Bonam Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 If most of it went in realtor fees, $76k would equate to about a $20 million dollar home. I had no idea generals were required to live in homes of that quality. Uh what kind of realtors do you work with? Typically, a realtor charges 6%. To get $76k, that's a $1.26 M home. If the home is $1M as waldo notes above, then the realtor fee to sell it is around $60k, plus expenses with the bank (mortgage closing, etc), plus moving, etc, that hits $76k pretty fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I was just gonna say, I need to find that realtor and quick, in case I move again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 So why hasn't this government changed this perk that they were told about by the AG in 2006? It's not the general's fault that he is entitled to a paid move... the government has known about this and has done nothing. That's incompetence. That's like saying that the general gets a generous salary so he should be giving a bunch of his paycheck back to the government. Whining about this is sheer partisanship. Not sure it is incompetence, it's not a perk but nessicary for all military members, from Pte to CDS. Those members have to move when ordered, during their carear they may have to move every 6 to 8 years, as you get up the food chain, these guys move every 2 to 3 years.... Upon retirement they are reponsiable to move you back to the place you joined at...that being said you are not forced to return exactly where you joined , during a carear you may have found a spot you really like....how it is based is they take where you are now, how much it would cost to move you back to your home town, and that is the max you can claim....keep in mind they will pay your realitor fees, lawyers fees, and other fees even if you stay in the same city.... As a General he makes a good wage and could afford a million dollar home....but this is rare in the forces...taking this away is not the solution....but would place a burden on the majority of members..you can't offer it to the selected few, to be fair it must be offered to all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I agree. This seems to be a rare case, which doesn't mean the whole program need be undermined. Perhaps there could be some sort of cap, just out of principle, though what the cap should be remains an open question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I wonder what the storylines would be if the General was a future star Conservative. Would the main story be about Liberal smears? Somehow I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 But wouldn't my remark still stand, exactly as legitimate, either way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 little time to breathe!!! C'mon PIK, this was raised in 2006... have Harper Conservatives been holding their breath since then? So they finally caught a breath in the recent week to bring this forward for criticism... and it has absolutely nothing to do with taking a partisan shot since the General has taken an adviser role, right? No, nothing at all; Harper Conservatives finally managed to catch a breath! by the by, how much different are real estate fees for a intra-city versus inter-city move? They the rules state a minimum 40 k to get this, 4 blocks does not count.That my friend is fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I wonder what the storylines would be if the General was a future star Conservative. Would the main story be about Liberal smears? Somehow I doubt it. We have had a general in out ranks and the media did not give him any respect so screw leslie, he will be treated the same. He is no longer a general, all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 So why didn't the gov't change it? They didn't try, your BS about a minority government not withstanding. Why didn't they set a maximum cap? They did nothing. They should change it if it is an issue, not just complain when someone they don't like plays within rules that they themselves make. But what was the warning some note dropped on someone's desk or was there a big meeting with everyone involved looking at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 They the rules state a minimum 40 k to get this, 4 blocks does not count.That my friend is fraud. I believe Army Guy's post is just enough info for a statement of libel to be leveled against you. Care to retract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 They the rules state a minimum 40 k to get this, 4 blocks does not count.That my friend is fraud. as usual, you don't know what you're talking about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 But what was the warning some note dropped on someone's desk or was there a big meeting with everyone involved looking at this. a note? A big meeting? Try the 2006 (fall) Auditor General report; the one with a dedicated chapter on: Chapter 5—Relocating Members of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and Federal Public Service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 They the rules state a minimum 40 k to get this, 4 blocks does not count.That my friend is fraud. I'm not sure about other government depts, But upon retirement each member is entitled to one final move, be it next door, or across the nation. where you may be getting confused is travel allowance, and the first 500 km of travel does not count thats on the member to pay, after that your entitled to x amount per Km, plus meals and lodgings.... The military does not move anyone just 40 KM's, a member can take many postings with in the same area or city if you will, such as Ottawa, has