Why dual military get to claim BAH twice?

2014-06-13T16:00:10-04:00

Maybe I am missed informed but when I was a DS we had military couples each getting BAH how is this even possible when both reside within the same domicile? I understand if the couples are separated because of duty stations but when they both are station together how is this fair? Isn't this a waste? Do they get more house because they are both in the service?

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Jun 13 at 2014 4:06 PM

2014-06-13T16:06:33-04:00

They both rate BAH at the no dependants rate as long as there are no children. Once a child is brought in whoever the child is a dependant under gets with dep rate while the other continues to get w/out rate. It can be very lucrative to marry a fellow service member.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2014 5:59 PM

2014-06-13T17:59:39-04:00

SFC Cardenas, while on the surface it may appear to be unfair and that the gov't could save money by not paying both but doing so would in fact be punishing them for getting married. Each enlisted/commissioned in their own right and are looked upon as individual Soldiers. It has already been stated (correctly) that they each only receives the without dependent rate, unless there is a child. If you really are concerned with wasteful gov't spending on paychecks, go check out Congress and all their perks. Now that will be some interesting reading! LOL

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 5:26 AM

2014-06-14T05:26:44-04:00

Just a perk to being dual military. But don't forget if children are involved only one gets the w/dependent rate and the other as single. How is this any different than living with someone who has a good job. It's an entitlement and I think it is beyond fair.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 8:27 PM

2014-09-18T20:27:43-04:00

n/a

Response by LT Jessica Kellogg made Sep 18 at 2014 9:25 PM

2014-09-18T21:25:55-04:00

If I were a single O1, I would get BAH. If I were married to a civilian I would get BAH. Why should BAH be withheld because I'm married to another service member?

In all three situations I'm using my BAH to pay for my residence.

Response by PO1 Shannon Drosdak made Sep 19 at 2014 1:01 AM

2014-09-19T01:01:35-04:00

I will explain only my situation as everyone's is different. Before I got married I was receiving BAH w/dependents the state of Cali included that bah in my child support figures. I remarried another service member and kept the BAH w/dependents. He got single. At the time I was an E5 paying over 1000.) Which was over half of my bah) In support a month. I also got stuck with all my ex's prior bills because he was so kind to put me as a secondary. If I would have lost that BAH I honestly would have had to file for bankruptcy.
I can understand where people believe that once you're married all bills are shared I however did/do not believe in my "new" husband having to take on my prior debts or vice versa. Cali, especially San Diego isn't cheap, and I am a penny pincher (buy groceries at the .99 store, grocery outlet, etc) I have worked just as hard as my (now) husband to support and defend my country why should I give up any of my pay just because I am married to another service member? We don't get paid all that much as it is. But we do get medical benefits, housing, and food, along with a once a year clothing allowance for putting our lives on the line, working sometimes 20 hour days, and being away from our families for years at a time. Do I think we deserve it? Yes, yes I do!
Do I think that the military needs to look closer at their contract and what they are paying to companies for their businesses absolutely.
Service member have been hit hard enough, cuts have been made in numbers and pay already. I don't think we are what they need to look at. Things like paper, printer cartridges, pens, folders, parts, equipment for food storage, etc need to be looked at. I can by 24 rolls of toilet paper from the .99 store and it's Better than the crap we pay 100.00 per case for, yet we have to only purchase from the "lowest bidding contractor" who still rips us off? It's As I said it's not the service members that need to be reviewed and checked it's the systems we go through for all we need.

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Sep 19 at 2014 5:11 AM

2014-09-19T05:11:28-04:00

It's because it's a benefit each Soldier is eligible to receive. Just because you get married to another SM, doesn't mean that you lose that benefit. To make it a bit less of a financial burden on the Army, one gets the w/dependents rate while the other does not. That makes sense since a dependent can only be claimed by one person for tax purposes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 5:33 PM

2015-05-29T17:33:20-04:00

I think the whole set up to the dual military BAH payout is completely reversed from what it should be.
I had a soldier who was dual military and her husband was going to be stuck on another base when his unit got moved. That caused her to lose her BAH and she had to move back into the barracks despite being a married soldier.
So, instead of allowing the two respective spouses maintain a home, they cut one off forcing them into the barracks.
At the same time, two soldiers living together receive double BAH.
It is ridiculous and should be revamped.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2015 1:06 AM

2015-05-30T01:06:27-04:00

Not that the Senate is the best example of justice in the world but someone else thinks it is not right.

