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

Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.
 
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?

Yes.
1. It is not the majority
2. It is not pay, it is an allowance.
3. It is not the brunt.

I do not agree with it. I believe that it is wrong. I believe it is stupid. However, if they need to cut the budget due to sequestration, I have not seen any defense why they should not cut here. This person that I quoted hurt more than she helped impo.
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

I don't disagree with you at all.

It is wrong, but let me ask you, would you get divorced over this issue? Would you get out because maybe you will lose what...12K a year at most?

Yes, many will leave, but I think it is more of the last straw than the just they are getting only 50% BAH.

Let me repeat I do not agree with this, but if it is a sequestration issue, than please show me another option.
~ Hornet, the 35 issue in this case is not a fair comparison. Should it be killed? I don't know, maybe, probably. However, it is safe from the sequestration aspect. BAH is not.

Where is the outcry over base pay? where was the outcry that military members went into foreclosure at a very high rate?

Be honest would you divorce your spouse ? That to me is playing the game of chicken. Nobody in their right mind would divorce because they lost 50% of their BAH. If they did than I would say they are very greedy.
~ O5 in NoVA gets 2556 a month. That means they would lose 18K a year for 50%. Total BAH would be 4800+ O3 is 2163, Dual would be 3100+
~~ Mtg term for dual would be for an O3 at 3100 @500K. mtg,

Again, I think they are penalizing our military members
 
Last edited:
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

The US is $18 trillion in debt. Our current system isn't sustainable.
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

The US is $18 trillion in debt. Our current system isn't sustainable.
tankercaptain - Neither is supporting the military industrial complex or funding the outdated A10, Armor tanks that is pork for some MoC district. How about taking care of the troops!
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

MOAA would disagree with you. Further, the 2012 report makes assumptions, particularly about salary and healthcare cost growth that have not materialized. Even that report shows military compensation around 30%. I'm unsure where the proportion is suddenly way higher in that report?
http://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

If this is such a huge deal, why not target other pay as well? Do we need incentive pay? Is it fair for a pilot to get so much more a month than an infantry guy? Or submarines? Or surface warfare. So much unfairness....
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

The US is $18 trillion in debt. Our current system isn't sustainable.
tankercaptain - Neither is supporting the military industrial complex or funding the outdated A10, Armor tanks that is pork for some MoC district. How about taking care of the troops!

I don't support those things but again you are missing the point in what BAH was created. To say taking care of troops is disingenuous at best.
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

MOAA would disagree with you. Further, the 2012 report makes assumptions, particularly about salary and healthcare cost growth that have not materialized. Even that report shows military compensation around 30%. I'm unsure where the proportion is suddenly way higher in that report?
http://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

If this is such a huge deal, why not target other pay as well? Do we need incentive pay? Is it fair for a pilot to get so much more a month than an infantry guy? Or submarines? Or surface warfare. So much unfairness....

MOAA is not as impartial as CBO, however incentive pay is just that, incentive pay designed to keep individuals in specific career fields. BAH is a very different animal. Please remember what BAH was designed for,brother than what you fell it should be for.
 
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.

It stands for housing allowance. It doesn't stand for starting a family. It doesn't stand for a Grad degree.

It also means that every military member, married or not should get the same allowance. That is why I am against this. This is not the 1950s where wives stayed at home to raise a family.

It is wrong to penalize our military members. End of subject. Period. Dot.
 
I adore you Hornet, but how is flight pay (retention) comparable to BAH?
 
Cool, let's target the married mil-mil people. If it passes, expect a lot of mil-mil married folk to either divorce or one decide to get out ASAP.

Frankly, personnel pay is not the problem for the DoD. It's been the same portion of the DoD budget for decades. I get it, Congress would rather cut a minority's pay in lieu of possibly losing some pork in their district from the F-35 or some other contract or a BRAC. Roger.

