Yard Ape
03-27-2004, 01:36 AM
Spouses cool to tax break for soldiers
By GRAEME SMITH AND JEFF SALLOT
From Friday's Globe and Mail (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040326.wxsoldiers26/BNStory/Front/)
Winnipeg, Ottawa — Tell Patricia Waters-Holst that Ottawa is increasing the defence budget and she'll say it's about time; she's tired of her soldier husband walking into the house stinking like burning rubber.
Her husband, who is at his unit's base in Petawawa, Ont., after dangerous missions overseas, often burns treads into military truck tires that have been worn bald to keep the vehicles rolling a bit longer.
"He'll come home smelling of rubber," she said. "That shows you what they have to deal with."
Military families say they are ambivalent about this week's federal budget provisions for a tax break for soldiers during the time they serve in danger zones.
"Something's better than nothing, but it's not nearly enough," Ms. Waters-Holst said.
Pat O'Keefe, whose husband serves with an Edmonton-based unit, doesn't think much of the tax break. The money would be better spent on improving disability benefits for injured soldiers, she said.
She also worries about the vulnerability of soldiers working with old equipment. "I would rather have my husband with the best equipment than getting a tax break."
It will take billions of dollars and several years to repair the damage inflicted on the Canadian Forces when Prime Minister Paul Martin was the government's budget-slasher a decade ago, defence groups said.
The $300-million increase in defence spending announced this week in the Martin government's first budget is only a preliminary step toward a return to the robust military capability Canada once possessed, the groups said.
"Canada's military equipment is facing massive obsolescence starting in 2005," the Conference of Defence Associations said in a background paper, which argued that the Canadian Forces need a $2-billion-a-year boost in the capital budget for replacement equipment.
"They are starting slowly to address the problem," said Alain Pellerin, executive director of CDA, an umbrella group representing the defence lobby.
The government is providing an additional $300-million this year to cover incremental costs of missions in Afghanistan and Haiti.
It is accelerating the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft. Even so, it will take years to replace the obsolete fleet.
Mr. Martin has hinted there may be further increases in defence spending in coming years. But first he wants to review foreign and defence policy.
Mr. Pellerin says he thinks the emphasis will remain with the army. Infantry soldiers will be sent on overseas peacekeeping missions and into more dangerous combat operations, such as the joint mission with the United States in Afghanistan two years ago.
While the government is finally replacing old army jeeps, other vehicles are wearing out, without a plan to replace them.
Getting soldiers and equipment to the front lines will also remain a serious problem, Mr. Pellerin said, noting that the Canadian Forces have only 32 medium-range Hercules air transports. Many of those are old, and "if you are lucky, on a good day, 10 of them are flying."
Even if the government decided to replace the Hercules fleet today, it would take 10 years before the new aircraft started to arrive.
The military is caught in a double bind, with trouble recruiting and training because more experienced troops are often overseas and are unavailable to teach new recruits.
Many military families have mixed feelings about the government's decision to give an income-tax holiday each day soldiers are on duty in danger zones, Ms. Waters-Holst said.
Her husband, her brother-in-law and her eldest daughter all serve in the military, she said, and the tax break won't compensate for low wages and shoddy equipment.
Her husband makes about $47,000 a year, after serving for 14 years and doing tours in Bosnia and Afghanistan. "It's not much," Ms. Waters-Holst said. "It seems like his job isn't really appreciated."
Sergeant Ken Pegelo, who has served in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Cyprus, was more optimistic about the tax rebate.
"It's going to help morale," Sgt. Pegelo said. "Other countries out there are doing the same thing, so this should make people happier."
Sgt. Pegelo's wife, Bonnie, said the government shouldn't restrict the rebate to soldiers who have served in conflict zones. "I'm tired of people sitting around and saying, 'Well, my husband is more important because he's over in Afghanistan,' '' she said. "In whose eyes do they decide what's dangerous or not? Either you do it or you don't do it. There shouldn't be any in-between."
Soldiers serving in Haiti and Afghanistan will not pay tax on pay for the days they spend in those countries because of the level of hardship and danger. Defence Minister David Pratt said he is going back to cabinet next week to try to get the same tax break for soldiers in Bosnia, which is not rated as dangerous an assignment.
Dianne Collier, who has been a soldier's wife for 26 years and has interviewed hundreds of military families for her recently published book, My Love, My Life, said many families have contacted her since the budget announcement.
"We're not happy," Ms. Collier said. "The general feeling is that we need more men and more equipment, not a tax break for just some soldiers."
Cheryl Patrizio, 43, said her husband will qualify for the tax credit because he returned from Afghanistan in February. The government seems to be trying to entice the soldiers to sign up for more foreign tours, she said, but many of them are exhausted.
