50% BAH cuts for dual military, 25% to military roommates

1. It's not pretty clear otherwise the military would actively monitor to make sure it is used for housing and only housing. Same for BAS.

They do monitor the rate of BAH based on location, Alabama is cheaper then Hawaii.

2. For civilians, its pretty well assumed your salary includes what you need for housing. And there's no reason for a civilian employer to make that chunk explicit since there's no tax break for doing so. Military pay absent 'housing' is pretty terrible salary.

I hate to burst your bubble but civilian employers do not calculate what housing costs in the salaries they pay. Salaries are based on the market value of the employee as it pertains to their production. There is a reason that so many find it hard to pay rent in the civilian sector. Civilian salaries don't always meet the housing needs for employees. The average amount suggested as a percentage of salary for rent/mortgage is 30%. For a vast number of employees in the civilian workforce that is an unreachable goal, many pay 50% or higher. Some may disagree but for many who are the spouse of a service member it's hard to get a job that will match or even come close the the service member's salary due to the fact that they move so often and have to start over at their new location. To assume that every civilian spouse of a service member receives a salary equal to the service member including BAH and BAS is a stretch for most, I know there are exceptions.

3. What if two married members wanted to live in two different homes and not together.

I guess that would be their decision, not sure what the benefit would be and if that's the case there are more issues then just BAH. That does bring up one good question though, what if a Mil-Mil couple decides to separate prior to a divorce, how will the military handle that BAH situation, I can see how that could be a problem.
 
Last edited:
I lived in the DC area and lived pretty well. I lived in NOVA, about 8 miles from the DC line. I know single family homes where I lived rented within BAH for families and have great public schools. Many of the military families I knew who had crazy commutes were folks who wanted to buy McMansions with 3,000 square feet, 4 bedrooms, giant master bedrooms, an office and 3 car garage. Renting can be tough in that area, but there are options. I lived up there for a decade and saw families make both decisions. Those that rented and lived closer I noticed tended to have a better quality of life with their commute and time. But everyone makes their choice. It might not get someone something super nice and shiny, but it would get them a reasonable home in a safe quality neighborhood... Sounds almost alot like base housing.
 
Will any of you say that if sequestration did not exist this would have occurred?

Yes, even without the sequestration, the DoD would had to figure out how to pay for their expansive toys and address the rising personnel costs. Given a choice, DoD will spend more on on their equipment than improve personnel compensation. The sequestration does makes it worse, but the sky hasn't fallen neither as some have predicted.

I agree the sky has not fallen, but I am cynical.

I believe MoCs will pay for expensive toys if the toys are in their district. I believe that these same MoCs will save the toys and vote to change BAH if that is a factor for re-election. Just me, a cynic, but I don't believe that give a care when it comes to the military.

I believe their only concern is re-election and what they can sell to voters.
 
I lived in the DC area and lived pretty well. I lived in NOVA, about 8 miles from the DC line. I know single family homes where I lived rented within BAH for families and have great public schools. Many of the military families I knew who had crazy commutes were folks who wanted to buy McMansions with 3,000 square feet, 4 bedrooms, giant master bedrooms, an office and 3 car garage. Renting can be tough in that area, but there are options. I lived up there for a decade and saw families make both decisions. Those that rented and lived closer I noticed tended to have a better quality of life with their commute and time. But everyone makes their choice. It might not get someone something super nice and shiny, but it would get them a reasonable home in a safe quality neighborhood... Sounds almost alot like base housing.
I was a realtor in No VA for almost a decade. My typical clients were O4/O5/O6. None of them purchased a Mc Mansion.
~ OBTW Mc Mansion is not 3K, it is 5-6 K+ sqft.

As a realtor, on both sides of the fence for Fairfax, PW, Loudon and Stafford, my clients always stayed within their BAH, and their 1st concern was school districts. They walked in and said this is my BAH, I need X bedrooms.I want to be in this school district. I would like a fenced yard, pool community, etc. etc., and I don't want to commute more than an hour via Slug.

Sorry, but you made me laugh...3K sqft is not a McMansion. 6K + on an 1/4 acre is. 3K in NoVa is an average home.

FYI, we bought in PW as an O5 select, because we could not afford a towmhouse in Arlington or Alexandria in the best school districts.

Back on topic...explain to me why you support this?
 
