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/community/opinion/army_opinion_bah_052608/

[Shrike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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.

[Shrike]

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.
I never said raise the rates for singles. I think everyone should have one rate. One way to do that is to raise the rate for singles. Another is to lower the w/dependent rate. Another is to split the difference.

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.

"Why should I have to wait?"
Are you seriously asking why you should have to wait to start a family until you can afford to properly care for it? HOW is this not selfish??? I just love the "me-first, I deserve it all and I deserve it right now" attitude that is so prevalent nowadays. :rolleyes:

Let's look at some numbers:
The difference in BAH for Pensacola, where you live, between an E-5 with dependents and an E-5 without is $159.
The difference in base pay between an E-5 and an E-6, both at eight years of service, is $270.

Now, I'm no math genius, but it seems that $270 is a far greater number than $159. So I fail to see the sense in your argument.

Let's say you're an E-5 who wanted to start a family, and everyone fairly made one rate of BAH. You sit down with your wife and figure out that you'll need a new place to live, and that'll cost you an extra $250 a month. Then you do one of three things:
1) Work hard to get yourself promoted so that you can properly take care of your family.
2) Go ahead and start that family, even though it's a bad idea.
3) Wait.

Nah, you deserve it all right now. You deserve extra compensation for burdening your employer.

[THELADYKT]

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.



And each member gets the same housing, the same meals (this is a joke comparing meal cards and chow hall to cooking you own food but I digress) the same healthcare.

Now you said that you paid $1,000 per month for healthcare for your family. YOU had to pay more because you had a family. If you were single, you would have paid far less. There is a difference in cost. This is what we are saying. You may not have to directly pay for your dependents healthcare now directly, but we all pay indirectly with taxes. But lets get back to the original argument, housing.

Put the government (military) part aside. You and I are equal with equal education and experience. We are both hired to work for the XYZ company for the same basic wage. You now go to the boss and say you want more wage because you need a bigger house than me because you have a wife and 2 kids. Do you really think this is going to happen? No. We are going to get the same wage. But in the service, the military member DOES get more money each month just because they HAVE a family. This is the disparity that some people have an issue with.

We should all get the same base pay, housing, & food allowances (based on grade and time in service of course).

[ringjamesa]

On this one I am torn. I can see from both sides. I was enlisted and single and forced to live in the dorms-thought we did have a heck of a lot of fun. I am enlisted and married and live in housing (have collected BAH or whatever they are calling it today in the past). I can see why those with all the power make jr enlisted stay in the dorm but...can also see why some want out. I can see how it is percieved that people are being punished for being single-I can also see why the gov gives more BAH to those with a family. Maybe they should base BAH entirely off of rank once you hit E-5. That would provide the support jr enlisted that are married need but leveling the playing field for everyone once they have to move out of the dorms. I would go for the higher # because quite frankly in some areas even the with dependent rate doesn't buy you much as an E-5.

[THELADYKT]

I would go for the higher # because quite frankly in some areas even the with dependent rate doesn't buy you much as an E-5.

Would have to agree with you there. The housing in some areas is either horrendously expensive or in a not so nice area of town....hell sometimes both of these things.

For my family, we've always looked for where the best schools were for our children/safest, even if that meant we had to spend extra money out of pocket for housing and/or travel to the base.

On a side (sort of related) note. Anyone else notice that some of the worst areas are right near the base gates? Nellis, Andrews, Bolling................

[MIGUELH22]

I never said raise the rates for singles. I think everyone should have one rate. One way to do that is to raise the rate for singles. Another is to lower the w/dependent rate. Another is to split the difference.



"Why should I have to wait?"
Are you seriously asking why you should have to wait to start a family until you can afford to properly care for it? HOW is this not selfish??? I just love the "me-first, I deserve it all and I deserve it right now" attitude that is so prevalent nowadays. :rolleyes:

Let's look at some numbers:
The difference in BAH for Pensacola, where you live, between an E-5 with dependents and an E-5 without is $159.
The difference in base pay between an E-5 and an E-6, both at eight years of service, is $270.

Now, I'm no math genius, but it seems that $270 is a far greater number than $159. So I fail to see the sense in your argument.

Let's say you're an E-5 who wanted to start a family, and everyone fairly made one rate of BAH. You sit down with your wife and figure out that you'll need a new place to live, and that'll cost you an extra $250 a month. Then you do one of three things:
1) Work hard to get yourself promoted so that you can properly take care of your family.
2) Go ahead and start that family, even though it's a bad idea.
3) Wait.

Nah, you deserve it all right now. You deserve extra compensation for burdening your employer.

Burdening my employer? I have signed my life to my "employer". Being in the military is not a job, it's a lifestyle. Burdening my employer? Surely you must be joking. If you think I joined the military for the money you are sadly mistaken, and as far as I can tell you have completely missed the point of my arguements. I will concede my statements are selfish - of course they are. My point of view is biased, just as yours is. Furthermore, your numbers comparison works, true enough - if you assume every rate, every MOS, every job in the Armed Forces advances at the same rate, that every service has the same advancement rules, time constraints, and quotas per advancement cycle, and that all those things are constant through the years. You compare an E-5 to an E-6 placing them both at 8 years. I know E-5's in the Marines who are still on their first enlistments, yet also know Hospital Corpsman in the Navy who are E-3's after 6 years. Before it is even brought up, this is not by personal fault - Corpsman are accepted as a slowly advancing community due to quotas, time-in-rate constraints, and constantly changing evaluation standards. You can not realistically DoD wide compare ANY paygrade to any other based on time - it's absurd, and what's more, insulting.

Further more, you seem to be under the impression that without that "extra" $159 a month I would be unable to support my family. This is laughable, as is most likely your point. However, this is EXACTLY why I feel as I do. If I could get a two bedroom apartment (or similar) without that $150 a month, that changes the arguement, for if I can surely a SINGLE servicemember could as well. Why then should the taxpayers be paying MORE for them to be "equal" while I watch them turn around and go spend that brand new $150 a month at the bar?

This then is the paradox of the situation. Doing a global assessment and making DoD wide changes is irrelevant. I will concede that in some situations singles REQUIRE more money to live in decent housing. However, you have yet failed to recognize that having dependents also REQUIRES you to have LARGER housing. You argue that this is not the military's problem - I disagree for the simple fact that BAH is ment to compensate for the fact that you can't live in the barracks or dorms or on-base housing, whether due to overfilling or lack of space. I live in what I require - for me, that means base-housing, making this somewhat of a moot point, I suppose. I will further concede that a CHOICE to live in-town WITH DEPENDENTS should not merit extra money, so in a way I suppose I do agree with "the other side". However this talk of rewarding servicemembers for staying single is beyond ridiculous, as are comparisons to civilian sector - we all know that military jobs are not comparable in workload, schooling necessary, and especially not in pay. Therefore any comparisons between working at company XYZ and being a member of the Armed Forces is impossible to argue, one way or another.

[Measure Man]

Burdening my employer? I have signed my life to my "employer". Being in the military is not a job, it's a lifestyle. Burdening my employer? Surely you must be joking. If you think I joined the military for the money you are sadly mistaken, and as far as I can tell you have completely missed the point of my arguements. I will concede my statements are selfish - of course they are. My point of view is biased, just as yours is. Furthermore, your numbers comparison works, true enough - if you assume every rate, every MOS, every job in the Armed Forces advances at the same rate, that every service has the same advancement rules, time constraints, and quotas per advancement cycle, and that all those things are constant through the years. You compare an E-5 to an E-6 placing them both at 8 years. I know E-5's in the Marines who are still on their first enlistments, yet also know Hospital Corpsman in the Navy who are E-3's after 6 years. Before it is even brought up, this is not by personal fault - Corpsman are accepted as a slowly advancing community due to quotas, time-in-rate constraints, and constantly changing evaluation standards. You can not realistically DoD wide compare ANY paygrade to any other based on time - it's absurd, and what's more, insulting.

Further more, you seem to be under the impression that without that "extra" $159 a month I would be unable to support my family. This is laughable, as is most likely your point. However, this is EXACTLY why I feel as I do. If I could get a two bedroom apartment (or similar) without that $150 a month, that changes the arguement, for if I can surely a SINGLE servicemember could as well. Why then should the taxpayers be paying MORE for them to be "equal" while I watch them turn around and go spend that brand new $150 a month at the bar?

This then is the paradox of the situation. Doing a global assessment and making DoD wide changes is irrelevant. I will concede that in some situations singles REQUIRE more money to live in decent housing. However, you have yet failed to recognize that having dependents also REQUIRES you to have LARGER housing. You argue that this is not the military's problem - I disagree for the simple fact that BAH is ment to compensate for the fact that you can't live in the barracks or dorms or on-base housing, whether due to overfilling or lack of space. I live in what I require - for me, that means base-housing, making this somewhat of a moot point, I suppose. I will further concede that a CHOICE to live in-town WITH DEPENDENTS should not merit extra money, so in a way I suppose I do agree with "the other side". However this talk of rewarding servicemembers for staying single is beyond ridiculous, as are comparisons to civilian sector - we all know that military jobs are not comparable in workload, schooling necessary, and especially not in pay. Therefore any comparisons between working at company XYZ and being a member of the Armed Forces is impossible to argue, one way or another.

wow...talk about convoluting the issue.

It comes down...to why should 2 people, doing the same job, with the same amount of experience...be paid differently?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need; the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains." (Karl Marx)

[MIGUELH22]

wow...talk about convoluting the issue.

It comes down...to why should 2 people, doing the same job, with the same amount of experience...be paid differently?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need; the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains." (Karl Marx)

It's not that cut-and-dry, as was the rationale behind my talk of barracks/base-housing and off-base living. I think this is a valid arguement in the situation of people who CHOOSE to live off base, but when FORCED to live off base how can you argue that it's unfair that having dependents merits more money to afford housing? If sufficient base housing existed for all that's where we all would be unless a CHOICE to live off base was made. Then and only then do I believe this arguement holds any weight.

[THELADYKT]

Miguel, I agree that single people shouldn't be rewarded for staying single. But on the flipside, the married shouldn't be rewarded for being married. We should all get the same basic rate irregardless of marriage status or family size. What we each do with our same pay is up to us. Some may invest in 401K, some may blow it in a bar, some may take a vacation, some may sock it away for college, or whatever. My point is that 2 e-5 standing next to each other should get the same paycheck in the end. We are both doing the same work.

You say comparing mil to civ is unfair. Ok you are right. They are different. So compare 2 e-5s standing next to each other, assume same TIS, job etc.. Only thing different is the second one is married. One get 1,000 monthly and the other gets 1,400 monthly. Same work, same deployments, same everything.

We should all get equal money for equal work/employment.

And lets look at the unfairness of housing in general. Young airmen are forced to live in dorms....and we all know this is a good and bad thing in general..... At e-4/e-5, they are forced onto the economy for housing. At no time are they ever eligible for regular "base housing", even the little 2 bdrm apt kinds (i had one at Travis). But married e-2/e-3 are automatically entitled to live on base with free utilities and all the perks (yes I know this is changing with the privatization).

There are inequities across the board when it comes to married versus single. You have to admit that.

[THELADYKT]

It's not that cut-and-dry, as was the rationale behind my talk of barracks/base-housing and off-base living. I think this is a valid arguement in the situation of people who CHOOSE to live off base, but when FORCED to live off base how can you argue that it's unfair that having dependents merits more money to afford housing? If sufficient base housing existed for all that's where we all would be unless a CHOICE to live off base was made. Then and only then do I believe this arguement holds any weight.

Why is it not cut and dry? Why should anyone get more money based on the fact that they are married? That is the point MM is trying to make. Even if you are e-4/e-5, you are forced to live off base and still get less than the marrieds. And lets leave kids out of it too, a 1 bdroom costs the same for a married couple that it does for a single person...but the military give the married couple more than the single person for the same 1 bd room apartment.

[MIGUELH22]

Why is it not cut and dry? Why should anyone get more money based on the fact that they are married? That is the point MM is trying to make. Even if you are e-4/e-5, you are forced to live off base and still get less than the marrieds. And lets leave kids out of it too, a 1 bdroom costs the same for a married couple that it does for a single person...but the military give the married couple more than the single person for the same 1 bd room apartment.

I understand that, and as I said before I'm willing to concede in some areas such as your point with a one bedroom for one or two people. But what about two single servicemembers living together as roommates, collecting $800 each for BAH and paying $1000 in rent, while the married servicemember rents the same apartment but spends his $1000 of BAH paying all his rent? There are far too many variables to simply say "yes, BAH should be standard" or "no, it should not". Your statements about Air Force living arrangements is exactly my point! My arguement relies on the idea that base housing is not available, from a Naval standpoint because it is obviously very different for each branch. E-4's and E-5's are thrown out you say, but in the Navy they are ALLOWED to move out. This is why I say that it's not so cut-and-dry - each branch has different rules, and even in each branch each command has their own rules. Making a DoD wide policy change would have to include and understand every situation. There certainly are inequities across the board, I have no trouble admitting that. Here in Pcola the barracks at the hospital closed, and they are filled to capacity on the other bases. So now the junior enlisted who were living in the barracks - as well as new arrivals - are moved into married base housing with two other roommates, but are ALL given BAH at the single rate. They're being charged rent of $1000 a month between three of them, and receiving close to $800 a piece, and I've seen where the other money goes. This is a large factor that plays into my arguement - I witness every payday weekend what happens when single Sailors are given this extra "housing" money! Obviously it will not be the same fleet-wide, but surely you've all seen similar situations when three single guys get a place in town? Now we are back at where I started this story - as I see it, it would be virtually impossible for the Department of Defense to adopt policy that will understand and fairly compensate and/or allow for many similar situations in an intelligent and and/or equal fashion for both single and married servicemembers in every command, in each respective branch.

[Shrike]

However, you have yet failed to recognize that having dependents also REQUIRES you to have LARGER housing. You argue that this is not the military's problem - I disagree for the simple fact that BAH is ment to compensate for the fact that you can't live in the barracks or dorms or on-base housing, whether due to overfilling or lack of space.

IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THOSE FRIGGIN' DEPENDENTS!!!

Cut away all of your bullshit and avoiding of facts, and you're left with that.

You made a PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE, and expect - no, you DEMAND - that you be paid for more it.

[ringjamesa]

wow...talk about convoluting the issue.

It comes down...to why should 2 people, doing the same job, with the same amount of experience...be paid differently?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need; the proletariat has nothing to lose but it's chains." (Karl Marx)

MM, I think your quote answers your question....

:-)

[MIGUELH22]

IT WAS YOUR CHOICE TO HAVE THOSE FRIGGIN' DEPENDENTS!!!

Cut away all of your bullshit and avoiding of facts, and you're left with that.

You made a PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE, and expect - no, you DEMAND - that you be paid for more it.

Wow. Last time I checked this was an opinion thread. Shrike, perhaps a Valium is necessary before we continue. At any rate, I'm not avoiding any facts, I'm simply stating my biased opinion, as you are stating your very biased opinion. I'm not demanding anything of anyone, and haven't stopped laughing at that statement. If the Department of the Navy told me they were cutting my pay and dropping my BAH, I would be upset, but the very idea of flying to Washington to tell them that the situation is unacceptable and I demand to be paid a certain amount is not only laughable, but incomprehensibly asinine.

You're absolutely right, it was my choice to fall in love with a beautiful woman and to engage in unprotected intercourse whereby fathering a child who is intelligent and adorable. Just as it is your choice to remain single, a jackass, overbearing, and pompous... Well, the last three, at least...

While KT continues to bring up points I had not realized or considered and are therefore arguable, you have yet to present me with true debate.

Now that we've both been childish, can this discussion continue?

[Shrike]

Wow. Last time I checked this was an opinion thread. Shrike, perhaps a Valium is necessary before we continue. At any rate, I'm not avoiding any facts, I'm simply stating my biased opinion, as you are stating your very biased opinion. I'm not demanding anything of anyone, and haven't stopped laughing at that statement. If the Department of the Navy told me they were cutting my pay and dropping my BAH, I would be upset, but the very idea of flying to Washington to tell them that the situation is unacceptable and I demand to be paid a certain amount is not only laughable, but incomprehensibly asinine.

You're absolutely right, it was my choice to fall in love with a beautiful woman and to engage in unprotected intercourse whereby fathering a child who is intelligent and adorable. Just as it is your choice to remain single, a jackass, overbearing, and pompous... Well, the last three, at least...

While KT continues to bring up points I had not realized or considered and are therefore arguable, you have yet to present me with true debate.

Now that we've both been childish, can this discussion continue?


I'm happily married, and don't expect to be paid any differently because of it.

And I just love that the person who stated one of the most selfish statements I've seen on these message boards- "Why should I have to wait to spawn?!?" - is now calling others childish.

It's the age of entitlement - you're the most special person ever, and you deserve it all.
You can look at your single co-worker, who's been in just as long as you, works even harder than you, and be happy that the government pays you more simply because your condom broke.

[MIGUELH22]

I'm happily married, and don't expect to be paid any differently because of it.

And I just love that the person who stated one of the most selfish statements I've seen on these message boards- "Why should I have to wait to spawn?!?" - is now calling others childish.

It's the age of entitlement - you're the most specialist person ever, and you deserve it all.

Again, you have missed the point, but I refuse to engage in your foolishness. A simple no, would have sufficed, Shrike. At any rate, I'm not demanding to be paid more, as I have already told you I live in base housing. Were I FORCED to move from base housing out in town, than yes, I would expect to receive a portion of money larger than the single guy who was forced to leave the barracks. As that is my opinion I am entitled to think in such a manner, special or not. Either way, I assure you I will lose no sleep in the fact that you are upset by it.

Also, in the future, kindly refrain from taking my statements out of context to attempt to prove an invalid and childish point.

[Shrike]

Again, you have missed the point, but I refuse to engage in your foolishness. A simple no, would have sufficed, Shrike. At any rate, I'm not demanding to be paid more, I have already told you I live in base housing. Were I FORCED to move from base housing out in town, than yes, I would expect to receive a portion of money larger than the single guy who was forced to leave the barracks. As that is my opinion I am entitled to think in such a manner, special or not. Either way, I assure you I will lose no sleep in the fact that you are upset by it.


I'm not upset at all. To my great disillusionment, I've become inured to the nauseating sense of entitlement that is the modern norm.

Our differences are:
1) I don't think that any personal choices I make - choices that are totally, 100% independent of my terms of employment - should automatically entitle me to more money than my equals.
2) You do.

Also, in the future, kindly refrain from taking my statements out of context to attempt to prove an invalid and childish point.
Don't make childish, selfish, me-first statements, and you won't have to worry about it. You're the one that said you shouldn't have to wait until you're 26 or 30 - in other words, until your station in life has afforded you suffient income in order to provide for a family - to have kids.

[THELADYKT]

I understand that, and as I said before I'm willing to concede in some areas such as your point with a one bedroom for one or two people. But what about two single servicemembers living together as roommates, collecting $800 each for BAH and paying $1000 in rent, while the married servicemember rents the same apartment but spends his $1000 of BAH paying all his rent? There are far too many variables to simply say "yes, BAH should be standard" or "no, it should not". Your statements about Air Force living arrangements is exactly my point! .

ok so I'm assuming your example is for a 2-bdrm (no DADT situation;) ). Technically YOU could do the same thing with another mil mbr or civilian (and I've seen this done too). Should you then get less BAH? No of course not.


Here in Pcola the barracks at the hospital closed, and they are filled to capacity on the other bases. So now the junior enlisted who were living in the barracks - as well as new arrivals - are moved into married base housing with two other roommates, but are ALL given BAH at the single rate. They're being charged rent of $1000 a month between three of them, and receiving close to $800 a piece, and I've seen where the other money goes. This is a large factor that plays into my arguement - I witness every payday weekend what happens when single Sailors are given this extra "housing" money! Obviously it will not be the same fleet-wide, but surely you've all seen similar situations when three single guys get a place in town? Now we are back at where I started this story - as I see it, it would be virtually impossible for the Department of Defense to adopt policy that will understand and fairly compensate and/or allow for many similar situations in an intelligent and and/or equal fashion for both single and married servicemembers in every command, in each respective branch.

This must be a Navy thing. I've never heard of them using base housing like a barracks type thing. Just the sharing of the bathroom thing....ewwww. I'm assuming that based on the fact that no base housing I've ever had has had private bathrooms with any bedroom including the master bedroom. And on a separate note: the master bedroom is always bigger than the other bedrooms....I wonder how they decide who gets the bigger one. LOL ok back to discussion

I'm going to assume this is privatization since they are getting BAH. If it was the "old-type" base housing, they would get nothing. I see your point about the "triple" dipping in this situation. Is this a forced housing thing too? Personally I'd pay out of pocket to live by myself......too hard finding compatable roommates these days. Had enough "forced" roommates in my early days. But I digress. I'm assuming its a 3bdrm then also. I wonder if the "rent" they are being charged is equivalent to a 3 bdrm place off base (which is what they say is supposed to happen), plus utilies and upkeep costs of course.

The military must pay to house the MILITARY member. It pays people to obtain housing when govt housing is not available. We all know there is always a waiting list for base housing. Your (really odd) example aside: My point is that each MILITARY member should be paid to obtain housing for themselves if gov't provided housing is not available. At no time, do you alone as the military member need more than 1 bedroom. Your family situation may dictate that you need more bedrooms, the military is really only required to house you, not anyone else.

Look at your BAS. All miltary members get the same amount of money for BAS, either in cash or by way of a meal card to eat "free" in the chow hall (supposedly the equivalent in $$ but we wont argue that here). The military doesn't care if you are married or not; or if you have kids or not. The BAS is the same across the board. You still have to feed your spouse and kids though but the military doesn't pay for it. Some say it should be the same for housing as well.

[Measure Man]

MM, I think your quote answers your question....

:-)

right...but last I checked we weren't living under the Communist Manifesto

[darkhorse0369]

My BAH with dependants kicks A**. If you want BAH with dependants, get married and have a kid. Or sit here and complain because I make more money than you.

How many people would the military retain, if it didn't offer some type of benefit for "families". How many Americans do you seriously see staying active duty military their whole career with the small amount of pay they would get.

Will the military move a family into the barracks? I doubt it. Is it cheaper for the military to build hundreds of thousands of houses on base or pay you to live out in town?

The military are penny pinchers, is they could save money ( cost effectively ) by taking away BAH don't you think they would do it?

Don't be a hater. Get married....j/k

[THELADYKT]

How many people would the military retain, if it didn't offer some type of benefit for "families". How many Americans do you seriously see staying active duty military their whole career with the small amount of pay they would get.



You mean like free healthcare, base amenities like playgrounds, CDC (subsidized), youth center..................... LOL.

I got the "extra" BAH when I was active and my hubby gets it now that he rejoined (we decided dual military was not for us after having kids). But many people say they STAY in the military for that reason, they HAVE families and like the steady paycheck plus the bennies.... Case in point. Miguel mentioned earlier that he was paying 1k a month in healthcare alone for his family.

[Shrike]

My BAH with dependants kicks A**. If you want BAH with dependants, get married and have a kid. Or sit here and complain because I make more money than you.

How many people would the military retain, if it didn't offer some type of benefit for "families". How many Americans do you seriously see staying active duty military their whole career with the small amount of pay they would get.


As I pointed out to Miguel, the difference in with/without dependents BAH for an E-5 at his location is $159 a month.
Now, add up all of the money saved on you and your family's health care, dental care, CDC, commissary, no tax at the BX, etc., etc. I imagine that number is a HELL of alot more than $159. Like Miguel said and LadyKT mentioned, his health insurance alone was $1000 a month.

And by the way, I'm already married - no children - and it's most likely very doubtful that you make more money than me.

[ringjamesa]

This provision of the 2008 defense authorization act should please you;

Sec. 602. Basic allowance for housing for reserve component members without dependents who attend accession training while maintaining a primary residence.

[darkhorse0369]

As I pointed out to Miguel, the difference in with/without dependents BAH for an E-5 at his location is $159 a month.
Now, add up all of the money saved on you and your family's health care, dental care, CDC, commissary, no tax at the BX, etc., etc. I imagine that number is a HELL of alot more than $159. Like Miguel said and LadyKT mentioned, his health insurance alone was $1000 a month.

And by the way, I'm already married - no children - and it's most likely very doubtful that you make more money than me.


It's most likely very doubtfull indeed that you make more than I.

Every active duty military member gets those benies listed above. The Government offers more for families for retention...cut and dry!

[zerstorer335]

*Puts on helmet, straps on body armor with yoke & groin protector, slinks down to nametape defilade*

Okay, first let me say that I am not enlisted and I have not been enlisted, except for that weird enlisted-status of a contracted ROTC cadet, so I don't understand fully what it's like from their perspective.

Now, on to the topic at hand. As a single officer, I do take issue with the way we handle "With dependents" and mil-mil marriages.

First-off, I'm not too sure simply being married warrants higher BAH. As a single officer with no dependents, I was automatically entered into a housing profile (available at http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf) that said I was given BAH to afford a 2 bedroom apartment. Locally, my BAH was set at $805.00. A butterbar married to a civilian would get $1030.00 for their quarters. If I read the primer right (and I may not be, as it's getting late), by having a spouse, they'd be put in at profile for a 2 bedroom townhome.
My question here is: Does simply having a spouse automatically require an increase in housing? One kitchen can take care of a single person to entire families, so there's no increase in square-footage there. One bedroom should be fine for both a single person and a married couple (they do tend to sleep in the same bed, right?). One office / guest room should work for both (in every house I've lived in, we've never needed more than one guest room). One dining room should work for both; as should one living room. I will say that having more than one person really works better if you have two bathrooms; but my apartment is a 2 / 2, and I can afford it on a without-dependents BAH.
The idea of spouse yielding more money to pay for quarters, since on-base quarters are unavailable is also somewhat archaic. It hearkens back to the time where a military member (men) could largely expect to be housed on post. This time was also when the spouse (women) had very few opportunities for financial independence and, when married, were expected to be homemakers, which was a lot of work but paid little or nothing. Nowdays, the spouse, regardless of gender, brings much more earning capacity to the marriage. So, while their needs can be met by the same amount of resources used to meet a single servicemember's needs, if their desires outstrip that, they can have a job to bring in additional income.
So I don't think simply having a spouse should put someone in a higher housing level. I don't think I should be "rewarded" for being single or they should be "penalized" for being married. Whether I need to get more or they need to get less isn't something I can, or should, decide... I'm no economics major. I just don't think there should be two levels.
However, I do feel that child dependents merit a higher BAH. The child needs a separate room from the parent, and my mother loved having a "kids room" where she could simply shut the door and ignore the mess my brother and I made. On top of that, if I had a kid / kids I don't think that would diminish my desire to have my office as some form of space set aside from everything else, like a nook or a room smaller than a bedroom. If they have more than one kid and they're of opposite genders, they could use a little more, because boys and girls will eventually need to be separated.
So I suppose for married servicemembers / singles with kids, "with dependents" increases should only be for a child with one more level for kids of 2 genders; but that's where it'd stop, so someone with one boy and one girl would be given the same as someone with 2 and 2. Why pay for kids, since "the military didn't issue them"? Because servicemembers need to at least have basic needs met; and someone with kids will be distracted if they're pushing their finances to afford housing for their children.
Now, we get to military-military marriages. If BAH is intended to off-set the cost of my living off base due to the unavailability of on-base housing, I am being paid for a need that the government cannot cover. I need a place to live. Uncle Sam can't give me one. Therefore, he gives me money to find a place on the economy. Why is it, then, that my friends, two lieutenants who are married to each other, get double the BAH because each one receives BAH for an officer without dependents? I've already established that a married couple shouldn't have needs beyond what the government is expecting for a single officer, and that I feel both a single officer and a military-civilian couple, therefore, merit the same amount of money to cover the same need. Why do these officers get double the pay to cover the SAME NEED? BAH is not so much a matter of individual entitlement, but the government providing funds so we can have a need met that the government cannot cover. Two lieutenants marry each other? Oh well! Their needs aren't double a single officer's, or a military-civilian marriage. Again, it seems that this goes back to the time when only the male half of the equation would be in military service. I feel that if both members are in the military and receiving BAH, each should get half, that way they're massing the same funds as a single / military-civilian marriage and it's split evenly in case they don't want to share bank accounts.
Should it still go up with rank?. I'd say yes. The government is covering not only a basic need for shelter, but it is supposed to provide you with quarters consummate with your rank. So the money it provides a servicemember with to compensate for the unavailability of government quarters should go up to cover the fact that not only can the government not cover the need for quarters, but it cannot provide quarters of the appropriate level. If anything, this provides supervisors / leaders with the chance to live apart from their troops so they can relax and "let their hair down". That way they can relax without worrying about compromising "good order and discipline". I, personally, don't need my troops hearing my private phone calls through thin apartment walls.
My issue is not that I feel I need to have more. I could be fine as an O6 without dependents, living in the same square footage I've got now (well, a garage instead of a carport would be nicer...). Should we adjust the amount given as a to keep up with the market, of course. My problem is that I don't like seeing the budget I have for training and supplying my troops to perform their military mission drastically cut while we still have these out-dated practices with arbitrary, archaic stratifications based on an older view of marriage. Eliminate the arbitrary gap between singles and marrieds and the double-dipping of mil-mil marriages. Then add policies that reflect the larger number of single parents we have now than we did before. The standing viewpoints are not as relevant as they used to be, and we can't afford to distribute money inefficiently (don't get me started on paying $300 for an item I could buy at the store for less than half that).

[Lifeafter40]

I can see both sides of this issue, but i think we need to realize that the policies in effect are for the interests of the Military (as well as the soldier). Unless DoD decides to disallow soldiers to marry and have families, then as part of the welfare of the soldier, those Dependants need to be taken care of also.

Each service member is compensated equally according to rank. BAH is also the same for every service member by rank, The with Dependants rate is intended to be for the Dependants' needs. (I would liken this to my child support payments... This money is intended to cover the costs of the of my childeren. As a byprodroct, my Ex also gets to live in a larger house, etc.) :cool:

As the likelihood of maintaining a sufficient military force without allowing for Dependants is pretty slim, DoD will have to continue to make allowances for those soldiers, as well as their families. (I do not believe anyone can argue that military service effects the Dependants as well as the service member). And although I agree that the decision to have a family or not is a personal choice, it is one that is acceptable to the needs of the Military. This is an all voluntary Military (and as was stated in an earlier post, all the pay charts are readily available to anyone interested) and as such, each service member as the choice as to whether or not to serve under the conditions as they exist.

As far as Mil -Mil marriages, I agree that this is a unique situation. Each Service member is "entitled" to at least the single rate BAH, but in these cases, I think it would make more sense to allow the highest ranking member to get W/D BAH and the other to forfeit BAH all together.

[technomage1]

I have never figured out why there is a difference in this area. As others have stated, BAH should be based upon grade and location. I don't see why my being single warrants a lower compensation than someone who does the same job. I also would not tie it to the number of dependants. I think we led ourselves down a very dangerous path with on base housing when we switched from rank based housing assignments to assignments based upon number of dependants.

To me, on base housing should be assigned by rank only - an E-9 gets a bigger house than an E-1. Period. If the E-1's two kids have to share a room for a few years until they get promoted into a larger house - why is that so horrible?