As for the divorced sailor, I see where she is coming from and perhaps Congress needs to mandate that only Base Pay may be allowed to be figured into alimony/palimony and child support.

http://www.stripes.com/opinion/dual-service-couples-may-see-housing-allowance-cut-under-senate-plan-1.349209

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 11:54 PM

2015-05-31T23:54:42-04:00

-Gov is 18 trillion in debt thats 18,000,000,000,000

-You think it cane save money by cutting half of the married couples BAH 40K / 2 = 20K couples

-so that saves 20,000 X $1000 (simple avg number for BAH) = $20,000,000 a month

Lets cut zeros

We will reduce the money saved and the gov money owed by the same which gives us:

-$18,000.00 (owed)
-$.02 (Saved)

So you see nothing is being saved When you hear or see millions, billions or trillions you think wow that's a big number but when you put it in perspective you realize nothing is really happening.

Want to save money?
-A10
-Foreign aid...

There's two good places to start

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 9:05 AM

2015-06-01T09:05:37-04:00

I do believe that BAH is an allowance and not an entitlement. That means it can be removed or reduced as required (thus the diff).

It is a perk to receive it twice. I brought this up last week at work at got all sorts of arguments for and against the double dip. Of course, those who are all for it are dual-military. Those who are opposed to it are everyone else and the contractors that work here.

The question truly should be what was the underlying intent when the regulations spelled out that dual military with children will receive full BAH from one and diff from the other. The answer probably lies in the past when having a family to support garnered extra pay. Today, not so much.

Response by CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-06-01T18:59:48-04:00

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-senate-proposed-bill-specifically-unfairly-targets-and-limits-bah-benefits-dual-military-spouses

Stop the Senate-proposed bill that specifically & unfairly targets and limits the BAH...

The Senate Armed Services Committee has inserted language in its version of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill that will directly impact dual-military married couples.

Response by CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 7:00 PM

2015-06-01T19:00:52-04:00

Write your reps:

CONSTITUENT MAIL

Dear Congressman/Senator _________________,

I am writing to ask that you oppose the Senate’s proposed changes to military BAH payments to dual-military and cohabitating service members. While at first blush the current policy can appear to provide a windfall to married service members (when co-located) or unmarried and cohabitating service members (roommates), the proposed changes are incongruent with the justifications offered for recent reductions in regular military compensation (RMC) and will have significant and unintended consequences for the military and its service members.

First, I note that every major study on military compensation uses the widely accepted metric of RMC (where RMC = Base Pay + BAS + BAH + some adjustment factor for the tax advantage of BAS and BAH). In turn, Congress has accepted RMC as the metric used to justify recent reductions in service-member compensation (COLAs below private sector, retirement reform, reductions to in-kind benefits, etc.). Conversely, in the case of married service-members (and cohabitating unmarried service members) it appears that SASC prefers to strip BAH of its compensatory character – electing to characterize it as a windfall. This
notable incongruence (even hypocrisy) between how SASC has attempted to characterize BAH cannot stand. BAH is undeniably part of the compensation calculus.

Second, the SASC proposal creates perverse incentives. Notably it would discourage marriage between service-members by forcing the lower-ranking service-member to give up a significant portion of his/her income purely as a result of the marriage. Moreover, it penalizes married service members in requiring that one of them surrender their BAH whenever they live together. Even when the services allow married service members to cohabitate, the proposal still penalizes married couples more than their unmarried peers who would receive 75% of their respective BAH (without dependent rate) or on average just under 61% of the BAH with dependents rate. Thus, together two unmarried, cohabitating service members (roommates) would receive just over 20% more BAH than a married, cohabitating dual military couple. This amounts to a marriage penalty in the purest sense of the term.

