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

[hornetguy]

From the JFTR:

Effective 1 January 1998, in general, a member on active duty entitled to basic pay is authorized a housing allowance based on the member’s grade, dependency status, and location. Rates are prescribed depending on the member’s grade and whether or not the member has a dependent. The location determines the rate, and whether the allowance is BAH or OHA. The BAH rate is based on median housing costs and is paid independently of a member’s actual housing costs.

1. BAH Rates

a. The PDTATAC determines adequate housing costs in a MHA for all Uniformed Services’ members authorized BAH. The determination for housing allowances is based upon the costs of adequate rental housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same area.

So....now that I've read chapter 10 of the JFTR (thrilling read, btw), I'm more convinced that BAH shouldn't be taken from dual military or anyone. It's an earned entitlement in the pay package meant to ensure the member can afford the median household in a location. They specifically say its independent of the actual housing cost. That actual codifies that the BAH is not an allowance only used for housing but an allowance in accordance with the housing costs of the location given grade, dependents, and location. Further, BAH rates are based upon the costs of adequate rental housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same area. Well, if two military couples are married, their income is higher and you'd expect them to have nicer housing comparable to their civilian counterparts.

As far as pre-1998, that's great as we changed the policy and it improved military pay. That doesn't somehow mean current mil-mil couples nor military room mates should be targeted for reduction. Now, if the BAH system was changed back to pre-1998 terms where you turned in your housing agreements, then so be it. At least that is a whole system change that everyone must be held to.

 

[hornetguy]

words

Forgive me for expecting a higher level of integrity from a democratically elected government and wanting to hold them to that regardless of past history. Duly noted.

 

[tankercaptain]

From the JFTR:

Effective 1 January 1998, in general, a member on active duty entitled to basic pay is authorized a housing allowance based on the member’s grade, dependency status, and location. Rates are prescribed depending on the member’s grade and whether or not the member has a dependent. The location determines the rate, and whether the allowance is BAH or OHA. The BAH rate is based on median housing costs and is paid independently of a member’s actual housing costs.

1. BAH Rates

a. The PDTATAC determines adequate housing costs in a MHA for all Uniformed Services’ members authorized BAH. The determination for housing allowances is based upon the costs of adequate rental housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same area.

So....now that I've read chapter 10 of the JFTR (thrilling read, btw), I'm more convinced that BAH shouldn't be taken from dual military or anyone. It's an earned entitlement in the pay package meant to ensure the member can afford the median household in a location. They specifically say its independent of the actual housing cost. That actual codifies that the BAH is not an allowance only used for housing but an allowance in accordance with the housing costs of the location given grade, dependents, and location. Further, BAH rates are based upon the costs of adequate rental housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same area. Well, if two military couples are married, their income is higher and you'd expect them to have nicer housing comparable to their civilian counterparts.

As far as pre-1998, that's great as we changed the policy and it improved military pay. That doesn't somehow mean current mil-mil couples nor military room mates should be targeted for reduction. Now, if the BAH system was changed back to pre-1998 terms where you turned in your housing agreements, then so be it. At least that is a whole system change that everyone must be held to.

How do you get that a dual mil to mil couple since their income is higher you'd expect them to have nice housing than their comparable civilian counterparts.
With all things being equal they should have equal housing. Your post is rather offensive.

You are getting worked up over something that will most likely not happen. The House does not have a reduction in their Bill with regards to BAH, only the Senate does. As you know before the Bill goes to the President for his signature that the House and the Senate must reconcile the Bill. With one house of congress against the changes in BAH and the President against the changes to BAH, I find it highly unlikely that will happen.

 

[NavyHoops]

It's def hard to gauge with anecdotes. Of my non-academy friends and colleagues, every dual military hetero couple has the male as the higher rank OR greater time in grade. I have heard my anecdotes more often than yours - its anecdote-ception if you ask me.

hahaha! I agree! Maybe its just because alot of my female buddies are high speed Marines and not those pesky Air Force folks!

 

[tankercaptain]

words

Forgive me for expecting a higher level of integrity from a democratically elected government and wanting to hold them to that regardless of past history. Duly noted.

Your exceptions are too high. I'd like to have higher expectations of our republic, but that's not the reality.

 

[hornetguy]

How do you get that a dual mil to mil couple since their income is higher you'd expect them to have nice housing than their comparable civilian counterparts.
With all things being equal they should have equal housing. Your post is rather offensive.

You are getting worked up over something that will most likely not happen. The House does not have a reduction in their Bill with regards to BAH, only the Senate does. As you know before the Bill goes to the President for his signature that the House and the Senate must reconcile the Bill. With one house of congress against the changes in BAH and the President against the changes to BAH, I find it highly unlikely that will happen.

