New BAH rates are out.

[BashiChuni]

san francisco cocksuckers

 

[HeloDude]

I'm not seeing the new rates available on the DoD webpage BAH calculator...

https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm

[MooseAg03]

Is it McCain we have to thank for that?

[Mark1]

I've got an idea that would both save a ton of money, and make logical sense (despite, I'm sure, getting a bunch of panties in a wad).

Pay service-members commensurate with their experience and value to the organization (i.e. rank), rather than the choices they make in their personal life.  Get rid of w/dependent BAH.  Or without saving the money make it equitable by bringing w/o dependent BAH up and w/dependent BAH down to meet at a mid-point.

Totally unjustifiable that someone with dependents is paid differently for performing the same function.  If anything, it's the unencumbered that are more valuable to the institution.  Can't even count the instances where I picked up a deployment or extended my ongoing deployment for someone whose wife was losing their mind over their husband going away for the holidays, or for the birth of a child, or during the kid's summer break, and on and on. 

[MDDieselPilot]

2 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I've got an idea that would both save a ton of money, and make logical sense (despite, I'm sure, getting a bunch of panties in a wad).

Pay service-members commensurate with their experience and value to the organization (i.e. rank), rather than the choices they make in their personal life.  Get rid of w/dependent BAH.  Or without saving the money make it equitable by bringing w/o dependent BAH up and w/dependent BAH down to meet at a mid-point.

Totally unjustifiable that someone with dependents is paid differently for performing the same function.  If anything, it's the unencumbered that are more valuable to the institution.  Can't even count the instances where I picked up a deployment or extended my ongoing deployment for someone whose wife was losing their mind over their husband going away for the holidays, or for the birth of a child, or during the kid's summer break, and on and on. 

How does that work for two people in the same system (i.e., Air Force) are paid the same to work in bumfuk, OK vs Honolulu or the NCR?  It's either grossly overpaying person A or grossly underpaying person B.

Just so I know we're not stretching things here... exactly how many deployments have you been on?  And you're saying of those, you've literally lost count of how many were due to said reasons? 

[Mark1]

5 hours ago, MDDieselPilot said:

How does that work for two people in the same system (i.e., Air Force) are paid the same to work in bumfuk, OK vs Honolulu or the NCR?  It's either grossly overpaying person A or grossly underpaying person B.

Just so I know we're not stretching things here... exactly how many deployments have you been on?  And you're saying of those, you've literally lost count of how many were due to said reasons? 

What?  That's why BAH rates are regional and COLA exists.  Whether they're effective at making up the regional differences is a different story but I fail to see how that applies at all to getting rid of dependent vs  non-dependent BAH.  If you don't think BAH at Hickam adequately addresses the cost of housing then great, but whatever the correct dollar amount for BAH is there, everybody (at respective ranks) should get the same amount.

Single guys don''t get extra allowance to offset the cost of whore-mongering...guys with 19 kids shouldn't expect extra to afford the mansion necessary to house their family.  Pay should be commensurate with value to the institution (adjusted for locale), and everything else should be a matter of adults making adult decisions on how to deal with the financial consequences of their choices in life.  

To address your question: I don't know your background but unless you're still in UPT I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware that single guys getting fucked over by circumstances having to due with squadronmate's dependent related issues is, in fact, a thing.  On that alone the point I was trying to make is valid, regardless of my history.  However, when I was active I belonged to a unit that did not operate on AEF bands.  That meant ~3 deployments per year (if you weren't self-restricted from deploying over the holidays, or during the kid's summer break, or when your wife's PMS was flaring).  That adds up and they start running together so, yes, I literally do not know how many deployments I did in my tenure without consulting my records.  And yes, I've lost count of how many were covering for others although that's probably due primarily to fading memory as I've been out for some years.  It was a handful.

Let me make clear this is not bitching.  At least in my case I enjoyed the deployments.  It was always a kick in the nuts to have to extend a deployment when you were 1 week out from going home, or cancelling plans to take one on short notice, but I generally enjoyed leaving the squadron queep behind to go kill bad guys. 

Nevertheless, my argument remains: IF anybody should get paid extra, it's the unencumbered guys.  However, nobody should get extra.  Everybody should be paid the same amount for the same duty regardless of their personal circumstances.

[BFM this]

This is interesting.  This seems to be a perennial discussion like dual mil BAH families.  It also seems to suffer from the same biases and stunted thinking as that issue.

