Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Changes Coming to Mil-to-Mil BAH?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    In some ways, I don't mind this. It's just my little conspiracy theory, but I don't think that this is a cost-saving measure. I think they're trying to discourage mil-to-mil marriages. Probably for at least one of the following two reasons:

    1. Mil-to-mil are required to have a family care plan for a reason. I've seen alot of good people lost due to not being able to maintain their family care plan. This could help fix that.

    2. To reduce female attrition, which will result in more women in the senior ranks. Let's face it... the majority of married women in the military are married to men in the military. It's rare to find one married to a civilian man. In more cases than not, when a woman in the military marries a man in the military, she gets out and her husband stays in. Well, if a woman doesn't marry a man in the military... she's probably more likely to stay in.

    Just my thoughts.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  2. #12
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    They won't do that, because it would increase retired pay.
    That is exactly why it won't happen and why many entitlements, allowances etc. are in addition to base pay.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #13
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    In some ways, I don't mind this. It's just my little conspiracy theory, but I don't think that this is a cost-saving measure. I think they're trying to discourage mil-to-mil marriages. Probably for at least one of the following two reasons:

    1. Mil-to-mil are required to have a family care plan for a reason. I've seen alot of good people lost due to not being able to maintain their family care plan. This could help fix that.

    2. To reduce female attrition, which will result in more women in the senior ranks. Let's face it... the majority of married women in the military are married to men in the military. It's rare to find one married to a civilian man. In more cases than not, when a woman in the military marries a man in the military, she gets out and her husband stays in. Well, if a woman doesn't marry a man in the military... she's probably more likely to stay in.

    Just my thoughts.
    I don't think that is really the intent.

    I actually think this would inadvertently increase female attrition for Mil-Mil situations.

    In most Mil-Mil situations I have seen, as the couple gets more senior one of them ends up taking the short end of the stick so that they can:

    -geolocate
    -care for children
    -one can get a key assignment etc.

    I see many junior & mid career (enlisted & officer) Mil-Mil couples, as they get more senior it just gets hard due to the requirements of the job (in my designator we are often 1 of 1 at a command -- the only one of our kind there and getting two of us to the same place at the E8 or E9 ... O5 or O6 levels is hard or impossible.) What I have seen is usually one (the one with the least chance of promotion) retires at the first opportunity; more often than not that has been the female -- probably related to the traditional 'child-rearing' role they fill as mothers.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #14
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Also BAH should be the same for every rank. That's how it is for BAS (enlisted). If higher ranks want a bigger house then it comes out of their pay...that's one of the benefits of getting paid more.

  5. #15
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Buried a little further down:

    Other language in the Senate bill would curb BAH for service members who reside together to save on housing costs. Service members in pay grade E-4 and higher who live together would see their BAH capped at 75 percent of “their otherwise prevailing rate” for their pay grade or at the E-4 “without dependents” rate, whichever is greater.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    In some ways, I don't mind this. It's just my little conspiracy theory, but I don't think that this is a cost-saving measure. I think they're trying to discourage mil-to-mil marriages. Probably for at least one of the following two reasons:

    1. Mil-to-mil are required to have a family care plan for a reason. I've seen alot of good people lost due to not being able to maintain their family care plan. This could help fix that.

    2. To reduce female attrition, which will result in more women in the senior ranks. Let's face it... the majority of married women in the military are married to men in the military. It's rare to find one married to a civilian man. In more cases than not, when a woman in the military marries a man in the military, she gets out and her husband stays in. Well, if a woman doesn't marry a man in the military... she's probably more likely to stay in.

    Just my thoughts.
    Interesting theory...but, in my experience military females married to military are the most likely to stay in.

    Military females married to civilians, I've seen, are the most likely to get out...maybe that's why they are a rare find.

    There is just something about the man being the primary bread winner...which is tough to do if following a military member from assignment to assignment.

    I would agree that if one gets out, it's usually the female, but seems like most of the time both stay in (or both get out)...as long as one is already in, the other might as well stay.
    The Voice of Reason

  7. #17
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Also BAH should be the same for every rank. That's how it is for BAS (enlisted). If higher ranks want a bigger house then it comes out of their pay...that's one of the benefits of getting paid more.
    Yes and no ... since basic pay won't go up, I don't think leveling BAH across the board is a good idea.

    what the law on it says:

    Title 37 US Code 403

    The amount of the basic allowance for housing for a member will vary according to the pay grade in which the member is assigned or distributed for basic pay purposes, the dependency status of the member, and the geographic location of the member.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    In some ways, I don't mind this. It's just my little conspiracy theory, but I don't think that this is a cost-saving measure. I think they're trying to discourage mil-to-mil marriages. Probably for at least one of the following two reasons:

    1. Mil-to-mil are required to have a family care plan for a reason. I've seen alot of good people lost due to not being able to maintain their family care plan. This could help fix that.

    2. To reduce female attrition, which will result in more women in the senior ranks. Let's face it... the majority of married women in the military are married to men in the military. It's rare to find one married to a civilian man. In more cases than not, when a woman in the military marries a man in the military, she gets out and her husband stays in. Well, if a woman doesn't marry a man in the military... she's probably more likely to stay in.

    Just my thoughts.
    As a (I'm assuming) pro-Hillary kind of guy, you should be staunchly opposed to this measure since it hurts pay equality between men and women. Think about it, most mil-to-mil marriages involve a younger, lower ranking female married to an older, higher ranking man. For EQUALITY's sake, is it really fair to pay women LESS as a result of losing their BAH to the higher ranking, male spouse?

  9. #19
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Yes and no ... since basic pay won't go up, I don't think leveling BAH across the board is a good idea.

    what the law on it says:

    Title 37 US Code 403

    The amount of the basic allowance for housing for a member will vary according to the pay grade in which the member is assigned or distributed for basic pay purposes, the dependency status of the member, and the geographic location of the member.
    Housing allowance should be rated for the average cost of living in the area...if you want to go above average than it's out of pocket...the military is providing you plenty to live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood...anything above and beyond should be on you.

    Do you also think you should get more money for food because you've earned the right to real shrimp instead of imitation shrimp?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    The reason that I really can't buy into this being a cost saving measure is I think that people who would have married someone in the military will just simply marry civilians. And now they'll all get married BAH.

    When I think about this from the perspective of a single service member who is looking for someone to settle down with... I know that if I look for someone in the military that, eventually, we're gonna have to have that talk. One of us is gonna have to take a pay cut.

    I think that more people will just choose to not deal with that at all, and simply look to the civilian population to find their soul mates.

    The result? If you look at two service members who would have married each other, you would have only had to have given married BAH to one and single BAH to other. But now that they married civilians instead, they're both getting married BAH.

    So I expect the costs to actually go up.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •