Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax PLD is $631/month, 2 x payments of $315.50. After taxes it amounts to $180-$185 in the bank, so about 43% is gone to taxes.
Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]
- Thread starter Sub_Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 130
I've never been out that way, but I've heard lots of complaints about how much tax they pay out there. I have heard the rumor that the new pld will have some type of time limit on it when you are posted to a new area., it was never meant to supplement the col of living to members who do thier whole career in one place. Yeah, I don't know how cpls are surviving on 3000 a month with a family these days. I've met lots of guys who delivered food over the years.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 462
- Points
- 960
I could see it that you would not get PLD upon enrolment if you are posted to the same area you already live in as there wouldn't be a change to your col. IE if you live in Halifax and are posted to Halifax for your first real posting after basic and trade training then no PLD.
Not so sure about the time limit concept. If someone gets moved from Upper Stewiacke in NS to Toronto ON that would be a big change in COL that doesn't go away after a few years. I suppose there may be some argument that you should budget and adjust accordingly knowing that you will lose that extra $800 a month.
Not so sure about the time limit concept. If someone gets moved from Upper Stewiacke in NS to Toronto ON that would be a big change in COL that doesn't go away after a few years. I suppose there may be some argument that you should budget and adjust accordingly knowing that you will lose that extra $800 a month.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,790
- Points
- 1,260
Don't know how you could budget enough to offset the insane cost of living increase across the board. A $500k house is now $800k three years later, doesn't matter how much you save you still can't afford it and still in a PMQ. IMO, standardizing PMQ rent costs at bases nation wide needs to happen since our pay doesn't change. That and a yearly PLD allowance adjustment depending on changes in the area. If CFHA can recalculate PMQ rent on a yearly basis, so can bases WRT PLD.
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 130
The rumor we heard is that it is a huge benefit for some members who do thier whole career in the same place like Halifax. They had been receiving this benefit for 20 years, and overall a lifetime of thier career have recieved more money than people at postings with 0 amount. It should be there to help with the col of new people coming in to the new area. Yeah, there are people getting promoted to a new rank, but lose 500 a month clear in taxes, just by a posting like Greenwood, where everything cost the same as Halifax. I lived in the qs as a cpl, around 2004ish as well. I'm sure I paid less than 700 a month at that time in Pet. Most people bought after a few years.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 130
I'm not sure how popular this oppion is but military service couples and officers who make make Six figures plus a year should not have priority on the pmqs wait list.
What if they lost all of their equity and then some when the Cold Lake market crashed? What if they’re supporting their sick parents who failed to plan for retirement? Though I don’t disagree with where you’re coming from, blanket policies like that are not practical, everyone has different circumstances.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 462
- Points
- 960
What about their family make up? Maybe that officer making six figures before deductions is supporting a spouse and 5 kids. Maybe someone in the family has special needs which is costing more than the average would. Too many variables to use just income as a factor. If going down that road then maybe Uplands in Ottawa should go back to the Upper base PMQs for Officers and SNCMs only while the SHH is where all JR's end up.
I do believe it was a big mistake to get rid of PMQs in such a large mass as everywhere I have been posted has been a pain trying to find rentals and having the PMQs available would relief stress on the families. Knowing that if you don't find a place during HHT you could go PMQ while you explore more for rental/purchase would be nice. I couldn't imagine going through it as a Pte with a family.
I do believe it was a big mistake to get rid of PMQs in such a large mass as everywhere I have been posted has been a pain trying to find rentals and having the PMQs available would relief stress on the families. Knowing that if you don't find a place during HHT you could go PMQ while you explore more for rental/purchase would be nice. I couldn't imagine going through it as a Pte with a family.
Or 1 kid and 5 former-spouses
- Reaction score
- 6,500
- Points
- 1,040
For the NCR someone was looking at it as an option and was told it was only considered 'temporary' as a PO1, if something is available. Not sure how much uptake there is on PMQs in Ottawa (which I think are just some units around Uplands and they got rid of the rest of them decades ago).
On the flip side, if PMQs are at market rate, we should have the same kind of tenant rights as if you were living on the market. Not sure how many PMQs meet that standard, but it seems to vary wildly by different bases and what is there for SQs/PMQs. For a while I was put up in an SQ in Shearwater in a section that had recently been 'uncondemned' and was basically a construction zone. Was definitely a good incentive to find a place to live, when the training schedule didn't allow an HHT.
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 130
I have no kids, but I'm guessing an officer with 5 kids would be bringing in a decent salary plus a good deal of ccb. I think they would be in a better fincincial position than a cpl with only one kid. A decade ago, most of the pmqs sat empty in places like Kingston and Trenton. You could buy a decent home for around 250000 in the near by town.
From the outside looking in, a few thoughts:
- The underlying premise should be the necessity to attract and retain people to defend Canada and her interests. A benefit to subsidize housing for CAF alone is a very difficult sell. Military necessity should underlie it
- It should be income tested with a point at which it potentially stops. A Cpl should not get the same PLD as a Maj, but ho should not get the same PLD as a BGen. At a certain point, you’re in a good enough spot relative to the rest of the population that you should be fully self-self sufficient for housing.
- This should be balanced against not breaking other allowances and incentives like spec pay and such. E.g., don’t claw back any housing incentive in such a way that renders trade, task, or environmental allowances moot.
- It should be part of a larger and longer term strategy to ensure CAF members have adequate housing.
- It shouldn’t be assumed that joining CAF means you’re going to be able to assume a path to home ownership early in a career, but you should have stable, affordable, and safe/clean housing capable of raising a family in. At the same time, someone who makes a career of CAF and is moving up the ranks at least a bit should be able to one day own something.