It's the same with off base housing. It should not be needs driven, but rather rank driven. If a married person feels the "need" for a separate bedroom for each of their children, and are low ranking, then it is their choice to pay out of pocket for that. As a higher ranking single, it may be my choice to get a larger house and put a weight room in. RHIP.

[Lifeafter40]

I think much of the problem you mention comes from the fact that the Military has to make service an incentive to more than just single recruits. When I entered the Army in the early 90's I was an E-1, but I was already married and as I was a little older than most of my peers, was already looking at starting a family. If this consideration was not taken into account with the BAH system, I would probably not have joined. In fairness to other service members, DoD has to make policies which cover all service members in like time and grade. Unfortunately, DoD's budget does not allow for singles to be afforded the "extra" BAH that is necessary for soldier with Dependants to maintain QOL standards for his/her family. The command, I believe, still has authority to somewhat restrict the marrying of enlisted soldiers (granted it is not utilized). But in order to retain those that wish to have a family, these allowances must be made. In effect, a soldier's Dependants also come under the care of DoD. The married soldier does not warrant more accommodation, but the Dependants do. The current system may not seem completely fair, but it is necessary to maintaining the strength of force for our Military.

I am not in the service any longer, but after completing my degree, I plan on re-entering the Military. In all actuality, if I were not to receive more financial support for my family, I would have to look to the civilian sector instead. I know I am far from being the only one in this position, and the Military needs all the help it can get at the moment.

just my $0.02

[Sierra024]

I agree that a military member being married or having children shouldn't get a higher rate of BAH, but that is the way alot of things are set up. Take our family for example, My husband is an E-7 with 16 years in. Due to deployments and putting 20% into the TSP, and BAH and BAS being non taxable we had a much lower amount on our W-2 than we actually recieved. We paid in $288 all year long but recieved $7800 back plus the $1200 stimulus check. When we were single we had to pay each month to the government and then pay more at the end of the year. The child tax credit and many dependants not only helps us not pay taxes but we get paid each tax season. Is it fair? No, but i'm certainly not gonna not accept the money LOL The government makes certain allowances for having dependants so I guess the military is just doing the same. A single person hasn't used tricare to pay high medical bills for the birth of children like we have, in fact a single person saves the government a pretty penny but instead they are penalized for remaining single...I can see why single people would be ticked off about it.

[tvalks]

Its kind of funny that the single service members think that BAH is just extra pay when in reality it is just money to cover expenses for housing which the government cant provide. A man with a wife and kid would need a 2 bedroom house on base if they cant get it they have to rent a two bedroom. A single man needs a one bedroom house or room on base if he cant get it he has to rent one out in town. The difference in a one bedroom apartment and a two bedroom apartment is significant hence why service members get a larger allowence. Its not just extra pocket money its money for housing and it usually all gets used for that purpose. It is not extra pay you dont get it unless the need is present single people dont need two bedroom apartments hence they dont get it.

[dannoc1991]

I guess all these single people are going to agree to turn down their social security when they reach their golden ages? Or are they not aware that the system is set up that the current working generation pays for the older generation? With their line of thinking, it would definitely be unfair for our children to be forced to pay into THEIR social security when they CHOSE not to have children that could contribute. CORRECT?

[ReggieP]

I think we can all agree that soldiers with dependents require more room. It used to be that the government automatically provided them more room by placing them in larger housing as compared to making their entire family live in the barracks with them. BAH was paid to personnel that couldn't be housed on post. Still, if you and your spouse have 8 children as compared to someone whose only dependent is their spouse, you get paid the same BAH although you require more room. The single soldier gets paid the least, but requires the least amount of room. I don't see anyone complaining that married soldiers get larger housing than single soldiers when living on post. They obviously need more money to pay for larger housing on the economy.

I lived in the barracks until I got married. When I was deployed and single as an E-5, I made less than a married E-1 whose family lived on the economy. That crushed me, but I don't think that soldiers family should be put at any disadvantage. I wasn't allowed to live off post, so didn't have any rent to pay in the rear. Even still, the government tries to ensure the single soldiers are paid enough BAH to cover adequate housing on the economy, but don't really give that much more to the soldier who has dependents, using easily twice the utilities and requiring more living space than the single soldier.

Once again, the US gov is only offsetting the difference they would otherwise be spending to house that soldier and his family on post. They spend less to house the single soldier on post, so why not give them less to live off post?

[Lifeafter40]

good point.... It is also interesting that a married soldier with 4 kids is eligible for at least a 3, if not a 4-5 bedroom home on post, the same soldier living on the economy gets the same BAH as a soldier with only a spouse. Good luck finding a 4 bedroom home on that...

[technomage1]

I agree that a married person with 4 dependants and a spouse needs more space than a single person. Where we disagree is I don't think the government should be paying for it. The government is required to give the member housing, or pay from them to live on the economy. There is nothing in the contract about the family of that member. The money for their housing should come out of the individual's base pay. The taxpayer should not be footing the bill.

If that sounds harsh, a lot of things are like this. BAS, for example. Married and single get the same BAS. Clothing allowance and base pay are more examples.

No where but the military is your basic compensation increased because you chose to get married or have children.

[ringjamesa]

I think we can all agree that.....

Oh ye of little faith.

[technomage1]

I thought some more about this after my last post. ReggieP brought up a valid point about the government giving quarters on base based upon family size. This is true, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the right way to go. There are some real consquenses to this. Right now, we give our junior enlisted large houses and then wonder why they have money problems - they're going broke trying to fill them on their pay grade.

What if we based housing on base strictly upon rank? For example, an E-1 through E-4 would automatically get a 1 bedroom apartment. E-5 through E-6, a 2 bedroom duplex. E-7 through E-9, a 3 bedroom stand alone (each base could also adjust this standard based upon existing housing). Anyone who decides they need more than three bedrooms would be given their grade's BAH and move off base. If anyone decided that they needed more space, they could move up to a higher rank level standard but they would have to pay local market rate out of pocket for the difference. If anyone chose to live with less space than they're authorized, the government could pay them the cost savings. For example, an E-5 is automatically entitled to a 2 bedroom under my plan. Say that in off base houses there is a $100 a month rent difference for an extra bedroom. If they decide they want a 3 bedroom, provided one is available on base, they would pay $100 out of pocket per month. If they decide to get the 1 bedroom apartment, they'd get an extra $100 pay per month.

This would equallize the pay system and give members more choice.

[PUALLOFF]

Hmm, I could see that working for the junior and midlevel grades, but don't think it will work with those that would like to buy their way into SNCO or Senior Officer Housing. Their just isn't enough of that type available on the bases to allow someone to pay the difference.

[technomage1]

I guess all these single people are going to agree to turn down their social security when they reach their golden ages? Or are they not aware that the system is set up that the current working generation pays for the older generation? With their line of thinking, it would definitely be unfair for our children to be forced to pay into THEIR social security when they CHOSE not to have children that could contribute. CORRECT?

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this - I've been to training this week and things have been a little hectic.

I think I see where you're going with this, but you haven't taken it to the logical conclusion. You're correct that social security is paid for by the next generation. However, I paid for my parents and grandparents, and now I am possibly paying for someone else's. I don't have an issue with that. By your line of reasoning above, I could argue that I shouldn't have to pay taxes now for children's education or health care. I don't have an issue with paying taxes for either of those, and here is why. Social security, healthcare, education are all something that we as a society have mutally agreed that beneficial to us as a whole to have. For example, I don't want any elderly person to starve to death, hence I don't mind paying social security now - knowing that I'll get my share later. I want healthy children - even though I don't have any - to have solid educations so that they can grow up to become productive members of society - just like I did. In essence, I'm paying society back for educating me by helping to pay for the next generation's education. They, in turn, will grow up to pay my social security, and to pay for the next generation's education - and the cycle goes on.

BAH is not like the examples above. In none of my posts am I suggesting that any family be homeless on the street. The children may have to share a room, and it may be cramped, but I don't think that's the end of the world. After all, we expect grown men and women to do so now; and historically, children have shared rooms, both in the military and in the civilian world.

You could argue that since I'm childless that I'm a burden on the next generation for social security - but I could argue that anyone with more than two children has created a greater burden for society now since they've gone beyond simply reproducing themselves, and I have to pay for their children's education, etc.. I think in the end it all balances out in our society since we are experiencing positive population growth (not every nation does so - Japan, for example, is steadily getting older creating an imbalance).

[Lifeafter40]

I agree that a married person with 4 dependants and a spouse needs more space than a single person. Where we disagree is I don't think the government should be paying for it. The government is required to give the member housing, or pay from them to live on the economy. There is nothing in the contract about the family of that member. The money for their housing should come out of the individual's base pay. The taxpayer should not be footing the bill.

If that sounds harsh, a lot of things are like this. BAS, for example. Married and single get the same BAS. Clothing allowance and base pay are more examples.

No where but the military is your basic compensation increased because you chose to get married or have children.

A quote from "Army Officer's Guide".50th Edition, pg. 80 reads:

"Government responsibilities. The U.S. government also has responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. The government promises:
1. To keep faith with you and stand by you as you fight in its defence;
2. to care for your family and dependents; and
3. To use every practical means to contact, support, and gain release for you and all other prisoners of war."

The Standards of Conduct are set forth in DOD 5500.78-R. I have not personally read this regulation, so I am taking the Author's word for it, but as such, according to item number 2, the government DOES have responsibility to provide for a service member's family and dependents, which includes adequate housing. The interpretation of what is adequate is still an issue though, I must agree.

[technomage1]

A quote from "Army Officer's Guide".50th Edition, pg. 80 reads:

"Government responsibilities. The U.S. government also has responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. The government promises:
1. To keep faith with you and stand by you as you fight in its defence;
2. to care for your family and dependents; and
3. To use every practical means to contact, support, and gain release for you and all other prisoners of war."

The Standards of Conduct are set forth in DOD 5500.78-R. I have not personally read this regulation, so I am taking the Author's word for it, but as such, according to item number 2, the government DOES have responsibility to provide for a service member's family and dependents, which includes adequate housing. The interpretation of what is adequate is still an issue though, I must agree.

Nice try, but you're mixing up the code of conduct and standards of conduct. The military defines them differently. The code of conduct is referring to what happens if you're a POW. See http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/codeofconduct1.htm for more info. I think this is a fairly good article, how cruddy would it be if you were in a prison camp worried about your family being kicked out of base housing or something.

Standards of conduct are different, they refer to things like not taking bribes and general ethics, etc. There is a link to view them here: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/55007r.htm.

You could argue that it should be in the standards of conduct, I suppose, but it's nowhere that I can find.

[Lifeafter40]

I see now that my reference was in the context of war...should have read that a little closer.

Good articles, by the way.

I do understand your point that dependents should not be the burden of the government, and I agree to a certain degree. Yet, as it is part of Army policy (so there has to be regulations pertaining to it SOMEWHERE), in essence you ARE accepting those policies/regulations as part of your contract. Now as to weather or not those policies are just, or in the best interests of the tax payer.... who is to say. I am still of the opinion that any Service member who is willing to serve in this voluntary Military should not have to worry about the welfare of his/her family and dependents while defending our way of life. That being said, I do understand how the balance of the system seems to be tipped in the favor of the married Soldier. I do not think that the answer would be to arbitrarily hand extra money to the single soldiers who do not need the money for housing. (though I do believe that the standard of single soldier housing should be a lot better than it is) Nor should they take away money that is needed to provide adequate housing for the dependents of service members. I am just not sure the best way to reconcile the two issues.

I do appreciate your point of view, and have enjoyed our debate
S

[technomage1]

I see now that my reference was in the context of war...should have read that a little closer.

Good articles, by the way.

I do understand your point that dependents should not be the burden of the government, and I agree to a certain degree. Yet, as it is part of Army policy (so there has to be regulations pertaining to it SOMEWHERE), in essence you ARE accepting those policies/regulations as part of your contract. Now as to weather or not those policies are just, or in the best interests of the tax payer.... who is to say. I am still of the opinion that any Service member who is willing to serve in this voluntary Military should not have to worry about the welfare of his/her family and dependents while defending our way of life. That being said, I do understand how the balance of the system seems to be tipped in the favor of the married Soldier. I do not think that the answer would be to arbitrarily hand extra money to the single soldiers who do not need the money for housing. (though I do believe that the standard of single soldier housing should be a lot better than it is) Nor should they take away money that is needed to provide adequate housing for the dependents of service members. I am just not sure the best way to reconcile the two issues.

I do appreciate your point of view, and have enjoyed our debate
S

You're right, there is a balance, and what that is can certianly be a matter for debate. As far as regs, the JFTR (vol 1, chapter 10) dictates housing requirements for all the services, and each of them further define them with instructions and handbooks (in the AF, instructions are required to be followed, handbooks are only recommendations and can be modified as the situation dicatates).

In the JFTR, "The Commander responsible for the Government quarters determines their adequacy and appropriateness for assignment". On the one hand, this makes sense as every installation has a different housing mix. On the other, someone could move from one base to another and move into radically smaller or bigger quarters so it's sort of a crap shoot - and that's the same for married or single.

Incidently, JFTR also states vol 1, chapter 10, part E that "A member without dependents in grade E-7 and above may elect at any time not to occupy Government quarters at the PDS and is authorized BAH or OHA unless the Secretary Concerned or designee has determined that the member’s exercise of this option would adversely affect a training mission, military discipline, or readiness". So if there are any single E-7's out there in barracks or dorms at major bases, you may have an out depending on the situation.

[SeaChicken]

I’m new so please forgive me for resurrecting an old thread.

I strongly disagree with the notion that anyone is getting “paid” more than anyone else. BAH is NOT pay, it is an allowance. That may seem a trivial point, but no one complains that the E5 in Washington DC is “getting paid” more than the E5 in Millington, TN. Everyone recognizes that there is an increased cost to living in Washington DC over Millington, TN. A member with dependants always receives more benefits than someone without; the only difference with BAH is that this benefit is given to you directly as a dollar amount.

I do think that spouses should not count as dependants for the purpose of calculating BAH. A married couple can live in the same one bedroom apartment as a single person so why should they get more for housing? It is once you start adding children that is when you start incurring greater housing costs with moving up to a two bedroom or more. Add in the fact that most married couples without children are double income and there really isn’t a “need” for more BAH.

[VFFSSGT]

It is amazing how much people get all up in arms about the differences in housing allowance. First off, this is not considered pay, so no one is being paid more based on dependent status. It is an allowance to pay for housing and utilities. You rarely "make" money off of it unless you trim down your standard of living from the "norm." The pay to begin with in the military is considered "sub-standard" because housing and food is not counted as income. It is an allowance to house and feed you. The fact is, people have families and these families have to be housed or the military would have retention issues. The difference in the allowance is not an extra burden on the government, per say because if there was not the increase to cover the additional expenses there would be an increased burden on base housing and the military would have to start increasing the size of base housing versus decrease it as it has over the years.

Example, I could easily find a job in the civilian sector for $60K - $80K/yr. My total entitlements equates to about $48K/yr - My actual pay equates to about $30K/yr...obviously with the young E-1's this is much lower and their pay is like $17K/yr. Yes, people make choices about having or not having a family. The fact is, it does cost a little more to sustain a family, primarily because a family does need more room. People want to say it's not fair there is a difference in the housing allowance, well it isn't fair some of us that have intellectually higher jobs (require more training and could make much more in civilian life) than others but make the same as a our counterpart who is a paper pusher or grunt...but we aren't complaining.... Just as people make choices about family, people make choices about being in the military for whatever reason, so everyone makes a choice about their living conditions but more times than not the ones complaining couldn't swing it as good, much less better in civilian life...

This argument is about the same as the one Airmen make complaining they have to live in the dorms and married Airmen get a house. Boo-hoo...grow up. Where would you be if you weren't in the military? In a bedroom at your parent's place or in the dorms in college if you could afford it... The fact is you don't need as much room.

Want to gripe by saying this isn't the welfare program? Why don't you spend your efforts actually griping about the welfare program? People who live their entire lives on welfare and get paid by the same government we do but get paid for doing nothing. They also get paid more based on how many kids they have. And then, they teach their kids how to live on welfare and play the system... Want to talk about a burden on our system... :rolleyes:

At least everyone in the military is working for their money...and most of the spouses I know typically give back to the military community in some form or fashion so what is the big freaking deal? It boils down to if military pay was comparable to civilian pay, there would be no need for allowances and differences in them. But them being broken down into an allowance like they are keeping them from being taxed, so be careful what you wish for...

[BEGOODE]

I think that we are entitled to more in BAH, if we have dependents. Yes, we chose to have a family. So? You chose not to have a family, whose complaining? With dependents comes more expenses. Its not a huge difference so just focus on the mission people.

[Lefty]

I think this topic is ludicrous, and that people are going way beyond what the topic discusses. Shrike, I don't believe that having a family burdens the government at all. One of the main reasons the military is attractive to people is because of the medical benefits offered to service members and their families. This is because we take far less pay than our civilian counterparts, but also because most of us are a different breed of people. Tricare coverage is another subject than BAH is, so I'll leave that one alone. It sounds like the SGT is just complaining about not getting more money, and wants things to be fair. I seem to remember that back in the day, an enlisted member in any service did not get great housing on the bases at the time, and there was no availability for stand alone housing for enlisted personnel. On my base, all of the enlisted members get the newest houses and amenities, while the officer corps gets the crack houses. Why don't we make pay equal across the board for officer/enlisted personnel, and start wearing khaki pants and collared shirts. We can talk all day about HR and TQM concepts. Each day will be filled with stuff that you will never use, and will never need to know. We will never offend anyone, never deploy, and kill bad guys with our unmanned systems. The wear of medals will stop because it will offend members that do not achieve that degree of success, and at the end of every quarter, each "military" member will get a shiny new trophy that blandly congratulates menial effort.

[Trissy18]

The reason why military personnel with civilian spouses get more BAH is simply to compete with the civilian sector. If that military person cannot support their family the same as they could on the outside, what's the incentive to retain them? Especially now with SRBs nearly non-existent.

And, think about this...if you take away mil-civilian BAH, what's next? Mil-Mil pay? I mean, they can say the same thing "Well, so what if they're both AD? They are living in the SAME 1 bedroom apartment!" (Of course someone will respond to this with..."Well Mil-Mil are individuals and both are serving so both are entitled."

No matter what is said in here, someone else can drop a statement on what they think to squash that person's post.

I guess the bottom line is........SUCK IT UP AND STOP COMPLAINING! (Or else we'll all be dealing with the OCONUS way of doing things...and I don't know about you guys, but living BELOW the BAH rate is a nice way to bank some extra cash to cover other monthly expenses.)

[immortalmusic]

I think there is one thing that only a few people have touched on here. BAH isn't only for the cost of the living space. It is intended to cover the RENT, average utilities, and RENTER's insurance. The average utilities is based on the average for single and married. So based on all of the debates here, the BAH should be higher for married personnel because they WILL have at least two people in the living space using more energy and water. Yes, if two military personnel live together in an apartment, they will use about the same, however, they will both be collecting BAH and this will be more than the married personnel.

I agree that if you choose to live out in town when on-base housing is available should not warrant you any extra cash. However, I have been to two bases and am looking at my third one coming up, and they have a 6-8 month waiting list for on base housing. With military members moving so often, it makes much more sense to move once when you get to a new duty station than two or three times while you wait for a house to open up on base.

Another thing people are missing is that the military understand that we are all humans. Humans have a natural need to find a mate (spouse) and reproduce (children). This means that they have to either help those military members out, or risk losing them to the private sector and having to find a replacement for them. Which, by the way, will end up costing the government, and in turn, the tax payers more money having to train a new military member and getting them the wisdom and experience that the former member had.

I am a married Marine who pays a little over $30 out of pocket for my housing. I do not have children, and would not expect any extra for them. I think the extra I make now covers the expenses I would incur having children.

In the end, single military members are always going to feel like they aren't getting paid enough until they get married, and realize that little extra is needed.

[Yggdrasil]

The reason for the difference is because, by law, the military is required to provided housing to the member and dependants. The difference in BAH levels reflect the respective values of barracks and military housing. This isn't arguing in favor of the difference, this is just an explanation of why it exists.

But that said, here's my argument: Before I joined the military, I've never known anyone under the age of 25 who was married. In the military, you have 18 year-olds getting married. The truth is, no one wants to live on the ship. When I was still a junior Sailor, I freeloaded off of local women in Norfolk that I wasn't even attracted to in order to not live on the ship. And still, military barracks are not much better - it's still a place that's not "home," because you can't personalize the place as much, your room gets inspected at normal intervals, and at any time, a higher-up from your command can come knocking on your door for any reason - those among other things.

So, people end up doing things that they would never have done if they were civilians - i.e., marrying their high school sweetheart or someone that they just met at the nightclub. They do this as a means to get off the ship or out of the barracks.

The military would save itself alot more money if they gave all members single BAH from the get go. There are alot of married military members that would not be married right now if they got single BAH from the beginning, and image all the money going out in benefits (medical, etc) that would be saved.

Of course, what's going to stop this is the "if the ship/barracks was good enough for me, it's good enough for the new people coming in" mentality that alot of senior folks are going to have.

[VFFSSGT]

The reason for the difference is because, by law, the military is required to provided housing to the member and dependants. The difference in BAH levels reflect the respective values of barracks and military housing. This isn't arguing in favor of the difference, this is just an explanation of why it exists.

But that said, here's my argument: Before I joined the military, I've never known anyone under the age of 25 who was married. In the military, you have 18 year-olds getting married. The truth is, no one wants to live on the ship. When I was still a junior Sailor, I freeloaded off of local women in Norfolk that I wasn't even attracted to in order to not live on the ship. And still, military barracks are not much better - it's still a place that's not "home," because you can't personalize the place as much, your room gets inspected at normal intervals, and at any time, a higher-up from your command can come knocking on your door for any reason - those among other things.

So, people end up doing things that they would never have done if they were civilians - i.e., marrying their high school sweetheart or someone that they just met at the nightclub. They do this as a means to get off the ship or out of the barracks.

The military would save itself alot more money if they gave all members single BAH from the get go. There are alot of married military members that would not be married right now if they got single BAH from the beginning, and image all the money going out in benefits (medical, etc) that would be saved.

Of course, what's going to stop this is the "if the ship/barracks was good enough for me, it's good enough for the new people coming in" mentality that alot of senior folks are going to have.

Well, you shouldn't joined the Navy, Army, etc. if you didn't want to live on a ship or in barracks. Where would you be if you weren't in the service on a ship or the barracks? I am sure worst off than you are on a ship or barracks...

If you get married for the sole purpose of money then that is your own dumb fault and problem, not everyone else's.

The problem today results from unappreciative spoiled youngin's that have little to no respect for those who came before them and take for granted what they do have; nothing is ever good enough... :rolleyes:

[Yggdrasil]

Well, you shouldn't joined the Navy, Army, etc. if you didn't want to live on a ship or in barracks. Where would you be if you weren't in the service on a ship or the barracks? I am sure worst off than you are on a ship or barracks...

If you get married for the sole purpose of money then that is your own dumb fault and problem, not everyone else's.

The problem today results from unappreciative spoiled youngin's that have little to no respect for those who came before them and take for granted what they do have; nothing is ever good enough... :rolleyes:

Well, SSGT, I don't know if it's me that you're addressing. As a First Class Petty Officer, unless you're in the Air Force, you and I are the same rank. I've been eligible for single BAH for YEARS.

And by the way, people getting married for single BAH has been going on long before you came into the military. What I'm suggesting is all about saving tax dollars. It's costing tax payers too much money to give incentives to being married.

The main difference between you and me is that I'm not disgruntled - I WANT people coming into the military today to have more than what I did coming in. You? You seem pretty vindictive - in the "misery loves company" sort of way.

[VFFSSGT]

Well, SSGT, I don't know if it's me that you're addressing. As a First Class Petty Officer, unless you're in the Air Force, you and I are the same rank. I've been eligible for single BAH for YEARS.

Not Directly, just posting it response to your position with consideration of other experiences and arguments. AF, so I guess we aren't the same rank.... :)

And by the way, people getting married for single BAH has been going on long before you came into the military. What I'm suggesting is all about saving tax dollars. It's costing tax payers too much money to give incentives to being married.


I know and seen it happen and then these same people wonder why they have problems... If they listened in the first place... :rolleyes: And welfare gives incentives for having kids, which is a much more burden on the government and American taxpayer.

The main difference between you and me is that I'm not disgruntled - I WANT people coming into the military today to have more than what I did coming in. You? You seem pretty vindictive - in the "misery loves company" sort of way.

That mindset is why we have self-centered generations coming up...everyone wants their young ones to have more so they work their but off giving it to them and then nothing is appreciated and the young ones never learn to work for something themselves; they believe they are entitled to it just for being.

Neither am I, but nothing is ever good enough for people now days and besides we are too busy handing out free money in welfare and bailouts to be concerned with giving new servicemen bigger quarters and/or more or less money. Money apparently is no longer an issue for our government... :rolleyes:

It was not designed to be an incentive to get married...it was designed to provide for actual families. But over the years it has turned into a greed issue and people never being happy with what they do have and always wanting more so they do what they can to get more.

[Trissy18]

I think there is one thing that only a few people have touched on here. BAH isn't only for the cost of the living space. It is intended to cover the RENT, average utilities, and RENTER's insurance. base.


Who told you that? BAH is NOT to cover your utilities or renter's insurance....just your housing.

[VFFSSGT]

Who told you that? BAH is NOT to cover your utilities or renter's insurance....just your housing.

Utilities, among other things, are taken into account for BAH...

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf

In computing BAH, we include local price data of:
rental housing
utilities (including electricity, gas, oil, water, & sewer)
renter's insurance

[Yggdrasil]

Not Directly, just posting it response to your position with consideration of other experiences and arguments. AF, so I guess we aren't the same rank.... :)

So you're an E5 then - which puts me in a better position to point out the "flaws" of "today's youth" and all that other BS.

Tell me something: how long have you been in? Do you really consider yourself to be an old salt in a positition talk about young people coming into the military today?

As well, let's carry on an intelligent conversation. I'm mentioning possible solutions to young people in the military getting married sooner than their civilian counterparts, and all you're doing is bashing young people who don't enjoy living on the ship or in the barracks.

[VFFSSGT]

Just because you out rank me or may be slightly older than me, does not mean you are automatically in a better position to talk about the youth and generational problems. This assumption would be just as flawed as this statement you made...

Of course, what's going to stop this is the "if the ship/barracks was good enough for me, it's good enough for the new people coming in" mentality that alot of senior folks are going to have.

I have been in nearly 10 years. No, I am not an old salt, but have studied and still studying several subject areas concerning various issues and read many books. I have completed my Associates Degree (Electronics Technology), so I have been exposed to younger and older people in a classroom discussing various topics. I am not too far away from completing my Bachelor of Science degree (Multi-Disciplinary Studies), which many classes have included many topics in the discussion boards including generational issues. My online classes have students spanning from high school teenagers to 65 year old grandmothers, so again, another broad range of perspectives. I have mentored many teenagers and children and still am. I come from a broken family, have 5 younger siblings all of varying age. I also, once had the self-centered, self-interest, unappreciative mindset (however, never complained about having to live in the dorms)... I have also been in this forum for 6 months and had many intellectual discussions and debates on a wide range of topics. I can continue on but the point I am trying to get across is my view is not limited to complaining servicemen who think they have it so bad and senior folks who you referred to.

I have heard many arguments or complaints over my entire time from Airmen because they have to live in the dorms and it is so horrible because married people get BAH or a house on base. Or, married and single people get a different amount of BAH... Blah, Blah, Blah... Most young people do not realize just how good they have it and how much they have, which is a result of everything practically being handed to everyone now days, the entitlement mindset that is running ramped, and the victimization of America. More times than not, servicemen are complaining because something is not good enough - and anything done for them is insufficient. A prime recent example I like to point to is the New GI Bill. Shortly after it was approved, service members started complaining...$85,000 still was not good enough. Also, if you ask, most people joined out of self-interest, whether it was education, benefits, or something of the like. Most are in the military for a reason and guarantee we are better off now than we were or would be had we not joined. Another point I like to bring up is when I am having a conversation with someone and they start complaining about the area, that it sucks and/or there is nothing to do around here; I often ask what is not here that you would like. I have asked many people this and no one has been able to answer it yet. Take the same concept, ask someone complaining about their living conditions where would they be had it not been for joining the service and it is almost always worst off than they are now.

Yeah, I am quick to say they need to get over it because the military is not about their feelings, it is about getting a purpose/mission done. The military more than takes care of it's people and while it might not be good enough sometimes or please everyone all of the time it typically is more than sufficient and beyond what they need to do.

The few that are getting married sooner for the wrong reasons are just that, the few, a minority. They all have supervisors and friends and I have yet to see one not get counseling or advisement concerning possible bad life decisions. Even in training we all got the same briefing...don't get married in tech school just to get out of the dorms; tech school marriages don't last, etc, etc. You will cause yourself more problems down the road. The few that do last and make it are again, a minority; most don't last as warned from what I have seen.

I am not sure where you get that military members are getting married at younger ages than civilian counterparts. Civilians get married at the young ages just as military members do. Quite frankly, I have seen more married young'ins come in than I have young military members get married. Maybe in the Navy it is an severe problem but I am not sure that it is in the Air Force; the arguments sound very similar so I would believe that its not a real problem in any of the other services.

[Trissy18]

Utilities, among other things, are taken into account for BAH...

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf

hmmm good to know....
Thanks. And sorry for being wrong...thanks for keeping me in check.

[John J.]

I began active duty as a single army private at 17 in 1991, married as a PFC because the barracks were worse than a Springer episode, both in crime and quality of life, and command wouldn't permit under SSG to live off post. I would have preferred to stay in a gp small in those days. Had my first child in 95 as a SPC(P), and my next in 99 while in Germany. I knew my stuff, but the backstabbing nature of my combat MOS and the dysfunction in my unit, it was safer to remain an e-5. I finally decided OCS was the better path for me to get out of the ignorance.

A 2Lt with less than 2 years earns 3325 base, a SFC with over 10 makes 3374 base. Some of these posts infer that one would have to wait 10+ years and be a SFC or be an officer to have a family... in order to afford them etc. If a person joins with life experience at 30 and doesn't have a family yet, is that new older private supposed to wait until he's a SSG+ and 6 years to have one? Are only high ranks allowed to procreate?The difference of BAH is minimal in comparison to the cost of raising a child. The military just supplements to assist with the 50%+ of the force that wants to have a family, but it isn't like welfare.

The military, as well as insurance and credit companies, see married people as much more responsible than single people, purely by the nature of the selfless act of taking on the risk of family. Family also keeps adults in when they get to the point that they want one, instead of losing their investment to the civilian world. Think of a 27yo E-5 with 10 years, that is on the SSG list of an OStr MOS. He wants a family with his wife of 5 years but the points haven't come down in a long time. Does he get out to find a better job to have a family, or not have one? Families are also stress relievers, for the most part, and can provide soldiers with motivation, morale, and purpose, making soldiers more productive...iInstead of wasting their money on alcohol and car modifications.