That's offensive? You need to check on the definition of offensive there. A dual military couple making a combined income of $150K vs a single military making ~$75K would probably live in better housing since a civilian family making $150K probably lives in better housing than one with ~$75K. That's not uppity, that's what would come out of the demographics of the area. Higher incomes correlates to more expensive housing. Family income, not individual.

You are getting just as worked up. I'm debating you reasonably. I'm sure it won't pass either but it doesn't mean I can't debate why I find it silly and also counter the arguments of people like you who think its perfectly fair to do to mil-mil couples.

 

[tankercaptain]

You never stated salary, you stated comparable military to military vs civilian.

I'm not getting worked up but thanks for assuming. Also again you keep putting posts on things I'm saying when I didn't say them. No where in my posts do I say I support removing BAH on military to mitary couples.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Two people living in the same house do not need 2x the income. That's not how rentals work and it's not the reality of a rental situation. Sorry.

 

[usna1985]

A totally unrelated question. In the video KP2001 posted, it appears that an E-6 is wearing khakis. I thought that was reserved for Chiefs. Has there been a change?

 

[tankercaptain]

A totally unrelated question. In the video KP2001 posted, it appears that an E-6 is wearing khakis. I thought that was reserved for Chiefs. Has there been a change?

Since 2010 E6 and below wear a khaki shirt and black trousers.

http://www.new-navy-uniform.com/files/NewsGram2010AprilRev1.pdf

 

[LineInTheSand]

A totally unrelated question. In the video KP2001 posted, it appears that an E-6 is wearing khakis. I thought that was reserved for Chiefs. Has there been a change?

Black Trou.... It's a relatively new uniform (maybe 5-6 years). Chiefs still have full khakis.

 

[MemberLG]

So....now that I've read chapter 10 of the JFTR (thrilling read, btw), I'm more convinced that BAH shouldn't be taken from dual military or anyone.

Congressional actions (i.e. legislation or NDAA) usually always trumps regulations (JFTR).

 

[hornetguy]

So....now that I've read chapter 10 of the JFTR (thrilling read, btw), I'm more convinced that BAH shouldn't be taken from dual military or anyone.

Congressional actions (i.e. legislation or NDAA) usually always trumps regulations (JFTR).

I get that. People kept quoting that the reg says BAH should only be used for housing such that the intent was only to pay for some level of housing. Reading it further, the intent seems broader and looser as a form of compensation to match local civilian markets. I'm debating the intent of BAH as it stands today, not that the JFTR should be implemented in one way or another. Reading the section on housing, compared to 1998, BAH seems to be a way to match compensation in an area based on grade. Of course, Congress can decide differently and change the NDAA.

 

[tankercaptain]

So....now that I've read chapter 10 of the JFTR (thrilling read, btw), I'm more convinced that BAH shouldn't be taken from dual military or anyone.

Congressional actions (i.e. legislation or NDAA) usually always trumps regulations (JFTR).

I get that. People kept quoting that the reg says BAH should only be used for housing such that the intent was only to pay for some level of housing. Reading it further, the intent seems broader and looser as a form of compensation to match local civilian markets. I'm debating the intent of BAH as it stands today, not that the JFTR should be implemented in one way or another. Reading the section on housing, compared to 1998, BAH seems to be a way to match compensation in an area based on grade. Of course, Congress can decide differently and change the NDAA.

Defense Travel has been putting out a primer on BAH since at least 2000 with regards to it's intent. It puts out a pretty defined set of housing standards based up grade and housing type along with defined purpose and goal.

The JTR spells out BAH pretty clearly. "The BAH rate is based on median housing costs and is paid independently of a member’s actual housing costs. It is paid for housing in the U.S."


http://www.acsim.army.mil/installationservices/assets/docs/BAH_Primer_Oct_2013.pdf

 

[Jcleppe]

Well, if two military couples are married, their income is higher and you'd expect them to have nicer housing comparable to their civilian counterparts.

I guess this would depend on how you calculate income.

The base pay for an 0-2 over 3 years is $4,434.30 per month/$53,208.00 per year. If a civilian couple were both earning the same base salary then yes you would assume they would be able to afford better housing. The issue here is that the Military couple receives a tax free allotment for BAH which allows them to afford even better housing then their civilian counterparts with all things being equal. A civilian couple will need to have a significantly higher salary to be on even footing with a Military couple when you consider base pay. The civilian spouse of a Military member would need to also make a higher salary then their partner to equal what a Military couple makes including BAH that they both receive.