Maybe I'm wrong, too lazy to look up citations, but there is a reason for the two BAH rates.  First rate is to cover housing costs, second is not to cover an ever expanding litter of rugrats.  It's to cover the career opportunity costs of being a military spouse.  Those costs are not only significant, but very relevant in today's retention climate.

[17D_guy]

10 hours ago, Mark1 said:

WORDS

Let me make clear this is not bitching. 

MORE WORDS

Are you sure?

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, Mark1 said:

What?  That's why BAH rates are regional and COLA exists.  Whether they're effective at making up the regional differences is a different story but I fail to see how that applies at all to getting rid of dependent vs  non-dependent BAH.  If you don't think BAH at Hickam adequately addresses the cost of housing then great, but whatever the correct dollar amount for BAH is there, everybody (at respective ranks) should get the same amount.

Single guys don''t get extra allowance to offset the cost of whore-mongering...guys with 19 kids shouldn't expect extra to afford the mansion necessary to house their family.  Pay should be commensurate with value to the institution (adjusted for locale), and everything else should be a matter of adults making adult decisions on how to deal with the financial consequences of their choices in life.  

To address your question: I don't know your background but unless you're still in UPT I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware that single guys getting fucked over by circumstances having to due with squadronmate's dependent related issues is, in fact, a thing.  On that alone the point I was trying to make is valid, regardless of my history.  However, when I was active I belonged to a unit that did not operate on AEF bands.  That meant ~3 deployments per year (if you weren't self-restricted from deploying over the holidays, or during the kid's summer break, or when your wife's PMS was flaring).  That adds up and they start running together so, yes, I literally do not know how many deployments I did in my tenure without consulting my records.  And yes, I've lost count of how many were covering for others although that's probably due primarily to fading memory as I've been out for some years.  It was a handful.

Let me make clear this is not bitching.  At least in my case I enjoyed the deployments.  It was always a kick in the nuts to have to extend a deployment when you were 1 week out from going home, or cancelling plans to take one on short notice, but I generally enjoyed leaving the squadron queep behind to go kill bad guys. 

Nevertheless, my argument remains: IF anybody should get paid extra, it's the unencumbered guys.  However, nobody should get extra.  Everybody should be paid the same amount for the same duty regardless of their personal circumstances.

Since the families are a huge part of retention calculus, I don't think your crusade against service members with families is likely to go anywhere.

[ThreeHoler]

This is interesting.  This seems to be a perennial discussion like dual mil BAH families.  It also seems to suffer from the same biases and stunted thinking as that issue.
Maybe I'm wrong, too lazy to look up citations, but there is a reason for the two BAH rates.  First rate is to cover housing costs, second is not to cover an ever expanding litter of rugrats.  It's to cover the career opportunity costs of being a military spouse.  Those costs are not only significant, but very relevant in today's retention climate.

Way way back (think continental army) the w/dependents was because a man with a wife needed a bigger house than a single man. Just like an officer, whose family had paid for his commission, needed a larger house than the enlisted men.

[Mark1]

6 hours ago, BFM this said:

This is interesting.  This seems to be a perennial discussion like dual mil BAH families.  It also seems to suffer from the same biases and stunted thinking as that issue.

Maybe I'm wrong, too lazy to look up citations, but there is a reason for the two BAH rates.  First rate is to cover housing costs, second is not to cover an ever expanding litter of rugrats.  It's to cover the career opportunity costs of being a military spouse.  Those costs are not only significant, but very relevant in today's retention climate.

The assumption that impact of military life on a married servicemember is more significant than that for a single one is stunted thinking, indeed.  There are plenty of things a single guy could be into that are severely impacted by military service.  The service shouldn't concern itself with any of them.  They're personal choices and should be dealt with personally by the member.

I was on single BAH for more than half my career, but it was about even between single/dependent BAH over the period of my CMR time, so I don't think bias has anything to do with it.  Quite the opposite in fact.  I'm able to look at a situation and come to a logical conclusion even if it's bad for me personally (doesn't impact me at all anymore, except as a taxpayer, but I would have said the same when I was collecting dependent BAH).

32 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Are you sure?

Got dat pair of panties.

2 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Since the families are a huge part of retention calculus, I don't think your crusade against service members with families is likely to go anywhere.