Talk about self serving want it all for yourself mentality...what do you call the Highspeeds? They want the rank for themselves, for better pay for themselves, for the power for themselves. Not for the betterment of the service. I think the USMC says "you don't need it unless it is issued" meaning your family comes last.
Low speed/High Speed is a subjective joke. There are some slackers than prefer to remain that way, but up from e-4 there are not infinite amounts of slots, and promotions are not automatic. The further you go up, the less space there is, it's why they max out promotion point requirements at times. There are also "high speeds" that aren't emotionally ready/mature enough to lead, but because they can max an APFT and score high on a board, which means a physical/technical (testing) proficiency, or are a Type A napoleon power monger, they get the job. There's more to leadership than testing skills. It's why most militaries have the tech branch, like spec 4/5/6/7s, which the army used to have; or some European countries than have separate rankings for tech/leadership to not stifle the knowledge of service members. You can be a private in leadership, and a "40" level technician, because some people excel at leadership and others at testing. It was a sad day when they eliminated the SQT.

Now you have either a technically sharp but reluctant leader that in order to stay in was forced to get promoted; or an emotionally unprepared but proficient go-getter. Just because you want to be in charge doesn't mean they will ever be ready. Think of a 2LT just out of college, how many 21's do you know that are truly ready for that responsibility, but because they can pass the tests they are in the position. Then when you question them and their views, they should still be wearing diapers. That goes for enlisted as well. Knowledge doesn't make you mature, only time and experience can. Learning to lead on the backs of your subordinates is never the correct choice, you should always know more than they do. It's why I listened to my Platoon Sgts as a Lt.

Also, you are getting paid for your "time in service", a reward for staying in, so the military doesn't lose that knowledge and experience, no matter what rank you are. That E-4 with 5+ years may not have had pldc, but will generally know more about how the military works from experience than that punk e-5 with 3yrs and a fresh study guide, That's what teamwork is all about, bringing both to work together. Are you going to ignore that 8yr e-4's KSA's when you are that new squad leader, because he's not ready to lead yet? If you are, then that proves my point. Not all are this way of course, but forcing someone to choose advancement or not being able to serve anymore is ridiculous, especially in a volunteer military.

Maj. John J.

[golfingig1]

How about if that person gets divorced.....the parent with the child gets child support and more BAH. So as a military memeber married to a military member...I get divorced.....I pay child support per the state to support the child but only get without dependent BAH rate....meanwhile the spouse who is also military gets dependent rate BAH and the monthly child support payment....fair?

[VFFSSGT]

That is a messed up situation, well depending on the circumstances surrounding the divorce...

Do you not get differential or whatever they call it now to offset some of the cost of child support...?

Then again, you shouldn't have a problem supporting your own child. Now if she is using the money for something other than the child, then that one is on you to take back to the court.

[golfingig1]

I have no problem supporting my child.....my thought is if she is supporting the child and getting dependent rate BAH....why am I not able to do the same? Even though we have joint custody she is the primary custodian...because she's a woman and not selling crack out of her car.....so she has the child most of the time which would be a good argument for why she gets it and I don't. However....I have to maintain at least a two bedroom house or apartment so she has a place to live when she is with me....so there again....should I be allowed some dependent rate BAH? I don't know if there are guidelines out there that speak to this....I guess I need to do some research. Seems like a flat rate BAH depending on rank and the state you live in would solve the problem.

[golfingig1]

.....or I could just get married again. :-(

[yuggy]

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?

You are clueless. What does AT&T, GM and Wal Mart have to do with anything? You are now working for the U.S. Government which gives you great housing, medical, dental, bonuses, tuition assistance, G.I. Bill, Veterans Assistance and more. AT&T GM and Wal -Mart is your past career. Soldier up!

[yuggy]

:confused: 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?

You are clueless. What does AT&T, GM and Wal Mart have to do with anything? You are now working for the U.S. Government which gives you great housing, medical, dental, bonuses, tuition assistance, G.I. Bill, Veterans Assistance and more. AT&T GM and Wal -Mart is your past career. Soldier up!

[mrslynch]

The current Federal Guidelines for calculating spousal and child support along with many other federal programs allow for each States Attorney General to define at their discretion what can be included as income for non-custodial parents. The Federal Guidelines are silent on what can or cannot be counted as income for service members, therefore each state decides if Basic Allowance for Housing, (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), is calculated for child support. The Federal Guideline is currently only requires states to include healthcare and “income”. Ninety percent of states current count these amounts in calculating child support for noncustodial parents that are service members regardless if they are receiving this money. The BAH that a service member receives is to house their family either on or off post. The purpose of this is clearly outlined in Army Regulation 608-99 dated February 2003, which covers support of the family and the consequences that soldiers’ may face for non-support. While it addresses issues concerning soldiers’ that do not have court orders for support it also defers to each state as to the inclusion of BAH. Therefore a service member’s child support or spousal support could significantly increase simply by being transferred to another post as BAH is calculated based on zip code and rank. This then causes a hardship on the soldier and their children because child support is the right of the child, but it is the right of the Army to transfer you at any time. In any other profession your child support would not be based on where you live, simply what you earn and receive. The BAS that a service member receives is to provide them, personally with food, and was previously defined as “rations in kind”. If a soldier chooses to eat in the dining facility then they do not receive this benefit and are in different circumstances that vary by location on how much if any BAS they receive, however again ninety percent of states still count this as income for child support purposes. The law needs to address the inequity that civilians and military face as outlined above. The Federal Law should state that Base Pay, which is truly what they earn for their service, is what is to be used to calculate as there are too many state and military variables that do not allow the members of our Armed Forces to support their children and families in an appropriate manner. When I contacted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services department with this issue the Agency of Children and Families which administers part of the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act did not know that this is how child support was being calculated for service members as they focus on those that do not pay. This is an issue that should be handled on a Federal Level. As an active member of the Army Volunteer Corps I have personally seen how this impacts soldiers’ and families not just on my personal situation as I live in quarters so my spouse does not receive BAH but it is included in calculating his child support in another state. Lower ranking soldiers that earn far less than my spouse are unable to meet day to day expenses because of how these calculations are made from state to state. Some have been evicted from their homes, had vehicles repossessed and were forced to take out loans just to survive. One soldier in particular deployed to Iraq and although he was divorced from his spouse and child support had been set and he was current, she was able to successfully petition the court (he waived his SSRA) to increase his support based on his BAH and Combat Pay even though he had joint custody of their children and the Army allowed for him to maintain quarters for them. This increased his support to over $3000.00 per month for two children and when he returned from war he was forced to file for bankruptcy. Children have the right to be supported by both parents but members of the Armed Forces need a specific outline in the Federal Child Support.

[ANTHONYREA]

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?

The reality is that until the military increases base pay where it is comparable to the private sector they will have to continue to offer additional financial incentives (i.e. higher BAH for dependents) if only for retention's sake. Also I don't know if you've taken into account those soldiers who are potentially divorced but pay child support...an increased BAH would help this kind of soldier from going down with the ship...or getting dominated by a monthly child support payment. But let's be honest...regardless of how you look at this...the military by no means is paying us to live like rock stars.

[RHOADS2183]

I will give you one easy example of how a single soldier is different from a married soldier with no kids. How many husband and wives will have roommates? I know the majority of single soldiers that live offpost do so with roommates and therefore usually end up actually making a lot more than the the soldier with a wife.

I agree that you could argue one way on not paying per dependent, but I hope you can see the other side of the coin. A married soldier with no kids can infact rent that one bedroom apartment, but if you have 3 kids you must have at least a 3BR apartment which is going to cost you more than a 1BR apartment.

You could say that there is an added cost to the DOD because of the medical, but it is also a major factor in why a lot of married soldiers stay in the military because of the benefits. If you do not have children you can live a totally different lifestyle (more carefree).

[Skyhawk]

The key point is that working for the US military removes nearly all options for negotiating your salary. Working for the private sector provides every option for personal negotiation of one's salary! To miss this point reveals that the posters don't understand the reality.

And for the record, many private sector employers DO pay more for a married person with children, than for a single person, and for the exact same job. Why? Because, and quite rightly, said employers judge that the married person is likely to be more responsible and trustworthy because he/she has children to support. Therefore it is worth it to secure said person's talent at somewhat higher cost.

It is the same way that a college degree shows that said person was able and willing to enter a strenuous degree study and successfully finish the curriculum.

Military pay is not negotiable due to requirements of federal law. But, the same need exists to encourage talented people to remain. The military cannot rationally expect all its people to remain chaste! The BAH is a way to encourage people to remain in uniform. What is more to the point is that these extra pays are encouraged and have expanded because they do not factor into retirement calculations. They have been deemed an effective tool to promote retention without increasing the costs of retirement.

The military is already having a very difficult time with retention. What we have is a vocal minority yelling about what they see as unfair pay without even acknowledging the clear difference overall between negotiated pay and legislated pay! If we listen to these minority voices to adopt new equal BAH then we'll see our already eroded retention number further slide, and it isn't much longer before we find ourselves unable to effectively prosecute the war. And our mission is precisely that!

[mel44]

The current Federal Guidelines for calculating spousal and child support along with many other federal programs allow for each States Attorney General to define at their discretion what can be included as income for non-custodial parents. The Federal Guidelines are silent on what can or cannot be counted as income for service members, therefore each state decides if Basic Allowance for Housing, (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), is calculated for child support. The Federal Guideline is currently only requires states to include healthcare and “income”. Ninety percent of states current count these amounts in calculating child support for noncustodial parents that are service members regardless if they are receiving this money. The BAH that a service member receives is to house their family either on or off post. The purpose of this is clearly outlined in Army Regulation 608-99 dated February 2003, which covers support of the family and the consequences that soldiers’ may face for non-support. While it addresses issues concerning soldiers’ that do not have court orders for support it also defers to each state as to the inclusion of BAH. Therefore a service member’s child support or spousal support could significantly increase simply by being transferred to another post as BAH is calculated based on zip code and rank. This then causes a hardship on the soldier and their children because child support is the right of the child, but it is the right of the Army to transfer you at any time. In any other profession your child support would not be based on where you live, simply what you earn and receive. The BAS that a service member receives is to provide them, personally with food, and was previously defined as “rations in kind”. If a soldier chooses to eat in the dining facility then they do not receive this benefit and are in different circumstances that vary by location on how much if any BAS they receive, however again ninety percent of states still count this as income for child support purposes. The law needs to address the inequity that civilians and military face as outlined above. The Federal Law should state that Base Pay, which is truly what they earn for their service, is what is to be used to calculate as there are too many state and military variables that do not allow the members of our Armed Forces to support their children and families in an appropriate manner. When I contacted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services department with this issue the Agency of Children and Families which administers part of the Federal Child Support Enforcement Act did not know that this is how child support was being calculated for service members as they focus on those that do not pay. This is an issue that should be handled on a Federal Level. As an active member of the Army Volunteer Corps I have personally seen how this impacts soldiers’ and families not just on my personal situation as I live in quarters so my spouse does not receive BAH but it is included in calculating his child support in another state. Lower ranking soldiers that earn far less than my spouse are unable to meet day to day expenses because of how these calculations are made from state to state. Some have been evicted from their homes, had vehicles repossessed and were forced to take out loans just to survive. One soldier in particular deployed to Iraq and although he was divorced from his spouse and child support had been set and he was current, she was able to successfully petition the court (he waived his SSRA) to increase his support based on his BAH and Combat Pay even though he had joint custody of their children and the Army allowed for him to maintain quarters for them. This increased his support to over $3000.00 per month for two children and when he returned from war he was forced to file for bankruptcy. Children have the right to be supported by both parents but members of the Armed Forces need a specific outline in the Federal Child Support.

We are one of those people. we pay 2000 a month for 2 kids. We carry all insurance and pay out of pocket. She moved to Washington state and we have to pay all travel expense. We make it all right but we dont have any debt and have my income but it is still outragous. I got 150 a month for my son from my first husband (not military) I never heard of such high child support until I married into the military.

[g_lo33]

Everyone has choices. The government provides housing for everyone according to their needs (for the most part). Then you have a choice...live on post in qtrs provided and available to you, or live on the economy off post. If you choose to live off post (or they have nothing available for you on post), they compensate you some, again depending on whether you need a place for just yourself or you plus your family. Sometimes you are able to "make" a little extra, which for some ends up barely covering the expenses of electricity and gas which is provided to you on post, while others still have to come out of pocket. If you really want to be upset, look at dual military Soldiers. They both get their BAH and are better able to bank a little extra. The only time I would agree with dual military receiving BAH*2 is if they are geographic bachelors. But once again, both soldiers are entitled to their individual pay. I am a single parent (not so much by choice) with three kids and it is hard to make ends meet. I am a parent by choice, but I never expected to be raising my kids on my own. I'm not saying I'm more entitled to BAH with dependent rates, but this whole argument of one single BAH standard is just crazy. Also, most people can never really afford a family (financially) that is why we parents (and spouses) make "sacrifices". The military understands we sacrifice a lot more than our civilian counter parts by having to deploy, work late nights and weekends and so we sacrifice time with our families. A relationship with our significant other and our children is a difficult balancing act. Having adequate housing for my family is just one thing that allows me to have one less stressor and helps me be a better Soldier and parent. Can single Soldiers living in the barracks really say that they are sacrificing as much? Only if they feel they are sacrificing a chance at happiness when it comes to sharing their life with someone they consider a best friend, companion, or a child that depends on them for everything. That's a choice they make as well. I apologize if this all sounds like rambling, but this whole issue on BAH differences is absurd. The only ones I ever really see living it up because of extra BAH is dual military with no kids and Soldiers whole are money savvy and know how to spend their money wisely. I’m not hating, good for them! They make good choices.

[VFFSSGT]

As well, let's carry on an intelligent conversation.

What happened? I thought we were going to have an "intelligent" conversation...

[rmiller53]

The military uses as a recruiting tool the fact that they provide housing for you and your family (spouse and kids). There are valid reasons for this. It is an incentive to join and to stay in. It also makes it more practical to make it as a familiy while serving, especially considering that you likely will need to move every few years as you rotate to new duty stations. If you live on base, the size of your quarters is determined by the size of your family. If you live off base, the size of your BAH allowance is more if you have kids. That makes perfect sense since you will need a bigger place. The military lifstyle is unique and cannot fairly be compared to many civilian jobs. The BAH allowance is necessary to attract and retain quality service members who happen to want to have families as well as a military career.

[Yggdrasil]

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?

Since we want to start using civilian pay practices to justify our arguments, where's my overtime pay? How about my time plus time and a half for working on holidays?

You see how stupid this argument can get?

[TKEPPLER]

This is truly a ridiculous thought process. A reward system for not having a family. By those standards alone, your SGLI benefits should be cut to 250,000 if you are single. The family needs more to live off of after death, so they get the entire 400,000 SGLI. In fact, maybe being single should mean no SGLI. Afterall, you have no dependants that need the money. Lets face the facts. There would be no retention if members with families were somehow penalized. Being married and having children harldy makes the military a social cause. Look at the burdens a family has if there father is deployed for war. Look at the situation around you, and tell me where your military would be without members with families.

[LSPELLS]

This is not a simple issue. I understand the opinions of the single folks, but the single folks need to realize this simple fact: the increased BAH is not nearly enough to offset the costs of having a wife and a family and is a financial sacrifice no matter how you slice it but it is also a critical life goal for most people.

Getting married is a "personal choice", but getting married and having a family is a part of the American dream (for most of us), the dream that we have signed up to defend. If our service members can't afford to achieve their dreams of having a loving family, who will serve? Will we be left only with single E-1 to E-3s and O-1 to O-3s? What would happen to our senior leaders?

You have two choices relative to BAH: (1) Pay everyone the same BAH or (2) maintain the current system. If you choose to pay everyone the same BAH, two things can happen: (1) Everyone will get the lower rate or (2) everyone will get the higher rate. In these economic times, I seriously doubt everyone will get the higher rate, so I have to assume everyone would get the lower rate or an "average" rate. In either case, you would be dealing a pay cut to married (and likely more senior) members, those who are charged with leading our people and ensuring safety and readiness. These people hardly need another reason to leave the service and it could be devastating if pursued.

We are all here to defend the American dream and way of life. Why selfishly begrudge married members who are pursuing their American dream a few extra dollars to support it?

[technomage1]

Equal pay for equal work. Ever hear of it?

BAH should be based upon grade. Period.

[VFFSSGT]

Equal pay for equal work. Ever hear of it?

BAH should be based upon grade. Period.

Again, BAH is NOT pay. If you would like it to be, then continue on and then you will regret it when you start paying taxes out of BAH and BAS ...

[ringjamesa]

This is truly a ridiculous thought process. A reward system for not having a family. By those standards alone, your SGLI benefits should be cut to 250,000 if you are single. The family needs more to live off of after death, so they get the entire 400,000 SGLI. In fact, maybe being single should mean no SGLI. Afterall, you have no dependants that need the money. Lets face the facts. There would be no retention if members with families were somehow penalized. Being married and having children harldy makes the military a social cause. Look at the burdens a family has if there father is deployed for war. Look at the situation around you, and tell me where your military would be without members with families.

That is stupid. Being single means you don't get SGLI for a spouse or child (unless you are a single parent). What on earth makes you think that SGLI has anything to do with marital status?

[Yggdrasil]

Plain and simple - if someone feels that they will be paid more fairly elsewhere, then that's where they need to pursue life. I can tell you that in most instances, an E5 with 8 years and drawing single BAH would need to make at least $50,000 on the outside in order make the same take-home pay - this is due to figuring out what the gross amounts of BAH and BAS would be if the amounts you got now were to be net.

So, for all you folks out there with only a high school diploma who think they can do better, I say go for it.

[chad1012]

I'm sure SSG Carson has an education level equal to those who decide BAH rates for the military. You must have not lived with another person before. I have lived single in the past and barely had enough space for my own stuff. When I got married it was a nightmare fitting both of our stuff in the same 1 bedroom apartment. We absolutley could not live in the 1 bedroom apartment anymore, unless you expect us to throw away most of our stuff. Add in the fact that with another person your utilitity bills go up. The shift from a 1 bedroom apartment to a 2 bedroom apartment was an easy $200-$300, basically the difference from the single rate and w/dependants rate. The system does not "reward" me for being married, it merely accomodates my family. The extra money goes straight into rent and utilities which I assume yours does as well. The fact is that 2 people need more space than 1 which is why Basic Allowance for Housing is the way that it is...math is crazy, huh? You aren't getting penalized for anything SSG. I also disagree with your argument about Basic Pay. I don't feel cheated in any way, shape or form that there are many SSGs (probably you too) that have a higher Basic Pay than me. Alot of Soldiers serve in an MOS where promotions a few and far between. Sub-standard Soldiers will eventually be transitioned out of the Army, that high-speed Sergeant wins if you want to look at it like that. I hope you spend as much time mentoring that low-speed Specialist to get promoted as you do poking your nose where it doesn't belong.

SFC Chad Miller
Baghdad, Iraq


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/community/opinion/army_opinion_bah_052608/

[CrimLaw]

I know when I was a single E-4 sharing a tiny room and bathroom with a roommate, it ticked me off that brand-new E-1s could live off-post and receive BAH just because they were married. It is lucrative to get married in the Army, especially to another service member. I can see both points-of-view of the BAH issue. Why should someone get paid more money because they decide to get married or pop out a kid? They are doing the same amount of work as anyone else. At the same time, if you have 5 kids (or 8, like an officer I once worked with) you are going to need every extra dollar of the BAH w/ dep. But, why should the government pay you more because you want to have kids that it looks like you can't afford? My husband and I want kids, but we are putting that off until we both finish school and are at a good place financially. I think the best solution would be to pay everyone the same BAH, but raise the BAH rates. I have to live in an apartment, and even though it is a nice apartment, I would much rather prefer a small home or a townhouse. Living on post is not an option because the housing is truly despicable, and is currently being torn down. I think if everyone received the same amount of BAH, and more of it, everyone would be happy :)

[Yggdrasil]

Here's my bottom line on the matter: Keep the BAH rates the same, but make everyone - both married and single - entitled to their respective BAH when they come into the military. No single service member is going to get married for an extra $150/per month in BAH. But they WILL get married to get off the ship or out of the barracks, when single BAH was all they wanted in the first place.

End the end, more people getting single BAH means less people getting married, which saves the military money.

[MRMIXITUP]

I'm saving the Army $700 a month by not being married. (BAH diff + Fam Sep Pay)

Not to mention the untold thousands from not having a wife pumping out kids every year.

Even if I was married, I wouldn't be anymore with 3 deployments in 4 years. I don't know why the hell anyone would even bother getting married in today's Army.

[spouse2356]

People with families are less of a liability than single people in general. A family guy (or girl) is less likely to be out getting drunk on a regular basis, and doing stupid things that could possibly get them kicked out which would cost the military alot more money in the end because they would have to train a replacement. Statistics also regulary show that people with families are more dependable workers than their single counterparts. This is mainly due to the fact that family men, or women, have also been shown to have more life satisfaction than single people. A satisfied worker is a good worker, and companies, as well as the military, have known this for a long time which is why they do what they do. Also a civilian who has an actual career and not just some crap job often does have more benefits when they have a family for the same reasons. I've heard of companies actually helping a family pay for adopting a child. If they were really wanting a child and having trouble on their own they might be more depressed which leaks into their work life. If you want to talk about being fair though, I believe it is single women in the military who have taken the most advantage of the whole proving that they're depressed to get the military to pay for their plastic surgery. So if the military can justify paying someone for their breasts, then the military should be able to more than justify paying someone extra to properly raise their children into a fine piece of human capital whom will most likely add to the economy and possibly even serve in the military themselves in the future.

[ringjamesa]

People with families are less of a liability than single people in general. A family guy (or girl) is less likely to be out getting drunk on a regular basis, and doing stupid things that could possibly get them kicked out which would cost the military alot more money in the end because they would have to train a replacement. Statistics also regulary show that people with families are more dependable workers than their single counterparts. This is mainly due to the fact that family men, or women, have also been shown to have more life satisfaction than single people. A satisfied worker is a good worker, and companies, as well as the military, have known this for a long time which is why they do what they do. Also a civilian who has an actual career and not just some crap job often does have more benefits when they have a family for the same reasons. I've heard of companies actually helping a family pay for adopting a child. If they were really wanting a child and having trouble on their own they might be more depressed which leaks into their work life. If you want to talk about being fair though, I believe it is single women in the military who have taken the most advantage of the whole proving that they're depressed to get the military to pay for their plastic surgery. So if the military can justify paying someone for their breasts, then the military should be able to more than justify paying someone extra to properly raise their children into a fine piece of human capital whom will most likely add to the economy and possibly even serve in the military themselves in the future.

So you use a study of civilians to support your assertation about military members?

[VFFSSGT]

So you use a study of civilians to support your assertation about military members?

ummm....civilian or military we are all still human and that is the idea behind the study...people in general are happier with families.

[ringjamesa]

So, you are telling me that when depolyed, a married person is happier than a single person? I know when I was a little single Airman I had a hell of a lot less to worry agout than I do now.

[SeaChicken]

The study said "life satisfaction", not happiness which can be fleeting and more specific to the moment.

[BMBGUY]

I cant believe some of the things i have read on this subject. You all do realize that we are in the military. There happen to be quite a few different incentive pays that not everone is entitled to. In fact i happen to receive two different types that i am sure some of you think you should also get so that you can feel equal because we are both the same rank and we both do the same work. Incentive pays are just that, incentives. They are put out there to keep people doing what they are doing and the bottom line is that the military wants to keep everyone doing what they are doing. BAH is an incentive plain and simple. Not everyone is entitled to receive it.

[VFFSSGT]

Life satisfaction, happier...same difference. I have seen studies that referred to it both ways.

Well, while being apart sucks, people tend to grow closer during those times, generally speaking. A married person has someone to talk, write, email, etc to from time to time where a single person might not.

Generally more happy or have more life satisfaction, which referring to life would mean overall...

There are advantages and disadvantages of both, being married or being single. Just as there are higher and lower costs in different areas for both... There is no such thing as true equality and never will be...and BAH has nothing to do with equality and can't believe people are trying to link it to that, well I sort of can in the victimization of America and everyone trying to find an easy buck or easy way.

But, just because something, like a study, does not spell out everything in black and white does not mean you cannot apply some thinking skills and apply concepts to different aspects of life.

[Shawn60]

...a 1 bdroom costs the same for a married couple that it does for a single person...but the military give the married couple more than the single person for the same 1 bd room apartment.

This has always been my problem...that apartment manager doesn't care one bloody bit that one guy is married and the other isn't, rent is $XXX for either.

[Shawn60]

To me, on base housing should be assigned by rank only - an E-9 gets a bigger house than an E-1. Period. If the E-1's two kids have to share a room for a few years until they get promoted into a larger house - why is that so horrible?

It's the same with off base housing. It should not be needs driven, but rather rank driven. If a married person feels the "need" for a separate bedroom for each of their children, and are low ranking, then it is their choice to pay out of pocket for that. As a higher ranking single, it may be my choice to get a larger house and put a weight room in. RHIP.

Are you freaking serious??? You would actually look at a single E7 and say "you deserve a 3 bedroom house because you have attained the rank of E7" and tell the E4 with wife/2 children "you are only an E3, therefore you are only entitled to 2 bedrooms"?

Are you an officer?

[ringjamesa]

I cant believe some of the things i have read on this subject. You all do realize that we are in the military. There happen to be quite a few different incentive pays that not everone is entitled to. In fact i happen to receive two different types that i am sure some of you think you should also get so that you can feel equal because we are both the same rank and we both do the same work. Incentive pays are just that, incentives. They are put out there to keep people doing what they are doing and the bottom line is that the military wants to keep everyone doing what they are doing. BAH is an incentive plain and simple. Not everyone is entitled to receive it.

Wrong wrong wrong. BAH is an entitlement-falls under housing. An Incentive is to get people to do something they would not otherwise do and is for a specific skill. Are you seriously saying that the military wants everyone to get married so bad that they use BAH as an incentive for their members to get married? If that were the case, why provide single people housing at all? If housing is an incentive and the DoD wants everyone to be married so bad that they have incentive pay to get married, then can't the single people just sleep outside until they get off their lazy @$$es and get married or knock someone up?

[technomage1]

Are you freaking serious??? You would actually look at a single E7 and say "you deserve a 3 bedroom house because you have attained the rank of E7" and tell the E4 with wife/2 children "you are only an E3, therefore you are only entitled to 2 bedrooms"?

Are you an officer?

No, I'm not an officer, but in our system RHIP. What's wrong with stating the above? What's wrong with having housing based upon your pay grade? We earn higher privledges and compensation by earning our rank.

I know BAH is not pay, it is an allowance, but it is a part of our overall compensation package. Can you imagine telling your supervisor, "I just got married. Pay me more money"? This is essentially what is happening.

I save the government a ton by being single. Moving costs, health care, etc all leads to a cost savings to the govt. I can (and do) deploy at the drop of a hat and not burden those left behind with a spouse and kids the unit needs to take care of.

The AF tends to like their people married above a certain rank as it's insurance to make sure that they stay in. But not all branches are that way - the Marine Corps, for example, isn't that way. I read an article a few years back where the head enlisted Marine stated something to the effect of "Thank god for my single Marines, without them we couldn't accomplish the mission".

[MustangUSMC_20]

Alright men, as you can see this is my fiirst post. I haven't felt the need to register until now. I really can't believe some of the things I am reading. Either alot of you are young and immature or........I don't even know what to say. Those of you that are single: That is what barracks are for. They don't let married people live in the barracks. Period. Listen gentlemen, many people wouldn't stay in if they could never get married. If you've never been married don't talk about it. The married life and single life are extremely different, as are alot of your goals in life. Also, your expenses are higher when you are married. Alot of my young Marines probably shouldn't have gotten married, but they are MEN and WOMEN are are fully capable of making decisions in their own personal lives. At my rank, if I was single then my life would be much different, but I'm not and it isn't. I know alot of you like to throw out your personal opinions anonomously on the internet. Just a word of advice.....think before you type. Many things have rational explanations that you are most likely not aware of. But off topic, thank you all for your service and last but not least.....Semper Fidelis.

[VFFSSGT]

Alright men, as you can see this is my fiirst post. I haven't felt the need to register until now. I really can't believe some of the things I am reading. Either alot of you are young and immature or........I don't even know what to say. Those of you that are single: That is what barracks are for. They don't let married people live in the barracks. Period. Listen gentlemen, many people wouldn't stay in if they could never get married. If you've never been married don't talk about it. The married life and single life are extremely different, as are alot of your goals in life. Also, your expenses are higher when you are married. Alot of my young Marines probably shouldn't have gotten married, but they are MEN and WOMEN are are fully capable of making decisions in their own personal lives. At my rank, if I was single then my life would be much different, but I'm not and it isn't. I know alot of you like to throw out your personal opinions anonomously on the internet. Just a word of advice.....think before you type. Many things have rational explanations that you are most likely not aware of. But off topic, thank you all for your service and last but not least.....Semper Fidelis.

Welcome, good post.... :)

If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would put my money on the highlighted statement... And most of it boils down to self-absorbed attitudes and greed, nothing is ever good enough... :rolleyes:

[technomage1]

Please explain to me how wanting equal compensation for the work that we do is greed or immaturity or selfish.

I'm enlisted, but I'm high enough in the food chain not to live on base (ie barracks or dorms) unless I should somehow chose to. Still, that doesn't mean that I think that it's right for any rank to get higher compenstation simply due to marital status. This doesn't mean that I don't think marriage is hard or anything like that - that has nothing to do with my stance. And nowhere did I suggest banning marriage in the service. That's not even on the table. What I did say is that I'm easier for the service to take care of (and cheaper) because I'm single. That's just a fact.

How do you justify that a single E5 has less housing allowance on base than an E1 who is married? Everything in the service is based upon rank, except for this, and that's what I don't get.

After you all leave the service via retirement or whatnot, try asking your employer for more money because you are married and "need" it. After they stop laughing at you, they'll likely show you the door.

[Shrike]

After you all leave the service via retirement or whatnot, try asking your employer for more money because you are married and "need" it. After they stop laughing at you, they'll likely show you the door.

Yep. If you looked at your finances and realized that you couldn't afford to settle down and start a family at your current rank/income, but you did it anyway, that's not your employer's burden to bear. At least, it shouldn't be.

[Tracker]

He is not being rewarded for having kids. He is being given money to support his kids. You act as if he is getting 100.00 for every child that he has. Yes, it is his choice to have children but he shouldnt have to struggle to support them either. In fact I think he should get a little more BAH for his children up to a certain amount. What is unfair that an E-6 married makes as much BAH as a E-6 with 3 children. The e-6 has to have a three to four bedroom house. Where can you find that cheap? There are 4 people using electric, gas, water, etc... They have more responsibilty than another single Soldier.

[VFFSSGT]

Please explain to me how wanting equal compensation for the work that we do is greed or immaturity or selfish.

I'm enlisted, but I'm high enough in the food chain not to live on base (ie barracks or dorms) unless I should somehow chose to. Still, that doesn't mean that I think that it's right for any rank to get higher compenstation simply due to marital status. This doesn't mean that I don't think marriage is hard or anything like that - that has nothing to do with my stance. And nowhere did I suggest banning marriage in the service. That's not even on the table. What I did say is that I'm easier for the service to take care of (and cheaper) because I'm single. That's just a fact.

How do you justify that a single E5 has less housing allowance on base than an E1 who is married? Everything in the service is based upon rank, except for this, and that's what I don't get.