Honestly your post is opinion and not fact.
Also according to CBO military compensation is becoming a larger part of DoD budget.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-14-12-MilitaryComp_0.pdf

MOAA would disagree with you. Further, the 2012 report makes assumptions, particularly about salary and healthcare cost growth that have not materialized. Even that report shows military compensation around 30%. I'm unsure where the proportion is suddenly way higher in that report?
http://www.moaa.org/factvsfiction/

If this is such a huge deal, why not target other pay as well? Do we need incentive pay? Is it fair for a pilot to get so much more a month than an infantry guy? Or submarines? Or surface warfare. So much unfairness....

How fare is it when a dual married military couple receives $4,300 a month in BAH when a married military officer to a working civilian only receives $1,900 a month? There is an inherit problem with in the military compensation system.
 
This has been a very fun thread. I've watched the back and forth from the comfort of my apartment building's hot tub on this fine 55 degree day near Washington, D.C.

First, as other have said, BAH is an allowance, not pay. I understand many service members use it for more than just housing, I sure did, but at the end of the day, that's what it's for… housing.

I came to Washington, D.C., in 2008. The BAH at the time was, rounded up a bit, $2,000 a month. I found a nice one bedroom apartment in Old Town Alexandria, a half a mile or so from the King Street Metro station, for $1,250 a month. I was able to pocket $750 a month, of non taxed "pay". Obviously, over a year that adds up. Over three years it really adds up. Eventually I moved to a similar unit, again in old town, for $1,200 a month.

After I left the Coast Guard I found a three bed, one and 1/2 bath townhouse one street over. It was probably 1,800-2,000 sq. ft., for $2,000. I could have split the place with two other guys and we could have pocketed $4,000 a MONTH, all non taxed. That would have sounded pretty good. We were be better off. But, is that what this housing allowance is really for? Is it really so I can pocket thousands of dollars a year, all of which isn't taxed?

I don't think so. Doesn't mean it wasn't nice, or it wasn't helpful. It doesn't mean I wasn't able to throw my money around a bit. But I'm not sure if the Coast Guard, or the nation as a whole was better off for it.

I rent a $1,600 a month apartment now, just off the Blue Line in Alexandria. The apartment complex has a shuttle to the Metro, a big pool, a hot tub, a pub, a gym, a basketball court, a movie theater, grills and even a dog washing station. If I wanted two bedroom, it would be closer to $1,800, a three bedroom, maybe $2,000-$2,200. Still, no where near the $4,000 a two-mil couple would get in D.C. In fact, you'll get a whole lot of house for $4,000 a month, even in D.C.

Now, as we know, members of the military don't think of BAH that way. They see it as an add-on. "I'm moving from Mobile, AL, to Washington, DC….. bring on the big $$" or even better… San Fran. But that's NOT what it's for. I can't remember the last shipmate I had who exceeded his BAH…. not here, not anywhere else.

And we don't want to make the argument "what about all of the other dumb pay in the military" because, yes, you are correct…. the military REALLY wastes money.

If I pulled into Port au Prince, Haiti on Dec. 31, I, and my 70 other shipmates would receive $150 (I think) for hazard pay. We could only get that once a month. If we pulled in a day later, Jan. 1, we would again get $150. But why? We didn't sink. If we hadn't received that pay, we STILL would have pulled in to port to repatriate Haitian migrants. No one jointed the Coast Guard for that extra $150 a month (when it happens).

I don't think married members should receive less than individuals rooming together, but I'm not sure how you'd enforce that. Maybe you do it like this….

For a geographic location the military will pay up to certain amount, maybe in D.C. that's $1,600. Anything over that amount you're responsible for. If you're under that amount, the military will pay up to the monthly rental rate. That means you'd have to go through the military to pay for it (provide the lease agreement to your command). In the end it will mean the service member is getting what the BAH is paying for, and there will be less waste. That's not "$1,600 per person," that's "per lease agreement." A married couple, with dependents can have up to 50% more, so $2,400 a month.

Some will say "just give them higher pay" but that will ignore the other issue….. the military's horrible retirement system, and unlike allowances, pay is used to determine retirement checks.
 
I don't think married members should receive less than individuals rooming together, but I'm not sure how you'd enforce that. Maybe you do it like this….

