Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[aesop081]

......much higher taxes.

That's putting it mildly my friend.

 

[Roy Harding]

Yeah - but the corner stores have beer!

 

[x-zipperhead]

The beer makes it all worthwhile ;D

 

[dapaterson]

Solution:  Live close to a bridge on the Ontario side.  Low taxes; easy cross-border shopping for beer at the corner store.

 

[baccalieu]

Oh man I don't understand!!

Corner Brook - 83
Grand Falls/Windsor - 133
St John's - 308

Gander - Diddly.

Although the bureaucrats have put together reams of stats and information in order to calculate PLD, there does not appear to be any logical reasoning as to which cities received it or the amounts that should be allocated to each. Perhaps the "Eeny, meeny, miny," method or the "blindfolded dart shooter" system was used to arrive at their calculations. 

 

[PO2FinClk]

DIN: http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/methodology_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=10
Internet: http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/methodology_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=10

Perhpas you mean to say that failing to see the results of each assesment you cannot identify a pattern? As from my perspective it is quite logical.

The Methodology - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL

The Post Living Differential (PLD) methodology includes the following elements:

1. The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living of Canadian Forces (CF) members and their families residing in Canada to a maximum not exceeding the National Capital Region (NCR) cost of living, namely the difference between the NCR cost of living and the cost of living in the PLD area.

2. A PLD area is, as determined by Department of National Defence (DND) in examining local circumstances, a location within the boundaries of a CF place of duty in Canada and may include a zone within a large metropolitan region (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) and surrounding vicinity.

3. The cost of living will be based on a representative CF household defined as:
a. gross income based on the average CF salary; and
b. family size as determined from the CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. Current representative family size of three persons is derived from the 1998 CF Household Survey.

4. The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).

5. Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories:
a. income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually;
b. transportation - total annual cost;
c. rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners;
d. property (real estate) tax for homeowners;
e. home maintenance cost for homeowners;
f. household/renter insurance;
g. utilities;
h. goods and services, to include:
(1) food items (consumed at home and away from home);
(2) clothing;
(3) household items, including furniture;
(4) personal care;
(5) medical and dental care;
(6) domestic services, including child-care;
(7) recreation; and
(8 ) alcohol and tobacco.
i. expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and
j. miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs) and savings and investments.

6. Homeowner costs will be based on:
a. the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile;
b. home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis);
c. the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and
d. a 20% down-payment.

7. PLD rates will be calculated annually using the current year data and the NCR, computing the differentials between location costs and the NCR costs, and adding an increment to offset the income tax paid on the PLD allowance. Data will be collected in the October to January period. New rates will be implemented with the tentative effective date of 1 April.

8. The income tax increment included in the calculated PLD rate will be based on the estimated marginal tax determined from using the second from lowest federal income tax rate, published by the Canada Revenue Agency, combined with the associated provincial tax rate excluding grants or surcharges.

9. A reduced PLD of 75% will be paid to a member sharing a principal residence with another CF member who is entitled to PLD. This provision also applies to service couples.

 

[baccalieu]

Perhpas you mean to say that failing to see the results of each assesment you cannot identify a pattern? As from my perspective it is quite logical.

Im just a courious old codger who has trouble understanding things at times and Im wondering
why some cities have been selected and others havnt.Theres nothing wrong with my memory though, and I cant recall reading or hearing about any politician,bureaucrat, or manager who was selective with information and didnt make their decisions based solely on the info placed in front of them.
Im sure thats the situation here, and the same criteria is applied evenly to each city, but then again,
its possible the info they are using is dated.

Expenses in The Comox Valley have been increasing for some time now and there wouldnt be any
great difference between Nanaimo and Comox, one has PLD the other does not.
The same with Gander/Grand Falls.

 

[darmil]

Hi I'm a reservist on class "C" cpl 4 on work up for TF108.I've read the whole thread but kinda confused what is the PLD amount  for Edmonton or whats it going to be?I have a wife and one kid. I hope I qualify for the PLD I'm still waiting to here back from my W.O. The PLD would help I took a big pay cut to come on work up so anything would help.The housing in Edmonton sucks my rent went up $400 in December HoHoHo! Any info would be appreciated thx.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I have no idea if a Class C Res qualifies.  That said here are the rates.

http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pld/engraph/canforgen182_07_e.asp?sidesection=8&sidecat=2

3. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MONTHLY RATES FOR ALL PLD QUALIFYING LOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JUL 07 TO 31 MAR 08 INCLUSIVE. THESE RATES REPRESENT THE GREATER OF THE PLD RATES IN THE TABLES AT REFS B AND C. READ IN THREE COLUMNS: PLD AREA, FULL PLD RATE, SEVENTY-FIVE
PERCENT PLD RATE:
ALDERGROVE, 207, 155
BARRIE/BORDEN, 87, 65
BRANTFORD, 114, 86
CALGARY, 595, 446
CAMBRIDGE, 85,64
COLD LAKE, 162, 122
CORNERBROOK, 83, 62
EDMONTON, 232, 174
GRAND FALL/WINDSOR, 133, 100
GUELPH, 245, 184
HALIFAX, 374, 281
HAMILTON, 347, 260
KAMLOOPS/KELOWNA, 161, 121
KINGSTON, 16, 12
KITCHENER, 170, 128
LONDON, 46, 34
MONTREAL NORTH SHORE, 495, 371
MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE, 404, 303
NANAIMO, 6, 4
NIAGARA/ST CATHARINES, 174, 131
NORTH BAY, 6, 4
OTTAWA, 196, 147
PETERBOROUGH, 68, 51
QUEBEC CITY, 189, 142
SEPT-ILES, 112, 84
ST JOHNS, 308, 231
ST HYACINTHE, 24, 18
STRATFORD, 207, 155
TORONTO AREA ONE, 1586, 1190
TORONTO AREA TWO, 670, 503
TORONTO AREA THREE, 543, 407
TORONTO AREA FOUR, 1006, 755
TORONTO AREA FIVE, 1377, 1033
VANCOUVER, 696, 522
VICTORIA, 609, 457
WINDSOR, 332, 249

4. ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRATIVE INSTR WILL BE THE SUBJ OF A SEPARATE MSG FROM DAPPP

 

[Gunner]

Hi I'm a reservist on class "C" cpl 4 on work up for TF108.I've read the whole thread but kinda confused what is the PLD amount  for Edmonton or whats it going to be?I have a wife and one kid. I hope I qualify for the PLD I'm still waiting to here back from my W.O. The PLD would help I took a big pay cut to come on work up so anything would help.The housing in Edmonton sucks my rent went up $400 in December HoHoHo! Any info would be appreciated thx.

If you were not moved at government expense you will not qualify for PLD.  For instance, if you are serving with a Reserve unit in Edmonton and take a Cl C to deploy with TF 1-08, you will not be eligble as you have not been moved.  However, if you accept a Cl B offer to work at another location and are reimbursed for your move, you may be entitled to PLD.

Cheers,

 

[Mistake]

So....  Let me get this one straight.  To start with, as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.  And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.  And then to top it all off CBI 205.45 states that I don't qualify for PLD simply because I am a reservist.  This is ridiculous. Why is it that everyone else should either make more money or enjoy subsidized living???    How is my burden (and MikeH's) any less? Thats the $232 question.  I'd love to hear from a DND policy dude on this one.

 

[aesop081]

To start with, as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does. 

No RegF member posted to a location gets TD and meals. (unless you consider someone posted IR but thats a tad different)

And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.

If you are a reservist from edmonton on Class C service in edmonton, why would you need military accomodation , dont you already live somewhere. And if by your statement you mean you should et free accomodation, well that RegF corporal pays for his quarters so...

 

[Gunner]

As a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does.  

Correct, however a person from Calgary will be on TD from their home unit (not posted to Edmonton).

And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.

You are not posted to Edmonton and you are not on TD so you would not be entitled to accommodations.  I'm not sure if you could or couldn't move into SQ's if they are available (but you would have to pay).

And then to top it all off CBI 205.45 states that I don't qualify for PLD simply because I am a reservist.  This is ridiculous. Why is it that everyone else should either make more money or enjoy subsidized living???  How is my burden (and MikeH's) any less? Thats the $232 question.  I'd love to hear from a DND policy dude on this one.

It's not based on whether you are a Reservist, it is based on whether you were moved at government expense (eg a posting).  You live and work in Edmonton as a civilian and you have accepted a contract to work with the military in Edmonton.   Remember that PLD is designed to minimize the effect on families moving from lost cost areas to high cost areas to meet the needs of the service.  You have not been moved at government expense and you are not entitled to PLD.  You and the other Reservists have not been "posted" to Edmonton for 1-08.

If you go to the CF Grievance Board there are a number of R of G that refer to similar circumstances as you provide.

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/csViewer.asp?x=1

Regarding the rationale the differential treatment of Reservists, the CDS stated that a Reservist who accepts a voluntary call-out in an area where he has chosen to reside does not experience the cost of living increase that a Reservist posted into a PLDA must contend with. The CDS concluded that the current system compensates Reservists for costs where the CF requires them to be in higher costs area.

Cheers,


   

 

[Mistake]

as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals  like someone posted from Calgary does. 

For CDN Aviator Ill clarify my mistake, I meant to say 'like a Cls C Res from Calgary who is employed in Edmonton does.'  Any Cls C Reservist outside a 100km radius qualifies for TD and R&Q while employed in Edmonton. 