After you all leave the service via retirement or whatnot, try asking your employer for more money because you are married and "need" it. After they stop laughing at you, they'll likely show you the door.

BAH and BAS is not pay or compensation. It is an allowance to provide housing and food. If you want to talk about equal pay for equal work lets talk about a TSgt makes more than me but I do the same job they do and sometimes more than them depending on which one it is... Or, the pure nature of my job would earn me a lot more pay in civilian life... BAH is based on rank, among several other factors. And if you applied your argument, then married people would have to live in the dorms or single Airmen would have to live in houses, both of which is unpractical...

Why are you complaining about it if you are not being greedy or selfish? You either want them to get less or you get more because its not "fair." The pure nature of your argument results from greed or selfishness.

No, it's not a fact that you are easier to take care of because you are single... That is your perspective. There are many studies that show married people are more reliable and dependable than single. The insurance companies even agree.... Being married, drops your insurance rate down typically by $100-200 every 6 months.

If you want to continue to compare it to civilian pay, I am sure Congress would be happy to lump it all into one big sum (like civilians get paid) and tax it all, which they have proposed several times to tax our allowances.... so again, be careful what you wish for. Taxing your BAH and BAS could be anywhere from $100 to several hundred a month depending on what your BAH is...

You could also read the guidance on BAH to grasp a better understanding of it...

[Tracker]

If you dont like the amount of money you get paid, get promoted, or get out of the service...

[mel44]

I'm saving the Army $700 a month by not being married. (BAH diff + Fam Sep Pay)

Not to mention the untold thousands from not having a wife pumping out kids every year.

Even if I was married, I wouldn't be anymore with 3 deployments in 4 years. I don't know why the hell anyone would even bother getting married in today's Army.

LOL I think your pretty safe here. With all your insight and in depth knowledge of marriage, I wouldnt expect marriage in your future - Hee heee hee

[mlm]

*Puts on helmet, straps on body armor with yoke & groin protector, slinks down to nametape defilade*

Okay, first let me say that I am not enlisted and I have not been enlisted, except for that weird enlisted-status of a contracted ROTC cadet, so I don't understand fully what it's like from their perspective.

Now, on to the topic at hand. As a single officer, I do take issue with the way we handle "With dependents" and mil-mil marriages.

First-off, I'm not too sure simply being married warrants higher BAH. As a single officer with no dependents, I was automatically entered into a housing profile (available at http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf) that said I was given BAH to afford a 2 bedroom apartment. Locally, my BAH was set at $805.00. A butterbar married to a civilian would get $1030.00 for their quarters. If I read the primer right (and I may not be, as it's getting late), by having a spouse, they'd be put in at profile for a 2 bedroom townhome.
My question here is: Does simply having a spouse automatically require an increase in housing? One kitchen can take care of a single person to entire families, so there's no increase in square-footage there. One bedroom should be fine for both a single person and a married couple (they do tend to sleep in the same bed, right?). One office / guest room should work for both (in every house I've lived in, we've never needed more than one guest room). One dining room should work for both; as should one living room. I will say that having more than one person really works better if you have two bathrooms; but my apartment is a 2 / 2, and I can afford it on a without-dependents BAH.
The idea of spouse yielding more money to pay for quarters, since on-base quarters are unavailable is also somewhat archaic. It hearkens back to the time where a military member (men) could largely expect to be housed on post. This time was also when the spouse (women) had very few opportunities for financial independence and, when married, were expected to be homemakers, which was a lot of work but paid little or nothing. Nowdays, the spouse, regardless of gender, brings much more earning capacity to the marriage. So, while their needs can be met by the same amount of resources used to meet a single servicemember's needs, if their desires outstrip that, they can have a job to bring in additional income.
So I don't think simply having a spouse should put someone in a higher housing level. I don't think I should be "rewarded" for being single or they should be "penalized" for being married. Whether I need to get more or they need to get less isn't something I can, or should, decide... I'm no economics major. I just don't think there should be two levels.
However, I do feel that child dependents merit a higher BAH. The child needs a separate room from the parent, and my mother loved having a "kids room" where she could simply shut the door and ignore the mess my brother and I made. On top of that, if I had a kid / kids I don't think that would diminish my desire to have my office as some form of space set aside from everything else, like a nook or a room smaller than a bedroom. If they have more than one kid and they're of opposite genders, they could use a little more, because boys and girls will eventually need to be separated.
So I suppose for married servicemembers / singles with kids, "with dependents" increases should only be for a child with one more level for kids of 2 genders; but that's where it'd stop, so someone with one boy and one girl would be given the same as someone with 2 and 2. Why pay for kids, since "the military didn't issue them"? Because servicemembers need to at least have basic needs met; and someone with kids will be distracted if they're pushing their finances to afford housing for their children.
Now, we get to military-military marriages. If BAH is intended to off-set the cost of my living off base due to the unavailability of on-base housing, I am being paid for a need that the government cannot cover. I need a place to live. Uncle Sam can't give me one. Therefore, he gives me money to find a place on the economy. Why is it, then, that my friends, two lieutenants who are married to each other, get double the BAH because each one receives BAH for an officer without dependents? I've already established that a married couple shouldn't have needs beyond what the government is expecting for a single officer, and that I feel both a single officer and a military-civilian couple, therefore, merit the same amount of money to cover the same need. Why do these officers get double the pay to cover the SAME NEED? BAH is not so much a matter of individual entitlement, but the government providing funds so we can have a need met that the government cannot cover. Two lieutenants marry each other? Oh well! Their needs aren't double a single officer's, or a military-civilian marriage. Again, it seems that this goes back to the time when only the male half of the equation would be in military service. I feel that if both members are in the military and receiving BAH, each should get half, that way they're massing the same funds as a single / military-civilian marriage and it's split evenly in case they don't want to share bank accounts.
Should it still go up with rank?. I'd say yes. The government is covering not only a basic need for shelter, but it is supposed to provide you with quarters consummate with your rank. So the money it provides a servicemember with to compensate for the unavailability of government quarters should go up to cover the fact that not only can the government not cover the need for quarters, but it cannot provide quarters of the appropriate level. If anything, this provides supervisors / leaders with the chance to live apart from their troops so they can relax and "let their hair down". That way they can relax without worrying about compromising "good order and discipline". I, personally, don't need my troops hearing my private phone calls through thin apartment walls.
My issue is not that I feel I need to have more. I could be fine as an O6 without dependents, living in the same square footage I've got now (well, a garage instead of a carport would be nicer...). Should we adjust the amount given as a to keep up with the market, of course. My problem is that I don't like seeing the budget I have for training and supplying my troops to perform their military mission drastically cut while we still have these out-dated practices with arbitrary, archaic stratifications based on an older view of marriage. Eliminate the arbitrary gap between singles and marrieds and the double-dipping of mil-mil marriages. Then add policies that reflect the larger number of single parents we have now than we did before. The standing viewpoints are not as relevant as they used to be, and we can't afford to distribute money inefficiently (don't get me started on paying $300 for an item I could buy at the store for less than half that).


Wow. You have quite a few great points in your post, however, there is one that I would disagree with. Why should Mil-to-Mil members not individually draw their BAH? If you and your unmarried buddy decided to share an appartment you would each get seperate BAH. BAH is an entitlement for being an Active Duty Military member. It has nothing to do with being married or having children. If two civilians doing the same job get married, should one of them take a pay cut because they are married and now living together?

[Shrike]

If you dont like the amount of money you get paid, get promoted, or get out of the service...

If the amount of money you make is not enough to support having a bigger family, then get promoted or get out of the service,

[Shrike]

He is not being rewarded for having kids. He is being given money to support his kids. You act as if he is getting 100.00 for every child that he has. Yes, it is his choice to have children but he shouldnt have to struggle to support them either. In fact I think he should get a little more BAH for his children up to a certain amount. What is unfair that an E-6 married makes as much BAH as a E-6 with 3 children. The e-6 has to have a three to four bedroom house.

No, that E-6 thinks he has to have a house that big.
Q: Why do his children each need their own bedrooms?
A: They don't.

Q: If they want a bigger house, what is the spouse doing to earn money?
Q: If they couldn't afford the house they felt they needed - but most likely didn't actually need - why did they not delay increasing the size of their family until their income could support it?
A: These require actual personal responsibility, which nowadays is anathema.


Where can you find that cheap? There are 4 people using electric, gas, water, etc... They have more responsibilty than another single Soldier.
And they are also costing the government a hell of a lot more money than that single soldier - medical, dental, BAH, COLA, OHA, time away from work, etc.

[VFFSSGT]

Just some good to know information for all you single people hating on us married people...you are a minority...



Marital status
* 59.7 percent of the current force is married, which is 71.83 percent of the officers and 56.7 percent of enlisted airmen.

* There are 17,472 couples in the Air Force with both spouses in the military.

* 1,347 of these are married to members of other military services.
Family members

* Active-duty members support 442,326 family members.

* 350,902 family members reside in an airman’s household.

[KWCOOPER]

WOW, I agree with the poster who said these arguments are absured and based on no real foundation whatsoever. First off a spouse is counted as a dependent because she is a sependent. Second it only makes sense to give a bit more money for a person in the military who has finacial obligation to more than one person, i.e dependents. How can a sound minded person even make the argument that two people can live under the same conditions as one person. That's the equivilant of saying you can save enough food for a disaster to support one person and with the same amount of food you can support two or even more people for the exact same amount of time. Let's be logical here people. Staying single or married is not something to be punished or rewarded for, however, getting more BAH is not a reward, it is a requirement, simply because two or more people, can't live under the same housing conditions as one, no matter how you try and spin it. At least not in America, or anywhere on earth for that matter, unless I missed something in economics. Don't even get me started on the whole welfare comparison...OMG!!!! Sometimes, it really saddens me the lack of intelligence shown by some of the members of our service, and the scary thing is those are the ones who seem to sky rocket through the ranks of all the respective services...What has become of our services and our core values and ideals that are the foundation of military life.

[ScottyJF03]

Although I can see both sides of the argument, I have to agree with the one BAH side, BAH is an allowance to try and standardize the cost of renting a place across the country regardless of the mean rental prices at each location, a compensation for the govt selecting where we live. Having a dependent does cost more, but in my opinion it is a personal choice one makes and doesn't affects you ability to do you job to which your pay is based. The argument I love is that a married couple (with or without kids) Requires more space so is [I]required[I] to receive more money from the government to offset the cost. I suggest moving to a part of town that cost a little less, I guarantee I can find a two bedroom or even a three bedroom place in town that cost less than a one bedroom. My neighbor is single and same paygrade and like us pays the same amount for his place, a 2x2 but gets less BAH. By the way, my wife makes way more than me or my neighbor and such I don't need the extra in BAH. To offset the loss or gain during a change, I suggest pick one and then grandfather the cost until promotion or transfer to prevent a decrease in income.

[technomage1]

I don't hate married people at all. I do resent being treated like a second class citizen by the system sometimes, which I think is fully justified. I do resent covering for the guy/gal with a sick kid, only to be told that I need to take leave to take care of some personal business of my own. Note that I don't mind covering, but I do mind the fact that it's not reciprocated.

If anyone is being greedy or selfish here, it's the folks who think that they are "entitled" to higher compensation due to their personal choices. By that rationale, I could argue that the AF should pay me more to deploy because I chose to have a house with a lawn, and I have to pay a guy $60 a month to mow it while I'm gone. I chose to have a house with a lawn knowing full well that it was very likely that I would deploy - so I don't aruge that I need "lawn separation pay". Interestingly enough, I am expected to mow the lawns of the spouses of deployed members of my unit, but once again the favor is not reciprocated.

Compensation, privledges, and etitlements should be based upon rank. I think that every AF member, regardless of martial status, should be compensated the same; and that we should be getting a living wage commisarate with our skill level (which is equal to rank). How many high school graduates, at 18-20 years old do you know outside of the service that can afford a stand alone house for their spouse and kids? It just doesn't happen. But in the service it does. Then they promptly go broke trying to fill it with furniture, but that's another thread. In the civilian world, you are compensated higher as your skills and experience increase - our high school graduate probably could afford a duplex instead of a cramped apartment by the time that they are in their 30's, and they will, if they work and save hard, be looking at buying a small stand alone in their 40's.

[Shrike]

WOW, I agree with the poster who said these arguments are absured and based on no real foundation whatsoever. First off a spouse is counted as a dependent because she is a sependent. Second it only makes sense to give a bit more money for a person in the military who has finacial obligation to more than one person, i.e dependents. How can a sound minded person even make the argument that two people can live under the same conditions as one person. That's the equivilant of saying you can save enough food for a disaster to support one person and with the same amount of food you can support two or even more people for the exact same amount of time. Let's be logical here people. Staying single or married is not something to be punished or rewarded for, however, getting more BAH is not a reward, it is a requirement, simply because two or more people, can't live under the same housing conditions as one, no matter how you try and spin it. At least not in America, or anywhere on earth for that matter, unless I missed something in economics. Don't even get me started on the whole welfare comparison...OMG!!!! Sometimes, it really saddens me the lack of intelligence shown by some of the members of our service, and the scary thing is those are the ones who seem to sky rocket through the ranks of all the respective services...What has become of our services and our core values and ideals that are the foundation of military life.

You are making one simple assumption - ironic considering your blathering about the lack of intelligence of people and their "absurd" assumptions. You are assuming that only one member is earning income. What is the spouse doing? If two civilians want to get married, and one doesn't work, how in the world do they manage to afford shelter? I guess the fact that they either get housing that they can afford on one person's salary, or the other member finds a job to help out is meaningless, right? :rolleyes:

[technomage1]

For those of you in the "we need more" camp, consider this. What if the service had a rule that single people recieved prefence in assignments because they cost less to move? If two people of the same rank were under PCS consideration, the single one would get it. Married people at Base Great would be happy, but married people at Base Crud would be howling about the unfair treatment.

It's the same principle with singles in BAH, except for the fact that the scenario above would save the government money and not spend more. Both are unfair because marital status has NOTHING to do with duty performance or skill.

The higher housing allowance for married personnel is a hold over from the bad old days when it was legal and common for employers to give married men higher salaries since they had families to support. This was one of the major gripes of feminists in the 1970s, hence the slogan "Equal Pay for Equal Work". In the civilian world, those days are long gone, and it's well past time they end in the military as well.

[VFFSSGT]

I do resent covering for the guy/gal with a sick kid, only to be told that I need to take leave to take care of some personal business of my own. Note that I don't mind covering, but I do mind the fact that it's not reciprocated.


That is a local leadership/supervisor problem; not a system problem. Single people in my unit get time on occasion just like married or those with dependents do...

[VFFSSGT]

The higher housing allowance for married personnel is a hold over from the bad old days when it was legal and common for employers to give married men higher salaries since they had families to support. This was one of the major gripes of feminists in the 1970s, hence the slogan "Equal Pay for Equal Work". In the civilian world, those days are long gone, and it's well past time they end in the military as well.

Again, allowances are not pay and be careful what you wish for...you might just find your allowances transferred into pay and being taxed...

[technomage1]

Again, allowances are not pay and be careful what you wish for...you might just find your allowances transferred into pay and being taxed...

What you call the money has nothing to do with the basic unfairness of it. As I've explained multiple times, allowances are compensation and there is no reason why they should be different between married and single. BAS, for example, is not. It's for the member. BAH should be the same way.

[VFFSSGT]

There is no such thing as true equality and never will be... The recent Equal Pay bill is nothing but politics as usual and will do more harm than good... Just as if they changed the housing allowance. Like I said before it is unpractical to put single airmen in housing and unpractical to put married people in the dorms.

I have been on both sides of the fence and never seen an issue with it...

If it hurts your feelings bad enough you can always seek "better" pay and life in the civilian world...

[SeaChicken]

Let's not forget that BAH is to cover housing costs for someone not occupying government quarters. If you think of BAH as pay, than the member living on base receives a lot less "pay" than the member housed in town. I haven't heard anyone argue that the member housed in town should not receive more money for his/her personal choice. Which personal choices do we "compensate" someone more for and which do we not? Can't have it both ways.

If you continue to think of BAH as pay instead of an allowance, you will always be bitter about what someone else is getting. Put it in its proper category and save yourself some heartache.

Spend six months in the civilian world where your housing is 100% out of pocket. Your health insurance is 100% out of pocket and then you have to pay more money (again 100% out of pocket) just to see the Dr. for him to give you a prescription that you have to pay yet even more money (again 100% out of pocket) to fill. Every time you go to the supermarket or department store you have to pay up to 8% more because of sales tax.

[VFFSSGT]

Right...I do not understand why people use arguments based on civilian life...like it is so much better... If it is then why not venture out and live in the civilian life...

[ROBERT4]

The BAH issue is not worth this rhetoric. If you are going to lobby for things to improve, in the services, lobby for the good of all.

Try these issues:
1) Pay: No matter how good the pay, ask for more. There have been years we received zero increases and there was even talk that we earned too much.
2) Retirement: Ask for an even 3.0% vs. 2.5%, so you do not have to remain in the service for 40 years to get 100%.
3) Leave Accrual: Ask for 3 days a month vs. 2.5 and ask for the 75 day accrual, initiated for the next two years, to remain permanently.
4) Health Benefits: General rule, always ask for better health care.
5) Education: Give the Enlisted the same degree completion opportunities given to Officers. Everybody is a Soldier, and thus should receive the same opportunities. There has been talk of Enlisted going to CGSC or some type of it, and being allowed to complete a degree.

Walk in with a plan for discussion and discuss your plan, you will get further.

MSG Robert Parsons
Vilseck, Germany

[technomage1]

Oh, that makes sense. If you don't like being treated unfairly, get out. That's a solution. :rolleyes:

If, as VFFSSGT has helpfully pointed out, singles are the minority then it shouldn't be an issue to pay us our fair share. It doesn't matter if compensation is an allowance, pay, turnips, gold bullion, or commissary gift cards, we should be compensated according to our rank and not marital status. Personal choices should not dictate the haves and have nots.

I personally favor an OHA type of system vs. BAH. This would be more in line with giving people the QOL at their rank vs. BAH (and you can still make money if you play your cards right). Overseas they have a ceiling, based upon the local area, for your rent. It's broken down by rank - for example, an E5 gets enough of a ceiling to rent a 3 bedroom apartment, while an E9 makes enough for a stand alone 4 bedroom house. You don't get to keep the difference if you don't go to your ceiling, but if I've always managed to pocket some of the utility allowance by being conservative with power, water, etc (to the tune of $200 to $300 per month). You can go above your ceiling, with approval from your command, but of course that's out of pocket. I've rarely seen people do this as the ceiling is generous enough to be more than ample.

In the states, from what I've seen, it's the norm for both married and single not to have enough BAH anyway. Switching to an OHA type system would, on average, give members better QOL and not make them spend out of pocket for off base housing. Yes, some people would suffer (ie, people who room together) but on the whole it would be beneficial.

Of course, in my OHA system rank alone would be the determining factor in the amount of OHA.

No one argues that an E1 w/4 kids needs more space than a single E5 - but I don't feel that the taxpayer should support their personal choices. We have an obligation to the taxpayers to be good stewards of the funding that they give us.

[ScottyJF03]

I do not understand how its the norm for people to not have enough BAH. BAH is set for the mean price of a given structure for each location. After five different PCS's, I have always found places sufficient or above my requirement that cost less than my BAH. If people have trouble finding a place, is it because there expectation of what they Require vs Desire too high?

[technomage1]

I do not understand how its the norm for people to not have enough BAH. BAH is set for the mean price of a given structure for each location. After five different PCS's, I have always found places sufficient or above my requirement that cost less than my BAH. If people have trouble finding a place, is it because there expectation of what they Require vs Desire too high?

Gasp! Living within your means! What a concept....:D

[Shrike]

The BAH issue is not worth this rhetoric. If you are going to lobby for things to improve, in the services, lobby for the good of all.

Try these issues:
1) Pay: No matter how good the pay, ask for more. There have been years we received zero increases and there was even talk that we earned too much.
2) Retirement: Ask for an even 3.0% vs. 2.5%, so you do not have to remain in the service for 40 years to get 100%.
3) Leave Accrual: Ask for 3 days a month vs. 2.5 and ask for the 75 day accrual, initiated for the next two years, to remain permanently.
4) Health Benefits: General rule, always ask for better health care.
5) Education: Give the Enlisted the same degree completion opportunities given to Officers. Everybody is a Soldier, and thus should receive the same opportunities. There has been talk of Enlisted going to CGSC or some type of it, and being allowed to complete a degree.

Walk in with a plan for discussion and discuss your plan, you will get further.

MSG Robert Parsons
Vilseck, Germany

Interesting thoughts, but I don't think many of them are very feasible. But I think you're off base with #1 - there haven't been any years without a payraise dating back to at least 1973.
(http://www.moaa.org/controller.asp?pagename=lac_paygap)

[VFFSSGT]

But he is on point...there are much more significatn and worth while things to advocate for rather than slight differences in BAH...

[technomage1]

But he is on point...there are much more significatn and worth while things to advocate for rather than slight differences in BAH...

I don't argue that these other things shouldn't be addressed. But if you were the one being hosed, the shoe would be on the other foot.

[VFFSSGT]

Already said, been on both sides of the fence on this one and I never saw a problem with it...

What's next? Going to complain about married people paying less taxes or less on auto insurance...? I benefit more from less taxes and discounted insurance than I do from BAH.

[technomage1]

I did some quick math....if I had been married the entire 10 years that I've lived off base, I would've gotten an additonal $30,000 in OHA/utility allowance. Let's reduce your compensation over the same period and see if you don't howl.

[VFFSSGT]

And that $30,000 would have provided more room and utilities needed for a spouse or other dependent; not increased your standard of living. We don't get paid to the equivalent of a civilian...This is why we have allowances - and why there are differences in them..

You also would have paid much less taxes and insurance too, which technically means you would have made more off that basis too... So what, your standard of living is the same as that of a married person...

Like I have said 3 or 4 times, if they paid equal BAH then either single Amn would have to go in houses or married people in the dorms. Both of which is unpractical...

If you think it is so unfair and it is better in civilian life why don't you try out civilian life?

[CW5mgsmith]

Try contacting your elected officials. The Congres ultimately makes the money decisions not the Army or DOD. Trust me, Congress will take every opportunity to cut costs, especially at our expense.

[immortalmusic]

Equal pay for equal work. Ever hear of it?

BAH should be based upon grade. Period.

Wow. Really? So the fact that I, as a Corporal in the Marines do much more work than the Major who works behind a desk and has many people under him who do the actual work, that all means I should get paid MORE than him. Right?

And what do you do with military reservists? Some of them have been in the military for 12 years but are only a Corporal because they don't promote as fast.

And if you look at BAH, it is based on grade to an extent. A Sgt gets more BAH than a Cpl, married or not.

[melodyandjames]

I was once told that the increases based on family size are to prevent military from utilizing welfare or food stamps. If a military family qualifies for either of the two, the military will just increase their pay to match it. So, in essence, the military is just cutting a corner for military families. Rather than have them tie of the system for the truly needy, they provide a little extra because we are paid low pay.

[technomage1]

And that $30,000 would have provided more room and utilities needed for a spouse or other dependent; not increased your standard of living. We don't get paid to the equivalent of a civilian...This is why we have allowances - and why there are differences in them..

You also would have paid much less taxes and insurance too, which technically means you would have made more off that basis too... So what, your standard of living is the same as that of a married person...

Like I have said 3 or 4 times, if they paid equal BAH then either single Amn would have to go in houses or married people in the dorms. Both of which is unpractical...

If you think it is so unfair and it is better in civilian life why don't you try out civilian life?

No other allowance is based upon marital status. BAS isn't, even though a family of 4 obviously eats more than I do. So why BAH/OHA?

Telling me to become a civilian if I don't like it is a cop out. Based on other postings, you've disagreed with the "party line" on other issues, yet never have I suggested that you should become a civilian because of it, rather, I've taken your argument based upon it's merits.

In our system, rank determines our overall responsibilities, privledges, and opportunities - in every area but housing. I am not equal to a major under our system, therefore the major gets more of the above than I do. That makes sense. I expect that major to have more pay and nicer housing than I do because he's my senior. In several of the tent cities I've lived in over the years while deployed, the order for cot spaces was determined by rank. The CMSgts picked what they wanted first, then on down the chain. What does not make sense is people under me in terms of rank getting more compensation than I do based solely upon their personal choices in life. It's like saying in my above example that the E1 that packed 5 bags (by choice, not mission requirements) downrange gets to a cot space before the E5 that packed 2 bags.

[ScottyJF03]

IF the extra pay is required because someone has to feed more people or pay more in utilities, why do they get FSA? When deployed to the middle east or aboard a ship, family service members get paid $250 amonth for using less food and utilities.

[technomage1]

IF the extra pay is required because someone has to feed more people or pay more in utilities, why do they get FSA? When deployed to the middle east or aboard a ship, family service members get paid $250 amonth for using less food and utilities.

For that matter, why do any of us get to keep our BAS while downrange? I get my food for free, so it's double dipping. I can't really stomach taking that pay, but I can't shut it off so I give the money to charity instead.

FSA was created in the 1980's when most deployments were to hotels. Then you did have additional expenses, and for those type of deployments, FSA is still justifed. But for most deployments today, food, etc is free so it's not necessary anymore.

[SGT Nolan]

Single soldiers should get more money period, regardless of the "choice" to be married. If the military isnt paying married soldiers enough to take care of their spouse and children, perhaps they should find another line of work.

[mikessugarbear]

BAH may be more for those with dependents because the extra person/people are using more utilities, like electricity, gas, water, etc... That's why I always thought it was more with dependents. It just costs more to live even though the rent didn't change. Just throwing that out there.

[VFFSSGT]

Single soldiers should get more money period, regardless of the "choice" to be married. If the military isnt paying married soldiers enough to take care of their spouse and children, perhaps they should find another line of work.

If you are not getting enough money as a single person, maybe you should find another line of work... :rolleyes:

[VFFSSGT]

Again, many explanations of the whys are located here...

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf

Purpose and Goal
The purpose of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program is to provide fair housing allowances to service members. Since the goal is to help members cover the costs of housing in the private sector, rental-housing costs in the private sector are the basis for the allowance. Members receive a housing allowance when government quarters are not available. DoD determines the correct housing allowance to enable members to afford suitable rental housing within a reasonable distance of their duty location. The allowance is set based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependent status.

Q18: In determining the income of comparable civilians do you consider military family income which includes the income of the working spouse (if any)?

ANSWER: No. A military member should not be put into a situation in which a spouse is required to work, so in considering the military, the Regular Military Compensation (RMC) is used. RMC equals the sum of military basic pay, BAH, BAS, plus the tax advantage of the untaxed allowances.

[TheSarge]

the military historically pays low wages for the amount of work that is performed by the soldiers. this is one reason that BAH is different between the married and non-married soldiers.

the BAH is higher to allow for the soldier to provide for his/her family. the military wages for enlisted will always be much lower than their counterpart in the "real world". this is what allows for such a large standing force while keeping the cost of doing business lower than it could be.

if the BAH is increased for all soldiers all you find is that the local economy will continue to increase the cost of housing. when cost of housing goes up, your actual income comes down and you have less to spend. realtors know this and adjust prices around the first of the year, each year.

if you really want to be fair, why not consider the BAH to be a taxable income along with the cost of insurance, and other benefits that are taxed in the civiian world.

-TheSarge

[ZACHC3506]

This is BAH. An allowance to pay for housing. Not part of your taxable pay. Our base pay is the same, it is only this allowance that is different. BAH is designed to pay for the housing the service member requires, not designed to give someone extra money to spend or save. Married people require more space and utilities. Therefore they get a larger allowance. Simple concept. It also doesn't hurt that it helps lower attrition rates. Valid points in that it would not change in the civilian world, but really....are you comparing the military lifestyle to a civilian job? And yes, the married do cost the government more, but the same concept applies. I suppose those against this BAH difference are against married tax breaks, and child tax rebates?

[Measure Man]

This is BAH. An allowance to pay for housing. Not part of your taxable pay. Our base pay is the same, it is only this allowance that is different. BAH is designed to pay for the housing the service member requires, not designed to give someone extra money to spend or save. Married people require more space and utilities. Therefore they get a larger allowance. Simple concept. It also doesn't hurt that it helps lower attrition rates. Valid points in that it would not change in the civilian world, but really....are you comparing the military lifestyle to a civilian job? And yes, the married do cost the government more, but the same concept applies. I suppose those against this BAH difference are against married tax breaks, and child tax rebates?

Ah yes, so a married A1C with a wife and 4 year old daughter obviously needs a bigger place than a single A1C.

But, the 4-year old daughter gets a bigger room in than the single A1C does in the dorm. That isn't right on any level.

We need to provide equal compensation for equal service. BAH is compensation. We don't get paid or compensated based on what we need. That is Karl Marx thinking. In America, we get what we "earn." If you are doing the same work, with the same experience, training, education etc....you "earn" the same compensation.

[DDNIGHT]

Jeez....listen to all the whinning going on in here! "I'm single....I don't cost the government as much money as a married person, therefore the government should pay me more!"

BULLCRAP!!!

If you all are unhappy with the way things are run, get promoted to the ranks where you can make a difference instead of just whinning about things needing to be changed. What? Oh yea, the same people are whinning about the promotion system too....hmmmm.

If you joined the military because you wanted to get rich, you joined for the wrong reasons....my advice, get out now while you still can and try to make a difference in the civilian world.

I think the system is fair the way it is and if you can't live on what you are earning now, you will never be able to live on what you will earn in the future! It's not about what you make in terms of money, it's about self-discipline and budgeting. How many times have you seen single military members spending hundreds of dollars every weekend in the clubs and then wondering why they don't have money to spend when the next payday is coming up? How many times have you seen a single military member go in debt because of a $30,000 SUV, a $1,000 car stereo system, a $1,500 computer, and a $7,000 credit card bill? I have seen both way too much....it's not that they don't make a lot of money, it's the fact that they are trying to impress their friends with what they've got.

I've also seen single military members in Hawaii join together and rent a place on the economy. Each single member got $1,500 a month (three members) and the rent on their place was only $1,200 a month. Each member had an extra $1,100 a month to do with whatever they wanted.....guess what they did with it? Spent the money at bars, clubs, and on parties they threw.....didn't save a damn dime!!!

I'm am getting sick and tired of all the whinning.....quit thinking about yourselves all the time and realize that there is no easy way to make things SEEM fair to all.

Give it a rest already......

[DDNIGHT]

"Single soldiers should get more money period, regardless of the "choice" to be married."


Give me a frickin' break....

[zerstorer335]

Wow. You have quite a few great points in your post, however, there is one that I would disagree with. Why should Mil-to-Mil members not individually draw their BAH? If you and your unmarried buddy decided to share an appartment you would each get seperate BAH. BAH is an entitlement for being an Active Duty Military member. It has nothing to do with being married or having children. If two civilians doing the same job get married, should one of them take a pay cut because they are married and now living together?

I can see your point; but I think there's a difference in our definitions of "entitlement". To me, it isn't a sum of money. I, as a military member, am entitled to have a place to live. If the government cannot / will not provide such quarters, that entitlement is taken care of by giving me a sum of money to obtain equivalent quarters on the economy. In Colorado Springs, Uncle Sam couldn't / wouldn't give me quarters, so he gave me money to find some off-base. Now, I'm in Korea, and Uncle Sam does have quarters for me, so away goes my BAH. Our pay is just that- our base pay. Allowances for housing and subsistence are provided when the government does not otherwise arrange to fulfill those needs for shelter and food.

