Posted on Mar 29, 2017
Conservative Group Calls for Curbing Troops' Housing Allowances
922
14
15
1
1
0
I may be in the minority on this, but I don't see it as unfair to the troops since the $$ isn't really pay anyway, but looked at as a bennie by most who don't want to lose a benefit regardless of the reasoning.
Some of the argument against chance quoted is bogus anyway:
"This will cause enormous inequities amongst active-duty members who are subject to the state tax withholdings that reflect their home of record," (USAF CPT Chris James) said in an email to Military.com. "In general, this change will cost all active-duty members tens of thousands of dollars in take-home pay over the course of a career, making it that much harder to provide for their families."
It ain't take home pay in the first place and your state (& Fed) taxes are on PAY not allowances. That's why allowances are so good, including the VA offset.
Just my two cents.
Some of the argument against chance quoted is bogus anyway:
"This will cause enormous inequities amongst active-duty members who are subject to the state tax withholdings that reflect their home of record," (USAF CPT Chris James) said in an email to Military.com. "In general, this change will cost all active-duty members tens of thousands of dollars in take-home pay over the course of a career, making it that much harder to provide for their families."
It ain't take home pay in the first place and your state (& Fed) taxes are on PAY not allowances. That's why allowances are so good, including the VA offset.
Just my two cents.
Conservative Group Calls for Curbing Troops' Housing Allowances
Posted from military.com
Taxes
Benefits
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
LTC Stephen B.
What the article fails to make mention of is BAH is supposed to cover utilities as well as rent (used to cover renters insurance as well, but that is being or has been phased out - I'm losing track of all the 'savings' coming from troops' pay and allowances)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
One of the proposals is to get rid of BAH as an allowance and to incorporate it into salary based on location. That is what spurred CPT James' comments in the article.
While I think at first glance saying that service members get paid BAH at a rate that coincides with what they are paying out, the administrative cost and management of it would make it a waste of time. You would have finance personnel whose only job would be to make BAH adjustments for those who have changed apartments, had an increase in their new lease or PCSed to a new location. Using the local median rental rates would be the best option. If I were to make any suggestions it would be to incorporate some additional per child allowance, since a married service member with no children gets the same rate as one of the same grade with 3, 4, or 5 children.
While I think at first glance saying that service members get paid BAH at a rate that coincides with what they are paying out, the administrative cost and management of it would make it a waste of time. You would have finance personnel whose only job would be to make BAH adjustments for those who have changed apartments, had an increase in their new lease or PCSed to a new location. Using the local median rental rates would be the best option. If I were to make any suggestions it would be to incorporate some additional per child allowance, since a married service member with no children gets the same rate as one of the same grade with 3, 4, or 5 children.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
Not to mention that if the higher rent you pay, the more you get paid will provide incentive on the part of the SM for increasing the living conditions, and on the part of the landlords to bump rents up until DoD cries foul. Neither of which will actually save a penny over the long haul. There's a reason we switched to BAH from VHA many moons ago.
The proposal by Congress seems to mirror the GS scales - locality-adjusted pay scales.
The proposal by Congress seems to mirror the GS scales - locality-adjusted pay scales.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Notice how all these "brain trusts" never suggest reducing all the bennies congressman and senators recieve. It is a cheap shot to try to screw the "less than one percent" that elect to embrace the suck so the rest of the citizens can sleep well at night..
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
SPC (Join to see) - That's because they leave office vastly more wealthy than when they were first elected.
(0)
(0)
SSG Steven Mangus
It's not the salary, it's all the benefits they recieve for their "voluntary service," which I do not agree with..let's get rid of that waste and see how much cash is saved..
(0)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
All true, very true. But it would take the 3rd Infantry & MB Washington pulling a double envelopment on Capitol Hill and forcing them at bayonet point to reduce those perks and bennies.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google