Posted on Dec 18, 2018
The military could save hundreds of billions — by capping pay, scrapping aircraft, slashing...
2.35K
22
21
10
10
0
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 6
Worked in DC area, there were GS12 civilian workers that were not even doing GS9 level work.
(4)
(0)
If enacted, the lowering of BAH to 80% of rent prices and capping pay raises to 0.5% below civilian pay could be catastrophic to those servicemembers who are stationed in high cost areas. Imagine an E-6 in a place like San Francisco or New York being asked to cover 20% of their housing cost. In San Fran, even with the current COLA offset, we are looking at about $800 a month after tax income. An E-6 over 8 years is schedule to make $3544 in base pay before taxes. At a 30% tax rate plus benefit contribution that is roughly $2400 base pay take home. Which means 1/3 of a service members base pay would go toward housing. Too much of burden in my humble opinion.
(3)
(0)
SCPO Jason McLaughlin
LCDR (Join to see) - "While it was merely an annoyance, that is something I was willing to tolerate. Accepting a ‘marriage penalty’ to the tune of $24,000/yr is not something we would be willing to do when avoiding it would be so simple— and perfectly legal— to do."
Legal vs. Ethical
Getting the divorce would be legal, but would it be ethical?
Legal vs. Ethical
Getting the divorce would be legal, but would it be ethical?
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SCPO Jason McLaughlin
If our laws were passed with an ethical approach in mind, or enforced ethically, then I MIGHT see a conflict.
What I see as unethical is docking the pay of an employee to the tune of 1/4 of their total monetary compensation because that person chose to get married. I might view it differently if My tank didn’t alone qualify me for BAH, but it does. Telling me that my service is worth less than another persons for NO other reason than I married a service member and the other didn’t is not ethical.
If our laws were passed with an ethical approach in mind, or enforced ethically, then I MIGHT see a conflict.
What I see as unethical is docking the pay of an employee to the tune of 1/4 of their total monetary compensation because that person chose to get married. I might view it differently if My tank didn’t alone qualify me for BAH, but it does. Telling me that my service is worth less than another persons for NO other reason than I married a service member and the other didn’t is not ethical.
(0)
(0)
SCPO Jason McLaughlin
LCDR (Join to see) - Then you should be all for the elimination of the "with dependents" BAH, because how ethical is it to tell someone they are worth less because they haven't gotten married or had kids?
We have a fundamental difference in what BAH is. You look at it as part of your compensation, I look at it as an allowance that provides shelter. I remember the BHA days when you got 80% of your rent, based on the lease you handed in to the disbursing clerks. If two people roomed together at the same address, you got 1/2.
We have a fundamental difference in what BAH is. You look at it as part of your compensation, I look at it as an allowance that provides shelter. I remember the BHA days when you got 80% of your rent, based on the lease you handed in to the disbursing clerks. If two people roomed together at the same address, you got 1/2.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SCPO Jason McLaughlin
I’ve been 100% for eliminating the with/without dependents delta for pretty much ever. I’d go further and get rid of ANY BAH other than on a rated-by-rank basis (hence my preference to go back to barracks as opposed to PPV housing and barracks-like apartments (on post, built and maintained my DOD) for families of service members too junior to otherwise rate BAH).
I would like to see exactly zero benefit or drawback associated with a person’s marital or parent status, because neither should be incentivized or disincentivized by the government.
I’ve been 100% for eliminating the with/without dependents delta for pretty much ever. I’d go further and get rid of ANY BAH other than on a rated-by-rank basis (hence my preference to go back to barracks as opposed to PPV housing and barracks-like apartments (on post, built and maintained my DOD) for families of service members too junior to otherwise rate BAH).
I would like to see exactly zero benefit or drawback associated with a person’s marital or parent status, because neither should be incentivized or disincentivized by the government.
(1)
(0)
There is plenty of waste in the Federal Government and duplication and entire agencies that aren't needed at all. Elected officials aren't going to police themselves and their self serving greed far to often results in them stealing from other places. SES ? no way will any cuts be made there, no instead take away from those that barely make a living. The governments solution to solving problem it to creat another structure to take care of it and of course at an expense to the taxpayers that solves nothing and makes it worse. Just thrown more money at a problem instead of trying to solve it or even determine if the function is even needed. Seems the cuts aren't in the extra fluff but in places that do hurt our very well being including maintaining an effective military instead of stealing from them and limiting their ability to defend us.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next