Sorry to always use Hawaii as an example but, a civilian spouse would need to make well over $88,848.00 per year to come even close to what a Military spouse would make including BAH. For the vast majority of spouses, that's not going to happen.

I am leaning toward your side as far as whether they change the BAH, but I do take issue with the notion that you can compare civilian spouses the same as Military spouses. Military members that are married to civilians will never get that extra BAH added to their budget, most of the spouses do not make nearly enough to even come close to matching that amount, especially in the enlisted ranks.

 

[Rocko]

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.

Let me get this straight, you feel our enlisted do not deserve a decent place to stay when they are forced off base (Even if they were able to do this by getting roommates)? You feel our enlisted should not be paid enough to be able to begin saving for retirement? You feel our enlisted are worth minimum wage or less (Where I live minimum wage is $13/hour and they are pushing for $15). And by the way, if you feel they shouldn't make enough to put some toward retirement, how do you propose they manage with the proposed retirement changes where they have to contribute? Oh wait, we'll save even more because then we don't have to match... BRILLIANT!

And if you could please provide me with where you got the figures for their peers I'd like to see that. They can make that working the drive up at McDonald's around here.

All I can say is WOW.....

 

[LineInTheSand]

I think the point is they're paid enough with the BAH to have decent place to live, and don't need 2x that for two people. And…. he's right.

As far as retirement is concerned, it SHOULD be changed, so they can contribute to their own 401(k)s (with a certain percentage matched by the federal government) and NOT a 20 year automatic retirement…..

 

[Jcleppe]

And if you could please provide me with where you got the figures for their peers I'd like to see that. They can make that working the drive up at McDonald's around here.

I think that was his point, the salary plus BAH is far more then the wages at the drive thru.

I think the point is they're paid enough with the BAH to have decent place to live, and don't need 2x that for two people. And…. he's right.

Yep I think that nailed it.

As far as retirement is concerned, it SHOULD be changed, so they can contribute to their own 401(k)s (with a certain percentage matched by the federal government) and NOT a 20 year automatic retirement…..

Now this I will agree with Rocko, with the proposed structure of the 401K plan and the limits set the beginning of enlistment, there is not a lot of benefit in the first enlistment term. Add to this most young enlisted, especially those that are married, will have very little left over to contribute to such a 401k, But you are right, over the course of a 20 year career the military will save a bundle.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Now this I will agree with Rocko, with the proposed structure of the 401K plan and the limits set the beginning of enlistment, there is not a lot of benefit in the first enlistment term. Add to this most young enlisted, especially those that are married, will have very little left over to contribute to such a 401k, But you are right, over the course of a 20 year career the military will save a bundle.

More importantly, MOST in the military don't make it to 20. A matching program would allow those who don't last 20 years to have SOME long term savings as they transition… something they can take with them.

 

[MemberLG]

Let me get this straight, you feel our enlisted do not deserve a decent place to stay when they are forced off base (Even if they were able to do this by getting roommates)? You feel our enlisted should not be paid enough to be able to begin saving for retirement?

Life is about making choices. Most people don't join the military for financial compensation. If someone join the military to have a "decent place" to live and save for retirement, there are other jobs they might find to have a "decent place" to live and save for retirement. There are reasons by many service members don't stay for 20 years to qualify for retirement. There are plenty of service members that find "decent place" to live and save for retirement with their current compensation. The idea of service is inclusive of making personal sacrifices when or if required. The question is if the issue is "income" or "spending." Service members know how much they are getting paid each month. The choices are "spending" are getting a roommate or roommates, size of the rental property, what type of car. Of course how dare I say someone shouldn't have 10 G data plan, drive a less expansive car, don't buy expansive gaming system and games, eating out, and etc.

You feel our enlisted are worth minimum wage or less (Where I live minimum wage is $13/hour and they are pushing for $15).

Facts are clear, most of our enlisted solders make more than minium wage. Let's pick high school graduates in Fort Hood Texas, one that works a minimum wage job and one that is a E4. The minimum wage job, $15 x 40 hours, x 4 weeks = $2400 month, before taxes and likely no healthcare. E4 starts with $2019, less than $2400 a month, but add in $367 for BAS and $966 without dependents (zip 76544) for BAH. BAH and BAS are not taxable. So I don't see how you can't argue that our enlisted soldiers make minimum wage or less.

And by the way, if you feel they shouldn't make enough to put some toward retirement, how do you propose they manage with the proposed retirement changes where they have to contribute? Oh wait, we'll save even more because then we don't have to match...

Where did I stated that I feel "they shouldn't make to put some toward retirement." Going back to making choices. Not see a movie at a theater during a weekend is about $10 someone can put towards their retirement, assuming they are not living check to check.