Of course not.  Once you hand out an entitlement, you can never take it back.  The uproar would be tremendous.  This forum certainly seems to know that...just selectively when it impacts others and not themselves.

[tac airlifter]

Mark1, of all the the jacked up problems with our service, an antiquated system paying married members an extra few dollars is the thing you crusade about?

BTW, as a married member I have, on four occasions, extended or departed early for deployments based on personal emergencies for other members— some married and some single.  Your assertion that single members create less mission impacting family drama is without data.  Have you forgotten they still have families?

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

Have you forgotten they still have families?

That's right!  Us single guys still have families, that's why we get that family separation pay like the married guys...

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by SocialD

[Duck]

I second the career impact for spouses. In fact the extra $100/mo doesn’t even come close. My wife has a Masters degree and is way more talented than I am. However moving every 3 years means she is pretty much starting over every PCS. I can’t even thing about how much money it has cost us to serve our country. I personally think single dudes should just be forced to live in the barracks, I mean since we are talking about what’s really best for the service right Mark1?

[Mark1]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Mark1, of all the the jacked up problems with our service, an antiquated system paying married members an extra few dollars is the thing you crusade about?

BTW, as a married member I have, on four occasions, extended or departed early for deployments based on personal emergencies for other members— some married and some single.  Your assertion that single members create less mission impacting family drama is without data.  Have you forgotten they still have families?

It's a crusade because I've only talked about BAH related issues in a thread focused on BAH rates?  I mean, if you want me to discuss more important issues here, I could, but I feel like they're suited for other threads with topics dedicated to them.

3 hours ago, Duck said:

I second the career impact for spouses. In fact the extra $100/mo doesn’t even come close. My wife has a Masters degree and is way more talented than I am. However moving every 3 years means she is pretty much starting over every PCS. I can’t even thing about how much money it has cost us to serve our country...

That's why they call it service and not a job.  The thought that married guys have a monopoly on the sacrifice is precisely the problem.

And for the record, on the outside I'm traveling 40% of the month for work and have relocated twice in 4 years for the same.  My employer doesn't give a shit about the impact that has on my wife's earning power, nor should they.  They employ me, not her.  They offer a compensation package commensurate with my value to them, and I decide if it's best for the family for me to take it.  A single guy with similar skills would get the same offer.

3 hours ago, Duck said:

...I personally think single dudes should just be forced to live in the barracks, I mean since we are talking about what’s really best for the service right Mark1?

We're talking about compensating servicemembers based on their value to the organization, not their personal circumstances.  I fail to see how instituting more dissimilar treatment based on personal circumstances is in line with what I'm saying.  I don't think forcing barracks on guys is a good idea personally, however, if that's what you want I don't have a massive objection...just as long as it applies across the board.  Single, married, otherwise.  You can meet your wife off base after hours at her place and figure out how to make your budget work with the kids on the same pay that your single buddies are getting.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Mark1

[nsplayr]

Mark1,

So what's the point of all this? To me it comes off as just some John Galt fever dream about "fairness" and rationalism but I've been wrong before.

Like, is the goal to save money by dropping everyone to the single rate, or is it to treat people the same with the happy byproduct of saving money, or do you want to treat people the same by just bumping everyone up to the with-dependent BAH? I guess I'm asking is this an ideological argument or a financial one or a mix?

Why does this in particular grind your gears? Coming from someone who's engaged in a ton of pointless online debates, I'm curious.

You've called out having to unfairly cover for married dudes on deployments even though your memory is sketchy on just how many you went on, which is pretty incendiary. Not sure what community you grew up in but where I come from it's one team, one fight man. I've covered for both married and single people when they had family duties to attend to and they've covered for me when I had the same, that's what being on a team is all about.

Edited December 18, 2017 by nsplayr

[17D_guy]

5 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I was on single BAH for more than half my career, but it was about even between single/dependent BAH over the period of my CMR time, so I don't think bias has anything to do with it.  Quite the opposite in fact.  I'm able to look at a situation and come to a logical conclusion even if it's bad for me personally (doesn't impact me at all anymore, except as a taxpayer, but I would have said the same when I was collecting dependent BAH).

That derisive tone about it being a retention issue prove otherwise.  Grow up and realize you have a bias in this issue, otherwise you wouldn't be so talkative on the subject.

But, playing along--how about divorced dudes who now get dependent rates for their kids (who mostly don't live with them)?

