Posted on Jan 12, 2014
Same BAH rates for married and single Soldiers?
24.3K
66
44
1
1
0
DoD proposals are suggesting scrapping the "with dependents" rates under the current BAH program, moving instead to a simpler, flatter benefit that makes no distinction between single service members and those with families.
What are your thoughts about a universal BAH (based on locality) for single/married service members?
What are your thoughts about a universal BAH (based on locality) for single/married service members?
Posted in these groups: 
BAH
BAH
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
17
17
0
just to clarify, BAH isn't based off of marriage or single, it's whether you have dependents or not. But the proposal makes no sense what-so-ever. What exactly does that accomplish? It is an allowance, not a salary. To be honest I think it should be based on your number of dependents. Meaning a newly married couple with no children does not need the same housing than a single mother with 4 kids. Nor for just a 20 year old with no kids. Giving everyone a flat rate will only create problems and solve none.<div>The same for on post housing. Why should an E8 with no kids be living in a detached 4 bedroom home while an E4 with 5 kids is in a 2 or 3 bedroom townhouse?</div><div><br></div>
(17)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I couldn't agree with you more. I think there should be a "cap" so to speak on how many dependents you would get paid for but I have a large family and when I see other Soldiers with the same housing as I am afforded with one child or maybe none at all based on that individuals rank it really angers me. It's never happened to me but I have known people to PCS and housing was not available for their family size so they were forced off base. With our BAH rates being published there is no benefit to living off base because it has become increasingly difficult to save money.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Because that employer regularly uproots the employee, and regularly takes them away from the family for months at a time.
(2)
(0)
Maj William Gambrell
I don't agree with your philosophy. One problem with this country as a whole is the Gov't continuously increasing entitlements to those who can't afford additional children continuing to have children.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Except with a civilian employer, the employee has a choice on whether to live in a higher cost or lower cost area. The military don't have that choice.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I believe BAH should be based on the number of dependents. Bottom line is, how is it possible to think a change to a flat rate without regard to number of dependents would be beneficial to the Soldier? It benefits the DoD's pocketbook, but not much else.
(6)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC James Sczymanski I'm not advocating for Soldiers to have more dependents, but what I am saying is if the BAH rate is "for the dependents" it should take into account how many there are. It is ludacris to believe I can house my 7 member family for the same money it costs to house a married couple with no children. Yes some will say having kids is a choice but we are Catholic so it's not really a choice we get to make.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Yes, it certainly is a choice you make-this is 2017, not 1600. If you don't believe in contraceptives for religious reasons and want to control the size of your family, you can certainly do so. Blaming personal decisions on religion, while saying the military should pay you for them, seems oddly unethical and counter to military values.
BAH is designed as a stipend for servicemembers to have equitable housing in their geographic locations. You choosing to have more kids should never be at the government's expense, but at yours. You are already paid more as you increase in rank and have dependents. The with dependent rate allows you to purchase larger housing with more rooms to accommodate a larger family.
Back to the original topic - a flat rate seems terrible for the force, and as you said only serves the bottom line.
BAH is designed as a stipend for servicemembers to have equitable housing in their geographic locations. You choosing to have more kids should never be at the government's expense, but at yours. You are already paid more as you increase in rank and have dependents. The with dependent rate allows you to purchase larger housing with more rooms to accommodate a larger family.
Back to the original topic - a flat rate seems terrible for the force, and as you said only serves the bottom line.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
To be fair, I have a married with dependents. I recognize that receiving additional money at the with dependent rate bah costs the Army more money in the short term and is more than what single Soldiers recieve. Point taken. For everyone who believes there should be only one bah rate, please hear me out.
1. For those who state" you never see that in the civilian world" we are not civilians. You can not compare apples to oranges. It is true not all of our MOSs see combat up close but all serve to support the Soldiers who do . This responsibilty is unique and requires the institution charged with executing it, arm its Soldiers with the necessary tools to be successful. Soldiers perform better when they know their families are well taken care of while they are gone. A distracted mind is a dangerous mind downrange.