In my view, it also hearkens back to the idea our BAH is supposed to go for quarters equivalent to what we would have on base. My mil-to-mil friends were getting more money than a mil-to-civ couple even though, if both couples lived on base, they'd get the same kind of housing. Now, if the mil-to-mil couple is unable to live together (such as if one PCSes), they should each get the full BAH for a single with no dependents.

I also have trouble with the married couple / roommates analogy. My senior year in college, my friend and I lived in an apartment with two guys who found themselves in a tight spot when the other two they planned to split the apartment with up and left. Roommates are basically free to come and go as they please. Ideally, a marriage is not so easily broken up. As far as civilian companies go, they don't really care as far as I've seen. You do what you agreed to do and they paid what they agreed to pay you, and they leave it at that. Aside from perhaps religous orders, the military is the only place that I've seen things like adultery and "wrongful cohabitation" listed as punishable acts.

In the end, it still, to me, all boils down to an issue of determining needs and whether or not marital status alone is a valid way to determine them.

[YOSICKTA]

As a married Soldier, I agree that single service members should not be punished for remaining single. As I do enjoy the extra BAH, I have no ideological problem with a single, unmarried Soldier getting the same amount. The diversity of our current military, and evolving situations due to military life in our day and time begs for equal compensation for work done.

Often single military members are placed in situations where they have to care for others not meeting dependent criteria, etc...simply being the responsible warriors they are. Situations such as these are also personal decisions in nature, but cannot and should not be judged as unwarranted for extra compensation.

[Shrike]

Jeez....listen to all the whinning going on in here! "I'm single....I don't cost the government as much money as a married person, therefore the government should pay me more!"

BULLCRAP!!!

If you all are unhappy with the way things are run, get promoted to the ranks where you can make a difference instead of just whinning about things needing to be changed. What? Oh yea, the same people are whinning about the promotion system too....hmmmm.

If you want to start a family but can't afford adequate housing at your current grade, get promoted so that you can earn the money to start that family. Oh wait, that would require planning, discipline, and responsibility.

I think the system is fair the way it is and if you can't live on what you are earning now, you will never be able to live on what you will earn in the future! It's not about what you make in terms of money, it's about self-discipline and budgeting. How many times have you seen single military members spending hundreds of dollars every weekend in the clubs and then wondering why they don't have money to spend when the next payday is coming up? How many times have you seen a single military member go in debt because of a $30,000 SUV, a $1,000 car stereo system, a $1,500 computer, and a $7,000 credit card bill? I have seen both way too much....it's not that they don't make a lot of money, it's the fact that they are trying to impress their friends with what they've got.

I've seen that just about as often as I've seen two married E-3s - with one or two children - who have two cars, satellite TV, plasma TV, etc., etc. and they're whining about their pay. Irresponsibility is not limited to single folks.

[DDNIGHT]

I've seen that just about as often as I've seen two married E-3s - with one or two children - who have two cars, satellite TV, plasma TV, etc., etc. and they're whining about their pay. Irresponsibility is not limited to single folks.

Totally agree.....I've seen it in married folks as well. My statements might have been directed at single folk (the biggest whinners about equal pay), but there are PLENTY of irresponsible married folks out there too.

Thanks for keeping me straight!

[USN - Retired]

Roommates are basically free to come and go as they please. Ideally, a marriage is not so easily broken up. .

Ideally, yes. Reality is far different. In the world of reality, military spouses are basically free to come and go as they please, and many of them do.

[Matai]

So, since EVERYTHING has to be equal in order to please everyone.

If we look at another example (of which so many have already been provided). Let us look at the signing bonus for some areas of the military. Let us take Career Field X and say we get an approximate signing bonus of Y dollars. So if someone joins the military in career field X and they get said bonus of Y dollars, is the government/military going to afford EVERYONE in the career field that same bonus of Y dollars?? I mean, SAME WORK SAME PAY right?

I understand that there are some differences in BAH rates for dependents, and I also understand not everyone agrees (or ever will probably) on how it is handled. That being said, I was under the impression that BASE PAY is what we get paid and that BAH and BAS and other "allowances" are not factored into our base pay, of course that means we all get SAME PAY for SAME JOB. "Allowances" are similar to signing bonuses and not everyone gets an equal share. Someone in their wisdom decided that families are important, and important to the military as a general rule, and as such will be taken care of. If that means the BAH for those with dependents goes up as compared to single military members, what is the problem?

[technomage1]

Let's look at some definitions from www.perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil.

For those that state that BAH is supposed to give you the same type of quarters that you would get on base:

"Q19: Does BAH guarantee that my residence matches what I could get if I lived in government quarters?
ANSWER: No. BAH is based on civilian standards, considering the housing choices made by civilians of comparable income."

Comparable income = rank for us under the senority system.

For those that argue a family needs more space:

"Q17: Does family size make a difference?
ANSWER: No. Although BAH distinguishes between with-dependent and without-dependent, the with-dependent compensation is based on comparable civilians using average family size."

In other words, it doesn't matter if you have 1 dependant or 20 under the current system. If family size was a factor, wouldn't that be taken into consideration? Wouldn't the larger family get more money, just as a larger family gets more space on base? Again, it is a comparison to civilians. Let's look into that a bit more deeply.

"Q20: Exactly what are the civilian housing standards you use?
ANSWER: These are income-based, minimum housing standards used to establish the link between housing cost and pay grade. Of course, members are not limited to the standard, and are free to choose where and how they will live. Actual member choices, however, no longer influence the rate calculation."

So if we're being compared to civilians, base housing standards don't matter, and the minimum housing standards are civilian based - why, exactly, again do married get more? Note that in this particular answer it just talks about housing costs and pay grade. Married civilians don't get more money from their employer based on if they're married or not. Why do we? I've argued before that this is a throwback to the days when married civilians used to get more. Now they do not.

Let's now look at www.defenselink.mil.

"BAS is meant to offset costs for a member's meals. This allowance is based in the historic origins of the military in which the military provided room and board (or rations) as part of a member's pay. This allowance is not intended to offset the costs of meals for family members."

Note that it references the historic fact that the military provided room and board as part of our pay and it's not meant for famility members. If this is the case for BAS, why not BAH?

Having said all that, every single place I've lived at off base has been big enough that it would have adequately met my needs even if I had been married w/a kid or two. That would be comparable to blue collar civilians at my stage in life, the older I've gotten the more rank I've gotten and the nicer my housing.

Some have argued that we don't make enough money anyway - I call that living within your means, and that applies to everyone, married or single. I can only speak for my job, but I didn't start to make what a civilian would make in my job until a few years ago - but, then again, I would've had to pay for all of my training had I been a civilian. In a way, I apprenticed myself out to the military for a bit lower pay at the outset to get the job skills. So I think that's pretty fair.

[technomage1]

Totally agree.....I've seen it in married folks as well. My statements might have been directed at single folk (the biggest whinners about equal pay), but there are PLENTY of irresponsible married folks out there too.

Thanks for keeping me straight!

Come on, sarge, you're telling me that if someone else at the same rank as you made $30,000 dollars over 10 years more than you because they had dyed their hair blonde and needed more money for hair dye, you wouldn't be complaining about it? It's the same thing with marraige - it is a personal choice that should not affect compensation.

[turtle7710]

Jeez....listen to all the whinning going on in here! "I'm single....I don't cost the government as much money as a married person, therefore the government should pay me more!"

BULLCRAP!!!

If you all are unhappy with the way things are run, get promoted to the ranks where you can make a difference instead of just whinning about things needing to be changed. What? Oh yea, the same people are whinning about the promotion system too....hmmmm.

If you joined the military because you wanted to get rich, you joined for the wrong reasons....my advice, get out now while you still can and try to make a difference in the civilian world.

I think the system is fair the way it is and if you can't live on what you are earning now, you will never be able to live on what you will earn in the future! It's not about what you make in terms of money, it's about self-discipline and budgeting. How many times have you seen single military members spending hundreds of dollars every weekend in the clubs and then wondering why they don't have money to spend when the next payday is coming up? How many times have you seen a single military member go in debt because of a $30,000 SUV, a $1,000 car stereo system, a $1,500 computer, and a $7,000 credit card bill? I have seen both way too much....it's not that they don't make a lot of money, it's the fact that they are trying to impress their friends with what they've got.

I've also seen single military members in Hawaii join together and rent a place on the economy. Each single member got $1,500 a month (three members) and the rent on their place was only $1,200 a month. Each member had an extra $1,100 a month to do with whatever they wanted.....guess what they did with it? Spent the money at bars, clubs, and on parties they threw.....didn't save a damn dime!!!

I'm am getting sick and tired of all the whinning.....quit thinking about yourselves all the time and realize that there is no easy way to make things SEEM fair to all.

Give it a rest already......

First of all, if you don't want to hear what you consider to be "whining," then simply don't read the posts or participate in the discussion. Yes this is this US Military and there are times when we just need to follow direction or orders and drive on. However, soldiers should NEVER be told not to have discussions, debates, or voiced opinions on issues that directly affect them. If you take that away, you not only take away an avenue and possibility to gain insight from the opposing arguments. You also take a step towards turning soldiers into mindless drones who lose the ability to think for themselves. The discussions that go on here are offline outside of the workplace and made by those who, if and WHEN they get promoted to higher level leadership positions will be making future changes in how the military operates. Why shouldn't they now be allowed to share their opinions on these issues now?

I've seen favorable arguments on both sides of the BAH equality issue, some more stable than others but that's beside the point. I'm currently married but I lean towards favoring the equality. If one of the determining factors of BAH is supposed to be the cost of housing based on the area, then it truly bothers me to see that in the 2009 rates, my with dependents rate increased by nearly $200 while that of a non dependents peer of mine decreased. That shouldn't even be possible if we live in the same area. With an equality rate, that wouldn't even be an issue.

[technomage1]

First of all, if you don't want to hear what you consider to be "whining," then simply don't read the posts or participate in the discussion. Yes this is this US Military and there are times when we just need to follow direction or orders and drive on. However, soldiers should NEVER be told not to have discussions, debates, or voiced opinions on issues that directly affect them. If you take that away, you not only take away an avenue and possibility to gain insight from the opposing arguments. You also take a step towards turning soldiers into mindless drones who lose the ability to think for themselves. The discussions that go on here are offline outside of the workplace and made by those who, if and WHEN they get promoted to higher level leadership positions will be making future changes in how the military operates. Why shouldn't they now be allowed to share their opinions on these issues now?.

Nicely put, thank you.

I've seen favorable arguments on both sides of the BAH equality issue, some more stable than others but that's beside the point. I'm currently married but I lean towards favoring the equality. If one of the determining factors of BAH is supposed to be the cost of housing based on the area, then it truly bothers me to see that in the 2009 rates, my with dependents rate increased by nearly $200 while that of a non dependents peer of mine decreased. That shouldn't even be possible if we live in the same area. With an equality rate, that wouldn't even be an issue.

I favor 1 rate for all, based solely upon rank. For example, an E-1 should have enough BAH for a 1 bedroom apartment, E-4 a 2 bedroom, E-6 a 3 bedroom, etc. When compared to civilians, that's about the time of life that they start to get that sort of housing. That doesn't mean that the E-1 can't rent a 4 bedroom stand alone if they want - but they will pay for it, not the taxpayer. About.com has the current dependant/single rates here http://usmilitary.about.com/od/housingallowance/a/bahtype.htm. Please note that under the current system a single person does not get the same housing standard that a married E-1 gets until they sew on E-7. That is a huge difference in overall compensation.

Personally, I favor a mix between married and single in the two rates for each rank.

[Skyhawk]

If you are not getting enough money as a single person, maybe you should find another line of work... :rolleyes:

Insightful comment.

For three straight years, enough married personnel in the USAF have taken that advice such that the USAF has missed its programmed required retention numbers every single year! By the way, those three straight years are the first years the USAF has had that problem. Since becoming an independent service, prior to this the USAF has never missed its announced retention goals.

Most recently, the lack of senior rated officers is leading the USAF to try to get separated and retired rated officers to return to active duty.

In the middle of a war -- a war we must win -- we have literally reached a point of no return where every method possible is being used to avert a manpower crises.

So, while you no doubt wished to make a dismissive, if not condescending post, you have instead provided a probative and insightful comment. Because officers and NCO's are in fact making that very decision. And they are making that decision in numbers unsustainable for the future viability and combat effectiveness of the USAF.

Be careful what you are wishing for my friend, you are getting it!

[DDNIGHT]

Come on, sarge, you're telling me that if someone else at the same rank as you made $30,000 dollars over 10 years more than you because they had dyed their hair blonde and needed more money for hair dye, you wouldn't be complaining about it? It's the same thing with marraige - it is a personal choice that should not affect compensation.

WTF does hair dye have to do with it? Whatever...

I agree that it's a personal choice to be married, but the Army needs to keep people in for as long as they can and providing a with dependents rate for BAH does that by allowing Soldiers to find comparative housing that they would find as married civilians. If this wasn't done, it would be one less "benefit" (for the lack of a better term) the Army didn't provide to 'take care of it's own". This, in turn, would be a larger retention issue than anyone could imagine.

I would say build more barracks, but keep them separate from the working sections in units (orderly room, operations, supply, etc). Make the barracks two room 'apartments' with a kitchen instead of just a plain old room. This is the standard you all should be fighting for instead of equal compensation in terms of BAH! Everyone's fight, in my opinion, is for the wrong solution to the problem.

Additionally, I hate the stupid term "Sarge".....if you can't say Sergeant, don't even bother.

[DDNIGHT]

First of all, if you don't want to hear what you consider to be "whining," then simply don't read the posts or participate in the discussion. Yes this is this US Military and there are times when we just need to follow direction or orders and drive on. However, soldiers should NEVER be told not to have discussions, debates, or voiced opinions on issues that directly affect them. If you take that away, you not only take away an avenue and possibility to gain insight from the opposing arguments. You also take a step towards turning soldiers into mindless drones who lose the ability to think for themselves. The discussions that go on here are offline outside of the workplace and made by those who, if and WHEN they get promoted to higher level leadership positions will be making future changes in how the military operates. Why shouldn't they now be allowed to share their opinions on these issues now?

I've seen favorable arguments on both sides of the BAH equality issue, some more stable than others but that's beside the point. I'm currently married but I lean towards favoring the equality. If one of the determining factors of BAH is supposed to be the cost of housing based on the area, then it truly bothers me to see that in the 2009 rates, my with dependents rate increased by nearly $200 while that of a non dependents peer of mine decreased. That shouldn't even be possible if we live in the same area. With an equality rate, that wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not missing any point....my posts are relevant to the posts I reply to (note the quotes). I love debating and would listen to any reason anyone gives me for wanting more or equal pay, but it is up to me to figure out if the opposing side provides justified reasoning for the need or want. It is also up to me to see their point and agree that points made are good ones...not you.

There is some whinning going on and there are a lot of great points....don't accuse me of lumping all posts in this thread as whinning....I didn't do that.

[ENSwife/HMreservist]

I feel that with or without dependent BAH is nessacary to compete with the civilian sector and retain members. As the wife of a Ensign, I was forced to leave my $38k/yr job to PCS with my husband to an area where it is very difficult to find any job. Without all the benefits the military offers (healthcare, BAH, ect) why would officers with college degrees who could make much more in the civilian world choose to stay in the service? I feel basing BAH on rank AND maritial status is completely fair.

[MERC8401]

I can kind of agree with the dispartiy, but simply put the DoD promised us housing one way or another. If I live in base housing and have kids then they have to provide me a house on base that they've deemed appropriate for my family size. With that being said if I chose to live off base then they have to provide me enough money to provide the appropriate size home for my family based on the same standards as base housing and the zip code I reside. So based on that logic it doesn't seem to be unfair at all. I know marriage and kids are a personal choice, but I signed a contract with the AF that provided me with these benefits, and just like I have to live up to my end of the bargain, so do they.

Please note that under the current system a single person does not get the same housing standard that a married E-1 gets until they sew on E-7. That is a huge difference in overall compensation.

Personally, I favor a mix between married and single in the two rates for each rank.

That's some what not entirely true. Seeing that BAH rates are determined by not only rank and dependant status but also zip codes. There are some single E-3's who are getting the same if not more than married E-3's based on where they are assigned. I agree that the standards for housing might cause the appearance of a huge gap in compensation, but without looking at all the information than that is faulty logic, and simply not true in every case.

[technomage1]

I can kind of agree with the dispartiy, but simply put the DoD promised us housing one way or another. If I live in base housing and have kids then they have to provide me a house on base that they've deemed appropriate for my family size. With that being said if I chose to live off base then they have to provide me enough money to provide the appropriate size home for my family based on the same standards as base housing and the zip code I reside. So based on that logic it doesn't seem to be unfair at all. I know marriage and kids are a personal choice, but I signed a contract with the AF that provided me with these benefits, and just like I have to live up to my end of the bargain, so do they.

That's some what not entirely true. Seeing that BAH rates are determined by not only rank and dependant status but also zip codes. There are some single E-3's who are getting the same if not more than married E-3's based on where they are assigned. I agree that the standards for housing might cause the appearance of a huge gap in compensation, but without looking at all the information than that is faulty logic, and simply not true in every case.

Please refer to my previous posts. The housing rate off base in not based on what your family would get if they lived on base, it's based upon comparable civilian income. That's straight from the per diem website at the pentagon. Housing rates for each rank marital status are determined by, on average, what it costs to rent a specific housing type in each area. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/housi.../a/bahtype.htm shows the specifics, but to spell out my example, a married E1 is given the BAH to find, "The midpoint between the average rental cost of a 2 bedroom apartment and a 2 bedroom townhouse.". A single E7 is given "E-7 - Average rental cost of a two-bedroom apartment plus 53 percent of the cost difference between a two-bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom townhouse". This is the first time the single meets or exceed the standard of that E1.

[technomage1]

WTF does hair dye have to do with it? Whatever...

I agree that it's a personal choice to be married, but the Army needs to keep people in for as long as they can and providing a with dependents rate for BAH does that by allowing Soldiers to find comparative housing that they would find as married civilians. If this wasn't done, it would be one less "benefit" (for the lack of a better term) the Army didn't provide to 'take care of it's own". This, in turn, would be a larger retention issue than anyone could imagine.

I would say build more barracks, but keep them separate from the working sections in units (orderly room, operations, supply, etc). Make the barracks two room 'apartments' with a kitchen instead of just a plain old room. This is the standard you all should be fighting for instead of equal compensation in terms of BAH! Everyone's fight, in my opinion, is for the wrong solution to the problem.

Additionally, I hate the stupid term "Sarge".....if you can't say Sergeant, don't even bother.

Hair dye should have nothing to do with overall compensation. Neither should marital status, which is my point.

As I'm in the AF, I haven't lived in the dorms in 10 years. I agree though, nicer standards for both married and single on base is a good fight to wage, and it's something that I've been doing my entire career.

Speaking of retention, what about the retention of the single service member? Don't you want to keep us around too? I don't think making 1 standard for all will cause some mass exodus of married people, provided it is a fair rate.

[technomage1]

I feel that with or without dependent BAH is nessacary to compete with the civilian sector and retain members. As the wife of a Ensign, I was forced to leave my $38k/yr job to PCS with my husband to an area where it is very difficult to find any job. Without all the benefits the military offers (healthcare, BAH, ect) why would officers with college degrees who could make much more in the civilian world choose to stay in the service? I feel basing BAH on rank AND maritial status is completely fair.

Do you think it is any different for singles in terms of staying in the service? Yet, as you pointed out, there are tons of benefits to being in the military. Free healthcare for you and your family, a stable job, tax free shopping on base, free schooling overseas for your children, and one of the best retirement systems that there is.

Why are married people so threatened by giving singles to same compensation? It's not as if you'd be losing out somehow. If you fill that extra bedroom with a kid and I fill it with a home office, how does that hurt you?

[technomage1]

Insightful comment.

For three straight years, enough married personnel in the USAF have taken that advice such that the USAF has missed its programmed required retention numbers every single year! By the way, those three straight years are the first years the USAF has had that problem. Since becoming an independent service, prior to this the USAF has never missed its announced retention goals.

Most recently, the lack of senior rated officers is leading the USAF to try to get separated and retired rated officers to return to active duty.

In the middle of a war -- a war we must win -- we have literally reached a point of no return where every method possible is being used to avert a manpower crises.

So, while you no doubt wished to make a dismissive, if not condescending post, you have instead provided a probative and insightful comment. Because officers and NCO's are in fact making that very decision. And they are making that decision in numbers unsustainable for the future viability and combat effectiveness of the USAF.

Be careful what you are wishing for my friend, you are getting it!

I'd only add to this that while 56% of the AF is married - 44% is not. We are a very large minority, and if you want to keep us, start treating us equally.

[VFFSSGT]

Run along then techno...I am sure you will do so much better in the civilian world...especially right now. If you had it so bad or could do better in civilian life, you would not be here unless you truly wanted to serve this nation but then you should not be concerned about money.

[MERC8401]

Please refer to my previous posts. The housing rate off base in not based on what your family would get if they lived on base, it's based upon comparable civilian income. That's straight from the per diem website at the pentagon. Housing rates for each rank marital status are determined by, on average, what it costs to rent a specific housing type in each area. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/housi.../a/bahtype.htm shows the specifics, but to spell out my example, a married E1 is given the BAH to find, "The midpoint between the average rental cost of a 2 bedroom apartment and a 2 bedroom townhouse.". A single E7 is given "E-7 - Average rental cost of a two-bedroom apartment plus 53 percent of the cost difference between a two-bedroom apartment and a two-bedroom townhouse". This is the first time the single meets or exceed the standard of that E1.

I understand that the rate you recieve isn't based upon what you would get if you lived on base (sorry if I made it sound that way). I agree that there is a disparity, but when I was a single E-3 living off base I didn't need a two bedroom townhouse/apartment, and I wouldn't expect the AF to pay me to live in one. The married with kids E-2 needed the money and space more than I did. Did it suck that he got more money than me...sure, but he had a nagging wife and crying baby to deal with. And I couldn't see anyone wanting to deal with that just to get a couple more hundred bucks. I was just happy to be out of the dorms. However now that I'm married I appreciate the fact the AF gives me money for more space. Besides if you look at the table for most zip codes, the raise in BAH get lower and lower the higher ranking you get. A MSgt w/dep doesn't make much more than a TSgt w/dep. Just as a single MSgt doesn't make much more than a single TSgt. We could argue about this all day, but it's not going to change. For the single people out there...once you get married you will appreciate the extra bit of money, but for now be happy that you have a job that pays for your housing period. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Take what you can get and be appreciative of it, because one day you might be on the other side of this argument.

Again...I believe in the disparity...just not the need for equality. Just be appreciative. The AF (or DoD) isn't out to line everyone's pockets with money...it's just trying to take care of it's people at the level it feels is right. You may ask why a single E-7 needs a two bedroom townhouse and I say RHIP...it might not be an answer you like, but it is what it is.

[Skyhawk]

Run along then techno...I am sure you will do so much better in the civilian world...especially right now. If you had it so bad or could do better in civilian life, you would not be here unless you truly wanted to serve this nation but then you should not be concerned about money.

On the other hand, neither has anyone in the military taken a vow of poverty. Nor, should anyone feel motivated to try to reduce someone's point to the level of mercenarial interests. I find that when people make the sort of charge you have made, it was because they didn't have anything of true substance to offer to the discussion. Seems to me a more respectful tone would work better.

[Measure Man]

WTF does hair dye have to do with it? Whatever...

I agree that it's a personal choice to be married, but the Army needs to keep people in for as long as they can and providing a with dependents rate for BAH does that by allowing Soldiers to find comparative housing that they would find as married civilians. If this wasn't done, it would be one less "benefit" (for the lack of a better term) the Army didn't provide to 'take care of it's own". This, in turn, would be a larger retention issue than anyone could imagine.

Does the Army have any less need to keep single people?

Why shouldn't a single person be able to find comparative housing that they would find as a single civilian?

I know of no civilian company that pays a married person more than they pay a single person. So, as civilians they would both be able to afford comparative housing. As military member, only one does.

I would say build more barracks, but keep them separate from the working sections in units (orderly room, operations, supply, etc). Make the barracks two room 'apartments' with a kitchen instead of just a plain old room. This is the standard you all should be fighting for instead of equal compensation in terms of BAH! Everyone's fight, in my opinion, is for the wrong solution to the problem.

I would say your solution couldn't be more wrong. If anything, we should lean toward reducing barracks and letting more single people live off-base. It stops them having to make their private living quarters an inspectable item...it prevents the Govt from having to hire and pay a salary to a govt civilian or military member to "manage" private living quarters. It reduces what is in many cases the #1 force protection concern. Not having 300 young single people living in one building might also reduce the number of assaults, sexual assaults, and Alcohol-related misconduct.

Additionally, I hate the stupid term "Sarge".....if you can't say Sergeant, don't even bother.

okay, man.

[Measure Man]

Jeez....listen to all the whinning going on in here! "I'm single....I don't cost the government as much money as a married person, therefore the government should pay me more!"

BULLCRAP!!!

If you all are unhappy with the way things are run, get promoted to the ranks where you can make a difference instead of just whinning about things needing to be changed. What? Oh yea, the same people are whinning about the promotion system too....hmmmm.

If you joined the military because you wanted to get rich, you joined for the wrong reasons....my advice, get out now while you still can and try to make a difference in the civilian world.

I think the system is fair the way it is and if you can't live on what you are earning now, you will never be able to live on what you will earn in the future! It's not about what you make in terms of money, it's about self-discipline and budgeting. How many times have you seen single military members spending hundreds of dollars every weekend in the clubs and then wondering why they don't have money to spend when the next payday is coming up? How many times have you seen a single military member go in debt because of a $30,000 SUV, a $1,000 car stereo system, a $1,500 computer, and a $7,000 credit card bill? I have seen both way too much....it's not that they don't make a lot of money, it's the fact that they are trying to impress their friends with what they've got.

I've also seen single military members in Hawaii join together and rent a place on the economy. Each single member got $1,500 a month (three members) and the rent on their place was only $1,200 a month. Each member had an extra $1,100 a month to do with whatever they wanted.....guess what they did with it? Spent the money at bars, clubs, and on parties they threw.....didn't save a damn dime!!!

I'm am getting sick and tired of all the whinning.....quit thinking about yourselves all the time and realize that there is no easy way to make things SEEM fair to all.

Give it a rest already......


Give me a freakin' break.

It has no bearing on the discussion how a single or married soldier chooses to spend his/her earned money. some single soldiers waste money, some don't. some married soldiers waste money, some don't.

I spend most of my money on booze, gambling and women; the rest of it I waste. What business is that of the governments, as long as it ain't illegal.

The only logical reason for married people to get more BAH than single people is a Marxist argument (because they require more).

Guess what, we ALL get more than what we NEED to live on. Heck, for that matter a married Colonel doesn't NEED any more pay than a married A1C. So, he's got more stuff? Well, it must be stuff he doesn't NEED, because we are all fed and housed appropriately. For that matter, you don't NEED a wife, so maybe you don't NEED to be paid for one.

In America, we pay people what they earn. That is what our economy is based on. (Except in the military BAH and some welfare/social programs). I don't think of BAH as welfare or a social program, it is earned compensation and should be paid accordingly. It is not a govt. handout...it is fair compensation for services rendered and commitment from military personnel. None of that is any higher for a married servicemember than it is for a single servicemember.

Overseas it wouldn't even matter...you could give both single and married the same OHA cap, they still only get paid for what they rent. In CONUS..maybe the single guy wants to invest in condo. Maybe he wants to share a house with four buddies and have parties every weekend. Maybe a married couple wants to rent a trailer and pocket the savings...maybe they want to share a bigger house with another married couple and have parties every weekend. What the money is spent on is irrelevant!! If someone prioritizes impressing their friends with a $30K car over investing in their retirement, that is their business. You would only want to pay people more if they were saving money? That doesn't even make sense, if they are saving money, by paying them more they will only save more...they certainly don't need it or they wouldn't be saving it!!

Or maybe we should have a list of approved purchases...that you can approve to make sure no one is wasting their money on things you don't think are worthy...you can tell us how big a TV we need, how nice of a car...and whether or not a particular girl is worth taking out to a particular restaurant.

Thank you, Mr. Stalin, may I have another?

[Measure Man]

And that $30,000 would have provided more room and utilities needed for a spouse or other dependent; not increased your standard of living. We don't get paid to the equivalent of a civilian...This is why we have allowances - and why there are differences in them..

You also would have paid much less taxes and insurance too, which technically means you would have made more off that basis too... So what, your standard of living is the same as that of a married person...

You are the last person I thought would argue for a "government handout" on the day you chose to get married.

I'll be damned.

Like I have said 3 or 4 times, if they paid equal BAH then either single Amn would have to go in houses or married people in the dorms. Both of which is unpractical...

It's also not true. Once you make E-5 in the AF...if you are single, for the most part, there is no housing or dorms for you. I don't see how that would have to change by paying more BAH. (Exceptions of course are places like Korea, Thule, etc. where even the married folk get dorms.)

In fact, if you are a single non-custodial parent...you are entitled to dependent rate BAH, but still not entitled to base housing...and don't get me started on how those folks get a royal screwing if stationed overseas!

If you think it is so unfair and it is better in civilian life why don't you try out civilian life?

[SeaChicken]

Is there a difference in on base housing for those with dependents and without? Of course, they have different needs. Would you expect there those with and without dependents to have different housing off base too? Of course, they have different needs.

BAH is to meet those needs when there is not actual housing available, so if you agree that with and without dependents have different needs, why would you expect them to recieve the same BAH?

BAH is not pay, but it is compensation. It is not however compensation for services rendered, but compensation for a lack of on base housing.

[Measure Man]

Is there a difference in on base housing for those with dependents and without? Of course, they have different needs. Would you expect there those with and without dependents to have different housing off base too? Of course, they have different needs.

I don't expect it not because it is proper...I don't expect it because it is the current system. If we were to design a proper system, I would expect equal workers to earn the same living space, and let them decide whether or not they wanted to share that with someone else. You know, just like the rest of America.

Why oh why does a 4 yr old daughter need the same size room as an adult A1C?

BAH is to meet those needs when there is not actual housing available, so if you agree that with and without dependents have different needs, why would you expect them to recieve the same BAH?

BAH is not pay, but it is compensation. It is not however compensation for services rendered, but compensation for a lack of on base housing.

I can't remember the exact number...but base housing is built to house only about 20% of the base populace.

The expectation is for a majority of members to live on the economy. The expectation is for all E-5s and above to live off-base (in the AF, in most cases).

You're right though in that it is just as wrong to expect a grown man who works for a living to live in a dorm room that he may even have to share with another grown man, or share a kitchenette, common area....while the dependent child of a possibly lesser ranked coworker has a "greater need."

[SeaChicken]

I don't expect it not because it is proper...I don't expect it because it is the current system. If we were to design a proper system, I would expect equal workers to earn the same living space, and let them decide whether or not they wanted to share that with someone else. You know, just like the rest of America.

Why oh why does a 4 yr old daughter need the same size room as an adult A1C?

