2017 BAH Rates Out

[RadicalDude]

Better question is why you should get ANY extra for having dependents...

 

[DanMa1156]

Better question is why you should get ANY extra for having dependents...

Totally different - let's not bait a debate here. Start a new thread if you want, but we're just discussing what the mechanics of BAH's calculations are here. (I am not just squashing this because I disagree with you - in fact, I generally agree with the premise of no extra pay for dependents, or reduced pay for no dependents for that matter.)

 

[SynixMan]

Better question is why you should get ANY extra for having dependents...

Because that clashes with the DoD's single income, head of household, stay at home wife, 20 yr career mindset?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Trying to figure out how Pax River BAH went down $99 for w/dep, but up $72 for w/o. Hurts my home-selling chances.

I don't think it would affect your selling chances one bit. That likelihood is determined by a separate set of factors. Now... renting your house for enough to cover your mortgage - depending on when you bought it and what rate you got, that might be a different story.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Better question is why you should get ANY extra for having dependents...

Let's suppose you're single? Don't know if you are, but let's say your are. Let's also say you split a 4 bedroom 3 bath 3,000 sq foot house with two other single dudes. Why do all three of you get BAH? Be careful when you open that can of worms/line of questions.

 

[RadicalDude]

Let's suppose you're single? Don't know if you are, but let's say your are. Let's also say you split a 4 bedroom 3 bath 3,000 sq foot house with two other single dudes. Why do all three of you get BAH? Be careful when you open that can of worms/line of questions.

Because we're all service members, it's an entitlement, and congress/DOD decided it's more cost effective to pay the full rate than pay people to sort through leases/addresses.

Let's say you make the decision to have children and/or get married. Why should you get paid more than me for making a voluntary decision which in no way advances the needs of the service? How come you get family separation pay from your brood, but I get $0 when I'm separated from Fido & Mittens?

I'm more than happy to open that can of worms.

 

[RadicalDude]

Totally different - let's not bait a debate here. Start a new thread if you want, but we're just discussing what the mechanics of BAH's calculations are here. (I am not just squashing this because I disagree with you - in fact, I generally agree with the premise of no extra pay for dependents, or reduced pay for no dependents for that matter.)

Too late

 

[Brett327]

Because we're all service members, it's an entitlement, and congress/DOD decided it's more cost effective to pay the full rate than pay people to sort through leases/addresses.

Let's say you make the decision to have children and/or get married. Why should you get paid more than me for making a voluntary decision which in no way advances the needs of the service? How come you get family separation pay from your brood, but I get $0 when I'm separated from Fido & Mittens?

I'm more than happy to open that can of worms.

Whether it's fair or not, the DoD places value on servicemembers who exist within a traditional family. Whether that is backed up by statistical data (showing increased overall stability for married folks), or just based on cultural norms, (probably a mix of the two) that is the official answer to your rhetorical question.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Because we're all service members, it's an entitlement, and congress/DOD decided it's more cost effective to pay the full rate than pay people to sort through leases/addresses.

Let's say you make the decision to have children and/or get married. Why should you get paid more than me for making a voluntary decision which in no way advances the needs of the service? How come you get family separation pay from your brood, but I get $0 when I'm separated from Fido & Mittens?

I'm more than happy to open that can of worms.

Why should you in-practice get paid more, in my hypothetical, for living with a couple of roommates than a single guy who elects to live by himself. At the end of the day, aren't you putting more into your pocket, because choice? Seems to me, by your logic, that if you're cutting costs by sharing a lease with some others, then the government doesn't need to give you the full BAH entitlement.

 

[RadicalDude]

Why should you in-practice get paid more, in my hypothetical, for living with a couple of roommates than a single guy who elects to live by himself. At the end of the day, aren't you putting more into your pocket, because choice? Seems to me, by your logic, that if you're cutting costs by sharing a lease with some others, then the government doesn't need to give you the full BAH entitlement.

Because it's an entitlement... not based on actual expenses, but those calculated in a reference manual/database.

Same way you get paid for the expected government mileage on a trip, not the actual miles traveled. If I were to take a trip TDY in my POV with a friend, we'd both receive milage. BAH works the same way.

And your logic is backwards. You make the choice to live by yourself, and potentially pocket less. Or you could choose to live with friends and pocket more. You could choose to live on base and receive no BAH. You could live at home or in a family home you inherit and pay no rent. Hell, two MARRIED couples could live together in a house. Or two mil-mil couples could live in the same house and get FOUR BAHs. The entitlement is the entitlement.

My argument is that the entitlement should be equal. One BAH for one servicemember across that rank in that zip code. You don't get paid more than me because you chose to play house.

Maybe I have a terrible personality and no one would marry me. is that fair?

