More Important: Pay or Benefits? Why?

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:34:05 -0400

Is 'cash' king?

If your monthly pay could be increased to off-set less benefits, would you rather have the money up front or stashed away for you?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 12:03 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 00:03:04 -0400

Stashed.

I have seen too many people among the force that struggle to make financially sound decisions. I believe in the long run it would hurt a great percentage of the career Soldiers.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 1:56 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:56:22 -0400

unfortunately the generation today is the "now" generation, claiming "YOLO" and other monikers that don't truly represent what we should be worried about. Honestly? In my opinion, Long term benefits are WAY more important than what I could squander my money on today. I want to ensure that, when (not if) I have to retire due to age or disability, I know my service here and now will be appreciated and earn a small future for my wife and I to rely on.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 29 at 2014 2:09 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:09:09 -0400

great topic and I am interested in the responses. I'd rather have the benefits and the reason is that I can live a somewhat comfortable lifestyle with a paycheck with the knowledge that my smaller immediate investments (e.g. purchase a home, savings bonds/IRAs and etc.) with my income along with knowing I have benefits waiting for my family at retirement. By the way, I have not and will not forget where I came from, my truck back home is a 1985 Jeep Comanche and my wife drives a 1998 Honda Civic hatch. Being modest and humble has allowed us to pay our home off. The key is maintain goals and live within your means.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2014 5:16 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 05:16:43 -0400

I think it really depends on which "benefits" you are talking about. I wouldn't mind losing commissaries and PXs at most bases. A lot of the "benefits" that are part of the total compensation package are things that most Soldiers have no use for or are inconvenient to use. I would rather that they get the ax and pass those funds into pay.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2014 7:55 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:55:30 -0400

Great question,
Because I am in the Reserves, I kinda lean towards benefits because it kinda across the board (minus things like childcare). I try to drill in these young Soldiers head the benefits available to them, it amaze me on how many young Soldiers who joined the service and have no clue what benefits are available to them.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Apr 24 at 2014 9:01 AM

MSG Wade Huffman — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:01:22 -0400

When considering this discussion it is important to realize that a benefit isn't a benefit if it's not utilized (think MWR programs such as gyms, auto or hobby craft shops, etc. as an example - if you use them, it's a benefit, if you don't it isn't).  Because of this it is not possible to assign a monetary value of benefits to a group; only to an individual.  Also, different benefits have drastically different costs (say a gym membership vs. a private health care policy for a family).   While I would be more than willing to forgo certain benefits in lieu of cash (especially those that I personally don't use!), others, such as healthcare I would be opposed to.    Just one more example of how a 'cookie cutter' approach doesn't work.  Of course we could always use the cafeteria approach where you have a 'pot' of dollars and can select the benefits you want or to keep the cash (some civilian businesses use this model) but I don't see this being practical for the military due tot he vast amount of services offered and the additional cost involved in 'policing' that only those who elected the service are utilizing it.  Change is hard! 

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 24 at 2014 9:23 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:23:10 -0400

I think it depends upon whether the individual Soldier, NCO, Officer is looking to make a career out of the Army in which case I think the benefits are a more important factor, or if they are looking to do one "hitch" and get out, in which case I think more pay would be what they are looking for. That is just how I perceive things to be....

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Apr 24 at 2014 9:34 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:34:49 -0400

Show me the money!

Quite simply, since I was a navy brat, and have over 20 years in of my own, I have seen "Ironclad, Absolute, Rock-solid" benefits go "poof" time after time. Also seen it in the civilian realm. However, in the civilian world, you can sue for breach of contract. While I'm too lazy at the moment to hunt it up, SCOTUS determined in the case of "free health care for life for retirees" that whatever relationship service members have with the US Government, it is not "contractual " in any recognizable sense of the word.

To get my three movie references in, when offered theoretical benefits in the distant future in exchange for money today, I can't decide if I feel more like Lando on Cloud City or Adm Akbar.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Apr 24 at 2014 10:07 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:07:51 -0400

I can say this, my civilian job forces me on their health care plan at the tune of $490 a month. With the federal mandate for the ACA hitting in January and the fact that these companies are essentially getting required business fed into a monopoly I can see that benefits such as Tricare are a great thing. I hope to have a new civilian position soon where they do not force me on this crap.