Conservatives attack Military Vet over moving expenses

[Daradon]

Definitely excessive, but within the bounds of the program. The rules need to be changed or clarified for sure, as this isn't what it's meant for, but as it stands now completely fair.

It is also obvious that this is a partisan attack. The way the Conservatives have phrased it from the get go shows this. Watched Power and Politics yesterday and the way the MP was talking it was just spin, spin, spin, entitled Liberals, blah, blah, blah. And that kinda angers me more. Yeah it's excessive, but it comes nowhere near the amounts of the senate scandal, nor nowhere near the illegality of it. You wanna fix it? Tighten up the rules and go from there. But this is purely politics.

Worst of all, it's going to blow up in their face. Who's on the till of this ship anymore? Don't the Conservatives see they are shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over again recently. They have been their own worst enemies for a while now.

[MarchHare]

I find it a bit strange that there isn't a cap to the amount one can claim for moving expenses (i.e. the Canadian Forces will pay applicable relocation expenses of a retiring veteran up to a maximum of $X.) That would be an obvious and simple-to-implement fix if the Conservatives genuinely think there's a flaw with this policy that leaves it open to abuse.

Of course, the much more likely explanation is that the CPC doesn't actually have a problem with this program at all but are trying anything possible to embarrass and discredit a recently-named Liberal Party advisor.

[para transit fellow]

This may have been mentioned before but the political slant is strong (and Stinky)

general A retires and starts work with the liberals - government upset that he took the moving benefits ( including real estate fees and land transfer taxes) he was eligible for.

general B retires after disgraced in sex scandal and moves to middle east - government silent on that he took the moving benefits ( including real estate fees and land transfer taxes) he was eligible for

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Ace

As individuals we can't even get a moving tax deduction unless we go at least 40KM away.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/t.../menu-eng.html

And if he doesn't qualify (sounds like he doesn't) the $72,000 would be considered a taxable benefit.

It should be noted that he doesn't receive the $72,000 it is paid directly to the realtors, lawyers, moving company etc. The fact that he moved a few blocks away is irrelevant, the retirement move is a benefit afforded to all CF and RCMP members with the required service. We don't get to dictate where these people get to retire, and it is quite common for someone to retire into a smaller house. The retirement move is a move that these men and women have earned.

As the kid of a now retired RCMP officer we moved every two years for 38 years from $hole to $hole. These moves aren't discretionary if you want to advance your career. It's a sacrifice that you make when you join these organizations.

$72,000 isn't unreasonable

Realtor Fees
Lawyer Fees
Moving Expenses ( intown move - Pack, Load, UnLoad, UnPack which is what they are entilteld on - easily $10,000)

[gasman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I find it a bit strange that there isn't a cap to the amount one can claim for moving expenses (i.e. the Canadian Forces will pay applicable relocation expenses of a retiring veteran up to a maximum of $X.) That would be an obvious and simple-to-implement fix if the Conservatives genuinely think there's a flaw with this policy that leaves it open to abuse.
.

How do you consider this abuse? He didn't get to pocket a cheque for $72,000. He moved from his house to another and submitted the costs to a 3rd party for payment. They reviewed and approved his expenses.

Capping the benefit seems asinine when you consider all of the different situations.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by gasman

How do you consider this abuse? He didn't get to pocket a cheque for $72,000. He moved from his house to another and submitted the costs to a 3rd party for payment. They reviewed and approved his expenses.

Capping the benefit seems asinine when you consider all of the different situations.

Personally, I don't consider it abuse at all. From everything I've seen published, he didn't claim any expense that would be in violation of the program's guidelines.

I was only suggesting a cap as a solution to the "problem" because some people posted that $70k is an excessive amount. If that is indeed the case, then you can prevent it from happening again in the future by putting an upper limit on what can be claimed.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Personally, I don't consider it abuse at all. From everything I've seen published, he didn't claim any expense that would be in violation of the program's guidelines.

I was only suggesting a cap as a solution to the "problem" because some people posted that $70k is an excessive amount. If that is indeed the case, then you can prevent it from happening again in the future by putting an upper limit on what can be claimed.

Fair enough, I misinterpreted your original post.

I can see understand the driver for an upper limit on the benefit, however I am not necessarily in the camp that would advocate it. I am perfectly happy with status quo in this case. In my opinion people in law enforcement and military are more than deserving of this benefit and if the impact is $50K-100K I am okay with this.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

That is the key. If the government has a problem with the policy then just come out and say it, but to drag one guy through the mud for following the rules and working in the system is ridiculous.

No, its not the key, in fact its missing the point. The argument on the side you are supporting is that since others have done it, he should be able to do it too and we all shouldn't complain.