hundrds of positions that one could bounce around at...but you are only entiled to that one move....If a member decides he made the wrong chioce or wants to move to a different neiborhood then that move is on his dime...The military only covers the intial move....That is if it is a normal posting.....Again retirement is a different ball of wax....and just one more note....alot of members that do retire stay in the neiborhoods they have lived in, and waive the last move...So this is not as big as one would think... Not sure why but some are forgetting, Generals are responsable to hold meetings, dinner parties, etc in their homes, and purchase home that can handle these functions.....when he retired there is no need to do these functions any more , why not downsize get his wifes dream home, in this case was 10 mins away...I'm not a big liberal fan either but the Gen has done nothing wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 The General was within the rules and if the Conservatives don't think this is right change it and while they are changing it they should also changing the same rules for MP's and PM's. How much taxpayers money goes for THEM to move? The Tories want to get retired fed.workers to pay $100.00 monthly on their health insurance, so perhaps ALL federal workers should, just like ALL federal workers should pay 50% of their pensions NOW not when after the 2015 election. It seems so easy for this government to hit other federal workers but not touch the present seating MP's and PM. The sooner this government is voted out, the better Canadians lives will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Election year is silly season. The Harper Conservatives were able to demonize David Dingwell and his “I'm entitled to my entitlements” statement by spinning that for some reason, to act according to your working contract or to follow procedure is somehow damning. As far as I can see, it would be pretty stupid and unfair to those who depend on your income to NOT take advantage of the conditions under which you were hired. Does one commend the individual who does not claim legitimate expenses on their income tax submission? Does one salute the person who refuses the pension to which they are entitled? Does one congratulate the parent who tears up the government cheque for child care? I personally believe that yes – you are entitled to your entitlements. I am probably one of the few who also accepts the $multi-million salaries and bonuses for CEO's of large companies. I believe that the individual who does not take advantage of the conditions of employment because of what others may think is not too bright a person. If one has a problem with the conditions of employment then criticize the people who drew up that contract – the government which establishes the conditions of employment for our military, the board of directors of the corporations who establish the criteria for hiring the executive for their company or the negotiating teams for both sides who draw up union contracts. I do not care if Andrew Leslie is a Liberal or Conservative or a Rhinoceros supporter. He joined the armed forces under certain conditions and yes, he is “entitled to his entitlements”. He has spent most of his life serving this country and deserves to take advantage of any and every perquisite that comes with that job. The silly season has obviously begun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 That's a lot of money to move a few minutes away, however as mentioned many times, if he is entitled to this move then what's the issue? Having said that I should also mention that some of us do pick up the tab when moving upon retirement. When I retired I moved from Borden to Alliston, about 10-15 minutes away from the base. As such I didn't claim a move or any expenses. My friend moved from Borden to Cookstown, about another 15 minutes away, he didn't claim any expenses either. When I retired the rules stated that the move would be covered if it was to the same place that you joined, perhaps this has been changed to cover any place you wish to live upon retirement. I don't know as I don't follow any changes to the eligibility qualifications since I retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Still it shows the same sense of entitlement as the senators, and this is no different. And people are sick and tired of it. But I love how the liberals on this board went from howling over these entitlements and then trudeau's boy gets caught and it is no longer a issue. You guys are so funny.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Fair or not, when someone makes a decision to enter politics, they put themselves under public scrutiny - and as we've found out from Bev Oda's $16 orange juice to Justin Trudeau's speaking engagements - it's no longer good enough to be "legally" within the rules - you have to live within the spirit of the rules. It really is a question of judgement and attitude towards the taxpayers - the people you serve. In Mr. Leslie's case, to the vast majority of Canadians, moving six blocks to downsize does not pass the smell test for a $72,000 expense. It would seem that the intent was to let soldiers return to their roots - or to the place that they want to put down roots.......not to move six blocks. It's about judgement - you'd think that after all that's gone with expenses over the past several years that Liberal advisors would have helped Leslie understand the perils of political life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Fair or not, when someone makes a decision to enter politics, they put themselves under public scrutiny - and as we've