Jughead

$10 for an eyebrow wax?!? WTF?!?!

Isn't MilPDS down, AF-wide, right now? It may or may not be updated, but it won't show until they get that done....

This. Said much better than I did a few posts back.

So... could this be semi-"on purpose"? O-6, well-connected, highly placed... but has had enough and is considering retiring. Either on his own or after discussing (off line) with other senior officers, figures he can simultaneously draw attention to a broken system and get his exit sooner rather than later. [EDIT: Learjetter types faster than me] [/conspiracy theory] Even if I'm out to lunch on that (admittedly wild) scenario, this may be the best thing to happen wrt the PT idiocy (the implementation, not the concept) if it leads to changing the way we do business. If you (anyone--up to / including CSAF) can't see the idiocy in firing someone who was a superstar* yesterday because he failed a tape measure today... well, I have no words. *don't know the guy, never heard of him, never worked with/for him... but, I've yet to read any negative, and he had to be doing something right (as defined by the machine) to get a wing....

Not true--that's exactly the situation I've found myself in every time I've deployed--because of the fact that the first month of tax exemption typically lags, and I want to put every dime I'm entitled into the TSP. It takes a "CMS case" (I think that's the term), then you write a check (I did it via Eagle Cash). That's the "effort" I mentioned, because the airman behind the desk isn't going to know what to do UNLESS what you're trying to achieve is maximun $ into the TSP--and you can't get there if you've eliminated one or more months' worth of contributions. Also, what ThreeHoler said re max contribution within any month (e.g., your FICA & Med withholding affect how much you can contribute).

Only to the extent that your pay exceeds the CZTE limit (which you stated it does not). You get no immediate tax advantage to making a traditional contribution from money that's already tax-exempt. See below. I think I was unclear myself, sorry. You cannot put the "extra" money (beyond the deferred contribution limit--$17.5K for 2013--up to $51K for 2013) into the Roth TSP, as others have stated. You can put up the deferred contribution limit into the Roth, but I suggest that's a costly idea, since it will "use up" your ability to make a deferred contribution to the traditional--every dollar you put in the Roth is one you cannot put in the traditional for that year. I suppose an exception may be if you expect to spend an entire year deployed (and therefore make no deferred contributions), the Roth would be a better deal since the earning would never be taxed (the tax-exempt principal is never taxed, even in a traditional). ETA: I think (but am not sure, since I haven't been deployed since the Roth option came online) that there may be an issue with how DFAS handles tax-exempt contributions to the Roth. This may well be a case of it being technically possible, but the system isn't "set up" for it. FWIW, I've had problems with my TSP every single time I've deployed--a little effort has gotten it fixed. Good luck! So, to your second question: YES, you can put money (tax exempt, that is) in your traditional TSP while deployed, then put up to $17.5K into your Roth when you get home. You allude to the $51K limit, and that's a big caveat--if you're deployed long enough & make large enough contributions to your traditional from tax-exempt money, you could hit that $51K limit and have $0 "available" to put in to either Roth or traditional once you get home. Once again, however I suggest you'd be better served (as I understand your point, it's to achieve maximum tax advantage) to manage your traditional contributions while deployed to shack as closely as possible $33.5K ($51K - $17.5K)in tax exempt contributions to your traditional, then make $17.5K in deferred contributions to your traditional when you get home (thus paying no tax on an additional $17.5K this year, on top of your tax exempt deployed pay). If your ability to contribute in either scenario is less than the limits (can't get to $33.5K while deployed), then you don't need to worry about managing it--just put the max you can into traditional, both while deployed and when home. On the other hand, if your tax situation is such that you feel the Roth benefit is greater, long term, then make that $17.5K contribution to the Roth once you get home, with the understanding that you will pay tax on it. If you're going this route, and you're able to reach the $51K limit, then I'd say making both the Roth and traditional while deployed would be OK--but, as others have pointed out, it won't change your tax situation this year. True--but misses the point of his question, I think. Your ability to make a tax-exempt contribution is absolutely dependent on whether the month in question is tax-exempt or not. If you plan to contribute $17.5K or less, this is a moot point. If your goal is to exceed this amount, than you must manage your contributions to make those "extra" contributions (from a tax-exempt amount) during the CZTE month.

Can't put CZTE money into the Roth TSP. [EDIT: Pretty unclear how I phrased this--see post #257 below, hopefully I did better there] That would explain the rejection. I'm assuming you're not senior enough to exceed the CZTE limit (i.e., all of your pay is tax-exempt while you're deployed to a combat zone). If you are senior enough (or, say, get a bonus payment that pushes you above the limit), you can put the excess into a Roth or Traditional (tax-deferred) TSP. As I've said on here before, I believe the TSP is worthwhile even for the tax-exempt portion (assuming you are also maxing out your Roth IRA)--true, you don't see any immediate tax advantage, but that money is still in a tax-preferred account with very low costs, growing tax free until withdrawal. I've literally put every single dime for which I've been eligible into the TSP since it was made available to the Uniformed Services, including tax-exempt money. I wish it had been around when I was a Lt (who knows if I'd've had the discipline to max it then, but still...). Roth IRA (albeit with much smaller limits--$5,500 vs $17,500 for 2013). [ETA: As Jaded said...]

That's pretty cool, that you were there for both the original run & this heritage run of the same patch....

They used to sell all (100%) of their loans. They recently (w/in last year or so?) have begun servicing some & selling the remainder. Unknown what percentage (that will be disclosed on your loan docs) or what formula determines "keep" vs "sell" (which I assume is proprietary). Pretty standard.

I have been under the impression that what you're saying is illegal. I'm not certain of that--you may well have seen examples where the interest is charged on the forecast vs actual amount of principal remaining--but no loan I've ever seen has had it. I assume that would be a form of pre-payment penalty, which are no-gos in many states, as well as any loan that Fannie or Freddie Mac are involved with (which most larger lenders follow, since they want to sell, not service, your loan). Are you perhaps thinking of the payment staying the same? That's absolutely typical--without a recast, your required monthly payment will stay the same throughout the life of the loan. However, that payment will represent more & more principal as you go along, ultimately representing quicker payoff and less overall interest paid. You could make *one* extra payment now, then continue to make your normal payments per your loan agreement, and shave six months to a year off of a typical loan....

You can "create" the free lunch for yourself by amortizing it over 26 years and paying the difference toward principle. You make the same number of payments (26 years) at a lower rate (I'm assuming 3.25% is better than what you had), thus getting done sooner, less total outlay (less even than the 30 year note calls for, which was already "substantially less"), and maintain the flexibility to reduce your monthly payment to the 30 year amortized amount if you're in a bind in any given month.... ETA: OBTW, if you really want to get ahead, keep paying the same payment as you've been making up to now. You'll be done well ahead of your original loan and tens of thousands of dollars ahead on total payments....

I can never remember the name of it, but it's easy to spot and I always get it when available: Shiner makes a black beer that's fantastic.

Risky. If you do get promoted, now they can force you to stay to retirement (that's what the bonus is for, right?)--and that retirement will be significantly reduced. Same holds true for continuation (if you accept it, which your post implies you might be inclined to do if it's offered). That said, if you're "sure" you won't get promoted and are ready to decline continuation (foregoing the separation pay you mention), I can see the logic.... (BTW, I'm assuming that the CSB commitment doesn't somehow trump separation for non-promotion rules--but I don't really know; if I were in your shoes, I'd make damn sure of that answer before pressing to test....)

From the article: ...least he got the name right.... EDIT: clarity

Didn't know Netflix had any original programming. This looks promising: EDIT: fix the (*&$#*@ embed....

I'll do you one better and say it shouldn't be tracked at all. That would solve the all-too-real problem of the degree is masked at the board but everyone in the chain up to & including the Senior Rater sees it and racks & stacks accordingly.... It would also accomplish the "too hard to change back" goal you mention in support of eliminating TA, if the entire tracking mechanism is removed. Career fields that require a degree (doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, etc.) can still track it, much the same way that our flying quals are tracked. Why on earth we track AADs for non-AF or non-career-field specific degrees in the first place is beyond me....

Agreed in principle, but if you can't come up with 20%, you need to compare the funding fee to the cost of PMI to get an apples-to-apples look. If you can't qualify for a conventional at all, then VA may be your best/only option (assuming you're set on buying vs renting). However... talk to the right lender (hint: not USAA), because no one's paying funding fees out of pocket right now (see the VA thread that Buenos Diaz referenced). Rates are essentially as low as they can go right now, which has had the effect that the lenders have extra money on the table. Prior to the mortgage melt-down, that could be returned to the borrower as cash ("negative" points); can't do that directly any more, but that money can be used to cover closing costs--to include VA funding fees....

