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

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.
Perhaps that's the problem...what is the intent?
Is it an estimated average cost of "reasonable" housing for that pay grade?
Is it a sum of money to be used exclusively for direct housing costs?
Is it the estimated housing part of total compensation or some special money that isn't part of "pay and compensation?"
 
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.
Perhaps that's the problem...what is the intent?
Is it an estimated average cost of "reasonable" housing for that pay grade?
Is it a sum of money to be used exclusively for direct housing costs?
Is it the estimated housing part of total compensation or some special money that isn't part of "pay and compensation?"

According to the DoD. Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is a U.S. based allowance prescribed by geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status. It provides uniformed Service members equitable housing compensation based on housing costs in local civilian housing markets within the United States when government quarters are not provided. 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.
 
Perhaps that's the problem...what is the intent?
Is it an estimated average cost of "reasonable" housing for that pay grade?
Is it a sum of money to be used exclusively for direct housing costs?
Is it the estimated housing part of total compensation or some special money that isn't part of "pay and compensation?"

I think that answer depends on whether it is affecting your income or someone else's....;)
 
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.

You are creating a straw man argument and not looking at the government intent of BAH. Ilook will not disagree on huge government waste, example just look at the LCS, however dual military BAH is an easy item for congress to use an excuse to reduce spending.
 
Perhaps that's the problem...what is the intent?
Is it an estimated average cost of "reasonable" housing for that pay grade?
Is it a sum of money to be used exclusively for direct housing costs?
Is it the estimated housing part of total compensation or some special money that isn't part of "pay and compensation?"

I think that answer depends on whether it is affecting your income or someone elese's....;)

That's the problem is that too many individuals can not look at this objectively. It effects everyone's income.
 
I think this action is a continuation of the poor treatment this country has always treated its military members and veterans. Especially the wounded mentally and physically. The American Pattern of forgetting those who defend once the war fever wears off.

Like everything else it all started in New Jersey

"The Pennsylvania Line of Continental Army --- with their enlistments up -- were forced to stay in service. When they walked off the job at Jockey Hollow in 1781, citing deplorable conditions and lousy pay, it was called a mutiny. When the New Jersey Line tried it a few weeks later in Pequannock, two mutineers where shot by firing squad.
Nationwide, Civil War veterans suffering from "Soldier's Heart," known today as post-traumatic stress disorder, or "Soldier's Disease" which was addiction to pain-killing heroin, went untreated. They spent their lives in jails, asylums or run-down soldiers' homes.
A large group of unemployed World War I veterans called the "Bonus Army" marched on Washington in 1932. Two were shot and killed by police, and their camp was routed by Army troops led by two famous names in American military history: Douglas MacArthur and George Patton.
In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge vetoed a bill giving those veterans benefits, saying "Patriotism bought and paid for is not patriotism." Easy for him to say; he wasn't a veteran. Neither was Herbert Hoover, who ordered the attack on the camp.
Combat veterans ever since have their post-war stories. The warehousing of "shell-shocked" World War II veterans. The neglect of the atomic veterans. The antipathy at home for Vietnam veterans. The veterans' care scandals of our latest wars -- the terrible conditions at Walter Reed, the long waits for treatment by the VA."

This post was a complete piracy of a recent news article.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/this_memorial_day_lets_also_remember_those_who_nea.html
 
My bet is that this new proposal will die on a desk in the Senate. It's an election year and if this keeps being pushed it will be interesting to hear how the candidates line up.
 
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....

What is a service member entitled to? Is a service member entitled to a "nice place" to live? Is a service member entitled to save money for retirement? Many young folks with average jobs struggle to have nice place to live and save for retirement, so why should it be it be a different for our service members? Joining the military is not the best path to ensure you live in a nice place and save for retirement. Yes many low enlisted ranking soldiers are not getting rich off the miltiary, but for most of thme are well compensated compare to their peers in the civilian sector. Say a typical highschool graduate makes $12 per hour, that $1920 a month before taxes and any deduction for benefits and plus very little benefits. A E4 with over 2 years make $2122 in base pay, plus BAH and BAS if leaving off base, no deduction for health insurance, 30 days of paid vacation, and unlimited sick leave.
 