I can't remember the exact number...but base housing is built to house only about 20% of the base populace.

The expectation is for a majority of members to live on the economy. The expectation is for all E-5s and above to live off-base (in the AF, in most cases).

You're right though in that it is just as wrong to expect a grown man who works for a living to live in a dorm room that he may even have to share with another grown man, or share a kitchenette, common area....while the dependent child of a possibly lesser ranked coworker has a "greater need."

I see nothing wrong with singles living in "barracks", but the "barracks" should be apartments not dorm rooms. You can double up junior enlisted into two bedrrom apartments and force them to have roommates, but I do agree that no one should be forced to share a room. I also see nothing wrong with having one bedroom apartments for single Officers and Senior Enlisted. If living on base in "barracks" is good enough for the E1, than it is good enough for the O1.

I would however disagree with your logic. You sound like you are making housing a privelege to be earned where better job performance gets you better housing. You are also treating every single person who benefits from BAH as an individual. You can't break a family up and compare a minor dependent to a single servicemember. It's not that the 4 year old needs the same size room as the A1C, but that she also needs a second bedroom for her parents.

That's part of the point, that a family is in different housing than singles so BAH is different for families who live off base than it is for singles who live off base.

[Measure Man]

I see nothing wrong with singles living in "barracks", but the "barracks" should be apartments not dorm rooms. You can double up junior enlisted into two bedrrom apartments and force them to have roommates,

but then if two military members of the same rank decide to get married...they need a house?

In garrison, no one should be forced to live with anyone else. Deployed is different, but at home, people deserve a better lifestyle than that.

but I do agree that no one should be forced to share a room. I also see nothing wrong with having one bedroom apartments for single Officers and Senior Enlisted. If living on base in "barracks" is good enough for the E1, than it is good enough for the O1.

I would however disagree with your logic. You sound like you are making housing a privelege to be earned where better job performance gets you better housing.

Heck yes...you get bigger BAH with every promotion. I would expect that.

After 25 years I don't expect to have not improved my standard of living from when I first came in.

You are also treating every single person who benefits from BAH as an individual. You can't break a family up and compare a minor dependent to a single servicemember. It's not that the 4 year old needs the same size room as the A1C, but that she also needs a second bedroom for her parents.

That's part of the point, that a family is in different housing than singles so BAH is different for families who live off base than it is for singles who live off base.

Well, even a military member with a non-working spouse rates more room on-base than two military members that aren't married. What's the need? If you wanna talk need...no one should get out of the dorm until they have children, then. I'm not arguing for that, but it seems to be your point.

I still don't see what the big problem is for compensating two people equally for their equal service.

[cowdog]

I simply ask for the entitlements that I was told I would receive when I signed the contract entering military service. That is not being greedy or selfish! If you had no idea what your pay or entitlements were going to be before you signed your contract, you are an idiot for not doing the research. I assume that most knew of their entitlements before they signed the dotted line entering MILITARY service. So, it makes me laugh, and sad at the same time, that knowing what your pay and entitlements for your future in the military were going to be, you still signed that contract, and now complain that you should get more. Not one married person on this thread has said they needed more money. The folks complaining about “fairness” seem to be the ones asking for more. So please, don’t call married people greedy and selfish because they “think” they are entitled to compensation for their “personal choices”. They ARE entitled to that compensation, as they were told they would be entitled when they signed their contract. Single folks get exactly what they were told they would receive, and it is greedy to ask for more. Expecting to receive what was promised, is not greedy.

Lets stop comparing military to civilian, please! There are very few things that you can compare between the two, pay and bennies are not one of those, so STOP! You are also a fool if you feel everything is fair in the civilian sector. OH, someone stated that you would get laughed out the door if you asked for more pay for being married with a family. WRONG! Just had 2 friends retire, and I am knocking on that door now, and trust me, that wild card works for a little extra salary, and signing bonus.

To technomage1, You have some good points of argument about single folks not being treated as well as married members and their families. I enjoyed reading your “lawn” post. That, however, is just sad that your unit would not help you out with your lawn while you deployed. That is not limited to just you or that unit, and it is sad. I do feel that single folks get screwed over in instances such as that, and others you mentioned such as covering for a parent when their child is sick and the requirement to take leave when you needed personal time. But, when it comes to pay and bennies, please be cautious as to who you call greedy. Remember, they are all personal choices, whether to have dependents, or not.

For all of the single folks out there that have roommates with other single military members and complaining about unfair BAH rates… How about only one of you get BAH since you are two military members under the same roof? I don’t think any of you would be happy with that result…

[SeaChicken]

but then if two military members of the same rank decide to get married...they need a house?.
In garrison, no one should be forced to live with anyone else. Deployed is different, but at home, people deserve a better lifestyle than that.If you read me first post in this topic, you will see that I advocated the point that a married couple can live in the same one bedroom apartment as a single person. The higher tier of BAH shouldn't kick in until you start having children.

Heck yes...you get bigger BAH with every promotion. I would expect that. You seemed to be saying that two people of the same paygrade should be compensated for housing differently based on performance. The better housing and better compensation do come from better performance, but through promotions. I think we agree there.

Well, even a military member with a non-working spouse rates more room on-base than two military members that aren't married. What's the need? If you wanna talk need...no one should get out of the dorm until they have children, then. I'm not arguing for that, but it seems to be your point.I actually was arguing for that. The with dependents rate for BAH shouldn't kick in until you have kids, not just for getting married.

I still don't see what the big problem is for compensating two people equally for their equal service. I would disagree that "equality" of service is irrelevant to the discussion of BAH. For serving you get housing. Your specific housing is determined by paygrade and dependents. If no housing is available, you get BAH, therefore BAH is determined by paygrade and dependents. End of story. I would be willing to bet that the single service member actually has more disposable income than the married one even though said single sailor recieves less BAH.

[Measure Man]

If you read me first post in this topic, you will see that I advocated the point that a married couple can live in the same one bedroom apartment as a single person. The higher tier of BAH shouldn't kick in until you start having children.

okay missed that. I still disagree with differing BAH for personal choices such as to have a family or not.

You seemed to be saying that two people of the same paygrade should be compensated for housing differently based on performance.

Not sure where you got that. I've been saying all along that two people of the same grade doing the same work should be compensated the same.

You are the one suggesting they should be compensated differently, only not based on performance, based on lifestyle choices.

The better housing and better compensation do come from better performance, but through promotions. I think we agree there.

sure.

I actually was arguing for that. The with dependents rate for BAH shouldn't kick in until you have kids, not just for getting married.

I disagree. There should be one BAH rate...that increases with grade

I would disagree that "equality" of service is irrelevant to the discussion of BAH. For serving you get housing. Your specific housing is determined by paygrade and dependents. If no housing is available, you get BAH, therefore BAH is determined by paygrade and dependents. End of story.

Yes, we all know that is how the system is. Someone simply suggested that the system is flawed, and I agree with that.

I would be willing to bet that the single service member actually has more disposable income than the married one even though said single sailor recieves less BAH.

Probably so. Still his/her perogative.

[Measure Man]

I simply ask for the entitlements that I was told I would receive when I signed the contract entering military service. That is not being greedy or selfish! If you had no idea what your pay or entitlements were going to be before you signed your contract, you are an idiot for not doing the research. I assume that most knew of their entitlements before they signed the dotted line entering MILITARY service. So, it makes me laugh, and sad at the same time, that knowing what your pay and entitlements for your future in the military were going to be, you still signed that contract, and now complain that you should get more. Not one married person on this thread has said they needed more money. The folks complaining about “fairness” seem to be the ones asking for more. So please, don’t call married people greedy and selfish because they “think” they are entitled to compensation for their “personal choices”. They ARE entitled to that compensation, as they were told they would be entitled when they signed their contract. Single folks get exactly what they were told they would receive, and it is greedy to ask for more. Expecting to receive what was promised, is not greedy.

I"m not accusing anyone of being greedy or selfish. I don't "expect" any more than was promised.

I do think it's wrong that single members get compensated less than married members. I think it IS unfair. It doesn't mean that I expect it to be any different...just my opinion on the topic.

There are many things I think are unfair that I don't expect will change.

On a side note, I am married...but I can know wrong when I see it, even if it doesn't apply to me personally.

Lets stop comparing military to civilian, please! There are very few things that you can compare between the two, pay and bennies are not one of those, so STOP!

No! The relative comparisons are relevant.

You are also a fool if you feel everything is fair in the civilian sector. OH, someone stated that you would get laughed out the door if you asked for more pay for being married with a family. WRONG! Just had 2 friends retire, and I am knocking on that door now, and trust me, that wild card works for a little extra salary, and signing bonus.

So...if you knock on one of those doors, get a job and find out afterward...that the guy next to you, doing less work, gets paid 20% more...don't go crying so long as they pay you what you agreed to.

For all of the single folks out there that have roommates with other single military members and complaining about unfair BAH rates… How about only one of you get BAH since you are two military members under the same roof? I don’t think any of you would be happy with that result…

Two military members that are married to each other both get BAH, too.

[cowdog]

I"m not accusing anyone of being greedy or selfish. I don't "expect" any more than was promised.

Didn't say that YOU said that. That comment was not directed at you, just a blanket statement as many posts throughout this thread accuse married military members of being greedy. I am a noobie at this posting thing and just picked a comment to post a reply to, not intending that to be yours.

No! The relative comparisons are relevant.

Ok, but it is difficult to put a price on what some military members do day to day compared to their civilian counterparts. Most civilian companies have comparable pay and benifits, and few, if any compare to the military.

So...if you knock on one of those doors, get a job and find out afterward...that the guy next to you, doing less work, gets paid 20% more...don't go crying so long as they pay you what you agreed to.

I won't! I sit around people all day long now that make much more than me and do much less and I don't complain, because that is the nature of the beast. When I become a civilian, if I don't like it, I will try to find a better position or a different company. Most companies forbid their employees from discussing their salaries, for those reasons.

Two military members that are married to each other both get BAH, too.

Yeah, I'm famiiar with that. Once again, earlier posts in this thread complain about married military members getting BAH and how it was unfair. But, be careful what you wish for. I actually don't agree that married military members both get BAH. I feel it is wrong. Also, I can see both sides when it comes to single rate and with dependent rate BAH. I simply don't like it when someone is not happy with what they have, but what they have is exactly what they are entitled, and then call others that get exactly what they are entitled greedy and selfish.

[Snoop_Frogg]

I'm not sure if this was covered in previous posts...really don't want to read through all that cause it all seems to be the same thing. I believe that single or married you should get paid the amount that you get for bah and that's it. If you live in on base/post housing however, you could be a SgtMaj or equivilent, and have to fork up your bah for housing, and that pfc that's living next door does too...My main arguement with this is that you are provided with that certain amount due to your seniority, but a lot of servicemembers get that stripped away if they opt to have housing on base...I think that there should be a solid amount that is paid to maintain your house to the housing office per rank and you get to keep the rest...and I'm not trying to be selfish with that either. If someone your same rank is getting say 800 dollars extra a month staying out in town, but you're in base housing...as much as you may be better off having not to pay rent and all them bills...why shouldn't they calculate a little extra pay your way. It almost seems unfair that you can stay in a cheap say 400 dollar apartment making 800 bah, and after bills lets say you pocket 300. (<<figuratively) Plus all the other benies that you get for food and stuff you're making a small fortune compared to the couple living on base. I'm just kinda thinkin all this stuff off the top of my head right now 'cause it's been an issue that i've heard about from a lot of my married friends.
Also, the stipulations that they set up for those single servicemembers to live out in town. Im an e-5, have a son and am not married. Should I be able to get a place out in town soley based on that fact? But they try to tell me that I need supporting documents stating that I have to have50/50 custody to live out in town. Well situation 1, what if i cannot recieve custody or visitation for him if I do not have an adequate living space. I'm sure that it would get out that I'm spending anywhere from a week to a month in a hotel, and it definately would not look good. situation 2, without an agreement what if me and my son's mother are close enough that she would come down to stay with me for a while so I may visit my son. If I were given bah wouldn't having a place to live be cheaper than 7 days in a nice spacious hotel? I'm just throwing some of this stuff out there...there are a lot of issues with bah, recieving bah, different rates for married and single, and many other issues. But how mush of this stuff seems very fair if something in place to help you seems to do nothing but frustrate you.

[Skyhawk]

Unfortunately, your points were covered previously. That's not a problem. Glad you posted.

However, your perspective on BAH doesn't match the official regulations governing it. BAH is not pay. It is an allowance to compensate one for lack of on-base housing. BAH is indexed to rank, but also within each rank for dependents and singles.

The point is that singles can live in suitable bachelor quarters in line with their rank. Families live in family housing units consistent with the rank of their sponsor. The current BAH system clearly mimics this setup. It mimcs it precisely because BAH is intended to provide an allowance to help defray the costs of securing off base housing consistent with the rank and family status of the sponsor.

Those advocating single rate BAH have glossed over so many essential facts. One wonders if many have even researched their arguments or if they are simply attracted by the prospect of more money and believe aggitating in Military.com forums can somehow sway regulatory guidance. It won't!

BAH replicates the setup for on base quarters -- a reality that many in this discussion have pointed out. This essential fact escapes the attention of those who advocate its radical change. The logic of one BAH system makes as much sense as one type of base housing for all members, single and married! Shall we put a married officer and his wife in a dorm room on base? I think all should and can agree on that notion unless he/she wishes to be whimsical.

However, why then cannot people accept the common sense of two types of BAH? It costs more to get a multi-unit home or apartment than one suited for a single person. Also, a single person one bedroom apartment isn't the same requirement as for two people. Anyone who think regardless of marital status that one person has the same space requirements as two, simply doesn't understand human reality! Two single military members can agree to room together and pool their separate BAH's while married couples (even those both in the military cannot do that). There's an "inequity" that is seems those demanding one BAH rate for all don't seem to consider.

In our budget-limited environment, BAH rates will not suddenly increase to the dependent level for all military members. That simply will not happen. So that argument for that is pointless. In fact, I think other than giving Military Times more fodder, this entire discussion is pointless now. The facts have been fairly presented. Either accept the essential facts or agree to disagree with them. Those two essential facts are:

1. Single and Dependent rate BAH is indexed for rank and is intended to replicate the same rank and family status setup of on base housing.

2. The military has a vested interest in encouraging retention of married personnel since these people provide the bulk of mid-level and senior leadership.

If you still think your need for more money justifies tearing apart those two facts, then I sincerely hope you never reach the reins of influence within military policy formulation.

[technomage1]

1. Single and Dependent rate BAH is indexed for rank and is intended to replicate the same rank and family status setup of on base housing.

2. The military has a vested interest in encouraging retention of married personnel since these people provide the bulk of mid-level and senior leadership.

If you still think your need for more money justifies tearing apart those two facts, then I sincerely hope you never reach the reins of influence within military policy formulation.

Let's look at your 2 points.

Point 1. Speaking of researching your facts....as I've posted before, according to the pentagon's per diem web page, BAH is not intended to guarantee the same type of housing that a member (married or single) would get on base. It is based the average costs of a set standard for each rank and dependancy status. Depending on where you are stationed and your particulars, you may get better housing on or off base.

www.perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil has the following in their BAH FAQ section.
"Q19: Does BAH guarantee that my residence matches what I could get if I lived in government quarters?
ANSWER: No. BAH is based on civilian standards, considering the housing choices made by civilians of comparable income."

If you're interested in what each rank gets, http://usmilitary.about.com/od/housi.../a/bahtype.htm shows it.

Point 2: I'm frankly horrified by the implications of this. Marital status should be irrelevant in wanting to retain people - job performance should be what we focus on. I want competant, motivated individuals to serve beside me. If you really wanted to get down to the nitty gritty, it would save the AF money to retain singles at any level since we cost less in terms of health care, PCS costs, education, etc. I don't propose that we favor singles, though - I don't think marital status should be a factor in wanting to retain people at all. Some senior leadership are married, some are single but I'd like to retain them all, thank you. I fail to see how compensating both married and single equally for the work that they do will cause some mass exodus of married people at any level - but it will help retain singles at all levels.

"Need" for more money has nothing to do with this. It is about equal compensation, in accordance with our rank, for equal work.

For those that have mentioned entitlements upon enlistment - the military promised to either provide you food and housing or to give you an allowance for it. Food, as I've already discussed, is covered by a flat rate BAS - married and single receive the same to cover the food costs of the member. As for housing, I don't know what your recruiter told you, but the enlistment contract just says you'll be paid per the laws and regulations - which can and do differ from service to service. Right now the law states that singles shall not recieve the same level as married - what I and others question is why. I think the current law is unfair and am lobbying to change it, and I'm well within my rights to do so - as others are free to disagree with me. See the law at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/37/403.html.

[ROBERT4]

Seachicken, Biscuit or whatever you are. Get off the BAH posts, you are not making sense and contrary to all things we have battled for servicemembers. What is your problem? As stated before, you know the post I posted you do not anybody to see. Good grief post something for all to see that is good for the service. You are pathetic.

[ROBERT4]

The BAH issue is not worth this rhetoric. If you are going to lobby for things to improve, in the services, lobby for the good of all.

Try these issues:
1) Pay: No matter how good the pay, ask for more. There have been years we received zero increases and there was even talk that we earned too much.
2) Retirement: Ask for an even 3.0% vs. 2.5%, so you do not have to remain in the service for 40 years to get 100%.
3) Leave Accrual: Ask for 3 days a month vs. 2.5 and ask for the 75 day accrual, initiated for the next two years, to remain permanently.
4) Health Benefits: General rule, always ask for better health care.
5) Education: Give the Enlisted the same degree completion opportunities given to Officers. Everybody is a Soldier, and thus should receive the same opportunities. There has been talk of Enlisted going to CGSC or some type of it, and being allowed to complete a degree.

Walk in with a plan for discussion and discuss your plan, you will get further.

[technomage1]

ROBERT4, you've posted this before. In general, I agree with you. Unfortunately, it appears that in the past married have lobbied for more than singles (on purpose or by oversight), so now we have an inequity - a system of haves and have nots.

I'd also like to respond to the folks that think my examples of singles being treated worse than married are just at my duty station. I wish that were the case, but I've been in for 12 years now and have been to multiple duty stations. With 1 exception, at each location the singles were treated worse than married.

[LUVTROLL]

I totally disagree. So what you are saying is that people should only live in a two bedroom home regardless of how many people live with you. A single Soldier does not have all the extra expenses that a married Soldier has. When I was single I got paid less; but had more money to dispose of do to the fact that I only had to spent that money on me. SFC Lewis is not getting rewarded for his choice of having children. It is the system that is built to go into play. Officers don't get a yearly clothing allowance nor do they get as much in BAS as enlisted do, you think that is right? It is how pay and allowance's are doled out. I had a 1SG who once told me that if people who just do what the regulation's say to to do then we would not have all these problems.

How can you say that an E4 with eight years in service is low speed? I have known quite a few E4's with that many years of service and they were very high speed, they just did not want to get promoted, and have to deal with people that are closed minded.

You do get paid any extra for having more children. A married Soldier with just a wife, makes the same amount in BAH as a married Soldier with 5 - 10 children. I hope that when the spouses do nice things for the Soldiers such as make a pot luck dinner, or have fund raises so that the BN/Company can have something special you don't do it since you are so against married Soldiers.

This is just an eye opener!

SSG Trobaugh, Johnny R.
Fort Polk, LA




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/community/opinion/army_opinion_bah_052608/

[JAQDANNY]

Some of us like having a family life with a wife and kids. And not party all weekend long. Why does a spouse count as a dependant? Well, there is now two people in a living quarters instead of one. Pretty simple. Some single soldiers collect BAH without dependants and share a 2 bedroom apartment with a buddy. So who is making out with some change? The idea that someone has kids in the military for more benefits is absured. In reality, having more kids takes out of our pckets, in case you did not know. Have a nice day everyone.

[fenway]

hmm

The reason enlisted get married is that they do not want to live in barracks. fair enough.

I think that they need to build better housing for enlisted so it is like a dorm. currently my friend in the navy has a suite with a kitchen and bathroom, small living room that he shares with another sailor. (e-3). he is not looking for a wife

to a certain extent I think that BAH is useful in promoting stable families and recruitment.

what I want to see dispear is recruits, e-1, e-2's trolling for wives so they can get a better living environment.

[Yggdrasil]

hmm

The reason enlisted get married is that they do not want to live in barracks. fair enough.

I think that they need to build better housing for enlisted so it is like a dorm. currently my friend in the navy has a suite with a kitchen and bathroom, small living room that he shares with another sailor. (e-3). he is not looking for a wife

to a certain extent I think that BAH is useful in promoting stable families and recruitment.

what I want to see dispear is recruits, e-1, e-2's trolling for wives so they can get a better living environment.

Amen to that one!

You close the quality of life gap between married and single, and watch the money that will be saved from military members remaining single.

[BenOzzy31]

There are several arguments to this issue that are valid and well put; myself, however, have been enlisted in the USMC for 8 years, never married and no children and I have- of course- my own opinion.

Just because someone obtains Sgt. at 3 years does not mean that they should make more then the Cpl. of 8, yes, they should receiver what is given to them. It is the same with our civilian counterparts, if an employee has been with a company for 10 years, they will receive pay raises based on a timetable and that could mean that they make more then their supervisor that has been with the company for 5 years. The pay is based on experience, that Sgt. of 3 years does not have as nearly as much experience as the Cpl. of 8. The logical alternative is to institute penalties for poor performance, which are already in place.

Regardless of rank, BAH should be the same, there is housing tailored towards rank in military housing, if you choose to live out in town, then you should not receive anymore then the next guy. But it is absurd to compare our pay system to welfare (though we technically rate it), it may be a burden on the DoD to give extra for dependents; but did you know the AF gives $50 a month for each pet? :confused: Now that is just silly, it is one thing to help take care of a child, but owning a dog or cat is certainly something that DoD should not assist.

As for my living arrangements, I find it offensive that my counterpart would receive over $800 in BAH while other members as myself live in quarters that certainly do NOT cost $800 a month. I should receive free HD cable and hi-speed internet for that amount. And with most barracks (USMC) being at 90% occupancy, or higher, NCOs should be offered BAH to move out in order to ease the headache of figuring out where the new guys will live. Not to mention the fact that most NCOs that I know are sharing their rooms and most certainly not living according to the Marine Corps' standard of living. To add to that, it is a gross absurdity that someone in another branch of service is given better living quarters then another branch, the Army and AF have kitchenettes with individual bedrooms and actual closets while I have a moldy room with a metal bed and locker. Now there is an issue worth discussing.

[BenOzzy31]

Let's not forget that there should be restrictions as per age and rank for who can get married and have a car. Junior enlisted at 18 and 19 years of age are getting married to people their same age, and we all know that causes troubles for everyone from the individual all the way through his command when their sweetheart leaves them, 68% at last check. And most bases with high populations have extreme traffic congestion and limited parking spaces, this could be resolved to having only NCOs with vehicles. Since NCOs typically have to escort their junior enlisted during check-ins and legal/medical procedures, why should someone of E-1 or E-2 have a car, especially with such high rates of underage drinking. If they're certainly not responsible enough to adhere to underage drinking policy then what reasoning shows that they are responsible to have a vehicle

[ROBSKATER]

You know just a few years ago, probably before most of the people complaining got out of middle school Single BAH was restricted to E7 and above, period. Now we have increased the numbers of those who can get it in an effort to improve quality of life. We have come a long way since then. My first apt was as an E5 with two other shipmates paying for it out of pocket, NO BAH at all. If you think about it most if not all can live free in a barracks or on a ship just like us old salts did just a few years ago.

If you think that you MAKE MONEY getting married you are seriously mistaken! The costs far outweigh the BAH. I would not mind if they made them equal but it is a tool that keeps married military members to stay in the service cut and dry. Without it you would get married and move on.....

Be glad for what you have in a time that we really could or should cut back to save taxpayer dollars in this time of need.

[MERC8401]

but did you know the AF gives $50 a month for each pet? :confused: Now that is just silly, it is one thing to help take care of a child, but owning a dog or cat is certainly something that DoD should not assist.



Ummm where did you hear that garbage? Because I just got two cats for Christmas and I want my extra $100 bucks. There is absolutely no truth to that, and now that you know I really hope you go back to every individual that you've told that too and correct yourself. My tech school was on a Navy base and I remember hearing rumors from the Navy and Marines that we had maids in our dorms and stuff like that....lol...it's funny that people say things they don't know anything about and believe it to be true. All of our paychecks come from the DoD and therefore, if we received money for our pets...so would you.

[Skyhawk]

Some of us like having a family life with a wife and kids. And not party all weekend long. Why does a spouse count as a dependant? Well, there is now two people in a living quarters instead of one. Pretty simple. Some single soldiers collect BAH without dependants and share a 2 bedroom apartment with a buddy. So who is making out with some change? The idea that someone has kids in the military for more benefits is absured. In reality, having more kids takes out of our pckets, in case you did not know. Have a nice day everyone.

Sometimes, you hear the sage voice of reason in these forums. We just heard from one.

So right!

[Skyhawk]

The reason enlisted get married is that they do not want to live in barracks.

Anyone who gets married for this reason is both a pea-wit and fundamentally immoral! To even associate this as a benefit of marriage reveals someone horribly unsuited to marriage in the first place. This should not even register on the radar scope!

[Skyhawk]

There are several arguments to this issue that are valid and well put; myself, however, have been enlisted in the USMC for 8 years, never married and no children and I have- of course- my own opinion.

Just because someone obtains Sgt. at 3 years does not mean that they should make more then the Cpl. of 8, yes, they should receiver what is given to them. It is the same with our civilian counterparts, if an employee has been with a company for 10 years, they will receive pay raises based on a timetable and that could mean that they make more then their supervisor that has been with the company for 5 years. The pay is based on experience, that Sgt. of 3 years does not have as nearly as much experience as the Cpl. of 8. The logical alternative is to institute penalties for poor performance, which are already in place.

Regardless of rank, BAH should be the same, there is housing tailored towards rank in military housing, if you choose to live out in town, then you should not receive anymore then the next guy. But it is absurd to compare our pay system to welfare (though we technically rate it), it may be a burden on the DoD to give extra for dependents; but did you know the AF gives $50 a month for each pet? :confused: Now that is just silly, it is one thing to help take care of a child, but owning a dog or cat is certainly something that DoD should not assist.

As for my living arrangements, I find it offensive that my counterpart would receive over $800 in BAH while other members as myself live in quarters that certainly do NOT cost $800 a month. I should receive free HD cable and hi-speed internet for that amount. And with most barracks (USMC) being at 90% occupancy, or higher, NCOs should be offered BAH to move out in order to ease the headache of figuring out where the new guys will live. Not to mention the fact that most NCOs that I know are sharing their rooms and most certainly not living according to the Marine Corps' standard of living. To add to that, it is a gross absurdity that someone in another branch of service is given better living quarters then another branch, the Army and AF have kitchenettes with individual bedrooms and actual closets while I have a moldy room with a metal bed and locker. Now there is an issue worth discussing.

You really should research facts before offering falsehoods. Having served in the USAF for over 24 years, there has never been a "pet" allowance. I'm amazed someone would even think there is.

Someone of higher rank should be paid more. Experience is an important criteria, but someone with higher rank is supposed to be required to assume a job of higher responsibility, and without question the rules of accountability are higher. One of the reasons many complain about SNCO and Senior command "incompetence" is because those complaining have no idea what really happens at those levels and the myriad of responsibillities that tie these people down and make it appear they are overburdened. A good leader masks these pressures from his people while spending inordinate "personal" time trying to fix them. Military pay scales in fact pay more for experience to a certain degree but not at the expense (generally) of higher rank. Although, rightly, a SNCO is paid more than a 2Lt and again, that is reasonable.

In terms of differences in quality of living spaces on base, I agree. That's an issue that should be looked at. Military members don't require luxury, but they should certainly receive quality. Billets with mold and delapidated fixures are unacceptable. But that's often a raw measure of priorities and budgeting and it's going to get worse as politicians now search for further military funding reductions despite an ongoing war.

[Skyhawk]

Let's not forget that there should be restrictions as per age and rank for who can get married and have a car. Junior enlisted at 18 and 19 years of age are getting married to people their same age, and we all know that causes troubles for everyone from the individual all the way through his command when their sweetheart leaves them, 68% at last check. And most bases with high populations have extreme traffic congestion and limited parking spaces, this could be resolved to having only NCOs with vehicles. Since NCOs typically have to escort their junior enlisted during check-ins and legal/medical procedures, why should someone of E-1 or E-2 have a car, especially with such high rates of underage drinking. If they're certainly not responsible enough to adhere to underage drinking policy then what reasoning shows that they are responsible to have a vehicle

There used to be rules like this. In fact, decades earlier in the Army and Marines, personnel below the rank of E-3 were required to obtain written permission from their commanders to marry. However, that requirement went away under political pressure. However, as archaic as the rules sounded, honestly they were very much in the interest of the junior enlisted member. I do not recall if the AF had the same policy, but perhaps it was true also. Not at all sure of the Navy.

Regardless, the policy made great sense. But in a society that became increasingly resistant to infringements upon personal liberties, the policies became unenforceable. There was also great pressure on restricting junior enlisted from living off base. There is still some, but not as much. I am personally "old school" about this. Those four years in college to me amount to the same transition of living away from your parents as do the first few years in the military for an 18-19 year old E-1 to E-2. Some young people need a longer transition than others and some need no transition at all. It just depends.

Commanders can make a fair evaluation for each case. But we increasingly see a need to apply broad regulations vice giving commanders individual discretion. Again, I'm "old school" on this one. I see little better than a good SNCO keeping his eyes firmly on the junior enlisted in his unit and advising the CC whom should receive the approval for marriage and off-base housing and whom should not. To me, there's less chance of that discretion being abused than in junior enlisted abusing themselves with early decisions they spend a lifetime regretting.

As with many things in life, one should be careful what he wishes for lest he get it!

[technomage1]

Some of us like having a family life with a wife and kids. And not party all weekend long. Why does a spouse count as a dependant? Well, there is now two people in a living quarters instead of one. Pretty simple. Some single soldiers collect BAH without dependants and share a 2 bedroom apartment with a buddy. So who is making out with some change? The idea that someone has kids in the military for more benefits is absured. In reality, having more kids takes out of our pckets, in case you did not know. Have a nice day everyone.

This comment makes a lot of assumptions that simply aren't true. Let me share techno's typical weekend while at home station. Keep in mind that while I may be single, I'm also 35 years old and have been in for 12 years.

Friday night: I'm pooped after a hard week at work. Get home, cook supper, play video games or watch TV w/friends. Maybe have a brew or 2. In bed by 1100.
Saturday: Wake up, clean house, do laundry, yard work, errands. If I'm feeling saucy, maybe head down to the pub, but mostly repeat Friday night.
Sunday: My day for fun. More games or TV, maybe a day trip.

Most singles, especially the NCOs, that I know have the same life style, maybe not so much with the games but still not the wild lifestyle you describe.

What you spend your money on, no matter if you're married or single, should not be anyone else's concern and is irrelevant to the matter of equal compensation. Yes, anyone with a spouse and kids will not have the pocket money that I do - but that was their choice. The fact of the matter is that married do recieve more benefits just for being married. Can someone who is married w/a couple of kids throw down money for a trip to Paris for the weekend like I can? Probably not, but again, that was their choice. Why on earth would a married person with kids expect to maintain the same amount of pocket money that I do as a single person, and why should they expect the taxpayer to pay for that?

