Opinion: BAH Equality

[CommunityEditor]

I could not possibly disagree with Sgt. 1st Class Harold K. Lewis more [“Raising single soldiers’ BAH may leave married ones behind,” Back Talk, May 5].

Why does a married person deserve more? Sgt. 1st Class Lewis made a choice to get married and have five children. I, on the other hand, have made a choice to be single. I should not be penalized for that choice, and Sgt. 1st Class Lewis should not be rewarded for his. Your basic allowance for housing rate should reflect your rank and nothing else.

The argument that BAH should somehow be tied to time-in-service is way off the mark. They do that with our base pay, and that is how we end up with a high-speed E-5 with three years in service being in charge of — but getting paid less than — a low speed E-4 with eight years in service.

The military is not a social welfare system in which you get paid more the more kids you have. We need to move to performance-based pay that does not allow subordinates to make more than their superiors, and a single BAH rate for each rank, regardless of marital status, which is only dependent on location.

Staff Sgt. Mathew Carson
Manhattan, Kan.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/communi...on_bah_052608/

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Why does a married person deserve more? Sgt. 1st Class Lewis made a choice to get married and have five children. I, on the other hand, have made a choice to be single. I should not be penalized for that choice, and Sgt. 1st Class Lewis should not be rewarded for his. Your basic allowance for housing rate should reflect your rank and nothing else.

You could extrapolate on this point even further - the SFC with five children has further financially burdened the DOD with increased costs due to the need for medical and dental care for all of those dependents. The single servicemember has not. Perhaps single soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors should get a small annual bonus each year they remain single, to reward them for not costing the government so damned much money as those with numerous dependents.

[darkhorse0369]

Not up to par with other services, but USMC gives 2 brackets. BAH with dependants and BAH without dependants. Seems fair to me.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by darkhorse0369

Not up to par with other services, but USMC gives 2 brackets. BAH with dependants and BAH without dependants. Seems fair to me.

That's DOD policy, not USMC.

Why should a personal life-style decision - to get married or have children - entitle a servicemember to more money than a servicemember who stays single with no dependents? Especially when that decision will ultimately burden the DOD with more costs than just the increased BAH?

If you worked for AT&T, or GM, or even Wal-Mart, and you walked into your boss' office and said "Boss, I've made a purely personal life-style decision that has no bearing on my terms of employment with this company, so you must now pay me more money." what do you think the reaction would be?

[MIGUELH22]

I am thoroughly confused and astounded the mindset of many people regarding this issue. I have read countless arguments about rewards for staying single, about how the military is not a social welfare system, about how in a civilian job there would be no such compensation, and have yet to hear an arguement that is not biased or that is SENSIBLE.

Even the idea of comparing the current BAH system with the welfare system is hilarious to me - it is true that you receive more money for having dependents but that amount does NOT increase as your number of dependents does, as insinuated by Staff Sgt. Carson in his post.

Similarly, the idea that single servicemembers should be REWARDED for staying single is absurd! The fact that having dependents gains a servicemember more money is the sole cause of this entire discussion - how does the idea of a role-reversal help your case?

My two cents is such - If someone can show me where a two bedroom apartment in ANY city costs the same amount of money to rent as a one bedroom apartment, that would be enough to justify your arguement, for me at least. However I can not sympathize with anyone who is complaining that they WANT a larger house for themself and their dog, when I REQUIRE a larger house for myself, my wife, my children, and my dog! I don't expect the Department of Defense to pay for a 4 bedroom house when my requirements demand two - why do you expect them to fund a two bedroom home when your requirements demand one?

[darkhorse0369]

It's called incentive. How else are you going to get a service member with a family to stay in? Is your barracks room furnished? Do you pay electricity, water, sewer, trash?

[THELADYKT]

Originally Posted by MIGUELH22

Even the idea of comparing the current BAH system with the welfare system is hilarious to me - it is true that you receive more money for having dependents but that amount does NOT increase as your number of dependents does, as insinuated by Staff Sgt. Carson in his post.

Similarly, the idea that single servicemembers should be REWARDED for staying single is absurd! The fact that having dependents gains a servicemember more money is the sole cause of this entire discussion - how does the idea of a role-reversal help your case?

My two cents is such - If someone can show me where a two bedroom apartment in ANY city costs the same amount of money to rent as a one bedroom apartment, that would be enough to justify your arguement, for me at least. However I can not sympathize with anyone who is complaining that they WANT a larger house for themself and their dog, when I REQUIRE a larger house for myself, my wife, my children, and my dog! I don't expect the Department of Defense to pay for a 4 bedroom house when my requirements demand two - why do you expect them to fund a two bedroom home when your requirements demand one?

You are correct. Having more than 1 dependent doesn't get you more money, although you require more services than someone who is not married (ie you cost the military more as Shrike mentions). But you DO get more money JUST because you are married. This is the difference between BAH with and without dependent rates.

The point is: you chose to get married/have kids. Why should you get more money (BAH) because of a choice you made? You may REQUIRE a larger house because of the choice you made, but why should the gov't pay you more for that choice than someone who isn't married.