Also, in response to this comment;

If you are a reservist from edmonton on Class C service in edmonton, why would you need military accomodation , dont you already live somewhere. And if by your statement you mean you should et free accomodation, well that RegF corporal pays for his quarters so...

Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.

And lastly to respond to Gunner's posting;

It's not based on whether you are a Reservist, it is based on whether you were moved at government expense (eg a posting).  You live and work in Edmonton as a civilian and you have accepted a contract to work with the military in Edmonton.  Remember that PLD is designed to minimize the effect on families moving from lost cost areas to high cost areas to meet the needs of the service.  You have not been moved at government expense and you are not entitled to PLD.  You and the other Reservists have not been "posted" to Edmonton for 1-08.
   

Fundamentally it is based solely on the fact that Im a reservist.  If you read 205.45(4) and 205.45(5) you'd see that the only criteria necessary to qualify RegF personnel is that their primary residence is located within the PLDA.  Contrastingly, the reservist must be relocated at public expense in order to qualify.  I can see no reasonable justification to discriminate between the two. Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton.  That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment.  Regardless of what the stated goal of the PLD policy is, it is clear that it is meant to simply balance out the inherent regional disparities resulting from varied cost of living across the country.  PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income. 

My complaint is not that the regulations are being adhered to improperly, but that the regulations themselves are discriminatory.  I realize that I don't qualify and why I don't qualify, what Im saying is that the reasoning is unjust.  And if you read ID: FIN-8290-5321 (at Gunners link select Post Living Differential) you'll see that the CFGB agrees.

"the Board found that CBI 205.45(5) and (6) results in unequal treatment between Reservists for no cause, and as such, the Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA." 

The quote given by Gunner is actually the CDS rejecting the Boards recommendations.  Unlike this seemingly arbitrary decision I'd say in this case my frustration is fairly justified.

 

[-rb]

Also, in response to this comment;
Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.

:crybaby: Suck it up, so over the course of your year and a half of work up training and deployment your out about $3000...you chose to live in edmonton prior to signing on for tour, be glad you got the opportunity to go over...many Reg force members are itching to go (or go again) and can not due to bad timing, luck of the draw and other spots being filled by reservists. Not bashing here as I have no problem to date with this, just stating the facts. The money you make overseas should be more than enough to cover your expenses back home.

Taking a pay cut for a year and a half will garner no sympathy from me either, i know many who have taken a cut to join the reg force as a lifelong career and I hear no bitching from them. If the cost of living is so unbearable in edmonton do something about it and move elsewhere. As a reservist you have that luxury to choose your home base.

cheers.

 

[armyvern]

Mistake,

You lived there willingly -- before enlistment in the CF ResF entered the picture.

There's a BIG difference --- the CF is NOT forcing you to live there, you have a choice in the matter.

 

[George Wallace]

Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point.  The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region).  Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base.  The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.

Suck it up Buttercup.  You made a decision years ago to live in Edmonton.  You shopped around, found a place and rented it.  All your own doing and your choices.  All those others, several thousands, had no choice like you.  They were POSTED to Edmonton and had to make the move or Release.  The Government compensated them.  If you were on a Class B or C at your Reserve Unit, would you be crying for the same benefits?  I doubt it.

And lastly to respond to Gunner's posting;
Fundamentally it is based solely on the fact that Im a reservist. 

Bull Shit!  The rules apply to all, Reservist and Reg.  If a Regular Force member lives in a location and their spouse finds a job in another location miles away, they are not entitled to any benefits.  It was their decision, much like the one you made.  If a Regular Force member is posted and his spouse has a high paying job or some other reason that they can not move, then the RegF member may receive some benefits.

If you read 205.45(4) and 205.45(5) you'd see that the only criteria necessary to qualify RegF personnel is that their primary residence is located within the PLDA.   Contrastingly, the reservist must be relocated at public expense in order to qualify.  I can see no reasonable justification to discriminate between the two.

Where do you see discrimination there?  Both would have had to have been POSTED into the PLDA.  If they (either one of them) should decide to live outside of the PLDA, then they would have no entitlements.  They made that decision, not the CF.

Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton.  That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment. 

"WERE NOT FORCED" are the key words there.

Regardless of what the stated goal of the PLD policy is, it is clear that it is meant to simply balance out the inherent regional disparities resulting from varied cost of living across the country.   PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income.

PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income WHEN they are POSTED by the Government from one economic region to another.  Not when there is a "NO COST" Posting (A point that you may want to research also.). 

My complaint is not that the regulations are being adhered to improperly, but that the regulations themselves are discriminatory.  I realize that I don't qualify and why I don't qualify, what Im saying is that the reasoning is unjust.  And if you read ID: FIN-8290-5321 (at Gunners link select Post Living Differential) you'll see that the CFGB agrees.