Last edited:
I agree the sky has not fallen, but I am cynical.

I believe MoCs will pay for expensive toys if the toys are in their district. I believe that these same MoCs will save the toys and vote to change BAH if that is a factor for re-election. Just me, a cynic, but I don't believe that give a care when it comes to the military.

I believe their only concern is re-election and what they can sell to voters.

Since this is McCain's proposal, perhaps he is hoping he can use these savings to save the A-10 fleet at DM. You're not the only cynic around here.

The military probably does need to reform/modernize compensation, retirement and all the other associated costs, but it seems so disingenuous for those in Congress to support cuts in compensation while simultaneously blocking retirements of weapon systems for which the services say they have no need. Especially when the congressional leaders behind blocking a particular system's retirement conveniently represent the state/district where they can be found.
 
Support what? Not tracking you. I don't support this proposal at all.
 
Tell that to some folks that work in DC with long commutes.[/QUOTE]

Those folks drive that long distance to save money on housing. Should the company they work for reduce their pay since they are getting by cheaper than the guy who pays more for his house because he lives closer?

That is the same as a military member who rooms with another to save money. Do you think it is an ideal situation for them to share an apartment? I am pretty sure they'd rather have a place of their own. What happens when their roomate is deployed? Will they be reimbursed for the additional cost then because they will then be footing the bill for that extra room? They take a risk when they do this to save a few bucks. Will the Government then assume that risk?
 
Those folks drive that long distance to save money on housing. Should the company they work for reduce their pay since they are getting by cheaper than the guy who pays more for his house because he lives closer?

That is the same as a military member who rooms with another to save money. Do you think it is an ideal situation for them to share an apartment? I am pretty sure they'd rather have a place of their own. What happens when their roomate is deployed? Will they be reimbursed for the additional cost then because they will then be footing the bill for that extra room? They take a risk when they do this to save a few bucks. Will the Government then assume that risk?

All good points, but until we agree on how to classify BAH, we will agree to disagree. Is BAH for housing or a subterfuge to give more compensation to service members without appearing to do so by calling it BAH? Some service members often don't mention BAH and BAS when discussing how much they get paid.
 
All good points, but until we agree on how to classify BAH, we will agree to disagree. Is BAH for housing or a subterfuge to give more compensation to service members without appearing to do so by calling it BAH? Some service members often don't mention BAH and BAS when discussing how much they get paid.

Well if they want to have that control then they need to provide them with on base housing and the problem is solved. If they cannot or do not provide base housing then why should they try to control how they use the money they are alloted? To tell them they need to move off base, allot them money deemed enough to cover that and then want control on who they live with our how they spend it is wrong.

BAH is an amount of money they deemed to be acceptable to provide housing off base in the area they live. If they want to live in a hole in the ground to save a few bucks that is their business. If they want to room with others to save a few bucks that is their business.

What is next? If my DS decides he wants to save money by eating Raman noodles and doesn't spend all his BAS on food should they reduce that as well? Perhaps they need to start examining stool samples to see what they are eating! :rolleyes:

The funny part is the morons coming up with these ideas (McCain and the other Politicians) rape the taxpayer more than anyone. The fox guarding the hen house. I am pretty sure that Dennis Hastert managed to save at least $3 million!

This reeks of more Total Government control. Provide their housing and meals if you want control. But if you can't provide it then you can't control it. Again, I'm all for contolling wasted spending in the military as there is a LOT of waste. But this is not the "waste" we need to be looking at.
 
Last edited:
BAH is an amount of money they deemed to be acceptable to provide housing off base in the area they live. If they want to live in a hole in the ground to save a few bucks that is their business. If they want to room with others to save a few bucks that is their business.

Your right, they should be able to decide themselves how they spend their BAH. Personally I hope they don't change it, I know my son hopes they don't. Over the last nearly two years he has pocketed and put in savings over $35,000.00 in left over BAH, and by Fall another 12K due to being gone. Having two roommates sure does help, a Very nice house and over $1600.00 per month tax free more then someone who doesn't live in Hawaii and have roommates. The system is fine just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
BAH is an amount of money they deemed to be acceptable to provide housing off base in the area they live. If they want to live in a hole in the ground to save a few bucks that is their business. If they want to room with others to save a few bucks that is their business.

