Help me debunk this chart, please (Pres./Cong. "Lifetime Salaries")

I started out as an E-3 because I had college credit. If I hadn’t, it takes about 18 months. I think by the time you get through training, get to your first duty station, and get orders to deploy, odds are you’re an E-3. I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider E-4 to be an average, but I don’t have a cite. It also goes up to E-9 and there’s 10 officer ranks, so E-4 seems pretty reasonable.

Eta: this is for soldiers in Afghanistan, so it excludes training environments that would be chock full of E-1s. The location drives up the average.

There can’t be that many E-1s because you can only be one for a year (two years?). After that, you get promoted to Private E-2 or kicked out.

It turns out E-4s and E-5s are by far the most numerous pay grades in the Army. See here (.pdf, can’t see the page number because the Chrome pdf reader is stupid). Of ~400,000 enlisted men, nearly 200,000 are E-4/5.

Huh, OK then. I was mistakenly assuming it’d be a pyramidal structure. Guess I learned something new, then.

It’s page 33 of the pdf or page 9 according to the document’s internal pagination.

My son in law is an E-4 in the Army. I just helped him file his taxes, so I’ve seen his W-2. He is, however, posted in the US, so he does not currently get IDP. He does get a bit of FSP sometimes, when his duty takes him away from family, but not overseas. I have no idea what his housing allowance is. He is married and has one child. Medical comes through TriCare and costs $5/mo. for family (service-member is 100% paid). Their child was born in 2012 and there was no (as in ZERO) out-of-pocket expense associated with the birth (normal, occurred in an on-post facility).

Anyway, his W/H was $1500ish. They owed Fed income tax of $600ish. Their net refund is $4100 because they qualify for EIC and a few other credits.

After all of that, he actually said he wanted his $600 back – he pays too much in taxes. I would have slapped him if he weren’t 900 miles away on the phone! My daughter is the brains in their outfit.

I understood everything but this line. What’s W/H?

Withholding.

Yes, his withholding tax.

Thanks!

E-4 to E-5 is probably average in a war zone, but what are the stats on marriage?
My experience from the Navy was that approximately 50% of E-4/E-5 are married. For those unmarried, you would not get BAH, BAS or FSP. However, for the months in the war zone, it is all tax free.
Also, even when I was married, I would not receive BAS while deployed. Basic Allowance for Subsistance is paid to servicemembers who do not eat in the galley/mess hall/whatever the Air Force calls it. When deployed, you have to eat there, so you don’t get BAS.

Wait. What’s the injustice? That food stamps are so easy to get, or that soldiers’ incomes are so low they qualify?

Doesn’t make a whole lot of difference, I suppose, since I think it’s be mostly the same people would be complaining about both, but still…I want to understand the dumb.

True, if you’re single and deployed you don’t get BAS or BAH, or FSP, which means our hypothetical 22-year-old Corporal from Ft. Hood is only making a little over $30k on paper. However, he’s not paying rent, and he’s not paying for meals. This is where you run into problems – if you’re sleeping in half a shipping container in Afghanistan, what value do you put on that? What value do you put on the 3 meals a day you’re getting in the chow hall?

The easiest way to answer that question is to figure out what the member’s equivalent BAH and BAS would be if they were collecting them as cash instead of getting free rent and meals. If we include the BAS and non-dependent BAH values into our corporal’s income, it shoots up to $41,679.48. IMO, if you’re comparing the corporal’s standard of living to a regular civilian, this is a much better number to use, because it more accurately reflects his disposable income. And since nearly his whole income is tax free, a civilian would have to be making closer to $50k to have the same standard of living. Of course, the civilian isn’t living in half a shipping container, so there’s room for debate.

$41k isn’t too far off from the $38k quoted, but I think this is going to be on the low end. I’m sure I could find a zip code with a lower BAH value, and we could make this guy an E-3, and we’d probably be under $38k. But as an average, I don’t buy it. Only if you exclude all allotments, and you exclude officers, and maybe if the numbers are 7 or 8 years old (which they very well may be), could you get close to a $38k average, but that’s not a reasonable way to look at military compensation.

This might be a little late, but I saw this pop up on my facebook feed today and it irked me into responding. Here’s my full response:

I don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade or anything, but these pictures that people put up without any sourcing drive me nuts, so here are the actual numbers:

President - Beginning in 1959, all living former presidents were granted a pension, an office, and a staff. The pension has increased numerous times with Congressional approval. Retired presidents now receive a pension based on the salary of the current administration’s cabinet secretaries, which was $199,700 each year in 2012.