2. For those that state " it is not fair that someone received more money than me just for having dependents" well,I have many friends who are single and I would gladly trade their budget and extra savings per month with mine. Not to mention that roommates and small one bedroom apts ( more sq ft per person space) allow for them to spend under their bah rates and pocket that money. More money does not equal more disposable income. To me this is ignorant to the financial realities of others and comes across as self-centered.
2a. Additionally, marriage and marital values are consistent with and support Army values. Loyalty, duty, respect are all championed by both institutions. What does this have to do with bah you ask....well the additional bah encourages and supports developing and living those commitments in all aspects of a Soldiers life. Succesful military families require balance in our Leaders and Soldiers. I'm not saying you can't have balance as a single Soldier but being married forces you to split your time. Have you ever been lead by someone that was single and had nowhere else to be, so he or she spent all of his time between sleep at work. How did that work out for you?
2b.Financially,I propose lowering the with dependent bah rates will cost the Army more money by driving quality families and Soldiers from the military. The military will have to spend more money to continually train new personel after families realize they can not support a reasonable anf standard lifestyle. The cycle would repeat over and over with each new families departure costing the military significantly more money in the long term than the extra bah given each month. This does not invlude the cost of inexperience and its effect on the affectiveness of the force.
3. Written in every Army creed, it mentions taking care of Soldiers and those we lead. Being selfless and sacrificing for others on our team is what we are all supposed to live. I am surprised and saddened that in our own military there are so many people that can't see these types og perspectives are directly opposed to these values.
If I have bread on my table and my friends do not I will invite them over to eat. What it sounds like to me is that those people who think it should be equal are saying, I have enough so you should too. What kind of answer is that?
Our society depends on us as Soldiers to take care of one another. We should only look in others bowls to see if they need more not to say we didn't get enough.
1. For those who state" you never see that in the civilian world" we are not civilians. You can not compare apples to oranges. It is true not all of our MOSs see combat up close but all serve to support the Soldiers who do . This responsibilty is unique and requires the institution charged with executing it, arm its Soldiers with the necessary tools to be successful. Soldiers perform better when they know their families are well taken care of while they are gone. A distracted mind is a dangerous mind downrange.
2. For those that state " it is not fair that someone received more money than me just for having dependents" well,I have many friends who are single and I would gladly trade their budget and extra savings per month with mine. Not to mention that roommates and small one bedroom apts ( more sq ft per person space) allow for them to spend under their bah rates and pocket that money. More money does not equal more disposable income. To me this is ignorant to the financial realities of others and comes across as self-centered.
2a. Additionally, marriage and marital values are consistent with and support Army values. Loyalty, duty, respect are all championed by both institutions. What does this have to do with bah you ask....well the additional bah encourages and supports developing and living those commitments in all aspects of a Soldiers life. Succesful military families require balance in our Leaders and Soldiers. I'm not saying you can't have balance as a single Soldier but being married forces you to split your time. Have you ever been lead by someone that was single and had nowhere else to be, so he or she spent all of his time between sleep at work. How did that work out for you?
2b.Financially,I propose lowering the with dependent bah rates will cost the Army more money by driving quality families and Soldiers from the military. The military will have to spend more money to continually train new personel after families realize they can not support a reasonable anf standard lifestyle. The cycle would repeat over and over with each new families departure costing the military significantly more money in the long term than the extra bah given each month. This does not invlude the cost of inexperience and its effect on the affectiveness of the force.
3. Written in every Army creed, it mentions taking care of Soldiers and those we lead. Being selfless and sacrificing for others on our team is what we are all supposed to live. I am surprised and saddened that in our own military there are so many people that can't see these types og perspectives are directly opposed to these values.
If I have bread on my table and my friends do not I will invite them over to eat. What it sounds like to me is that those people who think it should be equal are saying, I have enough so you should too. What kind of answer is that?
Our society depends on us as Soldiers to take care of one another. We should only look in others bowls to see if they need more not to say we didn't get enough.