[Measure Man]

Some of us like having a family life with a wife and kids. And not party all weekend long.

and Some like to have a wife and kids and still party on the weekend. Should they get a pay cut?

Does it really matter what type of lifestyle some like to have?

Why does a spouse count as a dependant? Well, there is now two people in a living quarters instead of one. Pretty simple.

Simple, yes. Simply wrong. what if the "dependant" has their own job?

Some single soldiers collect BAH without dependants and share a 2 bedroom apartment with a buddy.

Some married soldiers collect BAH with dependants and share a house with another married couple also drawing BAH with dependents. Who cares?

So who is making out with some change? The idea that someone has kids in the military for more benefits is absured. In reality, having more kids takes out of our pckets, in case you did not know. Have a nice day everyone.

Yes, it is absurd to think that people have children simply for the benefits.

It is also absurd to give them more compensation for that.

[mel44]

OK - Looks like I am gonna get in this muck. In the real world when we get married and settle down we have to get jobs that are comparable to the lifestyle we want. To support the kids we want and to buy the toys we want. That is the American way. If we can't make enough we go to school, get a second job and so forth. We aren't given that luxury in the military. So we decide to take ourselves to another career so we can. The military goes "ow"! wait!! don't leave, we will increase the perks so you don't have to leave. We look at this and say hummm OK we'll stay because you have made it possible for us to put our kids in the school we want and live in the neighborhood we want.

This is the way it works in the real world. BAH is considered part of our income. It is considered part of income to calculate child support. Most of the jobs I have worked have a bonus at the end of the year. It is considered part of my income. It is not meant to punish the single guy but to entice the married guy to stay in his job despite the separation, long hours.

My suggestion is if the single guy needs more money then start looking at other options of employment. If enough singles leave due to money they will increase it.

[PELIGROSO]

I do not understand the logic behind some of these posts. I have been in the USAF for 15 years now and times have definately changed. When I was a young Airmen my BAH was extremely low. I had a part time job to help pay the rent and other things associated with living off base.

How can some of you compare what a person with dependants make over a person without as far as BAH. This is crazy, we all should live within our means whether we have a family or not. Why would you get paid more money for staying single? That doesn't even make since. We know people get married just to move out of the dorms, but guess what those people suffer later. If you are ignorant enough to get married just to move out you deserve what you get.

Should a junior ranked member get paid more than their supervisor, of course not. BAH does not count towards your base pay, so technically they are not getting paid more.

We all have made decisions in our lives. Some of you chose to join the Marines, Navy, Army, or Air Force. Each service has pros and cons.

It is a shame to hear the kind of logic that is coming out from some of you. Like I tell my fellow Airmen, fight the battles you can win and the ones that make since. This battle does not make since. I am sure it will not change.

[Skyhawk]

I do not understand the logic behind some of these posts. I have been in the USAF for 15 years now and times have definately changed. When I was a young Airmen my BAH was extremely low. I had a part time job to help pay the rent and other things associated with living off base.

How can some of you compare what a person with dependants make over a person without as far as BAH. This is crazy, we all should live within our means whether we have a family or not. Why would you get paid more money for staying single? That doesn't even make since. We know people get married just to move out of the dorms, but guess what those people suffer later. If you are ignorant enough to get married just to move out you deserve what you get.

Should a junior ranked member get paid more than their supervisor, of course not. BAH does not count towards your base pay, so technically they are not getting paid more.

We all have made decisions in our lives. Some of you chose to join the Marines, Navy, Army, or Air Force. Each service has pros and cons.

It is a shame to hear the kind of logic that is coming out from some of you. Like I tell my fellow Airmen, fight the battles you can win and the ones that make since. This battle does not make since. I am sure it will not change.

Another voice of wisdom!

[BRAGGAV8TR]

Army Discriminates Against Single Career Soldiers Deployed on Transition Teams

The Army G1 Staff, BG Gina S. Farrisee, published an interim policy effective APR08 that results in dozens, possibly hundreds, of career single Soldiers losing their BAH while deployed on Military Transition and Training teams (MiTT).

This policy was intended to manage personnel PCSes during the transition period of moving the MiTT training support mission from Ft. Riley to Ft. Polk. BG Farrisee and her staff determined that the best interim alternative would be to PCS all MiTT personnel to Kuwait (dependent-restricted location) until JUL09.

This policy solely benefits the married Soldier or Soldiers with dependants because they get to keep their BAH while deployed. In fact, they also get to move their families and household goods anywhere they want prior to deployment and then move them again when they return from deployment (essentially two PCS moves per family in less than a 15 month period). On the other hand, the single career Soldiers and dual-military Soldiers (without dependants) lose all of their BAH while deployed. How can this possibly be fair?

What really makes this policy confusing, is that every single career MiTT Soldier prior to APR08 and after JUL09 continues to collect BAH while deployed. MiTT Soldiers prior to APR08 were PCSed to Ft. Polk and authorized BAH at the Ft. Riley Rate. After JUL09, all MiTT Soldiers will begin PCSing to Ft. Polk and collect BAH at that location rate. But all the Soldiers assigned to MiTT Teams between APR08 and AUG09 get absolutely no BAH! How can we honestly justify discriminating against the dozens, possibly hundreds, of single career Soldiers who are or will lose their BAH benefits???

The Army G1 needs to emend this policy, amend all the impacted Single Career Soldiers Orders and back-pay all lost BAH.

So much for an all-volunteer Army if we keep treating "people" like this... MAJ Marvin Iavecchia, Woodbridge, VA

marvin.iavecchia@us.army.mil

[tarfan]

For all those who do not know what BAH is determined from or what it is for. Copy and paste the links below to your browser and read. You want more BAH? Work for it. You want more money? Work for it. You want to complain? Then find a way to fix what your complaining about and get a plan. Im an E-5 with a family and i live within my means and have extra money to put in the bank and my wife does not work. I still pay out of pocket for my house/ utilities. Deal with it you want more money WORK FOR IT.


http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/BAH-Primer.pdf

http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bahfaq.html

[tarfan]

I agree its not fair to those who dont work the system. But this is probably caused by those single members who deploy and put everything they own in storage and continue to collect BAH while deployed. This has been a serious problem for years. In a 6 month deployment of a single Navy ship if you have 100 single sailors doing just this thats roughly $720,000 of fraudulent BAH I based this off of $1200 a month for each member. Im sure this happens in all branches and when caught doing this they pay the consequences but they dont always get caught as they have friends draw up fake lease agreements.

Army Discriminates Against Single Career Soldiers Deployed on Transition Teams

The Army G1 Staff, BG Gina S. Farrisee, published an interim policy effective APR08 that results in dozens, possibly hundreds, of career single Soldiers losing their BAH while deployed on Military Transition and Training teams (MiTT).

This policy was intended to manage personnel PCSes during the transition period of moving the MiTT training support mission from Ft. Riley to Ft. Polk. BG Farrisee and her staff determined that the best interim alternative would be to PCS all MiTT personnel to Kuwait (dependent-restricted location) until JUL09.

This policy solely benefits the married Soldier or Soldiers with dependants because they get to keep their BAH while deployed. In fact, they also get to move their families and household goods anywhere they want prior to deployment and then move them again when they return from deployment (essentially two PCS moves per family in less than a 15 month period). On the other hand, the single career Soldiers and dual-military Soldiers (without dependants) lose all of their BAH while deployed. How can this possibly be fair?

What really makes this policy confusing, is that every single career MiTT Soldier prior to APR08 and after JUL09 continues to collect BAH while deployed. MiTT Soldiers prior to APR08 were PCSed to Ft. Polk and authorized BAH at the Ft. Riley Rate. After JUL09, all MiTT Soldiers will begin PCSing to Ft. Polk and collect BAH at that location rate. But all the Soldiers assigned to MiTT Teams between APR08 and AUG09 get absolutely no BAH! How can we honestly justify discriminating against the dozens, possibly hundreds, of single career Soldiers who are or will lose their BAH benefits???

The Army G1 needs to emend this policy, amend all the impacted Single Career Soldiers Orders and back-pay all lost BAH.

So much for an all-volunteer Army if we keep treating "people" like this... MAJ Marvin Iavecchia, Woodbridge, VA

marvin.iavecchia@us.army.mil

[BRAGGAV8TR]

deleted by author

[BRAGGAV8TR]

The Best Way to sum up BAH equality is this: where does it say that a Single Career Soldier doesn't want or need to settle a home unless he or she is married or has kids? What, single people don't want to be homeowners and should forever be banished to the barracks? All of the military services need to adopt a policy that establishes "Career" status (ie E6 and above), and allow them to keep BAH while deployed or assigned to dependent-restricted tours. That will put them on par with the married Soldiers or the Soldiers who have dependants (almost - BAH w/out dependant rate is less, which is fair in my book). Oh, and don't forget this doesn't just hurt Single Career Soldiers. It also hurts the dual-military Soldiers (married) that don't have kids yet... they lose the BAH on dependant-restricted tours too - while married with depepndants do not.

[PsyOps]

I couldn't say why the DoD has decided that married members of the military should be compensated more than single members. Were I to speculate, it happens to be an actuarial fact that married people consume less alcohol and have fewer cases of problematic drinking (Leonard and Rothbard, 1999), fewer suicides, fewer violent episodes, fewer accidents (e.g. automobile), and are sexually victimized less frequently. The CDC has found that married adults are less likely to suffer from psychological distress, and less likely to smoke, drink heavily, or live a sedentary lifestyle (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/marriedadults.htm).

Think about the programs that the military spends HUNDREDS of MILLIONS on in order to maintain readiness in its troops (smoking cessation, exercise programs, weight-loss programs, suicide prevention, Sexual Assault Prevention and Outreach, safety briefings, etc), it only makes fiscal sense to reward a lifestyle which constitutes an inherent protective factor. How many single senior officers do you know? How many married? Insurrance companies have known for decades that married people, IN GENERAL, are less of a liability than single people, and have 'rewarded' them with lower rates.

And before anyone responds with 'I knew this fat married guy who smoke and drank a ton,' or 'I'm single and I'm the most fit person on base,' remember I'm speaking in actuarial terms. IN GENERAL, if you're looking for the person who will cost the least in terms of risk, embarassment, and even healthcare, bet on the married person everytime. Look it up.

[FOQUILLO]

Let Me Understand Something. Single Service Members Complaining About The Diference Between Their Bah And A Married Service Member's Bah. Hummm!!! If You Are Single And Receive Bah That Means You've Be Giving The Privilige To Live Off Base. Ohh!!! Thats Right Living Off Base Is A Privilige. If You Don't Like The Privilige You've Been Given Go Back To The Barracks Where You Should Be Living Anyways!!! Stop Whining!!!

Just To Add A Little Something More, Living Off Base Is A Privilige Even For Married Service Members. Married Service Members That Can Not Take Care Of Their Financial Affairs Could Be Forced To Live In Base Housing And Not Receive Bah At All. Buy The Way The Diference Between Single Bah And Bah With Dependents Is Really Not That Much. I Sure Don't Need It.

[technomage1]

Let Me Understand Something. Single Service Members Complaining About The Diference Between Their Bah And A Married Service Member's Bah. Hummm!!! If You Are Single And Receive Bah That Means You've Be Giving The Privilige To Live Off Base. Ohh!!! Thats Right Living Off Base Is A Privilige. If You Don't Like The Privilige You've Been Given Go Back To The Barracks Where You Should Be Living Anyways!!! Stop Whining!!!

Just To Add A Little Something More, Living Off Base Is A Privilige Even For Married Service Members. Married Service Members That Can Not Take Care Of Their Financial Affairs Could Be Forced To Live In Base Housing And Not Receive Bah At All. Buy The Way The Diference Between Single Bah And Bah With Dependents Is Really Not That Much. I Sure Don't Need It.

Lay off the caps key, there. It makes your post pretty hard to read.

You have this backwards. Living off base is not a privledge. In fact, living on base is the privledge. If you do not maintain your gov't quarters you can be kicked off base - with no BAH. Living off base, for married or single, is for when adequate government quarters are not available. According to US code, singles in the rank of E6 and above cannot be forced to live on base unless adequate quarters are available. Adequate quarters for an E6 are defined as 2 bedroom apartment - which I've never seen on base.

Need has never been an argument here. It is about equal compensation for equal work.

[technomage1]

I couldn't say why the DoD has decided that married members of the military should be compensated more than single members. Were I to speculate, it happens to be an actuarial fact that married people consume less alcohol and have fewer cases of problematic drinking (Leonard and Rothbard, 1999), fewer suicides, fewer violent episodes, fewer accidents (e.g. automobile), and are sexually victimized less frequently. The CDC has found that married adults are less likely to suffer from psychological distress, and less likely to smoke, drink heavily, or live a sedentary lifestyle (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04facts/marriedadults.htm).

Think about the programs that the military spends HUNDREDS of MILLIONS on in order to maintain readiness in its troops (smoking cessation, exercise programs, weight-loss programs, suicide prevention, Sexual Assault Prevention and Outreach, safety briefings, etc), it only makes fiscal sense to reward a lifestyle which constitutes an inherent protective factor. How many single senior officers do you know? How many married? Insurrance companies have known for decades that married people, IN GENERAL, are less of a liability than single people, and have 'rewarded' them with lower rates.

And before anyone responds with 'I knew this fat married guy who smoke and drank a ton,' or 'I'm single and I'm the most fit person on base,' remember I'm speaking in actuarial terms. IN GENERAL, if you're looking for the person who will cost the least in terms of risk, embarassment, and even healthcare, bet on the married person everytime. Look it up.


How does any of this justify less compensation for the same work? By this definition, you could argue that women drink less and cause less problems than men, therefore they should get more compensation.

[technomage1]

I agree its not fair to those who dont work the system. But this is probably caused by those single members who deploy and put everything they own in storage and continue to collect BAH while deployed. This has been a serious problem for years. In a 6 month deployment of a single Navy ship if you have 100 single sailors doing just this thats roughly $720,000 of fraudulent BAH I based this off of $1200 a month for each member. Im sure this happens in all branches and when caught doing this they pay the consequences but they dont always get caught as they have friends draw up fake lease agreements.

How is this fraudulant? Anyone can take their BAH and chose to live in their car, for example. The government gives you the money, how you spend it is up to you - and that is the same for anyone.

[mel44]

How does any of this justify less compensation for the same work? By this definition, you could argue that women drink less and cause less problems than men, therefore they should get more compensation.


YES!!!! Where do we sign up?????

[technomage1]

YES!!!! Where do we sign up?????

I thought you'd like that one. ;)

[Skyhawk]

Army Discriminates Against Single Career Soldiers Deployed on Transition Teams

The Army G1 Staff, BG Gina S. Farrisee, published an interim policy effective APR08 that results in dozens, possibly hundreds, of career single Soldiers losing their BAH while deployed on Military Transition and Training teams (MiTT).

This policy was intended to manage personnel PCSes during the transition period of moving the MiTT training support mission from Ft. Riley to Ft. Polk. BG Farrisee and her staff determined that the best interim alternative would be to PCS all MiTT personnel to Kuwait (dependent-restricted location) until JUL09.

This policy solely benefits the married Soldier or Soldiers with dependants because they get to keep their BAH while deployed. In fact, they also get to move their families and household goods anywhere they want prior to deployment and then move them again when they return from deployment (essentially two PCS moves per family in less than a 15 month period). On the other hand, the single career Soldiers and dual-military Soldiers (without dependants) lose all of their BAH while deployed. How can this possibly be fair?

What really makes this policy confusing, is that every single career MiTT Soldier prior to APR08 and after JUL09 continues to collect BAH while deployed. MiTT Soldiers prior to APR08 were PCSed to Ft. Polk and authorized BAH at the Ft. Riley Rate. After JUL09, all MiTT Soldiers will begin PCSing to Ft. Polk and collect BAH at that location rate. But all the Soldiers assigned to MiTT Teams between APR08 and AUG09 get absolutely no BAH! How can we honestly justify discriminating against the dozens, possibly hundreds, of single career Soldiers who are or will lose their BAH benefits???

The Army G1 needs to emend this policy, amend all the impacted Single Career Soldiers Orders and back-pay all lost BAH.

So much for an all-volunteer Army if we keep treating "people" like this... MAJ Marvin Iavecchia, Woodbridge, VA

marvin.iavecchia@us.army.mil

No question this is a ridiculous and grossly unfair policy, warranting an official IG investigation. It should be presumed that these people maintained their quarters off base. So losing their BAH was a real killer to their incomes. I understand these MiTT assignments are for one year. It's not reasonable to expect these troops to forfeit their homes or apartments during this time.

[Skyhawk]

I agree its not fair to those who dont work the system. But this is probably caused by those single members who deploy and put everything they own in storage and continue to collect BAH while deployed. This has been a serious problem for years. In a 6 month deployment of a single Navy ship if you have 100 single sailors doing just this thats roughly $720,000 of fraudulent BAH I based this off of $1200 a month for each member. Im sure this happens in all branches and when caught doing this they pay the consequences but they dont always get caught as they have friends draw up fake lease agreements.

The solution here is for the commanders to do their duties. People they command who give up their off-base quarters are required by regulation to report this to terminate BAH. If people leave their off-base quarters and fail to report this fact and continue to accept BAH then they could be prosecuted for fraud.

It is a poor response to automatically terminate BAH because some people elect to retain their off base quarters when deployed.

[Skyhawk]

Lay off the caps key, there. It makes your post pretty hard to read.

You have this backwards. Living off base is not a privledge. In fact, living on base is the privledge. If you do not maintain your gov't quarters you can be kicked off base - with no BAH. Living off base, for married or single, is for when adequate government quarters are not available. According to US code, singles in the rank of E6 and above cannot be forced to live on base unless adequate quarters are available. Adequate quarters for an E6 are defined as 2 bedroom apartment - which I've never seen on base.

Need has never been an argument here. It is about equal compensation for equal work.

Again, you are factually incorrect. Unfortunately, you being factually incorrect has been a consistent trend in this discussion. The ops normal situation is on-base housing, either single occupied or family occupied. The BAH was devised to offset the financial burden that service members incur when insufficient on-base quarters are available. Rather than spend the money to renovate old housing, and build additional housing, the DoD determined it was a better financial situation for them to provide BAH.

Further, you can be ordered at any rank to reside on base. It is up to commanders to enforce that and it has been done in rare cases where a certain percentage of on-base quarters were unoccupied. If you are so ordered, then the DoD will pay for your household goods storage and movement. But you are obligated to move into the on-base quarters allocated to you if your commander orders it so.

Therefore, it is very much a priviledge of rank and commander's decision to allow personnel to billet off base. The reason it appears to some like off-base housing is the norm is because the DoD has saved lots of money by opting against building adequate numbers of acceptable on-base housing units. Until recently, the BAH was very much a raw deal because it was calculated to cover only 60% of the known housing costs of the local area. Only recently did surveys come back with updated costs and the BAH increased to attempt to cover all of those costs. For this reason, those residing off the base suffered a financial burden that those residing on base did not incur.

Now, some off base deemed this an acceptable burden because they valued the off base living environment and also valued owning their own property vice renting. Others wanted to reside on base but stayed on the waiting list for on base housing for their entire PCS assignment.

That's not opinion. Those are established facts -- all of them it seems you are unaware of. I would suggest you first attempt to research the facts and try to remain factual in your arguments here.

[technomage1]

Again, you are factually incorrect. Unfortunately, you being factually incorrect has been a consistent trend in this discussion.

I have extensively researched my facts and backed them up at every turn with links to various US government websites.

The ops normal situation is on-base housing, either single occupied or family occupied. The BAH was devised to offset the financial burden that service members incur when insufficient on-base quarters are available. Rather than spend the money to renovate old housing, and build additional housing, the DoD determined it was a better financial situation for them to provide BAH.

Occupying US government quarters is a privledge, not a right. If you do not maintain those quarters you can be forced to move on the economy at your own expense - I've seen it happen. You are correct the BAH is designed to provide quarters for personnel when appropriate on base quarters are not available. I stated this in my message and it has never been a point of contention. However, depending on your rank and marital status on base housing may or may not be the norm. In the AF, for example, single E4s with more than 3 years of service typically reside off base - just in time for those on 4 year enlistments to re-up, which is no coincidence.

Further, you can be ordered at any rank to reside on base. It is up to commanders to enforce that and it has been done in rare cases where a certain percentage of on-base quarters were unoccupied. If you are so ordered, then the DoD will pay for your household goods storage and movement. But you are obligated to move into the on-base quarters allocated to you if your commander orders it so.

I was generalizing a bit before here. It depends on the circumstances if that would be a lawful order or not - and for a single E6 to be moved into a dorm room based on occupancy rate, this would be an unlawful order.

US Code, Title 37, Chapter 7, Section 403, viewable at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/37/403.html.

"(2) A member without dependents who is in a pay grade above pay grade E–6 and who is assigned to quarters in the United States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service, appropriate to the grade or rank of the member and adequate for the member, may elect not to occupy those quarters and instead to receive the basic allowance for housing prescribed for the member’s pay grade by this section.
(3) A member without dependents who is in pay grade E–6 and who is assigned to quarters of the United States that do not meet the minimum adequacy standards established by the Secretary of Defense for members in such pay grade, or to a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service that does not meet such standards, may elect not to occupy such quarters or facility and instead to receive the basic allowance for housing prescribed for the member’s pay grade under this section. "

The only exceptions are detailed here:

"(4) The Secretary concerned may deny the right to make an election under paragraph (2) or (3) if the Secretary determines that the exercise of such an election would adversely affect a training mission, military discipline, or military readiness. "

In other words, there must be a valid reason to force this, it can't be at your commander's whim or if there are a bunch of empty dorm rooms on base. If a single E6 isn't creating a discipline problem, and there isn't a readiness or mission requirement, then it isn't a valid order to move into a single dorm room; and that E6 would be well within their rights to fight it.

I have only seen this be an issue twice. One was single E9 was forced to reside on base due to her duty position. She was assigned a MFH unit to give her adequate quarters for her grade - so she wasn't entitled to redress under sections 2 and 3. The other was a single E7, also residing on base due to duty position and was also given MFH quarters in accordance with his rank. Neither of these would be under section 4 because in each case the AF gave the individual adequate housing per their rank.

In the vast majority of cases, the E6 or above will be entitled reside off base IAW this code. Realistically, would you honestly expect an E6 or above to reside in a dorm room? Remember, these people have been in for a minimum of 10 years. To me, that warrants better quarters than a dorm room. I can understand the training requirement; but I'd think that any E6 or above that was in disciplinary actions bad enough to force them to live that way would be well on their way to being kicked out of the service; and with any position that requires the member to reside on base to me the only moral thing to do would be to give them adequate quarters for their grade instead of boxing them in a dorm. It would be legal to do so, but not moral, and I can't imagine too many single E6s and above staying in service if that were the case.

Incidently, chapter 10 of the JFTR goes one step further than this for E7 and above, it's almost the same but drops the adequacy requirement. The exceptions still apply, though.

Therefore, it is very much a priviledge of rank and commander's decision to allow personnel to billet off base. The reason it appears to some like off-base housing is the norm is because the DoD has saved lots of money by opting against building adequate numbers of acceptable on-base housing units. Until recently, the BAH was very much a raw deal because it was calculated to cover only 60% of the known housing costs of the local area. Only recently did surveys come back with updated costs and the BAH increased to attempt to cover all of those costs. For this reason, those residing off the base suffered a financial burden that those residing on base did not incur.

I have never stated that off base housing is the norm for everyone or that everyone should automatically get it. What I did state is that adequate quarters for single NCOs are not available on bases, which is true. You're correct that BAH is better now, but I know of very few people who are making money off of it. The finincial burden and history that you discuss was and is the same regardless of marital status, and to be honest I'm not sure why it's relevant here.

Now, some off base deemed this an acceptable burden because they valued the off base living environment and also valued owning their own property vice renting. Others wanted to reside on base but stayed on the waiting list for on base housing for their entire PCS assignment.

True. Or some don't have adequate quarters available on base - which is the case for single NCOs or large families or people with multiple pets.

I mostly prefer to live off base, but it would be nice to have adequate housing on base available for my rank. It would be nice to have that option.

That's not opinion. Those are established facts -- all of them it seems you are unaware of. I would suggest you first attempt to research the facts and try to remain factual in your arguments here.

I don't think that you can get much more factual than the US code. This is twice I've countered your posts accusing me of inaccuracies and not researching facts with links and quotes from government sources and law codes, yet I have not seen a post of yours doing the same.

I'm well aware of the laws and regulations. Where you and I disagree is if they're right or not. I do not believe housing should be based upon marital status. You should be given the quarters, on base or off, in accordance with your rank. This does not mean that I expect an E1 with a spouse and kid to move into a dorm room. That would be silly. What it means is that I think the dorms should come down and apartments should go up. I picture a future where at E3, for example you'd be given a 2 bedroom apartment on base - married or single - and if you were married w/too big of a family to fit in that apartment - well, downtown you go with the BAH for the same. If you wanted to live in a 3 bedroom, then you'd have to dig in your pocket for it. Realistically, this will take years, and I recognize that. It is a goal. In the meantime, we at least owe our career singles a fair shake when they live off base.

[Measure Man]

I agree its not fair to those who dont work the system. But this is probably caused by those single members who deploy and put everything they own in storage and continue to collect BAH while deployed. This has been a serious problem for years. In a 6 month deployment of a single Navy ship if you have 100 single sailors doing just this thats roughly $720,000 of fraudulent BAH I based this off of $1200 a month for each member. Im sure this happens in all branches and when caught doing this they pay the consequences but they dont always get caught as they have friends draw up fake lease agreements.

This isn't really the issue...for every one of these, there is a married person whose spouse goes home to live with parents while the servicemember is deployed or on an unaccompanied tour and pulls full BAH for it.

It really doesn't matter.

The point is...two people who do the same work at the same rank and both live off-base are compensated differently.

To say BAH is not pay is wrong...if you live off-base it comes in your paycheck in dollars and cents. It is money, it is compensation. It is not basic pay...but it is pay.

Any shell game showing loops in the system or how much partying single people do, or who is driving what cars is completely irrelevant to the very basic principle at work...

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need..." Karl Marx

[Htz_RuLe]

Now most people like you only see dollar signs, and greedy fills your heart. Lets really break this down barney style so you can understand this. We as in patriots are allowed to have families and the CHOICE to be single. Not to mention after the first dependant we dont get anymore money. This money only covers rent and utilities if it is done properly. So what if your single, sounds like a lack of commitment on your part and i am glad you are starting a good commitment foundation in life with a military contract. But we are not making anymore extra to stuff in our pockets than you are. Plus if we go into housing then we loose it all. So maybe you should sit down and think before you speak because being single means nothing because i bet my monthly paycheck you go out every weekend lookin for some action waisting you money anyways. Cry babies like you make the military soooooo soft. Re the Rules, Do what your TOLD and shut up!

[Measure Man]

Now most people like you only see dollar signs, and greedy fills your heart. Lets really break this down barney style so you can understand this. We as in patriots are allowed to have families and the CHOICE to be single. Not to mention after the first dependant we dont get anymore money. This money only covers rent and utilities if it is done properly. So what if your single, sounds like a lack of commitment on your part and i am glad you are starting a good commitment foundation in life with a military contract. But we are not making anymore extra to stuff in our pockets than you are. Plus if we go into housing then we loose it all. So maybe you should sit down and think before you speak because being single means nothing because i bet my monthly paycheck you go out every weekend lookin for some action waisting you money anyways. Cry babies like you make the military soooooo soft. Re the Rules, Do what your TOLD and shut up!

If you are referring to me...you just lost a months paycheck. Please remit.

First of all, I am married.

Second of all...my 25 years of military service isn't just a "good foundation on commitment"

Lastly, I will shut up when I'm good and ready and certainly not because you TOLD me too...LMAO!

It is a choice to be single, and a choice to be married...neither one says diddly about your ability to commit or honorably serve in the military.

[Unregistered]

Here is my question to all of you that say "I am single why shouldnt I get the same BAH as a married person" or "No-one told you to get married, so why should the single be punished for it?" One, most single soldiers below the rank of E6 (Army) are allowed to live in barracks, and a number of the barracks across the nation have been redone and are not all bad, they are a hell of alot better than they were back in the mid 80's early 90's! So being single and living in the barracks you pay no rent, no utilities of any kind except cable, phone. If you chooSe to move off post, you will recieve BAH and yes its not as much as if your married, think about this, your single, most single soldiers DO NOT live alone they share an apartment, your not going to requrie a larger house, a yard, a nice school system, your only requirements will be, is it close to post, bars, eating establishiments, what utilities come with the apartment? Single not marreid no children realy lets be honest here, you moving off post to be FREE, you want to party, drink and have fun, and the Military should pay you the same rate as a married soldier with children why? If you are married your not allowed to live in the barracks, you can accept post housing, a perk of being married, if you were married would you want to live in the barracks? I didnt think so, so logic says married get housing. Ok so you have kids, housing list is two years long, you have to move off post, your looking at nice neighborhoods, safe for your family, good schools, location to post, not a party central zone! So your saying because a soldier gets married has children they shouldnt get paid more for BAH than a single person? How do you figure this in your mind? You say dont have children, excuse me!!! As a human thats our right, when you have children and a wife you tell me its fair that a single 20 something soldier gets the same BAH you do to live off post when they do not require the same things as a married individual does, and tell me how fair it is, untill your there, untill you lived it you have no idea what your talking about!!!! It seems to me the single soldiers want the same pay as a married soldeir because they feel they are getting ripped off in some way! ITS NOT FAIR,THEY HAVE MORE THAN ME....that is what it sounds like to me...well booooooo freakn hooooooo, go have another drink at the bar and suck it up, its the way it is, its just life deal with it!!!! We are disscussing the Military here, not the civilian sector, so what they do out in the civilian world has nothing to do with the Military, and its becuse of us that have served 20+ years that the younger lower inlisted are getting the perks they are getting, we helped to change your quaility of life in the military. If you want equal pay get out and go to work outside the Military, or shut up!!!

[technomage1]

Here is my question to all of you that say "I am single why shouldnt I get the same BAH as a married person" or "No-one told you to get married, so why should the single be punished for it?" One, most single soldiers below the rank of E6 (Army) are allowed to live in barracks, and a number of the barracks across the nation have been redone and are not all bad, they are a hell of alot better than they were back in the mid 80's early 90's! So being single and living in the barracks you pay no rent, no utilities of any kind except cable, phone.

Yes, many barracks/dorms have been redone and are nicer than they used to be. And if you live there you don't pay utilities. But the same can be said for MFH.

If you chooSe to move off post, you will recieve BAH and yes its not as much as if your married, think about this, your single, most single soldiers DO NOT live alone they share an apartment, your not going to requrie a larger house, a yard, a nice school system, your only requirements will be, is it close to post, bars, eating establishiments, what utilities come with the apartment? Single not marreid no children realy lets be honest here, you moving off post to be FREE, you want to party, drink and have fun, and the Military should pay you the same rate as a married soldier with children why?

And a married person could cram their family into a two bedroom apartment and pocket the extra money too. What any person, married or single, choses to do with the money is up to them. I've already shared my typical weekend, which is pretty darn boring. At 35 years old do you really think I'm out to party every weekend? Please.

