# CF Embassy Gds in Kabul Get No Cbt Tax Break?



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2005)

WTF?

http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/index.php?wiki=99565

"Military guards at Canada's heavily fortified embassy in Afghanistan have been denied the same tax-free status granted to their fellow soldiers in the Canadian headquarters in Kabul, just a few kilometres up the road. That has irked some of the members of the Military Security Guard Unit, a little-known elite unit that guards Canadian embassies around the world, who say they are doing a job that is at least as dangerous as those done by the regular forces....."

I guess if you wait for the bad guys to come to you, you're not in combat.... ???


----------



## teddy49 (5 Oct 2005)

Their MPs.  Maybe it's Karma. :evil:

Now excuse me while I go put on my Nomex suit :nana:


----------



## medicineman (5 Oct 2005)

I think it has something to do with the technicality that, as Embassy Staff, they are now employed by DFAIT - Dept Foreign Affairs and Int'l Trade.  Strange one.

MM


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Oct 2005)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I think it has something to do with the technicality that, as Embassy Staff, they are now employed by DFAIT - Dept Foreign Affairs and Int'l Trade.   Strange one.
> 
> MM



Can we get an MP to verify the above info.


----------



## KevinB (5 Oct 2005)

Elite  :

 Having worked with guys in the MSG in Kabul I think they are getting screwed with the tax issue - but they applied, no one put a gun to their head and made them go there...  Hard to go apply to a position and THEN bitch you are not making enough.


----------



## Gunner (5 Oct 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Elite   :
> 
> Having worked with guys in the MSG in Kabul I think they are getting screwed with the tax issue - but they applied, no one put a gun to their head and made them go there...   Hard to go apply to a position and THEN ***** you are not making enough.



I agree.  If I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can find the reasoning as to why the MSG  does not receive the same benefits as other deployed members.


----------



## steve-o (6 Oct 2005)

Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.


----------



## Donut (6 Oct 2005)

I'm not an MP, or a DFAIT employee, but I have spent some time in places guarded by these fine guys under less then ideal circumstances (Hmmm, no "social" life for 3 years. have a nice posting, guys).

I'll add that my recollection of the circumstances they're employed under is the same as that of other posters, they are posted by DFAIT, and as such fall under the DFAIT C&B plan.  I'm sure Kabul is a level four or five hardship post, which is not without it's own compensation, just not the same as the other troops there are getting.  I suspect the cash bonus and repat flights the Embassy MSG det gets are nice, but would be much nicer without the tax taken off, no?

As well, aren't the "tax-exempt" missions based on specific named operations?  The MPs aren't deployed on Op Whatereveritscalledthisweek;  They're Att Posted to DFAIT.

Again, any MPs want to wade in on this?

From what I recall...

DF


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Oct 2005)

ParaMedTech - you have it exactly right - and this issue has been raised to DCDS and CDS by Comd TFA.

Dave


----------



## Monsoon (6 Oct 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.


This is an off-topic flamebait, but I will respond to the point about the taxes: 60,000 people earning an average of $40,000 per year paying 20% federal income tax works out to a $480,000,000 loss of revenue.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Oct 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> Even stranger is the fact that the governor-general gets somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125,000 tax free for doing sweet f$%& all! If everyone in the forces were exempt from paying taxes (which should be the case), it wouldn't make a noticeable difference in revenue for the government with so few in the military.



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some moron with a serious case of sour grapes vis a vis the G-G.  Being as initimately familiar with her personal schedule as I am, and am sure you are, which events from last week (26 to 30 September inclusive) did you feel were not appropriate for her to be attending?  Can you really justify the "f-uck all" description?  If not, perhaps you shouldn't be posting about her.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Oct 2005)

Put it back on track. We're talking about MP's and Emabassy taskings.


----------



## S McKee (6 Oct 2005)

Ok as a member of the MP branch I'll wade in. First I was really ticked off about this article, and the whining so-and so that went to the press. My fellow branch members volunteer for embassy postings and they get a heap of benefits, not to mention (although some will deny it) advanced career progression (they write their own PERs at embassies, go figure) so I have no sympathy for these guys. They knew what they were getting into when the message went out for this posting and that's that, suck it up butter-cup. Another issue is what about the guys in other nice embassies like Iran etc, do we give them tax breaks too? My 2


----------



## Acorn (7 Oct 2005)

Jumper, you may be a member of the Branch, but you've strayed a bit out of your lane on this one. Not surprising, the details of the MSGU are a bit sketchy.

