Pay bulls***

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Hmm... pursue corporate inversions, offshore tax cheats and Clintons' shell companies or go after PVT Snuffy's "windfall earnings." Tough choices.

If I hear "thank you for your service" from some other yahoo one more time, I may just pop. So fake and hollow
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
What really upsets me is that it was specifically added in the Senate by the Armed Forces Committee and it was so easy. Thanks McCain.

Next step is stripping away all the medical bonuses. Talk apart being valued.

Maybe they can build another fuc**** plane that won't fly.
 
What is this supposed to achieve? Convincing military members not to marry each other? Not to live together? What are the actual savings here?
 
It's not a good idea at all. They are going after both mil-mil marriages and roomates.
If you're mil-mil then you will lose one BAH. If you are merely roomates you will get 75% of your BAH. So getting divorced if you are a mil-mil couple looks like the better deal, only a 25% cut that way... :)

Write your senators. It's easy enough to do on the Senate websites.
 
Tired said:
What are you going to argue? It's a housing allowance, not an incentive pay.
Click to expand...

How about pay people the same?
How about discrimination against females or males based on the percentage of who are more high ranked?
How about why are roommates getting 75% each and married couple only 50%?
How about the impact to morale?
How about the impact to retention?
How about not removing allowances that have been standard for many years?
How about the fact that some may be forced into bankruptcy or foreclosure as they did financial planning based on what was a known entity?
How about the national security impact of potentially putting military members in financial trouble?
How about the fact that people who spend less than their BAH don't forfeit the difference?

Want more or is that a good start?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
why not just actually pay us our money instead of having so many categories of weird special pay
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Tired said:
You bankruptcy and foreclosure comments are alarmist, unlikely to be a frequent occurrence, and mitigated by the SCRA.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the SCRA only apply to debts accrued prior to entering service?

And you think there are many family budgets that can absorb a 20% (or potentially more) pay cut starting 4 mos from now with minimal to no possibility of recouping that difference through other means and with no chance of ever making up that difference? A paycut like that over a long period of time will certainly put people at risk of defaulting on debts.

And you mention a way to track BAH....well this adds a complexity too. Only applies to those in the same geographic area (which is a ridiculous range in the military definition...kings bay GA and Jacksonville FL, Whidbey island and Bremerton WA are two examples). Only gives it to the higher ranking member, what if they're the same rank and then the other one gets promoted...now have to shift to the other spouse and oh yeah, probably have to shift the dependents too to make it correct: oops now their Tricare bennies are all jacked because they're enrolled under the wrong spouse.

It's a ridiculous way to try to reduce the budget. If they want to grandfather people in then fine, but to change it in the middle of someone's career is suspect.

And oh yeah, you have to now track where everyone lives because if you have a mil roommate your BAH is reduced too....good luck with that administrative issue when we no longer have PSD support.

(edited for grammar)
 
Last edited:
The only reason why BAH exists is because like psycbender referenced it would be too costly to factor it into regular AD pay because it then would be factored into retirement calculations. Labeling it as an allowance, entitlement, or reflecting on its intended purpose is nonsense.

Defense contracts are intended to lead to actual results, not a bunch of cost overruns and crap that doesn't work yet the money keeps flowing for all that BS.

Retention is an issue. When numerous individuals choose to walk away at 15, 16, 17, 18 years to avoid another day in the service at the expense of at least a million dollars in benefits with healthcare factored in and expected life expectancy of 30 years left there is a problem.

Save money by not PCSing people for the sake of PCSing them or how bout not deploying peolpe while simultaneously posting a civillian contractor position at twice the AD physician.

Allow those who want out of their contract to pay it off. Immediately right there you could probably have 1000 docs gladly send 100k back to the DOD, they would net 100 million immediately and also avoid the cost of 1000 docs.

End of the day, being in the military there is a financial package that is presented to those that sign up. The bonuses are yearly items that requires contracts to be signed and I can see how those can disappear at the wave of a pen. The other aspects like actual AD pay, BAS, BAH, are all aspects that are pretty standarized and shouldn't be screwed with.
 
Tired said:
Wait until they wrap up the changes to medical special pays. Gonna be some serious grins from primary care, and serious whining from the subspecialists.
Click to expand...