Your right, they should be able to decide themselves how they spend their BAH. Personally I hope they don't change it, I know my son hopes they don't. Over the last nearly two years he has pocketed and put in savings over $35,000.00 in left over BAH, and by Fall another 12K due to being gone. Having two roommates sure does help, a Very nice house and over $1600.00 per month tax free more then someone who doesn't live in Hawaii and have roommates. The system is fine just the way it is.

Posting the amount of money your son is saving with regards to current BAH policy does not help support the argument for maintaining the BAH model. It does quite the opposite.

It appears that people are forgetting that, Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is a U.S.-based allowance that provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local housing markets when government quarters are not provided. The goal of the program is to help members cover the costs of housing in the private sector. BAH is based only on rental properties, not homeownership costs like mortgage payments and property taxes. The goal is that members receive a BAH that is sufficient to live a reasonable distance from a duty station. BAH enables Service members to live off-base comparably to their civilian counterparts. It is not designed to cover all housing costs for all members.

The original BAH law stated that the allowance could cover no more than 80% of calculated housing costs. Accordingly, the average service member had at least 20% of out‐of‐pocket expenses subtracted from their allowance calculation. In 2000, the Secretary of Defense committed to reducing the planned average out‐of‐pocket expense for the median member to zero by 2005. In 2015, the planned out‐of‐pocket expense was reintroduced at a rate of 1% of national average costs per grade.

(When I was active duty pre 9/11 I had to turn in my rental agreement and show how much the rent was and whom I was also renting the apartment with me. My BAH was then lowered accordingly.)
 
I agree with tanker...sorry, but the bragging of pocketing money actually defends why this should not exist anymore.

FYI, until Bullet retired he actually was forced to submit our MTG statement.

Flipside... 20 years and we never owned a Mc Mansion. We were not the fortunate few that used the loophole. We also were people that said Good on you!

I don't care either way but, impo sequestration is an issue. Sen. Mc Cain is someone that has fought his entire career against pork barrel spending.

I believe this is BS, but I also believe we need to be honest on how sequestration impacts the DoD. Their hands may be tied.
 
Posting the amount of money your son is saving with regards to current BAH policy does not help support the argument for maintaining the BAH model. It does quite the opposite.

I agree with tanker...sorry, but the bragging of pocketing money actually defends why this should not exist anymore.

I guess my attempt at semi sarcasm went astray.

The post was not intended to support the system as it is, as tankercaptain said, "Quite the opposite" Did nobody read my previous posts, I seem to be one of the only voices that supports some sort of change. Not sure the one proposed is the right change but it seems that some change is coming.

One thing I do think would need to be looked at before they change the system is, Why would they allow two unmarried service members live together with each receiving 75% BAH, but two service members that are married are only given one BAH albeit at full rate. Seems to me they would need to make it even between married and non married roommates.

And PIMA, I was not bragging, just stating the facts.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article, however the officer they quote in the article, their current situation doesn't not necessaryly support the current system.







Obama opposes cuts to BAH for dual-military families

635689289052642192-460917428.jpg

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images
Some senators have proposed limiting dual-military couples to one Basic Allowance for Housing payment. less
The Obama administration on Wednesday voiced strong opposition to a controversial congressional proposal to cut back Basic Allowance for Housing for dual-military couples and for troops who share housing with other service members.

The targeted cut in BAH would "impose a marriage penalty," and "have a disproportionate negative impact on women service members," according to a statement outlining the administration's views on the Senate version of the 2016 defense authorization bill, unveiled in May.

The policy floated by the Republican-controlled Senate would limit dual-military couples to one BAH payment, specifically the rate due to the couple's higher-ranking or senior-most service member.

The proposal also would reduce BAH payments for many unmarried troops who share a home or apartment with another service member. For those in paygrades E-4 and higher, they would see their normal BAH rate cut back by 25 percent.

About 40,000 dual-military couples are on active duty around the world today, according to the Defense Department.

One of those couples recently bought a home in La Plata, Maryland, an outer-ring suburb of Washington, D.C.

"It's a pretty big piece of money that they are talking about taking away from us," said the Navy wife, a 28-year-old helicopter pilot assigned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. She asked that her name not be published because she was not authorized to speak about pending legislation.

