Because they are free to choose non-government-leased housing, and if they do so, they have more money to use.
Look, suppose my workplace had a gym that everybody could use. Or you could elect to get a stipend for outside gym membership. And if you have blue eyes, your stipend is 30% greater. Nobody would say, “Well, big whoop if they do, most people use the office gym anyway.”
Yes, some people can get additional money by getting a single dependent. My personal experience is that this doesn’t amount to very many people, and that hardly anyone who’s actually in the military even cares. Is it unfair? Yes, it’s totally, ragingly unfair. You win!
What this policy doesn’t do is encourage any married couples to have children. They get zero additional dollars for doing so.
The OP doesn’t care about fairness, so you’re fighting a different battle than he is. If you’re still concerned about how this gross unfairness is costing the government gobs of money, you’ve failed to provide any evidence that this is true. Again, my personal experience is that the number of people actually pocketing their dependent BAH difference is actually pretty small, and you’ve provided no rebuttal to that.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is military personnel can expect to be relocated and cannot generally refuse. As a result, a dependent spouse will have his/her career and other job prospects interrupted if they want to keep the family together. Private sector jobs with this expectation are much rarer and usually well compensated.
It seems appropriate to provide support since you may not assume the spouse can support themselves to the same degree after moving around a lot. While this results in married folks having an extra benefit, it is also because the non-military spouse takes on an undue burden that deserves compensation.
No shit! And some states do NOT pay unemployment to spouses who move to accompany a servicemember. And to those jokers who say, “But the military moves you for FREE,” I say, “Kiss my ass.” The military pays PART of what it costs. You still go into the hole on every move.
Amen.
**
Kimmy** also seems to be ignoring the fact I stated upthread: the US government picked up a LOT of extra “motivations” to entice people to enlist after 9-11. After years of reducing the armed forces and closing bases, they needed BODIES to fill the ranks. Without a draft, there weren’t enough.
To all the folks who wish to remove these recruitment incentives to save money, you’ll have to bring back the draft. Period. War consumes bodies.
~VOW
You should see the cheap, vermin-infested, poorly-maintained housing that can be rented for ONLY the “BAH.”
Then YOU would say, “BAH.”
THAT is why servicemembers are so ANXIOUS to get on the list for Housing!
I stayed in the US, living with my parents, for a YEAR, until we could get to the top of the list for Housing in Germany during my husband’s last tour there. Our first apartment “on the economy” in Wildflecken had a separate hot water heater for each faucet, and a little oil stove in each room for heat. I wasn’t about to live in a situation like that with a baby! Called me a “Spoiled American,” if you wish. I was willing to WAIT to get into quarters, with running hot water and radiator heat!
~VOW
Actually they started declining shipping dependents over to Japan about 15 years ago - too many families were getting into financial trouble because they were trying to live in an american style and sized apartment - which are seriously large and luxurious and expensive so the rent was putting people into debt. They decided it was better to pay separation pay [which is fairly nominal, generally the families were staying in the previous base housing unit and the service member was living in barracks. This screwed up the housing level for anybody trying to get into housing because the unit that they theoretically would have gone into because the outgoing member should have moved ended up not getting vacated.] I know when we moved from Norfolk to Groton in 1990, we were told that there was a 2 year wait for housing. BEQ/VHA is dependent upon where you get stationed. CT has one of the highest VHA [variable housing allowance] because it has one of the top 5 cost of livings in the US. We rented a place while house hunting and BEQ/VHA was some $200 short of paying for the rent, but we got seriously lucky and found a place that cost us under $100K to buy so it covered the mortgage. It would have been a lot easier if we had been able to stay in Norfolk, I had a job paying $19/hour. In CT, until I got licensed in 01 for insurance, I made minimum wage.
It’s not just Chefguy. You definitely have an axe to grind.
The whole argument is meaningless anyway. Whatever their motivations for joining up, these are the people we expect to die for us if necessary. Therefore any moral society will provide every possible benefit for their families. Anybody who thinks differently lacks good moral grounding and common sense. As you do not bind the mouths of kine, you do not give short measure to those whom you put in harm’s way.
This is a general note to everyone: stop name-calling and insulting statements (such as “you’re full of shit.”) All of you know this kind of thing isn’t allowed in this forum.
I think some of you are being too harsh on the OP. Its just an idea, even if he maybe didn’t think it all the way through. As a former Army enlisted guy from a family full of retired Army officers and enlisted cousins still deployed I can unequivocally say that I echo the sentiments of those that say we should be doing everything we can to help make our soldiers and their families lives as livable as possible given the stresses that military life places on said families and soldiers.
Having said all that, I do think that the military brass prefers soldiers to be single and unattached to dependents, particularly at the elite grouping level (SEALS, etc). Single soldiers are easier and cheaper to house/move around, have less stress not having to worry about Jody banging their wife, worrying about how the kids are while in the field or in a combat zone,etc.