If you are married your not allowed to live in the barracks, you can accept post housing, a perk of being married, if you were married would you want to live in the barracks? I didnt think so, so logic says married get housing. Ok so you have kids, housing list is two years long, you have to move off post, your looking at nice neighborhoods, safe for your family, good schools, location to post, not a party central zone! So your saying because a soldier gets married has children they shouldnt get paid more for BAH than a single person? How do you figure this in your mind? You say dont have children, excuse me!!! As a human thats our right, when you have children and a wife you tell me its fair that a single 20 something soldier gets the same BAH you do to live off post when they do not require the same things as a married individual does, and tell me how fair it is, untill your there, untill you lived it you have no idea what your talking about!!!! It seems to me the single soldiers want the same pay as a married soldeir because they feel they are getting ripped off in some way! ITS NOT FAIR,THEY HAVE MORE THAN ME....that is what it sounds like to me...well booooooo freakn hooooooo, go have another drink at the bar and suck it up, its the way it is, its just life deal with it!!!! We are disscussing the Military here, not the civilian sector, so what they do out in the civilian world has nothing to do with the Military, and its becuse of us that have served 20+ years that the younger lower inlisted are getting the perks they are getting, we helped to change your quaility of life in the military. If you want equal pay get out and go to work outside the Military, or shut up!!!

OK. Take a deep breath here. No one is saying married should live in barracks. I've already suggested that barracks should go away entirely. Where anyone lives off base is a matter of personal choice. I've never lived in central party zone - in fact I've always lived in family neighborhoods where it's nice and quiet. You're stereotyping singles here.

I'd call not geting equal compensation for the work that I do getting ripped off, yes. Please refer to my previous posts about how our housing standards are directly tied to the civilian world. As for your comment about QoL, while I''m sure that you've improved things over the course of 20 years, that doesn't mean that they're perfect or can't be improved in any way.

Telling people that they should leave the military to get equal pay today is just plain stupid. How badly do each of the services need people? The AF is struggling, and I know that the Army is too. So you'll kick singles out for daring to suggest that they be treated equally? You can't be serious here.

[Unregistered]

I agree and have argued this point for many of my 17 years of service. A person should get paid per their rank and not their choices of lifestyles no matter what they are. I am short on time but will say, often personnel get married to get better housing. I ask all of you who disagree, have you deployed recent?

Don't forget about the extra pay you get when you have dependents. Or how about just trying to get a required medical screening prior to a short noticed deployment and being unable to because of the lines of dependents inundating the system. How about the veterans-who were promised 100% medical but now have to pay and wait behind dependents.

The military offers so much to family-and completely ignores the single sailors. No one should be getting paid more for their choice.

I wouldn't ever say lower BAH to match-but they do need to raise it to equal all personnel in the same rank.

The amount of administrative costs saved alone at DFAS to just have one system would shock most of you

[wade23454]

I can remember a time when i was a single E-5 living on a ship and i had several E-3's working for me that made twice the money i did just because they are married. I can definately relate to the feelings of single folks in the military that are upset about the pay inequalities. But what about the tax breaks that everyone gets from the federal government for being married and/or with children? Maybe it's that the government wants to give benifits for being married because it increases workforce stability and is better for the economy. I can speak from experience that a lot more sitreps have been the result of single military actions, especially in the younger ranks. Yes, i can think of examples of domestic violence and other stuff from married folks, but not nearly as much. Single military seem to be less motivated and often less accountable for their actions. They don't contribute to the future of the nation by reproducing, and they don't generally contribute to the sense of community that the military tries to build around all of its bases. Yes, there is pay inequality between single and married, but to me its worth the extra cost, to prevent our military from being comprised of only single members.

[emjem24]

I really do not get all the carping about BAH equality. I really don't. I think some of it is short-sighted pettiness because some single military members believe they are not valued enough. As a military spouse of an AF officer, I do not live a life of luxury. Has anyone taken a look at on-base officer family housing vs. enlisted family housing recently? There's a ton of disparity in that. In some bases I've visited, I've seen better enlisted housing than officer housing (for those that are married). This is especially true of a place like Maxwell, AFB.

I want to ask a question and forgive me if it's simplistic: why do some of the single military members of this forum begrudge the different BAH rate for married military members? Do you think that married military members don't face the same kind of challenges that single ones do in finding housing? Try finding any kind of housing on a base in any part of the country without a waiting list. Do you think that many married military members and their families have the luxury of waiting?

I think there is something deeply amiss in some of these single military member comments. First, I have never had any single military member in my husband's unit make some resentful comment that my husband doesn't deserve the BAH that he gets or that it's somehow unfair. BAH can make a world of difference to those of us looking for safe and quality housing without having to pay an arm and a leg. And I'm sorry, if you have children or want privacy/space, an apartment doesn't cut it.

A second component to many of these resentful, single military member comments is that there's a assumption that military members are being rewarded for getting married. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I think many military couples would take offense to such a suggestion. Most people don't get married to "cheat the system" or get one over on single military members.

Another component to many of these comments is the sheer lack of familiarity with the challenges that military spouses already encounter. Many of us who have multiple college degrees and work experience take a "pay cut" when we marry into the military. I think that the BAH is something that helps couples out who can't make up for that lost income. I don't know how many of you have ever met military spouses but many of us face employment discrimination or just plain have trouble finding jobs. If you don't have a second income to contribute to rent, especially steep rent in some areas of the country, how does that get made up?

Another observation that I patently disagree with is this notion that the military is somehow more "family-oriented." I've seen the flip side of such an idea at different bases my husband's been posted at where there are a lot of airmen (as well as other branches of the military) who live recklessly, spend recklessly, with little regard to their own careers or the lives of others.

I also laugh at the suggestion of how good I have it what with my Tricare and Dental benefits. Yep- I have to say that the crappy medical care I get, the lack of medical personnel that ensures longer wait times and iffy appointment availability, let alone that in some parts of the country Tricare can't even fill the most basic of generic prescriptions because they've run out--- yeah, I feel like a princess for sure.

I wish many of the single military members could see beyond their own pettiness and arrogance to the other side of the equation. You make it seem like military spouses and children of military members are some kind of burden. You know what? When the freaking military can't be bothered to offer job assistance (and not just the superficial that's how you do your resume kind), then such discussions as the "BAH Equality" seem a little short-sighted.

I want to ask some questions (though I'm not sure I'll get honest answers):

1. Should military families pay for their own moves (they do anyways if they don't go with the lowest bid, contracted mover)?

2. Should military spouses (and children) find/pay for their own healthcare provider?

3. Should military families pay for their own housing if they can't get on-base housing?

4. Should military families pay for their own childcare (oh, they already do or get very little assistance with that beyond the long waitlist for a spot at the Child Development Center)?

5. If you think that married military members should give up something, what should single military members give up?

6. Should people wait until after their military career to get married? When is the appropriate age to have a child and/or get married?

7. Should people be penalized for getting married or having children because they're presumed to be drains on the military budget? Even if both spouses work and are trying not to be said drains?

8. Should BAH be taken away if a military spouse works? Won the lottery?

I'm not sure how many of the single military members of this forum actually recognize how much military spouses give up when they marry into the miilitary. You act like all military spouses live on the dole and pop out babies when many work, especially when their active duty spouse is on deployment. Many military spouses (especially in the Army, Marines, and Air Force) give up having a career or any kind of well-paying job because the military still hasn't clued in that many civilian employers treat us like we're poison. We go through the same ups and downs of moving as you do- except that you still have your job and military spouses start over. And believe it or not, I really, if ever, avail myself of Tricare except for yearly physicals/checkups, bi-yearly/ quarterly prescription refills, and dental cleaning (for which I pay a copay- something that military members don't do) because of all the quacks (both military and civilian) who'd rather shove a pill prescription at me than deal with the actual health issue. Now, that probably will change if I get pregnant and hatch out the begrudged baby so many in this forum seem to have a problem with.

There's a lot of inequalities in life still today. Military spouses don't get the treatment they deserve and most just persevere and hope for the best. To be told that you're some kind of welfare leech by those who aren't even exposed to the issues I and other miilitary spouses face is really something else... especially if you've worked your butt off in school to get your education and then worked endless dead-end jobs to help out your family is beyond me. Silly me, I too save for retirement and take care of myself a lot better than the so-called military bureaucrats think they do.

I didn't know that even with all the challenges that the military faces that the one thing people seem to be complaining about is the "BAH Equality." Hey, maybe the BAH will be done away with entirely and both single and married military members can suffer equally. How 'bout that?

[Unregistered]

First of all a single marine is more than likely going to live in a one bedroom apt, condo, house whatever. Secondly a Marine married with a wife and at least one child would need a 2 bedroom. They do not give you extra money per child. It is with or without dependants.

The fact that you would even complain about this..shows that you are the one trying to get money out the system. The fact that any of us receive this privledge is what it is a PRIVLEDGE! If you are so concerned with money so bad. Get out and go find a better a job.

You sound like a selfish Marine, who needs to bitch because hey what else do you have better to do. Give me a break.

If you think a family with 5 kids living on BAH is doing well...think again. I can only imagine. Your lucky they even offer any of us BAH period.

Stop whining!

[Unregistered]

Why are you crying about your single BAH that you shouldn't even rate. Come aboard a Marine Corps instalation and see the Staff NCO BEQ. Be happy with your partial BAH. You, unlike a married member, can go out and rent a place with some other single guy and split all the bills.

[technomage1]

I want to ask some questions (though I'm not sure I'll get honest answers):

1. Should military families pay for their own moves (they do anyways if they don't go with the lowest bid, contracted mover)?

2. Should military spouses (and children) find/pay for their own healthcare provider?

3. Should military families pay for their own housing if they can't get on-base housing?

4. Should military families pay for their own childcare (oh, they already do or get very little assistance with that beyond the long waitlist for a spot at the Child Development Center)?

5. If you think that married military members should give up something, what should single military members give up?

6. Should people wait until after their military career to get married? When is the appropriate age to have a child and/or get married?

7. Should people be penalized for getting married or having children because they're presumed to be drains on the military budget? Even if both spouses work and are trying not to be said drains?

8. Should BAH be taken away if a military spouse works? Won the lottery?



Here are your answers, straight from a career single.

1. No one should pay for their own moves. But a standardized weight allowance per rank should be created, generous enough to accomodate the typical family size that someone of that rank has. For example, let's say the standard rate for an E3 is 8,000 lbs and is meant to accomodate a spouse and 1 child. A member at that grade with a spouse and 3 kids can either lose the weight or pay a price per pound. Yes, this means singles can ship more, but likely they will not because even under my plan for standardized housing for all service members, it isn't likely that they can cram that much into a 2 bedroom apartment.

2. Pay for, no. Free healthcare for all is in everyone's best interests. However, on base care may be restricted to military members only if the clinic at the base can't handle the load and dependants can be referred downtown.

3. No single I've seen in all 24 pages of this topic has suggested that BAH be stopped for married people. What has been suggested is that an equalized rate be paid to all. Under my proposal, for example, an E3 would be authorized BAH for a 2 bedroom apartment, Now, if they wanted to live in something bigger, they would have to pay out of pocket for the difference for that. Aside from the size of the quarters, this is no different than BAH is today. Members of any martial status are given the BAH to rate a certain type of quarters. That's not saying that they have to live in that type of quarters, there is nothing to stop them from going bigger or smaller as they desire.

4. Yes. The military or society as a whole is in no way responsible for this.

5. We're not suggesting that you give up anything. We're suggesting an equal slice of the pie for singles. If, for example the single rate BAH was eliminated, and now everyone got the same, what would you be losing? Our gain does not necessate your loss, except in the sense that you'd no longer get more money for the same amount of work.

6. This has never been a topic for debate either. It is a personal choice. I can't answer that for you any more than you could for me. The one thing I'll say is that, no matter who you are, military or not, you should be able to support a family before you have one.

7. No one ever said that you're trying to be a drain. You do cost more, and singles including myself have brought this up in attempt to point out that BAH equity should not be an issue since marrieds cost more in other areas. The money I've saved the gov't being single would more than make up for equalizing BAH.We bring this up not to trash spouses or married people but to say "Good grief, we're cheap to keep, you'd think they'd treat us better".

8. No. Why? It is an entitlement of the member. It would mean that you would have more money if you wanted to live in nicer quarters than the standard.

Having said all that, I do find it rather amazing, especially among the lower ranks, the expectation as far as housing goes. It seems these folks come in and expect stand alone houses right away, and when they move into a large base housing unit they go broke trying to fill it. As enlisted, we are blue collar workers. Civilian counterparts to these young enlisted are living in apartments because that is what they can afford at that stage in their lives. As we increase in rank, our housing standards should also increase, again mirroring our civilian counterparts.

It's interesting that you mentioned privacy in your posting. Many branches make single junior enlisted share barracks rooms. What about their privacy?

The simple answer to your question about BAH and why single members begrudge a higher rate for married folks is that we do the exact same job, yet we take what amounts to a compensation cut in the housing area. This doesn't mean that married people don't have it hard in some areas or anything like that. It just means equal compensation for equal work. Now, I recognize that this means that I'll have more pocket money, so to speak, than a married person with 2 kids at my rank. But what anyone does with their money, married or single, is their business.

No one ever said being married was easy. But being single isn't all champagne nights and caviar dreams either.

[Unregistered]

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 that most of you see this as a member with dependents just making more money it is usually the oposite. I am married and I soley pay for my and my wifes expenses and living off of my income. My wife is sick and cannot physically work a job, for those of you asking why she doesn't work. The money I recieve from BAH w/ dependents doesn't have us rolling around in mounds of cash, in fact we mostly just manage to keep our heads above water because of that. The extra money that I make on BAH w/ dependents goes to take care of housing and living for two people.

At the same time, most of my friends are all single members and live out in town. Every single one of them lives with at least one other roomate who is a military member (several live with multiple military roomates. With having roomates and their BAH to cover their housing, they hav at least half of their BAH to pocket as extra income every month. So who is really making out better with BAH here.

Sure, you could say I could get roomates too, but hwo many married people honestly want to have non-family roomates living in an apartment with them? My point is this, sure not everyone's case is the same as mine, but you all have one-sided views and see those recieving BAH w/ dependents as just getting more money a month than those who decide to stay single. As in most families, the more people, the more bills, and costs of living. Most of us, don't have that higher BAH (which isn't a whole lot more here than single) to just pocket and keep as extra money each month, that money is ALL used to cover exactly what it's supposed to, not savings for new rims, or plasma t.v. etc. That's my 2 cents.

[Skyhawk]

Technomage, if you read very closely the citations from the CFR, you should be able to note the key language that the two sections referred to. The on-base housing must meet the Sec Def's defined minimum criteria for the rank of the person. However, and as I wrote, if vacant housing billets on base do meet those specified criteria, then the base commander may order personnel to move on base.

I will also provide you another justification that the regulations allow for. If the base commander judges that security circumstances warrant relocation of military members and their dependants on base, then the commander may issue the order under that provision even if the available billets do not meet the specified minimum standard.

The two citations you quoted clearly state that a commander cannot order someone above the rank of E-6 to occupy quarters below the minimum specified for his rank. Furthermore, the code provides an option for said member to elect off-base quarters with BAH if the on-base quarters made available to him fail to meet that minimum standard.

You cannot merely quote law, you have to quote law in the correct context.

[Measure Man]

Technomage, if you read very closely the citations from the CFR, you should be able to note the key language that the two sections referred to. The on-base housing must meet the Sec Def's defined minimum criteria for the rank of the person. However, and as I wrote, if vacant housing billets on base do meet those specified criteria, then the base commander may order personnel to move on base.

I will also provide you another justification that the regulations allow for. If the base commander judges that security circumstances warrant relocation of military members and their dependants on base, then the commander may issue the order under that provision even if the available billets do not meet the specified minimum standard.

True story...right after 9/11 I was in Osan...I was an E-8 and sharing a dorm suite with an E-7. (They ordered all the guys living downtown on base)

[Skyhawk]

emjem24,

Bravo ma'me! Bravo!

Show that to your husband. I'm sure it will make him even more proud of you.

I've left my wife behind to care for our children so many times that I've honestly lost count. To anyone who hasn't experienced the special pains and tribulations of having to shoulder all the burden of raising one's children during a military spouse's deployment, they aren't fit at all to pass any judgement. And you are right to feel insulted by those who call your BAH rates unfair to them.

I never linked the dependant rate BAH to the known problem of spouses being short changed in civilian hiring practices, but you are absolutely right that this happens and it is a sage philosophy. I'm glad you posted as you did. It was nice to read the perspectives of the military spouse, and valuable.

[Unregistered]

If one of the SINGLE BY CHOICE people got a girl pregnant or got pregnant I bet they would want more money then to help pay for the child support they will be paying for their child to eat and stay clothed and housed.

[Unregistered]

in my opinions single soldiers have no need for bah due to the fact that the bah they would recieve goes toward the bills and furniture that solider requires to live in the barracks. do the math. an e4 in the barracks costs the army about the same as an e4 with a spouse and kids off post. bah rates are based on rank and the cost of living. an e1w/ a spouuse makes enough to support a family off post in the area he is in. so it only goes to show you that an E-7 or E-8 with a spouse could replicate the same thing. i think bah should be based on the basic cost of living for the area you are in. not rank. base pay is based on rank. but regardless im just a small guy in a big army. the soldiers opinion has never mattered in the decision making process of our government, so until it does i think everyone should stop complaining.

specialist x
fort polk louisiana

[Unregistered]

Yes, many barracks/dorms have been redone and are nicer than they used to be. And if you live there you don't pay utilities. But the same can be said for MFH.

Actually the ARMY does require soliders living in post housing to pay for ultiites if you use over a certain amount, anyone living in post housing gets paid BAH and that gets paid to Picerne.



And a married person could cram their family into a two bedroom apartment and pocket the extra money too. What any person, married or single, choses to do with the money is up to them. I've already shared my typical weekend, which is pretty darn boring. At 35 years old do you really think I'm out to party every weekend? Please.

Yes we could CRAM our family of 4 into a two bedroom apartment, and have in the past, but it was not to save money, it was becuse we didnt have much of a choice for housing at the time, off post or on (2yr waiting list) And even if we do CRAM into t two bedroom apartment, how do you figure we are saving money with four mouths to feed, close to purchase, school supplies to pruchase, not to mention to teenagers, one a male and one female, they should share a room why???? And NO I do not think your out to party, but you are single, you are an adult, you have no worries but yourself, so what you do with your money is stickly yours, not two kids and a wife!

OK. Take a deep breath here. No one is saying married should live in barracks. I've already suggested that barracks should go away entirely. Where anyone lives off base is a matter of personal choice. I've never lived in central party zone - in fact I've always lived in family neighborhoods where it's nice and quiet. You're stereotyping singles here.

Yes I am sterotyping here, most single persons are living in the party zone! And barracks will never go away, they are there for a reason, always have been, just like collage dorms, we have to supply a place to dwell, its the law!

I'd call not geting equal compensation for the work that I do getting ripped off, yes. Please refer to my previous posts about how our housing standards are directly tied to the civilian world. As for your comment about QoL, while I''m sure that you've improved things over the course of 20 years, that doesn't mean that they're perfect or can't be improved in any way.

But you are getting equal compensation for the work you do, its called time in grade, rank which has nothing to do with BAH, BAH is not a reward for work BAH is for housing costs. BAH is not a reward for being married, its to help you offset the cost of living off post, and being married its a proven fact to cost more than if you are single! And no things are not perfect, everything can be improved.

Telling people that they should leave the military to get equal pay today is just plain stupid. How badly do each of the services need people? The AF is struggling, and I know that the Army is too. So you'll kick singles out for daring to suggest that they be treated equally? You can't be serious here.

I am not suggesting KICKING ANYONE OUT..I said if your complaining about not recieving equal BAH,your not equal if your single, you dont have a spouse to care for thats the simple fact of the matter. If you dont like it then get out...life isnt always fair!

[Unregistered]

Here are your answers, straight from a career single.

1. No one should pay for their own moves. But a standardized weight allowance per rank should be created, generous enough to accomodate the typical family size that someone of that rank has. For example, let's say the standard rate for an E3 is 8,000 lbs and is meant to accomodate a spouse and 1 child. A member at that grade with a spouse and 3 kids can either lose the weight or pay a price per pound. Yes, this means singles can ship more, but likely they will not because even under my plan for standardized housing for all service members, it isn't likely that they can cram that much into a 2 bedroom apartment.

Last time I looked there was a standarized weight allowance per rank, if you go over you pay for it out of your own pocket! You would be surprised at how much single persons can acumilate!

2. Pay for, no. Free healthcare for all is in everyone's best interests. However, on base care may be restricted to military members only if the clinic at the base can't handle the load and dependants can be referred downtown.

Most cases, its uniforms first, or they do have there own care centers, and most families do get deverted off post if possible.

3. No single I've seen in all 24 pages of this topic has suggested that BAH be stopped for married people. What has been suggested is that an equalized rate be paid to all. Under my proposal, for example, an E3 would be authorized BAH for a 2 bedroom apartment, Now, if they wanted to live in something bigger, they would have to pay out of pocket for the difference for that. Aside from the size of the quarters, this is no different than BAH is today. Members of any martial status are given the BAH to rate a certain type of quarters. That's not saying that they have to live in that type of quarters, there is nothing to stop them from going bigger or smaller as they desire.

This is true, but at the same time how many single E3 do you know would move into a 2 bedroom apartment alone? And most E3 are in the mid 20's so again I come back to the PARTY ZONE...it happens all around us. But a married E3 would take a two bedroom apartment in most cases, and not have any roomates, true many may still live in the PARTY ZONE, but most do not. And even if the married couple moves into a bigger more expensive place, they still pay out of pocket for anything over the intall BAH!

4. Yes. The military or society as a whole is in no way responsible for this.

5. We're not suggesting that you give up anything. We're suggesting an equal slice of the pie for singles. If, for example the single rate BAH was eliminated, and now everyone got the same, what would you be losing? Our gain does not necessate your loss, except in the sense that you'd no longer get more money for the same amount of work.

True again, but in the same since, why do you belive you need the samel BAH as a married individual? You do not have the same expense's as a married couple do. BAH has NOTHING to do with work, it is for housing cost only...your rank and time in grade has everything to do with your work!!!!

6. This has never been a topic for debate either. It is a personal choice. I can't answer that for you any more than you could for me. The one thing I'll say is that, no matter who you are, military or not, you should be able to support a family before you have one.

I agree, as do most.

7. No one ever said that you're trying to be a drain. You do cost more, and singles including myself have brought this up in attempt to point out that BAH equity should not be an issue since marrieds cost more in other areas. The money I've saved the gov't being single would more than make up for equalizing BAH.We bring this up not to trash spouses or married people but to say "Good grief, we're cheap to keep, you'd think they'd treat us better".

Your not making any since here, it would be like me saying, If I dont come to work and turn my light in my office on and becuase I am not at work I will leave my PC off, I am saving the company money, so I should be paid to stay at home 3 days a week....

8. No. Why? It is an entitlement of the member. It would mean that you would have more money if you wanted to live in nicer quarters than the standard.

How do you figure?

Having said all that, I do find it rather amazing, especially among the lower ranks, the expectation as far as housing goes. It seems these folks come in and expect stand alone houses right away, and when they move into a large base housing unit they go broke trying to fill it. As enlisted, we are blue collar workers. Civilian counterparts to these young enlisted are living in apartments because that is what they can afford at that stage in their lives. As we increase in rank, our housing standards should also increase, again mirroring our civilian counterparts.

WHY your in the MILITARY its the way things are. Again get a civilan job if your not happy with the Military.

It's interesting that you mentioned privacy in your posting. Many branches make single junior enlisted share barracks rooms. What about their privacy?

What about it, same as collage dorm rooms!

The simple answer to your question about BAH and why single members begrudge a higher rate for married folks is that we do the exact same job, yet we take what amounts to a compensation cut in the housing area. This doesn't mean that married people don't have it hard in some areas or anything like that. It just means equal compensation for equal work. Now, I recognize that this means that I'll have more pocket money, so to speak, than a married person with 2 kids at my rank. But what anyone does with their money, married or single, is their business.

Again BAH has NOTHING to do with your job...its for houseing allowance!!!!

No one ever said being married was easy. But being single isn't all champagne nights and caviar dreams either.

No-one said it was, but when your single you have not as many worries!

[Unregistered]

The current system, though it may not be up to some living standards as those like the Air Force has, is meant to be comfortable and sustainable for the service member, not luxurious. If people want luxury they should enter the private sector. Anyone who is married knows the financial demands simply become larger when you get married. Staying single is not a penalty, but it does not assume that the single service members, should be provided with the monetary allowance warranting a living standard that is beyond that of the average single person.

The current BAH system also, as noted in earlier responses does not reflect additional funds for those families with dependents beyond more than "with dependents," so having multiple children beyond the average of 2 becomes difficult, almost no matter what rank you are.

If, for any reason one might assume a more logical shift in pay allowance could be drawn, it would be that for subsistence, where-by the service members food allowance increased based on number of dependents. But even then, it would only be a few hundred dollars more, which would not offset the housing accomodations needed.

I seriously doubt the overwhelming majority of service members have children or get married just to make a couple hundred extra dollars. There may be a few, but for the other, overwhelming majority of people that aspire to have a family and raise children, THEY should also not be penalized for FINDING a way to live on the SAME allowances as a single service member without dependents.

[Unregistered]

Every one is right!
But when poll there will be a loser and a winner, let's do it to end this. I am up for Single Service member!!!

[Unregistered]

Remember BAH is an allowance for single and married to live in an apartment. Married with dependant/single with dependant require more space than what a single person would need.

[technomage1]

Technomage, if you read very closely the citations from the CFR, you should be able to note the key language that the two sections referred to. The on-base housing must meet the Sec Def's defined minimum criteria for the rank of the person. However, and as I wrote, if vacant housing billets on base do meet those specified criteria, then the base commander may order personnel to move on base.

I will also provide you another justification that the regulations allow for. If the base commander judges that security circumstances warrant relocation of military members and their dependants on base, then the commander may issue the order under that provision even if the available billets do not meet the specified minimum standard.

The two citations you quoted clearly state that a commander cannot order someone above the rank of E-6 to occupy quarters below the minimum specified for his rank. Furthermore, the code provides an option for said member to elect off-base quarters with BAH if the on-base quarters made available to him fail to meet that minimum standard.

You cannot merely quote law, you have to quote law in the correct context.

Sky, MM, I know that it was a long post, but I already covered the exemptions you detail in my original posting, even going so far as to give two examples of when single E9s and E7s were forced to live on base but given adequate housing. You never mentioned the adequacy requirement in your original posting or the exceptions to the rule.


The only exceptions are detailed here:

"(4) The Secretary concerned may deny the right to make an election under paragraph (2) or (3) if the Secretary determines that the exercise of such an election would adversely affect a training mission, military discipline, or military readiness. "

In other words, there must be a valid reason to force this, it can't be at your commander's whim or if there are a bunch of empty dorm rooms on base. If a single E6 isn't creating a discipline problem, and there isn't a readiness or mission requirement, then it isn't a valid order to move into a single dorm room; and that E6 would be well within their rights to fight it.

I have only seen this be an issue twice. One was single E9 was forced to reside on base due to her duty position. She was assigned a MFH unit to give her adequate quarters for her grade - so she wasn't entitled to redress under sections 2 and 3. The other was a single E7, also residing on base due to duty position and was also given MFH quarters in accordance with his rank. Neither of these would be under section 4 because in each case the AF gave the individual adequate housing per their rank.

In the vast majority of cases, the E6 or above will be entitled reside off base IAW this code. Realistically, would you honestly expect an E6 or above to reside in a dorm room? Remember, these people have been in for a minimum of 10 years. To me, that warrants better quarters than a dorm room. I can understand the training requirement; but I'd think that any E6 or above that was in disciplinary actions bad enough to force them to live that way would be well on their way to being kicked out of the service; and with any position that requires the member to reside on base to me the only moral thing to do would be to give them adequate quarters for their grade instead of boxing them in a dorm. It would be legal to do so, but not moral, and I can't imagine too many single E6s and above staying in service if that were the case.


While there are exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, the single member E6 and above will reside downtown under these guidelines. Most bases I have been to do not wish to put single members in MFH units (which would give the E6 and above adequate quarters for their grade), prefering instead to give them to families. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm not saying that's right, that's just the way that it is. If you say single quarters on most bases, they will say "dorm room". I was at one base that had a bunch of empty two and three bedroom TLFs that would have been perfect for single junior NCOs to live in - but they refused, and the units are still empty today, while those NCOs live downtown or they could live in a dorm room if one was available. Don't ask me why, that's just the way things were. I personally would've been happy to live in one of the units but could not. Instead I had to communte 1/2 hour each way downtown or cram myself into a dorm room. Not suprisingly, I took the commute.

And I'm still waiting for you to quote any law or reg. It's pretty easy to accuse others of not being factual and talk off the cuff, it's a lot harder to look the stuff up yourself.

[technomage1]

I am not suggesting KICKING ANYONE OUT..I said if your complaining about not recieving equal BAH,your not equal if your single, you dont have a spouse to care for thats the simple fact of the matter. If you dont like it then get out...life isnt always fair!

Losing qualified, motivated people for not compensating them equally is stupid when the services are hurting so bad. If we did lose all of our singles, the mission would fail. Period.

Your spouse is your responsibiliy. We should, and I feel that we do, have the basic pay to support, within reason, our personal choices. That may mean that an E3 may not be able to support 5 kids, but an E7 could. By the same token, a single E3 may be able to afford a clunker car, but the E7 could afford a new one.

Life isn't always fair, but that doesn't excuse our responsibility to try and make it so.

Multi-quoting your response would have made it a lot easier to follow, BTW.

[technomage1]

Some responses to various posters:

BAS is not based upon dependancy status. I get the same BAS as a married member. It is not intended to offset the cost of meals for family members. http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bas/

BAH is currently based upon location, grade, and marital status. I and others suggest removing the marital status portion. http://www.defenselink.mil/militarypay/pay/bah/index.html

I haven't seen one single in all 25 pages of posts suggesting that a person gets married to make money. But it is a fact that you get paid more when you do get married. What I question is why you should get extra compensation for a personal choice.

No one is arguing that married people do not need more space. But they don't need a stand alone house as an E1, either. If they want that, they can pay for it out of pocket (and this isn't from techno, this is exactly what the current system states). Or, they can occupy a trailer and pocket the difference. http://perdiem.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bahfaq.html#10

[Unregistered]

This whole bah equality is crap I am married and my wife is civilian, but I'm not gonna sit here and complain that i dont get enough bah or complain about the fact that a military to military marriage gets a hell of a lot more bah than i do. Shouldn't i have the right to complain about that since you single ppl seem to complain that you dont get enough. Whatever. I could care less it is the way it is. Stop wasting your breath and time because like one person earlier on in this thread said it's not like anyone of importance is going to listen to us NCO's about this stuff anyway. By the way could you imagine how much a officer to officer marriage is probably getting in BAH. Most officers I know around where I live have some kick @$$ houses like three to four times the cost of mine. They live in 240,000-250,000+ dollar houses and oh yeah by the way an O-1 Single makes a quite a bit more BAH than me.