The gap in pay between primary care and sub specialists is already artificially narrow in the military compared to the market in the civilian world. You really think it is going to shrink even further and that primary care is going to be happy about it? Who are all the FPs, IMs and Peds docs going to send there referrals to if there no sub specialists? You think civilian subspecialists are lining up to accept Tricare patients? I don't think so.

Tricare pays s$&t with more and more physicians refusing to accept it. I realize it is anecdotal, but no ENTs, Dermatologists, urologists, orthopedic surgeons, gastroenterologists, etc accept Tricare in my town and it is one of the largest cities in NC. If the recent retirement commission didn't realize this in their findings, then f$&k 'em. I'll watch the s$&tstorm develop from the sidelines with a grin on my face.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tired said:
Wait until they wrap up the changes to medical special pays. Gonna be some serious grins from primary care, and serious whining from the subspecialists.
Click to expand...
I'm morbidly curious to see how that works out. I'll shortly be under a MSP contract taking me to retirement, so the odds of my pay significantly changing seem low.

I'll believe the grins when I see them.

I've been waiting for the hammer to fall on ISP etc since people started giving lip service concern to the debt/deficit after the 2008 financial crisis. I'll believe targeted cuts to medical pay when I see them. Wouldn't surprise me, but I won't hold my breath.


Retirement reform is definitely needed, but they won't retroactively change the deal for people already in the military, because the public won't stand for such screwage being applied to the enlisted infantry veteran who'd be paraded around on television.

They will make a hard press to get people to opt in to some scam of a reduced retirement in return for an early lump payment, but that'll only hook the same kind of suckers who already jump on the Redux CSB.

For new joins, some kind of TSP matching or funding will probably be very popular.


As for the BAH rule changes ... pretty awful. But BAH has been a terrible, un-American, pinko commie plot from the start. Where was all the outrage that two service members with equal rank doing the same job in the same place get paid different amounts of money because one was single and one was married?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
^that's been a complaint of mine for awhile as a tax payer. Who cares what your family life is like, you are paid for your time/expertise....not whether you convince someone to marry you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
sb247 said:
^that's been a complaint of mine for awhile as a tax payer. Who cares what your family life is like, you are paid for your time/expertise....not whether you convince someone to marry you
Click to expand...
Strange/unfair treatment of marriage is a societal problem. If I do my taxes, I get back 3.5k. Once I add in my wife's sad resident earnings, I end up paying 7.5k to the feds
 
meh. The with dependents pay stuff is reasonable to me. I don't have a study to cite, but I think most employers, the DoD included, recognize that employees with families tend to be happier and more reliable. That's good for business. Considering the job is pretty tough on families, it makes sense to throw married service members a bone. I realize that many jobs are difficult on families, but what is unique to the military is that the market forces cannot be applied as they normally would to account for this added burden.
 
colbgw02 said:
meh. The with dependents pay stuff is reasonable to me. I don't have a study to cite, but I think most employers, the DoD included, recognize that employees with families tend to be happier and more reliable. That's good for business. Considering the job is pretty tough on families, it makes sense to throw married service members a bone. I realize that many jobs are difficult on families, but what is unique to the military is that the market forces cannot be applied as they normally would to account for this added burden.
Click to expand...

Throw a bone? Heh. How about being forced to maintain 2 separate households because of uncle sam, and then getting reamed on taxes. I've been choking on the DoD bone for 3 years
 
Last edited:
colbgw02 said:
meh. The with dependents pay stuff is reasonable to me. I don't have a study to cite, but I think most employers, the DoD included, recognize that employees with families tend to be happier and more reliable. That's good for business. Considering the job is pretty tough on families, it makes sense to throw married service members a bone. I realize that many jobs are difficult on families, but what is unique to the military is that the market forces cannot be applied as they normally would to account for this added burden.
Click to expand...

Ever work in a FORSCOM unit? This has been the opposite in my case. Can't come in until 0800, have to drop my kids off. Oh my kid is having an issue, need to leave work now. Meanwhile, everyone else is showing up on time and staying til COB every day. And don't get me started on their morale and work ethic while deployed. This is just what I've been through, but it sickens me that they actually get paid more while working less. As Tired referenced, you should be paid for the work you do, not your lifestyle.
 
idq1i said:
Throw a bone? Heh. How about being forced to maintain 2 separate households because of uncle sam, and then getting reamed on taxes. I've been choking on the DoD bone for 3 years
Click to expand...