Technically they're single and "worth more" to the service...but get money of those "of less worth."

38 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

And for the record, on the outside I'm traveling 40% of the month for work and have relocated twice in 4 years for the same.  My employer doesn't give a shit about the impact that has on my wife's earning power, nor should they.  They employ me, not her.  They offer a compensation package commensurate with my value to them, and I decide if it's best for the family for me to take it.  A single guy with similar skills would get the same offer.

You have no idea what they'd offer unless you were involved in the hiring process, or someone spoke out of turn.  Person might negotiate for less not knowing what they could demand == more value for company.  Or, perhaps they have a particular skill/experience and could negotiate for more.

And you had no say in those moves?  The company thrust it upon you as a requirement you were indentured to fulfill?  Thank you for your sacrifice.

[sixpack]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

That derisive tone about it being a retention issue prove otherwise.  Grow up and realize you have a bias in this issue, otherwise you wouldn't be so talkative on the subject.

But, playing along--how about divorced dudes who now get dependent rates for their kids (who mostly don't live with them)?

Technically they're single and "worth more" to the service...but get money of those "of less worth."

You have no idea what they'd offer unless you were involved in the hiring process, or someone spoke out of turn.  Person might negotiate for less not knowing what they could demand == more value for company.  Or, perhaps they have a particular skill/experience and could negotiate for more.

And you had no say in those moves?  The company thrust it upon you as a requirement you were indentured to fulfill?  Thank you for your sacrifice.

ers this should be about who should get paid more if you have dependents or not.  This thread should be about the year to year ass raping DOD has doled on its members by screwing us out of pay for housing.  Housing that in many cases has gone up and we continually get paid less.

 

[Duck]

ers this should be about who should get paid more if you have dependents or not.  This thread should be about the year to year ass raping DOD has doled on its members by screwing us out of pay for housing.  Housing that in many cases has gone up and we continually get paid less.
 

Thank you. Exactly.

[Mark1]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

So what's the point of all this? To me it comes off as just some John Galt fever dream about "fairness" and rationalism but I've been wrong before.

You make it sound as if rationalism is a bad thing?

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Like, is the goal to save money by dropping everyone to the single rate, or is it to treat people the same with the happy byproduct of saving money, or do you want to treat people the same by just bumping everyone up to the with-dependent BAH? I guess I'm asking is this an ideological argument or a financial one or a mix?

Yes.

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You've called out having to unfairly cover for married dudes on deployments even though your memory is sketchy on just how many you went on, which is pretty incendiary. Not sure what community you grew up in but where I come from it's one team, one fight man. I've covered for both married and single people when they had family duties to attend to and they've covered for me when I had the same, that's what being on a team is all about.

Listen, it's simple.  I'm not trying to suggest that anybody is more valuable than anybody else.  I'm suggesting the exact opposite.  Everybody is performing the same duty.  One team, one fight, right?  They should be paid accordingly....the same.  There was only one level of bold available to me when I highlighted the word "IF" in my previous post.  If I could have highlighted it with rainbow colors, I would have.  As for the number of deployments I did:

1. It's complete immaterial and makes ZERO difference in the argument
2. I don't need people to see notches on my belt to validate myself, so apparently I pay less attention to something that appears to be important to others.  Although I could guess to within a few of the correct number, see #1

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

That derisive tone about it being a retention issue prove otherwise.  Grow up and realize you have a bias in this issue, otherwise you wouldn't be so talkative on the subject.

I don't recall mentioning anything about retention.  Others did, I did not.  The tone comes as a response to your "stunted thinking" comment.  If you're going to dish it....  

You've fallen victim to the cable news cycle.  It's an unfortunately effective tactic.  But suggesting that anybody who holds an opinion apart from yours has formed it based on seedy biases while, by default, your opinions stem from pure and wonderful objective reasoning is not reality.

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

You have no idea what they'd offer unless you were involved in the hiring process...

I am (obviously not for my own hiring).  And I, as any other employee with hiring/firing authority, knows that it would literally be illegal to offer a married person different salary than a commensurate single person based on that circumstance.  You know that too.  Married, single, you get the same offer.  In practice no two people are "commensurate" and barring a hiring manager making an incriminating statement nothing would ever come of a single guy being offered different compensation than a married guy.  Nevertheless, it would be illegal to do so and it doesn't happen because private corporation's don't give a shit.  The fact that an employee has three lesbian daughters in no way affects their value to the company, so they just get paid based on their value.  We've got a theme developing.