Not the question everyone here is asking you. That's a guy who was already qual'd. If you want an example that's on point, you should look to how many guys with prosthetic legs go to pilot training (or are accepted for initial entry to military service). What's that, we don't do that...? That's unfair! I'm calling my Congressman!!

Absofuckinglutely. Without even getting into the various examples others have cited (and you've side-stepped) for stuff outside the cockpit (eg, PFT standards). I'm a -135 guy. It's an original "fly-by-wire" airplane (you know, the wire goes from the yoke, through the sprocket, around the pulley and moves an actuator...). Sixty years on, I'd say the AF has gotten its money's worth out of the line. However, in the absence of the computer controlled, hyrdraulicly actuated flight controls that many of my counterparts enjoy, you've got to throw a little ass into making the old girl move. This is most obvious in receiver AR, where small but definite corrections are mandatory for the duration, and failure to apply the same is generally immediately self-critiquing. Enter the skinny girl who weighs 90 pounds with rocks in her pocket, who simply has less "oomph" to put into it. I've known (and instructed) several of those with outstanding skills who can park the jet behind the tanker like it's painted on the windscreen, and who therefore spend less time & energy making those corrections. More typically, though (just like men), these women fall in the "more average" part of the curve and need to work at it--and find themselves unable to maintain a contact for the 20-ish minutes it takes to get a full onload with changing conditions of weight & CG. And that's in stable air & a smooth tanker; forget about more challenging conditions.... Can't do the job = Q-3 & send back to school, right? Not in my community--deploy with a seeing-eye IP to get more "seasoning" is the approved solution. Yep, deploy an extra pilot (on top of all the existing deployment bills) to babysit an AC who can't get the job done on her own. This is an obvious, easy-to-point-to example. There are any number of more insidious examples of how women in the cockpit (in the squadron; in the AF; whatever) have lower standards. The people I see most pissed off about this are the competent women I work with, because they (quite rightly) worry that it calls into question their own qualifications when they see one of their sisters-in-arms who "gets by" by being female. I'm beginning to believe you really are blinded by ideology if you can honestly say you don't see this.... In your fantasy world, anyone (male or female) who can't meet a standard would be eliminated; those of us in the real world (who have been providing you multiple examples in this thread, btw) have witnessed the opposite. Not the point. What standard you instruct to is irrelevant if the system is set up to guarantee non-failure of any particular "protected" group.

Seriously?

Your example ignores two key points: 1) not all traditional IRA contributions are deductible (depends on income), so this discussion can be moot for higher earners; and 2) the earnings on that IRA will be taxed for a traditional, but not for a Roth. To the extent you're saying "every situation is different," you're correct--the Roth is right for some folks, wrong for others, and a coin-flip/"bet" as JS put it for most in the middle. To the extent you're saying the Roth is a bad deal for everyone, you're flat wrong....

Not true. Contributions: already taxed, can be withdrawn whenever for whatever reason without tax or penalty. (Though, ThreeHoler is spot on, it's a horrible idea--ask yourself why you contributed to a retirement account in the first place, then try to reconcile that with an early withdrawal....) Earnings: 5-year rule only applies if there's a "qualifying reason" (which includes reaching age 59½ or first-time home buyers); if one of those "qualifying reasons" exist, then there's no penalty, the only question is whether ordinary income taxes are paid (<5 years) or completely tax-free (>5 years). In the absence of a "qualifying reason," there are a handful of "exceptions" (disabled, high medical expenses, etc.) that will allow you to dodge the 10% penalty tax, but either way it will be taxed as ordinary income in the year withdrawn. For the OP's point (first-time home purchase), he would get any contributions out tax-free (sounds like what he's talking about) and would pay ordinary income tax on any earnings withdrawn (I'm assuming he has <5 years in based on the context). In general, however, 5 years is not a "free withdrawal at any time" for those under 59½..... fox two: listen to ThreeHoler; bad, bad idea....

Depends on what kind of billet you're in. Speaking only as an AD guy, that didn't kick in for me until I went over 6 months (I was DNIF about a year)--YMMV, particularly for the OP (who mentioned he's Guard).... You are on AOs during (shortly after starting) UPT.

11-402 is the reg. DNIF > 6 months counts against you (i.e., you start losing gate months). Separated time counts against you (that just makes sense, no?).