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.

It's a much bigger number than 12k.

For me over the remainder of my career it could be a difference of $399,000. If I move to the only other location I can be it would be $302,000 over the remainder of my career.

I can assure you there would be two immediate discussions in my household. 1) Does it make sense to get divorced looking at the entirety of the situation including potential difficulties with collocation? And 2) how soon can one of us get out instead of staying to retirement? That 300,000+ greatly shifts the cost/benefit ratio for my family in both of us staying in.

I would also be looking at how for one of us to get out of any current obligated service and leave the service now based on the fundamental change in the pay system under which we originally joined including a discussion with a lawyer in regards to a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit given it would disproportionately effect female service members.

Never in a million years did I think I would even consider divorcing my spouse, but this would certainly bring it into the conversation.
 
I think this action is a continuation of the poor treatment this country has always treated its military members and veterans. Especially the wounded mentally and physically. The American Pattern of forgetting those who defend once the war fever wears off.

True enough, which begs a question of why some people still volunteer to serve - ignorance or something else?
 
For me over the remainder of my career it could be a difference of $399,000. If I move to the only other location I can be it would be $302,000 over the remainder of my career.

That $399,000 depends on many factor - based on your BAH amount your might chose to get a better place, if there is any saving you might increase your disposable spending, and etc.
 
That $399,000 depends on many factor - based on your BAH amount your might chose to get a better place, if there is any saving you might increase your disposable spending, and etc.

No that $399,000 disappears completely. It doesn't matter if I currently spend that money on housing or not. With current rules I will get that money. With the Senate proposal I would not.

I go from X number of dollars a month to Zero if this were to go into effect.
 
I adore you Hornet, but how is flight pay (retention) comparable to BAH?

Taking away 12K a year in BAH will also affect retention. Go after military compensation piece by piece. First BAH for dual military. Then maybe they ask why pilots get paid more than others. Then doctors. As kp pointed out, reducing that BAH suddenly changes the calculus for their family. Had I stayed in, it would have been a huge factor for DH and me.
 
One of the elephants in the room is retention of female officers. Women make up an increasing percentage of the officer corps but attrite voluntarily (as in choose to leave for reasons other than they weren't selected for promotion) at a much higher rate than their male counterparts. Also, I have every reason to believe that, if only one member of a military couple decides to leave the service, it's usually the female. [The foregoing may also be true for enlisted; I just don't know].

The above isn't good for any number of reasons. While I don't have the data, anecdotally it seems that most female military officers who marry end up marrying fellow officers (vs. civilians). IMHO, the military is going to need to rethink how it deals with military couples, including assignments and compensation, while still remaining fair to singles and those married to civilians.

To bring the discussion around to the topic at hand, the new BAH provision is just one more reason that one or both members of a military couple may leave the service. Is this the "best" reason or the only one? Of course not. But when military members are thinking about their futures, this may be one more reason that women especially say goodbye.
 
It might be interesting to see if the other services hand out the same incentive bonuses as the cash flush Air Force....
 
It might be interesting to see if the other services hand out the same incentive bonuses as the cash flush Air Force....

Most do, I know for physicians the incentives are the same across the 3 medical departments. For Naval Aviators there is a department head bonus that is quite substantial.
 
The above isn't good for any number of reasons. While I don't have the data, anecdotally it seems that most female military officers who marry end up marrying fellow officers (vs. civilians). IMHO, the military is going to need to rethink how it deals with military couples, including assignments and compensation, while still remaining fair to singles and those married to civilians.

These numbers are in the DoD 2012 demographics report on page 47.
http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf

In a dual military marriage: 3.8% of men, 20.9% of women.
Of those who are married, percentage who are in a dual military marriage: 6.6% of men, 46.5% of women.