Maybe the OP has it backwards: instead of removing benefits to soldiers with less than six years of service that have spouses/children, what about incentivizing staying single for the first six years? Pay them a stipend that falls somewhere below the allowances that married soldiers get on the promise that they remain single for x amount of years and remove it if their situation changes. Eh, probably a dumb idea.
I don’t know, I’m just playing along.
All I can say is that I see other ways to save money on the military that do not have to directly interfere with the quality of life of service members or their families. If we are going to have an all-volunteer force, then I think we need incentives to recruit and retain the best people we can afford. If we want to go to a draft again, then its a different ball game, but even then, there will still be a need for “lifers” who will need essentially the same benefits they get now.
I will add that AFAIC, we could double the amount we spend on veteran’s benefits and it would still not be enough to compensate veterans for what they’ve been through, particularly since 9/11.
And many would argue that’s a good thing (the draft, not the bodies). When the cost of war is directly removed from the average American, then it becomes much easier to engage in unnecessary conflicts. The Abrams Doctrine pushed this idea pretty heavily and I frequently hear it brought up by political-types.
I don’t know about slashing benefits, but I’d sure as hell support limiting dependents access to the commissary/PX. I’ve got less than twelve hours until I need to be back at work and we all know you don’t work*, so why don’t you do your grocery shopping with your six screaming kids when I’m at work?
*Based on A) probability as I’m stationed OCONUS and most spouses don’t work and B) the inverse relationship between “usefulness as a human being” and “willingness to wear a shirt claiming you have the hardest job in an organization you are not a member of.”
We’ve got a proportionally larger number of military personnel surviving wounds that would have killed them in previous wars. These injuries usually involve permanent damage & lifelong treatment–more money the poor taxpayer must shell out!
Your modest proposal about paid protection would reduce the number of those expensive survivors. Of course, many of the dead will have dependents–eligible for payment per the current practice. Obviously, those rules need tweaking, too…
So, basically you’d have to live like anyone else supporting a family on the sort of job you could get with just a high school diploma.
I sat down and googled up some pay/benefit charts one night about the time we went into Iraq when people were beating their breasts and tearing their hair about how pitifully underpaid our armed forces are. I figured up what you could reasonably expect to make after 4 years in (I can’t remember if I figured you’d be an E-3 or E-4, but it was whatever my brother left the Guard as after a similar amount of time, so you wouldn’t exactly have to be setting the world on fire.) By the time you added up base pay and various allowances, it was around $35K for someone not deployed with a wife and kid. Compared to someone who spent the 4 years after high school either working shit jobs because it’s what they’re qualified for or someone who just graduated with $30K in school loans, yeah, that’s rolling in the dough.
That’s where people wind up talking past each other, I think; we’re using two totally different baselines for comparison. Civilians compare a young enlisted person to what kind of shape they could be expected to be in if they faced life with nothing more than what they had when they enlisted–in many cases nothing but a high school diploma, or else hamstrung by student debt. Military tend to compare to what kind of shape they’d be in if they were in the civilian world armed with the education and training they got while enlisted and unhampered by student loans. I don’t know that either side is really right or wrong, all I know is that it’s really goddamn hard to have any sort of productive discussion when you’re talking about two such totally different things.
Here’s a good example.
This isn’t the first time you’ve suggested that the poor, lazy, and stupid get the same benefits as those in the military. Previously you’ve accused me of hypocrisy because I used my GI Bill but didn’t support raising Pell grants. Or maybe it was for not opposing cuts to Pell grants…whatever.
Point is, you have no capacity to separate “those that work for it” from “those that don’t.” Yes, you’re right- those people aren’t like me. They haven’t sacrificed nearly as much as I have. Your inability to understand the sacrifices that our servicemembers make in exchange for these benefits is precisely why I say you hate the military.
What you’re forgetting is that “wifey” has to pick up and relocate every few years, including starting a new job more times than not.
Considering that many employers that are willing to hire someone who they know aren’t able to stick around after their spouse is transferred, also don’t offer much in the way of benefits, the civilian spouse’s benefits are likely to be subpar. For a civilian spouse who is degreed and professional, sacrifice of their own career often comes with the territory. Given that many professions require licensing by the state of practice, sometimes they’ve only recently obtained that license when required to pick up and move to another state. That means that they are underemployed, likely with fewer bennies, than they would be with a civilian spouse. Long term, their own retirement benefits also suffer.
Motivationally, military personnel who have additional reason to make it home alive and well can be a financial asset, in that the armed forces don’t spend as much in rehab and training new recruits to the same level.
“You’re a little bitch” = no warning. Gotcha. I missed that rule change, but it’s good to know.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t think people on WIC and TANF are any more likely to be lazy or stupid than other people who find themselves in tough circumstances.
I think the rest of your argument speaks for itself: anyone who isn’t besides themselves in awe of your eighteen months of military service hates the military according to you.
This is no surprise, as nearly every thread you start pertains to your upset that the world is distinctly less impressed by you than you believe they should be.
There has been no rule change; my admonishment was meant to include this statement and others like it.