"the Board found that CBI 205.45(5) and (6) results in unequal treatment between Reservists for no cause, and as such, the Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA." 

The quote given by Gunner is actually the CDS rejecting the Boards recommendations.  Unlike this seemingly arbitrary decision I'd say in this case my frustration is fairly justified.

They are not unfair, nor unjustified.  It is your interpretation of them that is ill-informed.  Look into what benefits a CF member gets from a "No Cost Posting".  Look at what benefits a member gets when they are separated from their spouse or family by a decision that they made, not a decision brought upon them by the Government.  Look at who made your decisions for you.  You or the Government?  You did.  It was your decision to take the Class C in your 'home town'.  The Government wants to cut waste and costs.  Your application and contract was one method to do so.

 

[simysmom99]

There seems to be a great sense of entitlement going on here.  We are lucky that we work for DND.  I don't know of too many other companies who top up your salaries when you move to another "more expensive" region.  Edmonton gets something like $232 per month give or take.  Doesn't that pay at least 1 bill? 
Another point to make.  Edmonton is not the most expensive place to live by far.  Our housing costs have gone down, our wages are up, what is there to complain about?  If you want to buy a house here, then do what everyone else does and save your money and get into a starter home. 

 

[GAP]

New cost-of-living bonus irks soldiers, sailors, aircrew in Eastern Canada
at 17:06 on January 2, 2008, EST.
Article Link

OTTAWA - Alberta's booming economy has prompted the Defence Department to revise an allowance that gives soldiers, sailors and aircrew posted in major cities a cost-of-living bonus.

The changes mean military members in some expensive cities in Eastern Canada, such as Ottawa, will come out on the losing end. But there will also be winners under the new system, announced internally at the end of November and backdated to July 1, 2007.

The revised formula gradually eliminates the Post Living Differential Allowance over three years in select locations.

Soldiers based in Edmonton have started to receive the allowance for the first time, the amount of which varies depending on the city, rank and marital status. Those living in Calgary get the highest bonus of over $500 a month.

Last summer, Statistics Canada reported that the cost of living in Alberta increased nearly three times as fast as the average national inflation rate during the previous 12 months. Edmonton and Calgary had the most rapidly rising living costs among Canadian cities.

"The fundamental change we made was because (the allowance) wasn't responsive to boom economies," said Maj. Terry Sokolowsky, director of domestic benefits administration.

Under the old system, the taxable benefit was calculated on a three-year rolling average of cost-of-living across the country. Now defence bureaucrats determine the bonus based on current year data and adjust the rate annually.

The change was quietly announced to military members at the same time the federal government decided to give the Forces an overall two per cent pay increase, retroactive to April 1, 2007. The allowance was introduced in 2000 by the former Liberal government.

The revision does not sit well with members who are about to lose the bonus. They describe the change as a disincentive to transfer to headquarters or training positions.

A number of serving officers and enlisted members in Ottawa declined to speak on the record, but said the eventual loss of the allowance would mean financial hardship, especially in lower ranks and among married couples who are both in the military.

"This is really going to hurt some families, when you consider it could take as much as $300 out of the household budgets of married couples," said one member who didn't want to be identified.

But Sokolowsky defended the decision.

"We had to find a system that works equitably across all of Canada and not just for a specific region," he said in a recent interview.

"We don't have regional rates of pay and we have to compensate people who live in high cost areas so they can have some kind of predictable living standard."

The calculation takes into account a number of economic factors, including housing prices, insurance and other household items.

Sokolowsky said the new system won't save the federal government any money. The Defence Department set aside $72 million in the last budget for the posting bonus and that amount is expected to increase in 2008.

Three cities - all in Alberta - will see either the introduction of the allowance, or an increase in the existing rate: Edmonton, Calgary and the air base at Cold Lake.

The bonus has been - or is about to be - eliminated in the Ontario communities of Borden, Brantford, Cambridge, Hamilton, Guelph, Kingston, Ottawa and Thunder Bay, among others.

Bases in Quebec affected by the cuts include Valcartier, Sherbrooke and Sept Iles.

The Newfoundland and Labrador communities of Corner Brook, Gander, and Windsor will also feel the pinch.

Sokolowsky cautioned that the cost of living bonus in some of the smaller centres amounted to only a few extra dollars a month.

There will be a three-year phase-out for higher ranks and four years for lower ranks, he said.
More on link

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

I'll jump on this one also, ok you may lose some in wages due to your pay cut, but you are now making what a reg force Cpl makes as a class C reservist, your costs are no different than before you took the contract, after work-up trg you will go to theater, you will not be taxed, you will earn mfsp, you will earn HRA, all in all you will come out way ahead of your class A bretheren. This is a classic case of "what can my army do for me" it is unfortunate we live in a society of entitlement.  Of course if you took the contract only for the money, does that not make us no better than mercenaries.