That is the point of the original argument. There should simply be 1 type of BAH. The same amount for everyone regardless (still rank based of course).

(oh and for the record: I am currently married to a military member as well as being retired myself).

[THELADYKT]

Originally Posted by darkhorse0369

It's called incentive. How else are you going to get a service member with a family to stay in? Is your barracks room furnished? Do you pay electricity, water, sewer, trash?

And when you live in the barracks, you forfeit the BAH monies (at least most of them).

I know why they have the differences. But I can understand the complaints of the single folks as well. Just look at the simple fact that in the Air Force, you are forced to live in the dormitories/barracks until you make e-5 (some bases e-4) if you are single......yet if you are married as an Amn or A1c, you "qualify" for base housing or BAH to live off base. No sharing living space or kitchens or bathrooms with 2-10 other people (depending on dorm setup); no dorm inspections; etc.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by MIGUELH22

I am thoroughly confused and astounded the mindset of many people regarding this issue. I have read countless arguments about rewards for staying single, about how the military is not a social welfare system, about how in a civilian job there would be no such compensation, and have yet to hear an arguement that is not biased or that is SENSIBLE.

I believe the arguments are quite simple and sensible:
- A single person makes a personal lifestyle choice and either gets married or has children. Because of that choice, the government currently pays that person more money, even though that lifestyle choice has nothing to do with their employment. At the same time, the government incurs even MORE costs due to health and dental care, schooling, lost work hours, etc. So, this person not only gets more money for their purely PERSONAL choice, they cost the military much more in hidden costs.
- A single person stays single. They don't get payed a larger allowance, and don't burden taxpayers with hidden costs. Why not give them $1000 bonus each year they stay single? That's MUCH less than they would cost taxpayers if they got married.

Originally Posted by MIGUELH22

My two cents is such - If someone can show me where a two bedroom apartment in ANY city costs the same amount of money to rent as a one bedroom apartment, that would be enough to justify your arguement, for me at least. However I can not sympathize with anyone who is complaining that they WANT a larger house for themself and their dog, when I REQUIRE a larger house for myself, my wife, my children, and my dog! I don't expect the Department of Defense to pay for a 4 bedroom house when my requirements demand two - why do you expect them to fund a two bedroom home when your requirements demand one?

The military pay charts and BAH rates are not state secrets; they're published in very easy to find places. If you look at these charts, see the amount of money you make, and notice that if you have two kids at your current pay grade, it will be difficult to afford adequate housing, then don't have those kids until you can afford them!!!

But to expect more money simply for a personal life-style choice is selfish.

[MIGUELH22]

Originally Posted by THELADYKT

You are correct. Having more than 1 dependent doesn't get you more money, although you require more services than someone who is not married (ie you cost the military more as Shrike mentions). But you DO get more money JUST because you are married. This is the difference between BAH with and without dependent rates.

The point is: you chose to get married/have kids. Why should you get more money (BAH) because of a choice you made? You may REQUIRE a larger house because of the choice you made, but why should the gov't pay you more for that choice than someone who isn't married.

That is the point of the original argument. There should simply be 1 type of BAH. The same amount for everyone regardless (still rank based of course).

(oh and for the record: I am currently married to a military member as well as being retired myself).

I understand the arguement you present, yet still cannot agree with it for the fact that it's just not that simple. You and Shrike both continually point out that it is a personal choice to get married, but it is also a personal choice to stay single. Either way the bottom line is this - the military provides nearly EVERYTHING for servicemembers which is the simple reason we get paid so little. Not to turn this discussion into a general pay issue, but in the civilian sector many of the jobs we perform earn twice as much. This is because we get "free" healthcare, "free" housing, and meal entitlements to name a few. That being said, while it is a personal choice to get married and/or have children, true enough, if your arguement begins into costing the government more money, how than would anyone in the service EVER afford to have children? Before I joined the military I paid close to $1000 in health insurance for myself and my wife alone - more than 2/3 what you get paid initially enlisting. Arguing that healthcare etc. for dependents to me is ridiculous - the government is OBLIGATED to pay these costs because of the system they have currently in place to pay for a servicemember alone. THAT arguement leads toward a COMPLTELY revamped system of pay and benefits.

While I understand the point of the first arguement I sitll cannot validate it, because while it may seem as cut-and-dry as "personal choice" it truly is not. I see the point, I see why singles think it IS cut-and-dry, and in some high-cost areas I can see it happening. But I am currently stationed in Pensacola, FL. Singles E-1's here make enough to rent two bedroom apartments in the area. Raising the BAH for singles DoD wide will ultimately cost the government more in wasted money than you and Shrike constantly argue is wasted when we get married. It's not selfish, to expect to have a family and afford to care for them. I don't expect the government to GIVE it to me, as Shrike insinuates. But as I said before, going down a path in terms of general pay that would allow me to afford to have a family without waiting until I can "afford' them - this arguement is also senseless, Shrike, as waiting until you can actually afford a family on military pay with no compensation for having dependents means waiting YEARS; why should I have to wait until I am 26, or even 30 before having my children? would only be the result of a completely and entirely different pay system.