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

And you had no say in those moves?  The company thrust it upon you as a requirement you were indentured to fulfill?  Thank you for your sacrifice.

Were you aware that you would be compelled to move on occasion when you joined the military?  Did anybody conceal that fact or downplay the impact that it could have on your life?  Did you, knowing this, voluntarily sign up and voluntarily get married?  Did your wife understand that there would be unique challenges associated with marrying into the military (or support your decision to enter if you were married prior)?  Then deal with the consequences of your choices with quiet dignity, son.

The assumption that your hardship is greater than that of a single guy rather than just different may be based on a little bias.  I'm not sure.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Mark1

[nsplayr]

We really need standard emojis on BO.net...I'd be using the eyeroll one right about now...

Mark, good luck with your jihad against different BAH rates and thank you for your service.

//break break//

Whoever sold Congress the, "We need more money in readiness funds, let's take it from service member's BAH!" line can suck it. It's not our fault the Pentagon and political leadership has pissed away incalculable blood and treasure with several unending wars, a failure to invest in readiness previously, or that every new weapons system is insanely expensive because of our broken acquisitions process.

I agree with whoever said BAH is a retention issue and I don't care what color the money is (basic pay, bonuses, BAH, etc.). If the amount is lower or not rising at a competitive rate while my cost of living is inevitably higher, that's not a check in the "plus column" when it comes to retention.

Edited December 18, 2017 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

Your BAH isn't going to drop unless you have a significant life event (divorce, birth, PCA). You're grandfathered into your old BAH rate until as such a time as you do have a significant life event or your PCS, in which case your BAH would change regardless.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Vertigo

[Vertigo]

Your BAH isn't going to drop unless you have a significant life event (divorce, birth, PCA). You're grandfathered into your old BAH rate until as such a time as you do have a significant life event or your PCS, in which case your BAH would change regardless.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Vertigo
Spelling

[MDDieselPilot]

On 12/17/2017 at 4:00 AM, Mark1 said:

What?  That's why BAH rates are regional and COLA exists.  Whether they're effective at making up the regional differences is a different story but I fail to see how that applies at all to getting rid of dependent vs  non-dependent BAH.  If you don't think BAH at Hickam adequately addresses the cost of housing then great, but whatever the correct dollar amount for BAH is there, everybody (at respective ranks) should get the same amount.

Single guys don''t get extra allowance to offset the cost of whore-mongering...guys with 19 kids shouldn't expect extra to afford the mansion necessary to house their family.  Pay should be commensurate with value to the institution (adjusted for locale), and everything else should be a matter of adults making adult decisions on how to deal with the financial consequences of their choices in life.  

To address your question: I don't know your background but unless you're still in UPT I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware that single guys getting ed over by circumstances having to due with squadronmate's dependent related issues is, in fact, a thing.  On that alone the point I was trying to make is valid, regardless of my history.  However, when I was active I belonged to a unit that did not operate on AEF bands.  That meant ~3 deployments per year (if you weren't self-restricted from deploying over the holidays, or during the kid's summer break, or when your wife's PMS was flaring).  That adds up and they start running together so, yes, I literally do not know how many deployments I did in my tenure without consulting my records.  And yes, I've lost count of how many were covering for others although that's probably due primarily to fading memory as I've been out for some years.  It was a handful.

Let me make clear this is not bitching.  At least in my case I enjoyed the deployments.  It was always a kick in the nuts to have to extend a deployment when you were 1 week out from going home, or cancelling plans to take one on short notice, but I generally enjoyed leaving the squadron queep behind to go kill bad guys. 

Nevertheless, my argument remains: IF anybody should get paid extra, it's the unencumbered guys.  However, nobody should get extra.  Everybody should be paid the same amount for the same duty regardless of their personal circumstances.

Bruh, you sound kinda angry.  What's your choice of beer, I'm buying...

 

Our area just dropped by $250.  BS.

Edited December 18, 2017 by MDDieselPilot

[mb1685]

The "guys with 19 kids"/BAH-is-welfare angle of the argument seems a bit strange to me since there's only a with-dependents rate and a without-dependents rate, i.e. the dependent rate does not increase based on the actual number of dependents. The extra ~$350 a month will surely get stretched pretty thin once the clown car's on the road.

Edited December 18, 2017 by mb1685