Although this post is written as if you're confusing what the "bone" is in this scenario, this is exactly my point. Military service has profound impacts on family life. So, if we believe it to be true that servicemembers with families are, in aggregate, better for business, then there is some sense in giving a family a higher BAH.
 
chronick said:
Ever work in a FORSCOM unit? This has been the opposite in my case. Can't come in until 0800, have to drop my kids off. Oh my kid is having an issue, need to leave work now. Meanwhile, everyone else is showing up on time and staying til COB every day. And don't get me started on their morale and work ethic while deployed. This is just what I've been through, but it sickens me that they actually get paid more while working less. As Tired referenced, you should be paid for the work you do, not your lifestyle.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have a problem with your local leadership, not with the pay structure. By your logic, I should get paid orders of magnitude more than the fat-ass colonels in my department that generate fewer RVUs than I do all while holding fewer administrative roles. Those things upset me too, but I don't blame the pay tables for it. I blame the individuals who are lazy and the leadership that lets them get away with it.
 
Tired said:
I heard some guy talk from BUMED who administers the special pays. According to him, the consolidation is basically "expenditure neutral". So when they consolidate them, the total cost is allegedly going to stay the same. But since different specialties get different amounts for board certification pay, that means individuals are going to see adjustments. Even worse, apparently the dentists and psychologists are getting rolled into this too, and their board cert pay is low. It stands to reason that people in my field and similar specialties will see a reduction. It'll be interesting to see the final calculations if/when they ever come out.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to ISP which varies by specialty? My understanding is that BCP is standard and based on years in service.
 
Let me guess...October 1 so they could cheat even more people that need to leave in exactly 4 years out of last year's "special" pay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So with this CSP every specialty gets paid the same. IE neurosurgery gets the same pay as the FM doc. Or all the bonuses get lumped into the CSP with different subspecialists getting different amounts? Im in support of scenario b because it consolidates all the bonuses into 1 lump bonus no more signing multiple isp and asp bonus papers. Maybe they should tie bonuses into fitrep evaluations EP's get 150% mp 100% p 75%. Hmm maybe not......
 
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...and-limits-bah-benefits-dual-military-spouses

Staying on topic concerning BAH. An individual should not be punished and have their benefits be reduced because of marriage. This concept is so egregious. BAH is a apart of the financial package awarded to every service member.

BAH exists to prevent having to pay a SM an actual higher salary to be somewhat in line with civilian that would also increase an individual's retirement check. It also is suppose to compensate for the fact that we don't get to chose where we have to work and cost of living varies considersbly from Polk to DC.

For those that think cutting BAH is a good idea I am appalled.

I would never suggest that someone's civilian spouse's income should be a reason why your AD pay package should be reduced. I would also never suggest that since you have kids that you should have to pay for their healthcare and your spouse's healthcare because in reality they didn't take the oath and in reality serve zero purpose to the DOD. Those benefits were apart of your pay and benefits package when you joined and shouldn't be screwed with. My spouse and I both serve like the majority of you and each of us should be earning what we are entitled to whether you are dual or single military.
 
Dual AD couples were getting a nice perk by doubling up on BAH, but that's what it is - a perk. The intention of BAH is to provide the servicemember with adequate housing for the given location, which is accomplished by a single BAH payment. I can't get myself all up in arms about this proposed change, with one exception - the couple should not have their collective BAH drop at least until they PCS. This reflects the relatively illiquid nature of real estate, and it's also in keeping with precedent. To wit, on station servicemembers have not seen a drop in their BAH even when there have been downward revisions of the cost of living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So seeing as many are okay with this "perk" or "allowance" (which although it has allowance in its name is defined as an entitlement in the regulation) being changed in such a drastic measure are you also okay that they go ahead change your retirement?

That's a "perk" as well. So let's see how well that works. And if the BAH was truly meant to only cover housing we would still have the VHA/BAQ of up until the late 90's.

I'm so glad to hear that many people are so supportive of approximately 40,000 of their fellow service members.

So you guys are suggesting that a service member could lose up to a few thousand dollars off their paycheck each month for doing the same work you do and you are okay with that? Wow, just wow!

If it were a couple hundred a month you'd get less fight from me, but this proposal is ridiculous.
 
Bha was part of the deal used to recruit these soldiers, changing it on them is crap
 
Little by little there will continue to be cuts. I'm opposed to ANY military physician having their pay cut. It may not be me this time...but it may be next time. We really to unite ever if changes don't affect us personally.

"But there is only so much money." Then we need to take our business elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I've heard the argument before: benefit changes happen in the civilian world all of the time. While true, I think it's apples and oranges. That civilian isn't putting his life on the line, being deployed for months, and is in many cases making more than his mikitary counterpart in the first place. I'm not talking MEDCOM here, I'm talking the real military. Additionally, that civilian employee isn't contractually obligated to stay once the terms of his employment are altered.
Yes, it happens to civilians, and it's crap on that end too. But I think it ought to be viewed differently. There ought to be a higher threshold when you're talking about altering military benefits - unless of course you are grandfathering people, allowing them to maintain what they signed on for at least until they've completed their current obligation.
Regardless, thank Zeus I'm on the other side of the ADSO hill now. One more ISP to collect, and no AD spouse.
This boat they're loading us on to? It's on fire.
 
HighPriest said:
I've heard the argument before: benefit changes happen in the civilian world all of the time. While true, I think it's apples and oranges. That civilian isn't putting his life on the line, being deployed for months, and is in many cases making more than his mikitary counterpart in the first place. I'm not talking MEDCOM here, I'm talking the real military. Additionally, that civilian employee isn't contractually obligated to stay once the terms of his employment are altered.
Yes, it happens to civilians, and it's crap on that end too. But I think it ought to be viewed differently. There ought to be a higher threshold when you're talking about altering military benefits - unless of course you are grandfathering people, allowing them to maintain what they signed on for at least until they've completed their current obligation.
Regardless, thank Zeus I'm on the other side of the ADSO hill now. One more ISP to collect, and no AD spouse.
This boat they're loading us on to? It's on fire.
Click to expand...
If I sign a contract with benefits in place, any changes should allow me to walk
 
HighPriest said:
I've heard the argument before: benefit changes happen in the civilian world all of the time. While true, I think it's apples and oranges. That civilian isn't putting his life on the line, being deployed for months, and is in many cases making more than his mikitary counterpart in the first place. I'm not talking MEDCOM here, I'm talking the real military. Additionally, that civilian employee isn't contractually obligated to stay once the terms of his employment are altered.
Yes, it happens to civilians, and it's crap on that end too. But I think it ought to be viewed differently. There ought to be a higher threshold when you're talking about altering military benefits - unless of course you are grandfathering people, allowing them to maintain what they signed on for at least until they've completed their current obligation.
Regardless, thank Zeus I'm on the other side of the ADSO hill now. One more ISP to collect, and no AD spouse.
This boat they're loading us on to? It's on fire.
Click to expand...

HighPriest, you're out in 2016? Congrats!

Just received my first month P&L after making partner. With my ancillaries (CT reading fees, hearing aid sales, allergy, surgery center royalties, etc), I almost made as much as my entire last year of basic pay as an O4 with 10+. Pretty freakin' sad.
 
Chonal Atresia said:
HighPriest, you're out in 2016? Congrats!

Just received my first month P&L after making partner. With my ancillaries (CT reading fees, hearing aid sales, allergy, surgery center royalties, etc), I almost made as much as my entire last year of basic pay as an O4 with 10+. Pretty freakin' sad.
Click to expand...

2017, but I won't take the last ISP because I don't want to stick around until October.
 
HighPriest said:
That civilian isn't putting his life on the line, being deployed for months, and is in many cases making more than his mikitary counterpart in the first place. I'm not talking MEDCOM here, I'm talking the real military. Additionally, that civilian employee isn't contractually obligated to stay once the terms of his employment are altered.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot... that military people deserve more because they're putting their lives on the line.
Plenty of military people never get deployed though.
Doesn't negate your argument, but adds a caveat. So maybe if military people deserve benefits because of the danger they are put in, then tie benefits to deployments.