The point of the policy is clear: Military people move all around and may not end up where they want to live for the rest of their lives, and should be fully compensated for moving to where they want to live upon retirement.

I think that's a good policy, but it doesn't fit a situation where the general just wants a smaller house but still lives in the area he calls home.

I don't care if it was abused in the past. The point is the policy was abused here, much like expense policies have in the Senate for decades. And in the military, I'm sure.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Delgar

No, its not the key, in fact its missing the point. The argument on the side you are supporting is that since others have done it, he should be able to do it too and we all shouldn't complain.

The point of the policy is clear: Military people move all around and may not end up where they want to live for the rest of their lives, and should be fully compensated for moving to where they want to live upon retirement.

I think that's a good policy, but it doesn't fit a situation where the general just wants a smaller house but still lives in the area he calls home.

I don't care if it was abused in the past. The point is the policy was abused here, much like expense policies have in the Senate for decades. And in the military, I'm sure.

Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused? If the guy shouldn't have been entitled to have these expenses covered its really up to DND to make that call, not him.

I think people are expecting someone to be way too altruistic here. Like "I could get the $70k in expenses covered, and its totally within the rules and regulations, but instead I should just pay that." It just doesn't make any sense.

Is the rule in need of some tinkering where people should have to move a certain distance? Probably. But for the government to tarnish an individuals reputation over that is just wrong. Just announce that the policy needs tweaking and heres why. There is really no need to drag someone through the mud because he used the system as its set up.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused? If the guy shouldn't have been entitled to have these expenses covered its really up to DND to make that call, not him.

I think people are expecting someone to be way too altruistic here. Like "I could get the $70k in expenses covered, and its totally within the rules and regulations, but instead I should just pay that." It just doesn't make any sense.

Is the rule in need of some tinkering where people should have to move a certain distance? Probably. But for the government to tarnish an individuals reputation over that is just wrong. Just announce that the policy needs tweaking and heres why. There is really no need to drag someone through the mud because he used the system as its set up.

What I understand from what you've posted here in reply is that your view is, if the public will pay for it based on the wording of a policy, let them pay for it and nobody should complain, even in a situation where the policy was not for the reason it was used.

For example, we now have Senators suspended from their positions by exploiting the wording of policys, and accepting large amounts of housing money, and the policy wording was such that it allowed the expenses to pass the first defence of Senate accounting.

Its about purpose and intent. The way I read your position, its, hey, if you can get money from the government, take it.

Edit: Also, you didn't even bother to respond to where my post stated the actual purpose of the policy. That's enough to suggest you don't care, if they can get the money, take it, in your view.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused?

How it is abused was already stated in my post, if you'd care to reply to that I'd be happy to discuss it further.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Delgar

For example, we now have Senators suspended from their positions by exploiting the wording of policys, and accepting large amounts of housing money, and the policy wording was such that it allowed the expenses to pass the first defence of Senate accounting.

Are you seriously drawing a comparison between someone who took advantage of claiming legit expenses as part of a benefit that included in their retirement package that they are entitled to , to a group of suspended politicians who submitted expense claims for items that were not eligible and in some cases are straight up fabricated fiction... Read: deliberate Fraud?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused?

I don't have first hand knowledge, but it appears that the spirit of the policy is to allow the person to be back to where they consider home at the end of their career. So if a guy is stationed in Ontario but home is Alberta, the DND pays for those expenses.

Maybe there is no wording in the policy because in the past anybody doing a move within the same city had a small bill; so it was a fair reward to pay somebody a few grand in moving expenses after retirement.

Now this guy has figured out a way to have the gov't pay a huge amount of money for a move of only a few blocks. He is already "home"- he was just playing the real estate market. And when it comes time for me to retire, I might downsize as well; especially if that's the difference in having a mortgage or not.

To me this is like a business that has a jar of free pens on the counter. The idea being, take one or two pens if you'd like. Then you have a teacher walk in and grab all of them to give to his class. That wasn't what the point of the free pens are, so now the business has to put up a sign saying "1 pen per person."

Did he break the rules- technically no. However maybe those rules need to be addressed and modified. Do I think this needed to be national news- no. Who knows if that was the intent when it was brought up.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by gasman

Are you seriously drawing a comparison between someone who took advantage of claiming legit expenses as part of a benefit that included in their retirement package that they are entitled to , to a group of suspended politicians who submitted expense claims for items that were not eligible and in some cases are straight up fabricated fiction... Read: deliberate Fraud?