First off, they are _seconded_ to FAC (former DFAIT) not hired by them. They still get pay and benefits from the CF at CF rates. I'd be interested to know what people _think_ the heap of benefits is, beyond:

a. FSP at a lower rate than Ops FSP, and which doesn't advance by 6 month sub-levels (regular FSP, some may remember, advances in 2-3 year increments, meaning an MP posted to an Embassy may not even get an FSP increase while on Post). 

b. Post Differential Allowance (PDA)  also called Hardship allowance. The rate for this combines Hardship and Risk and is paid at the Treasury Board rate. The PDA for a post may be at level 4 (for example) while a CF Op in the same area is at Hardship and Risk of 4 each. The total of the two is more $ than the "one rate" PDA an MSG would get.

c. HLTA and VTA is granted at the same level and rate that it is granted for CF members on Ops.

d. They pay rent (shelter share) for acc'n - it's a posting, not attached posting.

e. a few other benefits that most deployed pers get.

2. They don't write their own PERs (where the h*** did that canard come from?) The Head of Mission (HOM - the Ambassador, Charge d'Affaires or High Commissioner) writes a letter, following certain guidelines, to the MSGU. The CO MSGU (more likely a designated regional desk NCO/Officer) writes the PER based on the letter which is also included in the file. This is only for the senior member (if more than one MP is on post), who is responsible to write any PERs for his subordinates.

Now, the Tax Break: no CF pers posted to Embassies receive it (be they MSG or CDA), regardless of the hardship or risk level. This is a function of the legislation which grants it - it is CF operation specific, and is granted on a mission-by-mission basis on the guideline that the Risk level must be at least 2. 

An example of how absurd that may be: The guys on the Golan get a tax break, the MSG in Damascus doesn't. More risky for the UN? Maybe, but it wasn't by the front gate of Camp Faouar that had a firefight between police and terrorists take place a couple of years ago - the Embassy was damaged. I won't go into what the MSG was doing at the time, but you can imagine. He was also doing it while concerned for his familiy. Yes, the "perk" of getting a posting with one's familiy. It's great, until you have to worry if your kids' school is a target for terrorists.

Bottom line: just as *some* Ops get the break and others don't, *some* MSG posts probably deserve it. However, they won't get it so long as they are not under the legislation. The legislation won't get changed because they (the Gov't) don't want all the FAC folks (and others like CIDA, RCMP at Embassies, CSIS etc.) to get it. Period.

Acorn


----------



## steve-o (7 Oct 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not some moron with a serious case of sour grapes vis a vis the G-G.   Being as initimately familiar with her personal schedule as I am, and am sure you are, which events from last week (26 to 30 September inclusive) did you feel were not appropriate for her to be attending?   Can you really justify the "f-uck all" description?   If not, perhaps you shouldn't be posting about her.


What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the EDITED BY MOD- THAT WAS YOUR FREEBIE   or something?


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Oct 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the EDITED BY MOD- THAT WAS YOUR FREEBIE  or something?



You're off to a brilliant start on this site, well done...   :


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2005)

steve-o

There are numerous instances of "Tax Free" or other 'benefits' accorded to many Canadians, not just the GC.  Perhaps we should have a whole topic on them?  How about how the GST got passed through the Senate?  The Senate modified the Bill to give themselves a break.  Now Senators carry a GST Exempt Card and don't pay GST.  I first ran across that in Ottawa's old AMU, when a Senator pulled out his card so he wouldn't have to pay GST on his coffee in the Snack Bar - ridiculous.  How about the Treaty Cards we give Aboriginals?  Or how about those Sailors on ship with all their Tax Free perks?  I don't think there is a level playing field to be found in any of these arguments.  Someone has fought for rights and got them, but they are exclusive to that group.  If you want them for your group, then you too will have to fight for them.  In the end Taxes go up so that the country doesn't go broke (more than it already is).