Congress - The amount of retirement income Members of Congress receive from taxpayers is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. For example, a member elected before 1984 and thus qualifying under the CSRS plan, who worked for 22 years and who had a top three-year average salary of $154,267 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,847 per year.[3] A member elected after 1984 would have been enrolled under the FERS plan, and their pension payment under similar conditions ($154,267 top three-year average salary, but with only 20 years of service, rather than the 22 in the CSRS example) would be $52,451. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000.

Speaker of the House & Majority/Minority Leaders - The numbers listed are their salaries while in office, not their lifetime pensions. These particular leaders tend to receive larger pensions because their best 3 years of salary are higher, thus their pensions are higher than other legistlators. John Boehner’s pension will be somewhere around $85,000 per year based on the formula that applies to him.

Comparing active duty military servicemen to the pensions numbers of legislators makes eye grabbing material, but it’s not really a helpful comparison, but let’s talk about it a bit.

If a serviceman or woman serves for 40+ years, they’re generally eligible to retire at 100% of their active duty salary. They’re eligible to retire with a prorated share of that number after 20 years of service. Given how many active duty and retired service members there are, these numbers become astronomical pretty quickly. By way of example: According to DOD’s Office of the Actuary, in FY 2012 there were 2.3 million military retirees and survivor-benefit recipients. They received approximately $52 billion in payments. Retirement outlays are expected to rise to about $55 billion by 2017 and to $59 billion by 2022 (all in 2012 dollars). That’s a lot of tax dollars. I’m not saying that we should decrease military pensions or anything along those lines, just pointing out that that money has to come from somewhere.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of Oct. 1, 2013, there were 367 former members of Congress who had retired under the Civil Service Retirement System, the old system that was criticized for being too generous. Those members were receiving an average annual pension of $71,664. The pensions of the 250 former members who retired under the Federal Employees Retirement System, which began in 1987, average even less. Their average pension was $42,048 in 2013, CRS said. So, doing the math, ((367 x $71,664) + (250 x $42,048)) = $36,812,688 total for all congressional pensions in a year.

That means, the congressional pensions are approximately equivalent to 0.06% of the military pension budget. Six tenths of one percent.

Social Security isn’t a pension and was never intended to be. It’s a supplementary source of income that people like me, who are 30 are going to pay into for our entire working careers and never get any money out of unless we raise the amount has to be paid into it. If I recall correctly, social security will be unable to pay full benefits somewhere around 2037.

These pictures that are posted by politically motivated people often provide totally inaccurate information that is completely and utterly misleading and self serving. Just because something is typed in bold doesn’t mean it’s right.

Welcome to the SDMB, bonsai. When quoting outside sources (I don’t know if there are others in your post), it is considered traditional to link to them. I am not sure if there are any other direct quotes in your post. Otherwise, a great first post!

I sourced from various websites, but as I was responding to a facebook post, I didn’t bother saving the links. Most were wikipedia and easily googleable articles about congressional pensions/military pension budgets, etc.

I supplemented occasionally. It’s more just a collection of the actual information and numbers to respond to that ridiculous post.

Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress
Katelin P. Isaacs
Analyst in Income Security
July 31, 2015

My husband is in the Air Force, 17 years now. I think these numbers are misleading because so much of his pay isn’t taxed. You have a food allowance, a housing allowance, clothing allowances. Sometimes cost of living allowances. Our take home pay (after taxes) in a low cost of living area is about double his base pay. I’ve always been pretty impressed with the military pay, especially considering the totally free medical care.

Exactly. If you’re talented (or, if you prefer, rich, well-connected, sociopathic, etc.) enough to become a representative, senator, or the president, then you’re not in it for a $200k/year job; you could earn more than an order of magnitude more in the private sector. In fact, if you’re running for such a position, you’re probably a businessman or laywer in late middle-age, and $200k/year is a substantial step down. Not to mention the conspicuous lack of stock options, etc. in a government position.

Now, if you are just in it for the money, then your best (legal) option is to quit and use your connections to become a highly-placed lobbyist, partner in a law firm, and so on. The idea that congressmen make their money through bloated salaries is naive, and the idea that $200k salaries have the slighest effect on a $439 billion annual federal deficit or a $16.3 trillion total debt is patently ridiculous.

Yes, and to add some detail, “retirement” means when they retire from working, not just when they leave Congress. Some may leave, voluntarily or not, long before retirement age. They do not get retirement benefits starting when they leave, but when they retire at age 67 or whatever.