She receives about $2,400 monthly in BAH while her husband, a submariner assigned to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, receives about $1,900 in the tax-free housing allowance. She worries that if the current proposal became law, her Navy family would lose its larger BAH payment because she was commissioned shortly before her husband, making her technically senior to him.

A cut like that would not be catastrophic, she said, noting that her mortgage payment is about $1,900 and potentially manageable on a single BAH payment. But she said she needs that money to help pay for graduate school and also to start a family, which would require full-time child care for two active-duty parents.

"I kind of look at BAH as a piece of my salary. For someone to say I should get paid less because of who I'm married to doesn't really seem fair," she said.

Military families across the force are worried about the proposal, said Joyce Raezer, executive director of the National Military Family Association.

"They feel like they are being nickel-and-dimed," Raezer said in an interview Wednesday.

The proposed cut to BAH is poorly thought out, she said. It could create a negative incentive by offering some troops more money for remaining unmarried. And it will have a disproportionate impact on women because about 20 percent of women on active duty are in dual-military couples, compared with only 3.7 percent of active-duty men.

"And how are they going to enforce that whole roommate thing?" Raezer said, wondering what kind of system DoD would develop to determine which service members are living with other service members in private-sector housing.

Today's troops have grown accustomed to a BAH policy that aims to cover up to 100 percent of estimated housing costs in a duty assignment's location.

That marks a big improvement from the 1990s, when BAH was intended only to cover about 80 percent of housing costs and troops and their families were expected to pay the remaining expense out of their own pockets.

Raezer said the rise in BAH has vastly improved service members' quality of life.

But now, as the Pentagon faces budget caps known as sequestration, BAH is a target for saving money.

DoD officially urged Congress to cut today's housing benefit to one that would cover only 95 percent of estimated housing costs. Congress gave that a cool reception last year and approved only a one-percentage-point reduction, to 99 percent.

The proposal in this year's Senate defense authorization bill would impose further gradual reductions.

The outcome of those proposals remains unclear. The House version of the annual defense bill does not contain any changes to BAH and the Obama administration's opposition to the cuts targeting dual-military families will put pressure on the Republican-controlled Senate to drop the measure from the bill in negotiations.

The cuts targeting families "will degrade the culture and environment needed to keep our military open and welcoming to military families and risks sacrificing the strengths they bring to our nation's defense," the Obama administration's statement said.
 
Jcleppe, I know you were not bragging, BUT there are many posters/lurkers that have not known you as long as I do.

Just like your post, it came across wrong.

Hell, if I am going to be brutally honest, I think you should go for it. I harbor no issue in this.

I am just saying that I want to know is this occurring from a sequestration aspect? If it is, than I agree with the cut. I want to see our military members see a better pay raise than what they have endured.
 
Jcleppe, I know you were not bragging, BUT there are many posters/lurkers that have not known you as long as I do.

Just like your post, it came across wrong.

Hell, if I am going to be brutally honest, I think you should go for it. I harbor no issue in this.

I am just saying that I want to know is this occurring from a sequestration aspect? If it is, than I agree with the cut. I want to see our military members see a better pay raise than what they have endured.

Wait, you agree with the cut where dual military have to face the brunt of sequester on pay but the majority of active duty don't have to have their BAH also cut?
 
UGH
But she said she needs that money to help pay for graduate school and also to start a family, which would require full-time child care for two active-duty parents.

1. She has TA or the GI Bill...cut me a break
2. Many military spouses need full time child care, especially enlisted.

Sorry, but that is total BS. I was a spouse when the DoD said BAH should cover 80%. Bullet got his 1st Grad/Master degree using TA. Starting a family is not why BAH exists, nor child care.

As a Realtor I can tell you that 4300, is basically a 700K mtg.
 
Jcleppe, I know you were not bragging, BUT there are many posters/lurkers that have not known you as long as I do.

Just like your post, it came across wrong.

Hell, if I am going to be brutally honest, I think you should go for it. I harbor no issue in this.

I am just saying that I want to know is this occurring from a sequestration aspect? If it is, than I agree with the cut. I want to see our military members see a better pay raise than what they have endured.

Wait, you agree with the cut where dual military have to face the brunt of sequester on pay but the majority of active duty don't have to have their BAH also cut?

Keeping the current system or changing the current system, whether right or wrong I think you forget what BAH by law is meant for.
 
Back
Top