- So long as CAF service impacts the earning potential of spouses, dependents should be considered for inclusion as a factor into subsidy. If your spouse is unlikely to be able to gain or maintain a well earning career in their own right because of the imposition of postings, TD, or deployments, recognize and help compensate that.
- With all this in mind, troops still need to be expected to make reasonably sound financial decisions. There are resources to help them with this, and financial literacy should be pushed hard early in a career.
- There’s nothing inherently wrong with CAF or a CAF-adjacent agency owning housing to held satisfy CAF’s need to provide housing security in order to maintain members.
- Any approach should be sufficiently flexible to stand the test of time as housing affordability varies both nationally and locally.
- ‘Total cost’ needs to be considered in any approach, including the costs of inaction and loss of trained members.
FWIW.
- The underlying premise should be the necessity to attract and retain people to defend Canada and her interests. A benefit to subsidize housing for CAF alone is a very difficult sell. Military necessity should underlie it
- It should be income tested with a point at which it potentially stops. A Cpl should not get the same PLD as a Maj, but ho should not get the same PLD as a BGen. At a certain point, you’re in a good enough spot relative to the rest of the population that you should be fully self-self sufficient for housing.
- This should be balanced against not breaking other allowances and incentives like spec pay and such. E.g., don’t claw back any housing incentive in such a way that renders trade, task, or environmental allowances moot.
- It should be part of a larger and longer term strategy to ensure CAF members have adequate housing.
- It shouldn’t be assumed that joining CAF means you’re going to be able to assume a path to home ownership early in a career, but you should have stable, affordable, and safe/clean housing capable of raising a family in. At the same time, someone who makes a career of CAF and is moving up the ranks at least a bit should be able to one day own something.
- So long as CAF service impacts the earning potential of spouses, dependents should be considered for inclusion as a factor into subsidy. If your spouse is unlikely to be able to gain or maintain a well earning career in their own right because of the imposition of postings, TD, or deployments, recognize and help compensate that.
- With all this in mind, troops still need to be expected to make reasonably sound financial decisions. There are resources to help them with this, and financial literacy should be pushed hard early in a career.
- There’s nothing inherently wrong with CAF or a CAF-adjacent agency owning housing to held satisfy CAF’s need to provide housing security in order to maintain members.
- Any approach should be sufficiently flexible to stand the test of time as housing affordability varies both nationally and locally.
- ‘Total cost’ needs to be considered in any approach, including the costs of inaction and loss of trained members.
FWIW.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
Different PLD rates based on salary makes no sense. It’s based on COL factors. A WO getting no PLD would have the same income as a MCpl getting PLD. Maybe more, if the MCpl is a Spec trade and the WO isn’t.
That doesn’t solve anything.
That doesn’t solve anything.
- Reaction score
- 10,355
- Points
- 1,360
Instead of PLD, why not just give CAF members a significant tax break?
CAF Service = Lowest Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate. BAM, instantaneous quality of life increase for all + incentive to serve longer for tax gain benefits.
I know, I know.... it's way too simple and non-convoluted which is exactly why we won't do it
CAF Service = Lowest Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate. BAM, instantaneous quality of life increase for all + incentive to serve longer for tax gain benefits.
I know, I know.... it's way too simple and non-convoluted which is exactly why we won't do it
Because compared to most Canadians, some CAF salaries, particularly for officers, are very, very good. At a certain point, subsidizing housing stops being sufficiently necessary as to be defensible to the public. A LCol making $131k is in a very different situation than a MCpl making less than half of that.
A housing benefit is a reasonable thing to be means tested, IMO.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,877
- Points
- 1,160
Wouldn't a private already be in the lowest bracket? it seems that fixing at the lowest rate would benefit the higher pay/ranks more.Instead of PLD, why not just give CAF members a significant tax break?
CAF Service = Lowest Marginal Federal Income Tax Rate. BAM, instantaneous quality of life increase for all + incentive to serve longer for tax gain benefits.
I know, I know.... it's way too simple and non-convoluted which is exactly why we won't do it
Not once they hit two years in, and realistically a private in their first two years of service is spending a bunch of that either on basic training or in holding platoons. After that they’re a super inexperienced apprentice. Even at that, a two year private making $55k a year is above the median individual income in Canada, and they have generally fantastic benefits.
Compensating our troops well and allowing a standard of living that retains them is a national security imperative. However it cannot be done in a tone-deaf manner with so many Canadians struggling.
- Reaction score
- 10,355
- Points
- 1,360
The only private rank that is in the bottom tax bracket are entry level privates.
I'm not concerned about Privates as they are untrained and the institution has, by this point, invested very little in them.
The ranks I am concerned about most is Corporal/Master Corporal + Sergeant. Too few pay increment increases for what they bring to the CAF. We need to greatly increase pay increment increases.
The tax break serves two purposes:
1. Incentivize retention;
2. Incentivize seeking increased responsibilities and rank that goes with it.
On top of this increase in pay increments for NCMs, we need to get rid of a bunch of Officers and increase our enlisted numbers + give those enlisted additional responsibilities.
A lvl 4 incentive Specialist Corporal would save just over $2000.00 a year with my plan, that's across the board doesn't matter where you live.
We could also bump up Operational Allowances
again to further incentivize service in Line Units (which many seem loath to do).In other words, the CAF needs to become a little less Marxist and a little more Capitalist
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 10,503
- Points
- 1,260
Can't argue against that.
We could also bump up Operational Allowances
This provides a perverse incentive to starve the institution as you punish your people financially for moving them to a school.
If you want to be more capitalist, find a way to add performance bonuses to annual pay.