----------



## Monsoon (7 Oct 2005)

steve-o said:
			
		

> What is that noise your making? Is everyone with a disdain for the governor general a moron? I was just suggesting that her position is not worth her salary on tax payers expense (for me personally and probably 30 million other Canadians besides you). Sorry if the post was off topic, but you don't need to get personally offended - are you dating the b itch or something?


You can't afford the half-cent of your tax dollars that pays for your share of her salary?  Grow up (emotionally, I mean).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2005)

Once more, we're talking about MP's and Embassy postings. Let's keep it there. Any more off topic posts will be deleted.


----------



## S McKee (7 Oct 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> First off, they are _seconded_ to FAC (former DFAIT) not hired by them. They still get pay and benefits from the CF at CF rates. I'd be interested to know what people _think_ the heap of benefits is



Are not embassy postings voluntary? The opportunity for assignments   like Rome, Vienna, Paris, Athens etc. seems like a good benefit to me. Yes there are the not so nice postings however nobody goes into it with their eyes closed.



> a. FSP at a lower rate than Ops FSP, and which doesn't advance by 6 month sub-levels (regular FSP, some may remember, advances in 2-3 year increments, meaning an MP posted to an Embassy may not even get an FSP increase while on Post).
> 
> b. Post Differential Allowance (PDA)   also called Hardship allowance. The rate for this combines Hardship and Risk and is paid at the Treasury Board rate. The PDA for a post may be at level 4 (for example) while a CF Op in the same area is at Hardship and Risk of 4 each. The total of the two is more $ than the "one rate" PDA an MSG would get.



Your not on an OP your posted.



> c. HLTA and VTA is granted at the same level and rate that it is granted for CF members on Ops.
> 
> d. They pay rent (shelter share) for acc'n - it's a posting, not attached posting.
> 
> e. a few other benefits that most deployed pers get.





> 2. They don't write their own PERs (where the h*** did that canard come from?) The Head of Mission (HOM - the Ambassador, Charge d'Affaires or High Commissioner) writes a letter, following certain guidelines, to the MSGU. The CO MSGU (more likely a designated regional desk NCO/Officer) writes the PER based on the letter which is also included in the file. This is only for the senior member (if more than one MP is on post), who is responsible to write any PERs for his subordinates.



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.



> Now, the Tax Break: no CF pers posted to Embassies receive it (be they MSG or CDA), regardless of the hardship or risk level. This is a function of the legislation which grants it - it is CF operation specific, and is granted on a mission-by-mission basis on the guideline that the Risk level must be at least 2.
> 
> An example of how absurd that may be: The guys on the Golan get a tax break, the MSG in Damascus doesn't. More risky for the UN? Maybe, but it wasn't by the front gate of Camp Faouar that had a firefight between police and terrorists take place a couple of years ago - the Embassy was damaged. I won't go into what the MSG was doing at the time, but you can imagine. He was also doing it while concerned for his familiy. Yes, the "perk" of getting a posting with one's familiy. It's great, until you have to worry if your kids' school is a target for terrorists.



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



> Bottom line: just as *some* Ops get the break and others don't, *some* MSG posts probably deserve it. However, they won't get it so long as they are not under the legislation. The legislation won't get changed because they (the Gov't) don't want all the FAC folks (and others like CIDA, RCMP at Embassies, CSIS etc.) to get it. Period.



I agree


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2005)

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 (7 Oct 2005)

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 (9 Oct 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> 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 (11 Oct 2005)

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 (22 Oct 2005)

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 (26 Oct 2005)

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 (26 Oct 2005)

Sandbag said:
			
		

> 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 (26 Oct 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> 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 (28 Oct 2005)

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 (31 Oct 2005)

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 (31 Oct 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> 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 (31 Oct 2005)

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 (31 Oct 2005)

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 (31 Oct 2005)

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 (1 Nov 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> 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 (1 Nov 2005)

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 (1 Nov 2005)

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 (1 Nov 2005)

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 (1 Nov 2005)

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 (1 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2005)

The regular redress route is open to all serving members.

Then there's always "the ombudsman".... (if all else fails)
multiple jurisdictions - will involve lots of office wallahs and stompin on their turf


----------