 

[Griz882]

Because we're all service members, it's an entitlement, and congress/DOD decided it's more cost effective to pay the full rate than pay people to sort through leases/addresses.

Let's say you make the decision to have children and/or get married. Why should you get paid more than me for making a voluntary decision which in no way advances the needs of the service? How come you get family separation pay from your brood, but I get $0 when I'm separated from Fido & Mittens?

I'm more than happy to open that can of worms.

Easy, you get free chow, lights and heat on the boat. Your old lady and bed-wetters don't.

Better yet, we could go way back to the good old days when everyone O-3 and below had to either live in the BOQ or in base housing.

 

[squorch2]

if your argument is "it's fair because that's what I've come to expect" or "it's fair because those are the rules," your argument isn't very strong.

 

[SynixMan]

Easy, you get free chow, lights and heat on the boat. Your old lady and bed-wetters don't.

Better yet, we could go way back to the good old days when everyone O-3 and below had to either live in the BOQ or in base housing.

Two points:
1. You do not get free chow on the boat. $10/day for Officers. You get to "keep" BAS as an officer, so sort of a wash, but BAS < 30x$10, so it's a net negative.
2. There is in no way enough base housing to accommodate everyone O-3 and below at the current installations, specifically after BRAC consolidated so much in fleet concentration areas.

Agree with @Recovering LSO , be careful what you wish for. Congress scrapped the changes to BAH this year, but that doesn't mean changes aren't coming. To whit, here's the new single-salary system that's being considered:

604.

Reports on a new single-salary pay system for members of the Armed Forces

(a)
Report on plan To implement new pay structure

Not later than March 1, 2017, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representative a report that sets forth the following:

(1)
The military pay tables as of January 1, 2017, reflecting the Regular Military Compensation of members of the Armed Forces as of that date in the range of grades, dependency statuses, and assignment locations.

(2)
A comprehensive description of the manner in which the Department of Defense would begin, by not later than January 1, 2018, to implement a transition between the current pay structure for members of the Armed Forces and a new pay structure for members of the Armed Forces as provided for by this section.

(b)
Report on elements of new pay structure

Not later than January 1, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representative a report that sets forth the following:

(1)
A description and comparison of the current pay structure for members of the Armed Forces and a new pay structure for members of the Armed Forces, including new pay tables, that uses a single-salary pay system (as adjusted by the same cost-of-living adjustment that the Department of Defense uses worldwide for civilian employees) based on the assumptions in subsection (c).

(2)
A proposal for such legislative and administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate to implement the new pay structure, and to provide for a transition between the current pay structure and the new pay structure.

(3)
A comprehensive schedule for the implementation of the new pay structure and for the transition between the current pay structure and the new pay structure, including all significant deadlines.

(c)
New pay structure

The new pay structure described pursuant to subsection (b)(1) shall assume the repeal of the basic allowance for housing and basic allowance subsistence for members of the Armed Forces in favor of a single-salary pay system, and shall include the following:

(1)
A statement of pay comparability with the civilian sector adequate to effectively recruit and retain a high-quality All-Volunteer Force.

(2)
The level of pay necessary by grade and years of service to meet pay comparability as described in paragraph (1) in order to recruit and retain a high-quality All-Volunteer Force.

(3)
Necessary modifications to the military retirement system, including the retired pay multiplier, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces under the pay structure are situated similarly to where they would otherwise be under the military retirement system that will take effect on January 1, 2018, by reason part I of subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 842), and the amendments made by that part.

(d)
Cost containment

The single-salary pay system under the new pay structure provided for by this section shall be a single-salary pay system that will result in no or minimal additional costs to the Government, both in terms of annual discretionary outlays and entitlements, when compared with the continuation of the current pay system for members of the Armed Forces.

 

[Griz882]

Two points:
1. You do not get free chow on the boat. $10/day for Officers. You get to "keep" BAS as an officer, so sort of a wash, but BAS < 30x$10, so it's a net negative.
2. There is in no way enough base housing to accommodate everyone O-3 and below at the current installations, specifically after BRAC consolidated so much in fleet concentration areas.

Agree with @Recovering LSO , be careful what you wish for. Congress scrapped the changes to BAH this year, but that doesn't mean changes aren't coming. To whit, here's the new single-salary system that's being considered:

I am too old to worry about BAH anymore. Just having some fun.

 

[nugget81]

So, for a single salary system would I be getting taxed on what used to be BAH & BAS (because they are lumped into pay and are therefore taxable income) while possibly receiving a higher retirement payout because my pay is now higher as well? Not sure I like the math on that one...the govt never does things like this that hurt its bottom line, which means it probably will hurt mine.