In addition, even with regard to cohabitating unmarried service members the incentives are still objectionable. If BAH is compensatory in character, what service members do with it should be of no concern to the government. Moreover, the effect of reducing BAH to 75% of current rates for unmarried cohabitating service members is to eliminate any incentive for efficiency and cost savings – especially among young service members. Market forces could not be clearer on this point.

For example, take two hypothetical service members, A and B.
Both receive BAH of $1,000/mo. Both A and B are free to select accommodations below their means and pocket the cost savings. Assuming they are able to rent
an apartment and cover utilities for $850/mo, each pockets $150/mo (presumptively representative of the reduced standard of the accommodations they have chosen). Alternative A and B may decide that it is more advantageous to rent a house together for a total cost of $1,500/mo yielding a savings of $500, or $250 for each of them. Under the SASC proposal, A and B each lose 25% or $250/mo should they decide to cohabitate. This leaves them the perverse financial incentive of choosing a less efficient arrangement.

Third, even assuming without deciding that BAH is not compensatory in nature and that the pragmatic reasons for opposing SASC’s proposal are unconvincing, there is clear potential for unintended and potentially devastating effects on force balancing. Notably, SASC’s proposal requires the junior ranking service member to surrender their BAH. This provides a clear competitive advantage to non-military employers with regard to the junior ranking member. Because the senior member’s BAH is received whether or not the junior member remains on active duty, the economic reality is such that the relevant wage for the junior member is truly Base plus BAS (not including BAH). Lastly, because SASC’s proposal inevitably results in this junior-senior pay disparity among married service members, it will no doubt result in distortions between the retention rates of the junior members and their military spouses.

Thank you for considering this issue and I look forward to your support in opposing this change!

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 10:24 PM

2015-06-11T22:24:47-04:00

For those who think BAH is not an entitlement.....

According to the DOD FY2016 Budget Request to Congress "The foundation of military pay is Regular Military Compensation (RMC). EVERY member receives the following pay or in-kind ENTITLEMENT: Base Pay, BAH, and BAS"

Research is always better than speculation:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Jun 14 at 2015 2:44 AM

2015-06-14T02:44:49-04:00

I was dual military with a Navy Nurse, before the children we both received BAQ at the single rate, when children started being born she began getting paid the Dependent rate (by our choice because she was an officer) and I continued to receive without dependents, it was very profitable for us. We the move to base housing and because of her rank we lived in officer housing. If only one of us would have had to claim for it we would have had her do so!

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-08-27T16:18:29-04:00

Dual military don't get to claim BAH twice. Each service member gets to claim BAH at the without dependent rate, just as if they were living separately and not married.

Response by MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 26 at 2016 8:35 AM

2016-07-26T08:35:08-04:00

Simple, it is part of your compensation for service. However if the couple has children, the senior of the two dual-military couple receives BAH at the dependent rate and the junior receives BAH at the single rate. It is part of the compensation package and no one should be penalized because they are married to another service member.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2017 5:19 AM

2017-04-24T05:19:19-04:00

So then my question would be...if you have 2 Soldiers who are getting married both in which get BAH w/dep rate, because they have children from pervious relationship. If they got married would they both still claim BAH since both parents claim their own children on their taxes?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2020 3:49 PM

2020-06-10T15:49:16-04:00

It's part of the compensation package.
It's to not provide a disincentive to marriage.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2021 8:33 AM

2021-08-16T08:33:57-04:00

How is it unfair for dual military to get the entitlements they both are entitled to? Why should only one of them get BAH if they are stationed together? Who "deserves" to get it then?

If there are dependents, the higher ranking SM gets the with dependent rate and the other gets without dependent rate.

I honestly don't see the issue with dual military servicemembers who are married both getting BAH. No they don't get "more house." If they do on base housing, it will depend on their rank and probably amount of dependents what type of housing they get. Off base it's whatever they decide to get.

Here's a situation I wonder if you thought of it dual military couples who are married bothers you: There can be dual military who aren't married but are living together and they're both getting BAH too. Now add in if they are unmarried but each has dependents - they're both getting BAH for dependent.

I don't really see what "fair" has to do with it honestly nor how it would be a "waste." If they aren't giving them BAH it would just go to someone else or probably actually be wasted on something else by the Army.