So nearly half of married military women are in dual-military. This BAH policy would really hurt military women and create a wage gap where there was none.

Another side note, the number of military members married has steadily declined from 60% in 1995 to 52.3% in 2012.
 
The above isn't good for any number of reasons. While I don't have the data, anecdotally it seems that most female military officers who marry end up marrying fellow officers (vs. civilians). IMHO, the military is going to need to rethink how it deals with military couples, including assignments and compensation, while still remaining fair to singles and those married to civilians.

These numbers are in the DoD 2012 demographics report on page 47.
http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf

In a dual military marriage: 3.8% of men, 20.9% of women.
Of those who are married, percentage who are in a dual military marriage: 6.6% of men, 46.5% of women.

So nearly half of married military women are in dual-military. This BAH policy would really hurt military women and create a wage gap where there was none.

Another side note, the number of military members married has steadily declined from 60% in 1995 to 52.3% in 2012.


Except their pay grade is the same, and it wouldn't create a gap unless you doctor the statistics. It would hurt women no more than it would hurt men in the same situation (and because it's dual military, we can assume the same number of men are affected as women).
 
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.

It's a much bigger number than 12k.

For me over the remainder of my career it could be a difference of $399,000. If I move to the only other location I can be it would be $302,000 over the remainder of my career.

I can assure you there would be two immediate discussions in my household. 1) Does it make sense to get divorced looking at the entirety of the situation including potential difficulties with collocation? And 2) how soon can one of us get out instead of staying to retirement? That 300,000+ greatly shifts the cost/benefit ratio for my family in both of us staying in.

I would also be looking at how for one of us to get out of any current obligated service and leave the service now based on the fundamental change in the pay system under which we originally joined including a discussion with a lawyer in regards to a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit given it would disproportionately effect female service members.

Never in a million years did I think I would even consider divorcing my spouse, but this would certainly bring it into the conversation.

While I realize that this is a very personnel thing, you have forgotten the intention of BAH. Prior to 2000 BAH was very different and service members survived and served. However, while your post is an emotional reaction, I find it disingenuous that you would threaten divorcee over losing BAH. Finally you do have the option to leave active duty and continue your service in the reserves. Your earning potential on the outside as an Ophthalmologist is rather high with an average salary in the $200,000 range.

Finally there is nothing to prove that removing mil to mil BAH will have a mass exodus of service members. I think you are forgetting key factors such as the economy, and the ability of prior service military members to earn a comparable salary.
 
1) In dual military couples, the man is more likely to be higher in rank or have greater time in service
2) The gap isn't direct in the sense that gender = woman so pay is reduced. Of married women in the military, half are dual military. This policy will disproportionally affect women service members. If you average the income lost over both members in the couple, the numbers will show women receiving less income overall than men - argue about the method as you wish but the media will jump on it.
Finally there is nothing to prove that removing mil to mil BAH will have a mass exodus of service members.
Mass exodus? No. But female retention will be hurt much more and that looks bad in the press and goes directly against a DoD (or at least AF) prerogative to improve female retention.

While I realize that this is a very personnel thing, you have forgotten the intention of BAH. Prior to 2000 BAH was very different and service members survived and served.
Did dual military have their pay docked more than others? As far as I know, they did not. It's one thing to apply a BAH policy across the whole spectrum in terms of what it covers, etc. But this targets a minority and accuses them of being paid lavish bonuses to which they didn't earn (by your accounts).

Good quote of how I see this.
It would be one thing if the base salary actually provided an equivalent market salary compared to the civilian market, but I'm sorry, it falls drastically short. BAH and BAS payments have been baked into overall equivalent compensation for decades, and marketed by the military as part of your full compensation and entitlement. Also, you have to remember, BAH is not taxed therefore the full cost of losing it in civilian terms is BAH + federal and state income taxes (generally 20% at least), so it's an even bigger loss than you might realize in terms of income.
 
Back
Top