OK everyone. Let's cool our jets a little here (pun intended) and try to get back on track in a civil manner, regardless of "perceived biases" some of us may or may not be guessing at.
Indeed, LITS ask a very good question -- Why pay a lump sum up front instead of keeping the bonus on a yearly annuity? Why risk not fulfilling the contract?
Let me provide you an answer as it was explained to me when I had similar questions when I saw the pilots I flew with getting bonuses while I did not. (full disclosure: when the AF faced a WSO shortage, they offered me a 5-year bonus at my 14 year point to stay in and fly. Sounded like a waste to me to offer it to folks at my point in my career (6 years to retirement). But heck, who was I to turn down free money? Wasn't as much as what they offered my front seaters, but it was something.)
The hope is that by offerring a "lump sum" option, more folks will sign up. Part of the "folks think short term more than long term" sense of things. By giving that short term option, they played with bigger bait in the hopes of catching more fish. They DID look at the risks, to include "what if they die before the contract is up". And frankly, the risks were very small, and when compared to the benefits of more pilots signing up, worth it.
On another clarification point: Yes, if you sign up for the lump sum, it will be taxed. Except if you sign up while in a combat zone, where all pay is "tax free". I saw a LOT of other career fields (particularly the Air Traffic Controllers, who are also offered very hefty bonuses to stay) who waited until they deployed to sign up for their bonuses while dwnrange. Folks play the system. Angers you as a taxpayer, but before you throw stones, ask yourself if you don't "stick it to the man" as well sometimes.
Now, back to our broadcast of Jerry Springer.
On that note, I'll answer everyone who complains about how the AF spends its money on it folks more than their service does with my usual response -- Don't blame us for your poor life choices....