Posted on Jun 4, 2016
The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to lower housing allowances. Why?
4.09K
9
12
3
3
0
Military advocates are baffled over a Senate plan to overhaul troops’ housing stipends, saying the change appears unneeded and potentially crippling to family finances.
“We view Basic Allowance for Housing as an earned benefit, and we don’t agree with trying to reduce that benefit,” said Michael Barron, deputy director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America
“We view Basic Allowance for Housing as an earned benefit, and we don’t agree with trying to reduce that benefit,” said Michael Barron, deputy director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
It doesn't make any sense. It just puts more money into the housing market and takes it out of service members pockets. If they are going to pay up to a certain rate in BAH, service members will just find housing at the maximum rate and the amount of money that will be saved will be minimum. I'm sure a somewhat decent amount will add up across the ranks, but it does nothing to benefit our service members. Then the politicians will whine when more service members get food stamps and other government assistance because they are no longer allowed to save money on housing. Not to start a firestorm, but it they are going to target BAH, I would look at making a singular rate, and removing the BAH with dependent/without dependents.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley, I don't know what they have up their sleeve. If possible, I would find cheaper living quarters off base and not even use their housing. I don't know how it works anymore, but when I was at Bragg, I lived off post.
(0)
(0)
We are in an era where the POTUS, law makers, and generals want to take from the troops. It's the en vogue action to take.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Well, CPT Joseph K Murdock, They better stop reducing the troops or they will be cutting their own throats. But, I believe you're correct.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next