This I agree with.

Under the proposed system two unmarried service members would get 75% of their BAH each, Married would lose the lesser of the two BAH. It would seem logical to just make it the same for each scenario, two service members living together whether married or not would receive 75% of their respective BAH.
 
First, I figure BAH pays the rent AND utilities, not just the cost of rent. When my DS lived on base those were all covered. He was told he had to move off base and given BAH which was an allowance they deemed enough in that area to replace his on base housing. So he looks off base and finds with what they give him ($1000/month) that he would need to look at apartments in the 600-800/month range so he would have enough to cover his utilities. Well he looked, and I looked. The places were not very nice. So he rooms with two other guys so they can live in a nicer part of town and a nicer apartment. Shame on them! They have no right to live in a nice apartment on our dime!

I have no idea how others are pocketing so much money, but I know my son (E4) pays his bills, has spending money and is putting $300/month in his Roth IRA. He is NOT getting rich. So we should now take $250/month away from him (His retirement)? I don't get it. Sorry folks but the low ranking enlisted are NOT getting rich off the military.

I'll have to wait and see when my younger one graduates the Academy and commissions before I can speak about the officer ranks....
 
Last edited:
If they are doing this for Military to Military, shouldn't they be doing this in all government positions? Why just the military? So if we have two people who are married or live together and they are funded by taxpayer dollars shouldn't we reduce their pay? Don't tell me they don't get a housing allowance because it is included in their salary. I think this needs to apply across the board with ALL government positions to include our politicians. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!
 
So he rooms with two other guys so they can live in a nicer part of town and a nicer apartment.

I didn't see if this is accounted for in the proposal. It talks about 75% for two service members that live together. What happens if it's 3 or more? Does it go lower? or it stays at 75% for all of them?

My gut tells me this is a bad idea and will cost more to manage that they save but its been along time since I had to worry about this so I don't really know what this currently military really needs.
 
If they are doing this for Military to Military, shouldn't they be doing this in all government positions? Why just the military? So if we have two people who are married or live together and they are funded by taxpayer dollars shouldn't we reduce their pay? Don't tell me they don't get a housing allowance because it is included in their salary. I think this needs to apply across the board with ALL government positions to include our politicians. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

Um, because the federal government doesn't give civilian employees money for their housing….. and remember those civilian employees pay taxes on 100% of the money they get...
 
How fare is it when a dual married military couple receives $4,300 a month in BAH when a married military officer to a working civilian only receives $1,900 a month? There is an inherit problem with in the military compensation system.
How does $1,900 x 2 equal $4300?

As to why two military members should get BAH...because they are both equal employees of the DoD? (Assuming equal rank and location for BAH).
The military member married to a civilian should get the BAH for one military member. Their spouse should get whatever pay they accepted/negotiated with their employer.
 
How fare is it when a dual married military couple receives $4,300 a month in BAH when a married military officer to a working civilian only receives $1,900 a month? There is an inherit problem with in the military compensation system.
How does $1,900 x 2 equal $4300?

As to why two military members should get BAH...because they are both equal employees of the DoD? (Assuming equal rank and location for BAH).
The military member married to a civilian should get the BAH for one military member. Their spouse should get whatever pay they accepted/negotiated with their employer.
I was using the two individuals quoted in that navy times article. However my point is BAH is according to what it was intended for.

The other issue is that honestly this is too personnel a subject for you too look at objectively.
 
We will have to agree to disagree on paying them for housing. Part of my salary goes to paying for my house. Just because they don't separate it out doesn't mean they aren't paying for my house. If it is about the taxes, well then that is what the law should be about.

If you are going to take money away from two military members because they got married or roomed together then this should work for ALL government employees. And do you not think this will create a LOT of "Living together but not married" military couples?

If you were in the military and did not see HUGE wastes of spending you must have had your eyes closed. This is like cutting your fingernail to spite your arm. Go after the real waste of money in the spending (Oh wait that would entail chopping a politicians pet project) and quit nickel and diming the peon's that actually do the job. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show.
 
Back
Top