found out from Bev Oda's $16 orange juice to Justin Trudeau's speaking engagements - it's no longer good enough to be "legally" within the rules - you have to live within the spirit of the rules. It really is a question of judgement and attitude towards the taxpayers - the people you serve. In Mr. Leslie's case, to the vast majority of Canadians, moving six blocks to downsize does not pass the smell test for a $72,000 expense. It would seem that the intent was to let soldiers return to their roots - or to the place that they want to put down roots.......not to move six blocks. It's about judgement - you'd think that after all that's gone with expenses over the past several years that Liberal advisors would have helped Leslie understand the perils of political life. There certainly was a lot more negative coverage of Bev Oda and her orange juice,Leslie get's a lot of coverage too but it seems many of the same journalists are defending him. Here's a link to another guy overbilling taxpayers,but this story did not get reported for obvious reasons. http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/politics/column-lilley-lacroix-double-dips-on-expenses/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Election year is silly season. The Harper Conservatives were able to demonize David Dingwell and his “I'm entitled to my entitlements” statement by spinning that for some reason, to act according to your working contract or to follow procedure is somehow damning. As far as I can see, it would be pretty stupid and unfair to those who depend on your income to NOT take advantage of the conditions under which you were hired. Does one commend the individual who does not claim legitimate expenses on their income tax submission? Does one salute the person who refuses the pension to which they are entitled? Does one congratulate the parent who tears up the government cheque for child care? I personally believe that yes – you are entitled to your entitlements. I am probably one of the few who also accepts the $multi-million salaries and bonuses for CEO's of large companies. I believe that the individual who does not take advantage of the conditions of employment because of what others may think is not too bright a person. If one has a problem with the conditions of employment then criticize the people who drew up that contract – the government which establishes the conditions of employment for our military, the board of directors of the corporations who establish the criteria for hiring the executive for their company or the negotiating teams for both sides who draw up union contracts. I do not care if Andrew Leslie is a Liberal or Conservative or a Rhinoceros supporter. He joined the armed forces under certain conditions and yes, he is “entitled to his entitlements”. He has spent most of his life serving this country and deserves to take advantage of any and every perquisite that comes with that job. The silly season has obviously begun. Just curious,did you feel that Bev Oda was treated unfairly over that 16$ glass of orange juice?Was Bev Oda entitled to her entitlements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 This is just sour grapes on the Conservatives part and if they keep making a big deal about its going to make them look bad because they didn't change the rules and they are just peeved because he went to the Liberals and not the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 If most of it went in realtor fees, $76k would equate to about a $20 million dollar home. I had no idea generals were required to live in homes of that quality. The government covers up to 5% loss of the value for serving members if I remember correctly. So that means if the house is valued at $1,000,000 and the sale prose is $960,000 them that difference will be reimbursed. Usually it is for out of town moves but ultimately it is meant to prevent service members, wether they are generals or privates, from taking a massive financial hit when they are forced to move every 3 years or so. I don't know the specifics but the whole purpose of this program is to keep members from losing tens of thousands of dollars over the length of their career because they had to move on short notice during a downturn in the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) This is just sour grapes on the Conservatives part and if they keep making a big deal about its going to make them look bad because they didn't change the rules and they are just peeved because he went to the Liberals and not the Tories. Not sour grapes at all - although nice spin control attempt by the Liberal braintrust. It's just another layer to his rocky entry to politics. Not only bad judgement on his expenses - but now it's clear that he was shopping himself around. Leslie did not deny that he was the one who actually approached the Conservatives. Edited February 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 So it appears Leslie was shopping himself out to the highest bidder.I think he is a perfect fit for the Liberals if this is indeed the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Still it shows the same sense of entitlement as the senators, and this is no different. And people are sick and tired of it. But I love how the liberals on this board went from howling over these entitlements and then trudeau's boy gets caught and it is no longer a issue. You guys are so funny.. Come on, PIK. If your employer was willing to pay your moving, legal and real estate charges would you tell them no, you'd rather pay them yourself? Hate the game, not the player. Edited February 22, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.