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
The military should provide for a a certain standard of housing for service-members, and the service-member only. Any requirement beyond that is the responsibility of the member or his family, not the military.<br><br>These policies do influence behavior. As a direct result, I executed my legal marriage 10 months prior the actual planned ceremony. This netted me a difference of about $2700. <br><br>The benefits, stipends, and allowances are supposed to be providing for military readiness, not welfare.<br>
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Stating the obvious, a 1BR apartment/house costs less than a 3/4 bedroom house. That being said, how can DoD say that a single soldier who only needs 1/2BR should get the same BAH as a family of 5 who needs a 3/4BR? I feel BAH should be based off of how many dependents you have (i.e. someone with only a spouse should not get the same rate as someone with 3 children who need more BR to fit the family needs). Of course it should still be based on pay grade and duty location.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Completely agree with your point. Although, being a single Airman, obviously I'd love getting more money. However, I know that it's completely unfair to those with a family. I would be curious to see some other thoughts on the idea of each dependent allowing more BAH. A family with one child can work with a 2BR apartment. Those with 2 or more kids, in many areas, may not be able to get a cheaper apartment and will want/be forced to opt for a house. A house of that size will almost always be well above the BAH level for the area. Those families on a single income are most likely struggling a bit. Those are the ones we need to ensure get taken care of.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I get with and without dependents, but I don't think we should give people an incentive to keep having kids. We already have kids fresh from tech school marrying strippers to get out of the barracks...can you imagine when those young soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen find out they can get a pay raise for each kid they have?
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I guess that would seem weird to have Soldiers in the barracks getting the same BAH rate as their married friends. Will they have to pay rent? Or will it be deducted like government leased housed, and move from the First Sergeant Barracks Program and back to housing control? We will have to see.
Sounds like they haven't addressed these questions yet. More to follow perhaps...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
If you're thinking of your bah as part of your salary it really doesn't make sense to get more money just because you have dependents. That isn't a practice you see mimicked in the private sector.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
In the private sector, I can quit my job and find a better one if I don't like the pay.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Major that doesn't really have anything to do with flat rate bah. If you're worried about compensating people for giving up career flexibility then you can tie bonuses to enlistment/commitment lengths. With longer enlistments getting a higher yearly bonus. To support the argument of giving dependent bah the best arguement I've heard of is the additional strain military life imposes on the family. For example limited career opportunities for the spouse, changing schools, and having to make new relationships every assignment. Lt Col (Join to see) -
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think this would be fair to the families of SMs as it would put an even more financial strain on what has been proven to be substandard pay scale for military members compared to their civilian counterparts as shown yearly in various studies.
If they did this, I feel it would also hurt recruitment and retention capabilities, as current married SMs may feel it is not financially feasible for them to remain active when they could potentially find a higher paying, more benefitted job on the outside, or even switch to the contract/GS side of things that provide higher pay with better benefits that many see daily during deployments and interaction with GS employees on post. The recruitment suffering would be similar as well when potential married enlistees would not see a beneficial advantage to joining the military when the ability to take care of their families with proper and safe housing affordability is removed from the prospects.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think it is a bad move unless they plan to get rid of barracks altogether. In a time when we are looking to trim money and some "brain child" decides to spend more? Doesn't make sense.
If they decided to go down this route we would be able to maintain the barracks as transient rooms only. The BAH would allow the Soldiers to move out and onto the economy. It makes me wonder where the cuts would come from for this extra money to be freed up.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
It would definitely be a waste of money. If this were to happen a Brigade would only need 1 barracks building and not 3. I wonder if they decided to go this route would they privatize the barracks like they have done with on base housing?
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
I wouldn't mind it but I'm in the barracks so that's a given. I do think that if the barracks the soldier is living in is sub par ( the new barracks have separate rooms and a kitchen)then you should be given the choice to move out. The barracks I and my soldiers live in is open room with no privacy.
(0)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
1SG Quackenbush, when I left Hawaii back in 2009 the barracks were bein privatized. They were starting to call it Single Soldier Housing
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
I would be interested in seeing privatized barracks - I wonder how they would police the barracks. Will they still require CQ or have their own workers police it? I do agree having Soldiers living in older barracks when newer ones are around is unfair. In my Brigade we have 2 barracks - 1 is old school shared rooms with a shared kitchen on the first floor. The other one has separate rooms with shared kitchens between 2 rooms.
The Soldiers living in the older barracks are not really happy and I completely understand them.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google