Anyways...
I'm all for taking BAH away from cohabitating military members. It's a matter of making the reality of payment reflect the intent of the benefit.
 
Doctor Bob said:
Anyways...
I'm all for taking BAH away from cohabitating military members. It's a matter of making the reality of payment reflect the intent of the benefit.
Click to expand...

Then we need to do it for everyone:
Spouse have a job that pays a salary that affords a house, no BAH.
3 O1's splitting a house while in flight school, see ya.
2 e5's splitting an apartment, sorry you only get one
On deployment and don't have any dependents...sorry don't need a house.
Assigned to a ship and no dependents, yep don't need it either.

If this is the case then we need to rethink what military members are paid when we compare them to the civilian sector. Can no longer include BAH in that comparison.

Since we are in a medical forum here let's take a look at what this means over a career: let's take a Navy physician in San Diego and underestimate by a ton that the BAH over the career is avg $2,000 a month....this would mean a person would earn $480,000 less over a 20 year career than the person that sat next to them but didn't marry a military spouse.

How does anyone think that loss of income is fair to any service member that is already in? Want to change it for people who join from now on out, sure go for it similar to the likely retirement changes. To change it on people who are already in is poor form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Backrow I love your posts.

To reference tired and following back row's suggestio- all those who get deployed and would miss their BAH just fall back on the SCRA.

What If I Can't Afford to Pay My Mortgage Even At the Lower Rate?
Your mortgage lender may allow you to stop paying the principal amount due on your loan during the period of active duty service. Lenders are not required to do this but they generally try to work with service members to keep them in their homes. You will still owe this amount but will not have to repay it until after your complete your active duty service.

Additionally, most lenders have other programs to assist borrowers who cannot make their mortgage payments. If you or your spouse find yourself in this position at any time before or after active duty service, contact your lender immediately and ask about loss mitigation options. Borrowers with FHA insured loans who are having difficulty making mortgage payments may also be eligible for forbearance and/or HUD's other Loss Mitigation Programs. More information about help for homeowners who are unable to make payments on a mortgage is available on the HUD website.

Am I Protected against Foreclosure?
The SCRA states that in a legal action to enforce a debt against real estate that is filed during, or within one year after the servicemember’s military service, a court may stop the proceedings for a period of time, or adjust the debt. In addition, the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of real estate shall not be valid if it occurs during or within one year after the servicemember’s military service unless the creditor has obtained a valid court order approving the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of the real estate.

The one year after military service legal protection period is effective through December 31, 2015 under provisions of “The Foreclosure Relief and Extension for Servicemembers Act of 2014” enacted on December 18, 2014 (Public Law 113-286). If this SCRA provision is not amended or revised, the legal protection period will revert to 90 days after military service effective January 1, 2016.


The bank MAY show your mercy.
 
This just shows that we don't really want women to serve. They are overrepresented in dual mil couples. This will pressure one spouse to leave and that will tend to be the woman (even if it isn't, female servivemembers are so much more likely to be dual mil that they will bear the brunt). All the lip service in the world doesn't change who this directly affects. Dual mil couples were already cheaper since they insured one family instead of two. The military includes BAH in all those total compensation calculations that they sell but suddenly this is an allowance and should be treated specially.

Terrible decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
backrow said:
How does anyone think that loss of income is fair to any service member that is already in? Want to change it for people who join from now on out, sure go for it similar to the likely retirement changes. To change it on people who are already in is poor form.
Click to expand...

What is fair is irrelevant.
The military does things that are unfair all the time. Sorry to keep going back to deployments, but it's a tangible thing to use for examples. It is unfair that I get deployed more than once when there are other physicians in the same field who have not been deployed at all. But it happens. And there are many other examples of unfairness in the military.

I very rarely assume the military will do things based on fairness.
 
Doctor Bob said:
What is fair is irrelevant.
The military does things that are unfair all the time. Sorry to keep going back to deployments, but it's a tangible thing to use for examples. It is unfair that I get deployed more than once when there are other physicians in the same field who have not been deployed at all. But it happens. And there are many other examples of unfairness in the military.

