4
4
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 
BAH
Dual Military
BAH Dual Military
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
15
15
0
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.
(15)
(0)
MGySgt (Join to see)
So you would be good with giving up something you earned by your service just because you were married to another service member? What if they took away your BAS, which YOU RATE, just because you were married to another service member, would you be good with that? What if they lowered your pay because you were married to a fellow E-8? Would you be willing to give up what you have earned and being compensated for?
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
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
(14)
(0)
(4)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I can understand sparking insightful debate, as it seems some of the topics on RP are less than weighty in the thought department. But I also believe "we" as a military community sometime get focused on our internal issues but after some research, I discovered a lot of our problems exist because of Congress! They enact vague and broad laws concerning the military and the DoD's interpretation to the services is no better. Have you ever checked out the cost of childcare at the CDC on post? The base the price scale on the "total family income" meaning they include your BAH and any special pays into determining how much you pay for services. On what planet does that make sense? If you and I pull up to the gas pump at the same time in 2 different cars, should you pay more per gallon than me because your car is different? Should a SPCs cell phone bill be lower than mine because I make more money? If the CDC is providing services, they should charge an amount for those services equally to all personnel. But the DoD is the one that sets the rules for the services on child care rates. And another thing, look at the amount for the lowest bracket at the CDC and compare it to how much an E3 makes (be sure to include BAH and BAS!) and you'll find they don't even qualify for the lowest bracket!
(1)
(0)
SPC David Willis
I'm not sure how it would punish them for getting married. Single soldiers don't get BAH so going from 2 people without BAH to 2 people with 1 person getting BAH is an improvement.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
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.
In all three situations I'm using my BAH to pay for my residence.
(8)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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!
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!
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
-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
-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
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Cardenas, to play devil's advocate: Upon signing my contract, I agreed to certain terms of work and in turn the government agreed to provide me with housing, food, pay, medical and education. If I marry another service member, my spouse is providing my housing, NOT the government. Why would I not get the same services and benefits of every other service member? Further, how it is any different than two single soldiers who both draw single BAH and chose to live together as room mates? They also are treated like single soldiers, as are dual-military yet no one is questioning their right to retain their BAH.
(0)
(0)
MGySgt (Join to see)
Yeah, getting dual BAH is a great reason to get married (sarc). When I married my wife, who was in the Navy, not once did it dawn on me that we would get dual BAH until after we were married.
(0)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
And by the way, single soldiers who decide to be roommates have to annotate that on their forms, and see their BAH reduced.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
You also have to look at the equal pay initiative. When dual militarycouples were examined, they discovered that a majority of the couples had the male as the he highest rank by cutting bah of the lowest rank, they would be creating unequal pay. Another fact. When you consider people in low density, highly critical fields, a pay cut could significantly hurt the Army's skill pool. Individuals in Medical, Intel and Cyber could be looking at an annual income of 45-55 thousand per year if bah was cut. That amount doesn't even fall near the pay scale for those jobs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MGySgt (Join to see)
If she was moved back into the barracks as a married service member, it would have been her choice. With her BAH should could have stayed off base.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google