exemption.
â Å“We assume we'll get it, but I told my people not to get their hopes up,â ? said Switch Rousseau, the agency's welfare manager. The civilian group is considered part of the Canadian Forces, and their jobs were in fact done by soldiers until 1997. But Rousseau said the fact the budget language on the tax exemption specifically mentioned soldiers, police and RCMP serving abroad, but not the civilian support staff, made everyone hold off on celebrating. She expects to get word about a ruling any day.
The ruling will have a significant
impact for the CFPSA staff, since almost all of them make under $72,000. The exemption said all soldiers making less than $72,000 would be exempted from federal taxes as of Jan. 1, 2004, for time served on dangerous missions such as Afghanistan and Haiti. The announcement opened a can of worms for the government, since Canadian soldiers who served the first six months in Afghanistan and those currently serving in Bosnia were not included.
For the people working for the private contractor, the tax dilemma is a different story. Boudreau says the Prime Minister's Office has applied to Revenue Canada, together with SNC-Lavalin, to have the company's employees get the same tax benefit as those working on a UN mission. The application was made in January and the company is still awaiting that decision.
That overseas employment tax credit is normally given to employees of private companies who are considered to be doing development work.
â Å“The question is do we qualify or not. You could argue that we're part of the peace-building operation of the Canadian soldiers, which is development work,â ? said Boudreau.
But for the moment, it has warned its employees not to claim an overseas tax credit.
The company doesn't want to see the same problems experienced by employees of the previous private contractor.
People who had worked for ATCO, which provided logistical support to Canadian troops in Bosnia, claimed the credit and then were ordered by Revenue Canada to pay it back.
 
Hi

I was wondering about the Canadian Forces pay scale. Not that it really bothere me, cause I think there‘s no better job then the CF. All I know about the pay scale is moving down and to the right is GOOD!!!

I was told pay depends on education adn time in. is this correct? I‘m not exactly sure how they fit you in each pay category and I‘m not talking about specialist stuff, like combat diving, jump pay, EOD etc. For example if you have a master‘s degree or a doctorate what category would you fit under. Similarly if you‘ve been in for 20 years and you‘re a Warrant what would yo be in the same pay scale as a Warrant that‘s been in for 25 years. If you hold a professional designation like a CA or P.Eng. do they consider that in your pay. For example lawyers, doctors, pilots get paid more. Lawyers, doctors, chaplains are commissioned captains. why is that? Engineers and medical officers get signing bonuses is this merely because there are a lack of them. Are there signing bonuses for NCM trades?
 
Back
Top