Yes, because both situations represent intentional abuse of public money for personal gain. In the case of the Senators, they also appear to have fudged some of their reports.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Delgar

What I understand from what you've posted here in reply is that your view is, if the public will pay for it based on the wording of a policy, let them pay for it and nobody should complain, even in a situation where the policy was not for the reason it was used.

For example, we now have Senators suspended from their positions by exploiting the wording of policys, and accepting large amounts of housing money, and the policy wording was such that it allowed the expenses to pass the first defence of Senate accounting.

Its about purpose and intent. The way I read your position, its, hey, if you can get money from the government, take it.

Edit: Also, you didn't even bother to respond to where my post stated the actual purpose of the policy. That's enough to suggest you don't care, if they can get the money, take it, in your view.

I actually think we agree for the most part. I realise that the issue here is the way the policy was used. Thing is that the guys used the policy as he was allowed to do. Its not a case of him being deceptive or misleading DND, at least as far as I've seen.

So while the policy might need to be changed to say you have to move 100km or something, the guy who served in this case doesn't deserve to have his personal information all over the place. If the issue is the policy, don't discredit a guy in public, just say "we need to change the policy to avoid scenarios like A,B, and C. That doesn't seem outlandish.

[Devils'Advocate]

Meh. This is a benefit that is given to ALL service men. And I think they ALL deserve to use it however they see fit.

If Bob chooses to use the benefit to move from Regina to Halifax, bully for him.

Is Sally's home is too big and she wants to downsize to a smaller home within the same city, good for her. Use the benefit.

They all earned the benefit with their years of service to the country. They should all be able to use it to their advantage.

If we want to cut back the maximum expense and put the money into higher pensions for the lower ranks, that's fine by me. But I wouldn't want to cut overall compensation / benefits that our servicemen get by a single cent.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I don't have first hand knowledge, but it appears that the spirit of the policy is to allow the person to be back to where they consider home at the end of their career. So if a guy is stationed in Ontario but home is Alberta, the DND pays for those expenses.

Maybe there is no wording in the policy because in the past anybody doing a move within the same city had a small bill; so it was a fair reward to pay somebody a few grand in moving expenses after retirement.

Now this guy has figured out a way to have the gov't pay a huge amount of money for a move of only a few blocks. He is already "home"- he was just playing the real estate market. And when it comes time for me to retire, I might downsize as well; especially if that's the difference in having a mortgage or not.

To me this is like a business that has a jar of free pens on the counter. The idea being, take one or two pens if you'd like. Then you have a teacher walk in and grab all of them to give to his class. That wasn't what the point of the free pens are, so now the business has to put up a sign saying "1 pen per person."

Did he break the rules- technically no. However maybe those rules need to be addressed and modified. Do I think this needed to be national news- no. Who knows if that was the intent when it was brought up.

I thanked you, specifically for this bolded part. While I agree that the policy might need to be tweaked, or more specified because of a case like this, the guy doesn't appear to have actually done anything wrong here. Because of that, the guy ought to not have his reputation tarnished.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I don't have first hand knowledge, but it appears that the spirit of the policy is to allow the person to be back to where they consider home at the end of their career. So if a guy is stationed in Ontario but home is Alberta, the DND pays for those expenses.

Maybe there is no wording in the policy because in the past anybody doing a move within the same city had a small bill; so it was a fair reward to pay somebody a few grand in moving expenses after retirement.

Now this guy has figured out a way to have the gov't pay a huge amount of money for a move of only a few blocks. He is already "home"- he was just playing the real estate market. And when it comes time for me to retire, I might downsize as well; especially if that's the difference in having a mortgage or not.

To me this is like a business that has a jar of free pens on the counter. The idea being, take one or two pens if you'd like. Then you have a teacher walk in and grab all of them to give to his class. That wasn't what the point of the free pens are, so now the business has to put up a sign saying "1 pen per person."

Did he break the rules- technically no. However maybe those rules need to be addressed and modified. Do I think this needed to be national news- no. Who knows if that was the intent when it was brought up.

I disagree, I think it is more like, the school provides pens for the teachers, and you expect the teachers to go out and buy his own pens out of principle

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Yes, because both situations represent intentional abuse of public money for personal gain. In the case of the Senators, they also appear to have fudged some of their reports.

No, one situation involved parties that abused public money by claiming expenses that they were not entitled to, or that never existed in the first place.

The other involves a retired military veteran who claimed expenses that he was entitled to out of this retirement benefits package

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by gasman

No, one situation involved parties that abused public money by claiming expenses that they were not entitled to, or that never existed in the first place.

The other involves a retired military veteran who claimed expenses that he was entitled to out of this retirement benefits package

Exactly, I don't see how anyone can say he did anything wrong or exercised poor judgement.