I very rarely assume the military will do things based on fairness.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would argue that being fair and just to all service members should be a goal of all the services with the realization that it might not always be the case on the personal level.

As a whole deployments tend to be pretty fair when the entirety of the situation is taken into account, but there can be individual instances where it doesn't work. On a macro scale it's pretty fair, you don't see XYZ squadron/ship/battalion deploying 5 times while its sister squadron/ship/battalion of the same kind sits at home.

Take fair out of it, do you think they should change the compensation rules for someone who has already been in the service? Would you be upset if tomorrow they said sorry guys you don't get 20 yr vested retirement anymore?

By the way, did anyone else catch the unified military command provisions in the House version....
 
I agree with the "meh" sentiment. BAH is an allowance for housing. With dual military couples they are paying for the household's housing twice. It's an allowance, not a pay. If you argue that they should apply this to roommates, etc. Then I'm fine with that. It's just a lot harder to track down O-1 roommates vs married couples that file a ton of paperwork to be recognized.

Oh, I support retirement reforms too. Getting half your pay for life as early as age 40 is just ridiculous. Go with the reserve style retirement. Same benefit but it doesn't kick in until you're 60 or 65. Grandfather people with >10 or 15yrs in and everybody else gets the change.

I don't understand how the biggest portion (personnel costs) of the biggest pie piece of the budget (DOD) should be off limits.

People get all emotional and exploit the "support the troops" sentiment.

Meh.
 
House bill- https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1735/BILLS-114hr1735pcs.pdf

Backrow- For unifying Medical command are you referencing sec 711.? Seems like a glorified position because the 3 surgeon generals can't get along with each other.

Title 37- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/37/335

Senate bill- https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s1376/BILLS-114s1376pcs.pdf
Sec 604- BAH dual spouse garbage and those that are roommates.

Sec 606
Sec 612- one year extension on healthcare bonuses.

Sec 632 retirement pay reform

Sec 652- privatization of the defense commissary system.

Sec 717- limitation on conversion of military medical and dental positions to civilian medical and dental positions.

sec 720- pilot program on incentive programs to improve health care provided under Tricare program

Sec 1221- Drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan

Sec 2702- prohibition on conducting additional BRAC round


Basic allowance for housing- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/37/403
It is labeled as a general entitlement. "a member of a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is entitled to a basic allowance for housing at the monthly rates prescribed under this section or another provision of law with regard to the applicable component of the basic allowance for housing."
If a service member is entitled to basic pay then they are entitled to basic allowance for housing.
 
Doctor Bob said:
I hear this a lot... that military people deserve more because they're putting their lives on the line.
Plenty of military people never get deployed though.
Doesn't negate your argument, but adds a caveat. So maybe if military people deserve benefits because of the danger they are put in, then tie benefits to deployments.

Anyways...
I'm all for taking BAH away from cohabitating military members. It's a matter of making the reality of payment reflect the intent of the benefit.
Click to expand...

It's not just because they're putting their lives on the line, which I stated in the post. That is certainly a part of it. Even if they're never deployed, a large portion of them are stuck in a contract from which they cannot escape, frequently because they were mislead by their recruiter. They have no control what-so-ever over their lives, and have no opt-out option, which the civilian sector does and always will have. There is no union, there is no appeals process, there is no legal support other than JAG, which is only out to ensure UCMJ is followed. Currently, most of them don't get deployed, but part of the job is that anyone could be deployed at any time.

If you (royal you, not you specifically) simply want to argue that part of being in uniform is being willing to get screwed by Uncle Sam whenever Uncle Sam feels frisky, then so be it. To an extent I understand that argument. If the argument is that they're no different from a guy working the assembly line at GM, then I think you're wrong. Could you imagine the uproar if GM sent out a group of recruiters who fed potential employees false information to lure them into a job where they made a below standard wage, couldn't leave, couldn't unionize, had no choice in being moved, and then regularly decreased their benefits package? Not to mention that every year a few thousand GM employees get killed in the line of duty? Indentured servitude didn't work in the past, and it wouldn't work now. Everyone would either quit or sue, and CNN wouldn't ever shut up about it. Unlike many of your colleagues, I had a career before I went to medical school. I understand that people get shafted in business as well. If the kind of stuff the military routinely does happened to me in my civilian career, I'd have found another job.