"If you've been on tour after tour, a tax break won't be enough to get you going again," she said.
By GRAEME SMITH AND JEFF SALLOT
From Friday's Globe and Mail (http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040326.wxsoldiers26/BNStory/Front/)
Winnipeg, Ottawa — Tell Patricia Waters-Holst that Ottawa is increasing the defence budget and she'll say it's about time; she's tired of her soldier husband walking into the house stinking like burning rubber.
Her husband, who is at his unit's base in Petawawa, Ont., after dangerous missions overseas, often burns treads into military truck tires that have been worn bald to keep the vehicles rolling a bit longer.
"He'll come home smelling of rubber," she said. "That shows you what they have to deal with."
Military families say they are ambivalent about this week's federal budget provisions for a tax break for soldiers during the time they serve in danger zones.
"Something's better than nothing, but it's not nearly enough," Ms. Waters-Holst said.
Pat O'Keefe, whose husband serves with an Edmonton-based unit, doesn't think much of the tax break. The money would be better spent on improving disability benefits for injured soldiers, she said.
She also worries about the vulnerability of soldiers working with old equipment. "I would rather have my husband with the best equipment than getting a tax break."
It will take billions of dollars and several years to repair the damage inflicted on the Canadian Forces when Prime Minister Paul Martin was the government's budget-slasher a decade ago, defence groups said.
The $300-million increase in defence spending announced this week in the Martin government's first budget is only a preliminary step toward a return to the robust military capability Canada once possessed, the groups said.
"Canada's military equipment is facing massive obsolescence starting in 2005," the Conference of Defence Associations said in a background paper, which argued that the Canadian Forces need a $2-billion-a-year boost in the capital budget for replacement equipment.
"They are starting slowly to address the problem," said Alain Pellerin, executive director of CDA, an umbrella group representing the defence lobby.
The government is providing an additional $300-million this year to cover incremental costs of missions in Afghanistan and Haiti.
It is accelerating the purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft. Even so, it will take years to replace the obsolete fleet.
Mr. Martin has hinted there may be further increases in defence spending in coming years. But first he wants to review foreign and defence policy.
Mr. Pellerin says he thinks the emphasis will remain with the army. Infantry soldiers will be sent on overseas peacekeeping missions and into more dangerous combat operations, such as the joint mission with the United States in Afghanistan two years ago.
While the government is finally replacing old army jeeps, other vehicles are wearing out, without a plan to replace them.
Getting soldiers and equipment to the front lines will also remain a serious problem, Mr. Pellerin said, noting that the Canadian Forces have only 32 medium-range Hercules air transports. Many of those are old, and "if you are lucky, on a good day, 10 of them are flying."
Even if the government decided to replace the Hercules fleet today, it would take 10 years before the new aircraft started to arrive.
The military is caught in a double bind, with trouble recruiting and training because more experienced troops are often overseas and are unavailable to teach new recruits.
Many military families have mixed feelings about the government's decision to give an income-tax holiday each day soldiers are on duty in danger zones, Ms. Waters-Holst said.
Her husband, her brother-in-law and her eldest daughter all serve in the military, she said, and the tax break won't compensate for low wages and shoddy equipment.
Her husband makes about $47,000 a year, after serving for 14 years and doing tours in Bosnia and Afghanistan. "It's not much," Ms. Waters-Holst said. "It seems like his job isn't really appreciated."
Sergeant Ken Pegelo, who has served in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Cyprus, was more optimistic about the tax rebate.
"It's going to help morale," Sgt. Pegelo said. "Other countries out there are doing the same thing, so this should make people happier."
Sgt. Pegelo's wife, Bonnie, said the government shouldn't restrict the rebate to soldiers who have served in conflict zones. "I'm tired of people sitting around and saying, 'Well, my husband is more important because he's over in Afghanistan,' '' she said. "In whose eyes do they decide what's dangerous or not? Either you do it or you don't do it. There shouldn't be any in-between."
Soldiers serving in Haiti and Afghanistan will not pay tax on pay for the days they spend in those countries because of the level of hardship and danger. Defence Minister David Pratt said he is going back to cabinet next week to try to get the same tax break for soldiers in Bosnia, which is not rated as dangerous an assignment.
Dianne Collier, who has been a soldier's wife for 26 years and has interviewed hundreds of military families for her recently published book, My Love, My Life, said many families have contacted her since the budget announcement.
"We're not happy," Ms. Collier said. "The general feeling is that we need more men and more equipment, not a tax break for just some soldiers."
Cheryl Patrizio, 43, said her husband will qualify for the tax credit because he returned from Afghanistan in February. The government seems to be trying to entice the soldiers to sign up for more foreign tours, she said, but many of them are exhausted.
"If you've been on tour after tour, a tax break won't be enough to get you going again," she said.