My point is that we should hold our federal government to the standards we are always trying to impose on big business before we start demanding that the fed draft new laws to uphold ethical business practices. So far, uncle sam has been entirely exempt when it comes to the one group of people who give up the most for him. When they start looking to their lazy, incompetent civilian employees as a way to save money, I'll see some balance in the system. but as it is, they're preying on the easiet group to target - the group that cannot fight back. I'm not ok with that.

I'm not against reforming the BAH system. But it's not just the BAH system. It's failing multiple years in a row to increase base pay to account for inflation - soldiers are in effect making less every year. It's altering additional pay. It's cutting people out - good soldiers - immediately before they are able to retire. (Yep, they do that on the civilian sector, too. But again, we should decide whether or not we hold our government to a higher standard).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
In any case, the system does and will again need reforming. As long as they grandfather in changes, it's not screwing anyone. If you're making drastic changes on the fly, that's screwy. A lot of what I'm saying here isn't applicable specifically to the BAH changes...
I'm just saying that there is a different between your standard industry employee and a servicemember.
 
There are some caveats to SCRA, though it does cover the majority of military members. For example, if you purchased your home before your entry date into active service, SCRA does not apply.
 
narcusprince said:
So with this CSP every specialty gets paid the same. IE neurosurgery gets the same pay as the FM doc. Or all the bonuses get lumped into the CSP with different subspecialists getting different amounts?
Click to expand...
Pigs'll fly before every specialty gets paid the same. Crazy talk.

narcusprince said:
Maybe they should tie bonuses into fitrep evaluations EP's get 150% mp 100% p 75%. Hmm maybe not......
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's take the horribly broken fitrep system and merge it with the horribly broken pay system and see just what kind of swirling vortex of suck we can conjure ... :)
 
backrow said:
So seeing as many are okay with this "perk" or "allowance" (which although it has allowance in its name is defined as an entitlement in the regulation) being changed in such a drastic measure are you also okay that they go ahead change your retirement?

That's a "perk" as well. So let's see how well that works. And if the BAH was truly meant to only cover housing we would still have the VHA/BAQ of up until the late 90's.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear there's a fundamental difference between altering retirement benefits and altering a "housing allowance" in a way that, in theory at least, better matches the intent of a housing allowance. There's a defensible argument that the military can (and perhaps SHOULD) periodically re-evaluate and change allowances to more closely match the need they are intended to cover. BAH may show up in the DFAS deposit, but it's not pay, it's a benefit (else it'd be taxed).

That said, altering a benefit people have in good faith come to rely on is a pretty awful thing to do.


backrow said:
I'm so glad to hear that many people are so supportive of approximately 40,000 of their fellow service members.

So you guys are suggesting that a service member could lose up to a few thousand dollars off their paycheck each month for doing the same work you do and you are okay with that? Wow, just wow!

If it were a couple hundred a month you'd get less fight from me, but this proposal is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think it's helmet-grade ******ed.

I think it's comparable to abruptly reducing the ISP, ASP, BCP, VSP, MSP amounts, which would also be a ******ed, stupid self-inflicted wound that would harm the medical corps and the military. The difference is that I wouldn't argue that the military would be acting in bad faith to do so. Nor would I try to draw parallels to altering the retirement plan in place when people joined.
 
Why not reduce BAS while they're at it...the couple is eating on the same chicken dinner. No...forget the fact that there are twice the people to feed (and even more if youre considering children). It's the same chicken.
 
Playing devils advocate and it is the devil. But wont it motivate brass to make sure AD spouses are co-located together? If I had to choose between extra bah versus my spouse thats an easy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

N
Pay differential
Replies
5
Views
1K
Nexus5
N
T
Board Certification Pay - Air Force Reserve
Replies
3
Views
565
armytrainingsir
armytrainingsir
2
Pay during military residency
Replies
10
Views
3K
armytrainingsir
armytrainingsir
T
Pay during deployment as a reserve physician / Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
Replies
5
Views
2K
the_world_has_gone_mad
T
pgg
New Medical Corps Special Pay Guidance?
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
Trefoil
Trefoil
Top