Should dual military both be getting BAH?

I think only one but I could be wrong.

I don't see why not. BAH is to supplement the base pay b/c the base pay for military is SO crappy. If it weren't for our BAH, we would be an E7 family with over 10 years invested and having to live off of 2,400 a MONTH to cover EVERYTHING. BAH is part of the package, no matter if you're dual or not, IMO. Since the base pay is so crappy, they have to make up for it somewhere, so the BAH is built into that to supplement.

I don't mind the more sr. one in the relationship getting the full BAH with dependents and the spouse getting the single BAH.... Doesn't bother me. They're both AD, so they deserve the benefits!

I think only one but I could be wrong.

no they both get it. one get married BAH and the other gets single. even when living in housing, the one recieving single bah STILL recieves it.

I think only one but I could be wrong.

Yes, dual families both get BAH, as far as I know, unless something has changed. How unfair it would be to take away someone's BAH, which is part of their total salary package, simply b/c of who they are married to.

I think both. My brother was friends with a guy in the air force who married a girl in the air force just so they both could get the extra pay, then they got divorced...

They both work for it, why should they be penalized just because work in the same profession?

I think they should both get it...it's part of their pay/benefits as far as I'm concerned.

I completely see how it's fair in every situation EXCEPT housing. How is it fair for that family to still be recieving BAH (even though it's the single rate) WHILE living in housing?

I completely see how it's fair in every situation EXCEPT housing. How is it fair for that family to still be recieving BAH (even though it's the single rate) WHILE living in housing?

Because it's still part of their total salary package. If you take that away, you are left with an absolutely pitiful salary. I don't think someone should get their allowance taken away just b/c their spouse has a job that covers their housing/expenses.

I don't mind the more sr. one in the relationship getting the full BAH with dependents and the spouse getting the single BAH.... Doesn't bother me. They're both AD, so they deserve the benefits!


ITA

They both work for it, why should they be penalized just because work in the same profession?

ITA.

I do think they should both get it, because they both receive it as part of the benefit of their job. Another question - is it fair that there is a family of a lower rank living in the same exact housing and paying less rent (PPV) than the higher ranking family, in the same exact housing? Really it could go on and own, kwim?

The way I see it is... when you get married you get more money for being married... so along with that if you decide to get married to a military member then the military allowing the couple 1 BAH income rather than 2 is more than fair. When you are married you are considered 1 unit afterall. It's a huge waste of military funds and it makes for a LOT of marriages out of convenience. When it comes to double BAH it has nothing to do with making smart financial decisions... it's about people simply being given more money than they should be for housing alone.

Here in the nuke school about 70% of the marriages are convenience marriages.. they get double BAH.. so they have more money, can live in housing, don't have to deal with the barecks rules and inspections etc.
__________________

I don't see anything wrong with the lower ranking of the two getting single BAH. I mean I'm surprised they even get that. I do think though, that if you are dual military living in housing you should both give up BAH.

I do think they should both get it, because they both receive it as part of the benefit of their job. Another question - is it fair that there is a family of a lower rank living in the same exact housing and paying less rent (PPV) than the higher ranking family, in the same exact housing? Really it could go on and own, kwim?

No that's not fair, but because of the current housing shortage in large naval areas it's an even bigger issue.

Should dual military both be getting BAH?

Absolutely, yes. And here's why:

Both members are working the extended hours, both are standing duty, both are fulfilling the same types of work that is expected of their counterparts. One thing military members are told-- quite freqiently, I might add-- is that the non-taxable portions of the paycheck are what's supposed to make up for all that, and to make the pay comparable to their civilian counterparts. To tell a couple that they nave to take a substantial pay cut simply because they married each other makes no sense (and is grossly unfair).

As duallies, my spouse collected BAH at the With Dependents rate, and I collected it at the single rate (he was senior). Our children were all listed under his SSN for medical purposes (and dental when we were overseas), and I used my own SSN while I was still active duty, as required.

Note: If a military couple moves into base housing, both members lose their BAH, so when we lived on base overseas, it cost us almost twice as much to live in the house as it cost the neighbors who only had one military member. In that case, however, it was worth it to us; moving on base in Japan was MUCH better than living off base, for us.

Edited to add: To clarify: The more senior member receives BAH at the With Dependents rate ONLY if there are actual dependents (kids, for example). Active duty members can not be dependents of each other, so if there are no chidlren involved (or dependent parents, but that's another story), both members would get BAH at the Single rate. Also, in some situations where there are no dependent children, if one member gets deployed (goes out to sea), that BAH used to be cancelled, leaving the remaining 'single' member with the same bills to pay, but only half the previous income. That was a long time ago and I think it may have changed since then.

We had coworkers once who did both collect BAH with dependents- one of them laimed the children, and the other one claimed a parent (who also lived with them). That was a little shady to me..... but as it turned out, eventually they were caught for a completely different type of fraud and they both got bounced out of the navy. See- there IS justice!

No that's not fair, but because of the current housing shortage in large naval areas it's an even bigger issue.


I don't think it's fair.. I wont lie... the housing here is CRAP as it is.. and there is a married student couple living 2 houses away with ONE baby in a 4 bedroom just as I am. They are paying E-3 BAH for the same house I am paying E-7 BAH for.

I think if they forced one to give up their BAH, you would simply have people living together and not getting married so they can keep their single BAH...they have a kid, then one will get BAH with dependents regardless. Which is just how it would work as married dual military.

I don't see anything wrong with the lower ranking of the two getting single BAH. I mean I'm surprised they even get that. I do think though, that if you are dual military living in housing you should both give up BAH.

This is my BIGGEST beef with it.


As for the lower ranking paying the less rent for the same house. It wasnt ANY different before PPV. EVRYONE lost BAH period. So in the end, it was the same concept.

In response to the argument that the pay is pitiful without BAH... every penny of my husbands BAH goes to housing so we only recieve his bare pay minus BAH... so why does a dual military couple deserve to pay BAH to housing and then recieve a whole other check worth of BAH? I just don't see how people find that fair.

Note: If a military couple moves into base housing, both members lose their BAH

Are you serious?

See, I think even that is unfair. I don't think anyone should have to give up their entitlement to BAH, no matter if they live in housing or not. The BAH, IMO, is what makes up for how grossly underpaid the military is compared to a lot of civilians which do basically the same jobs but work less hours.

I don't think it's fair.. I wont lie... the housing here is CRAP as it is.. and there is a married student couple living 2 houses away with ONE baby in a 4 bedroom just as I am. They are paying E-3 BAH for the same house I am paying E-7 BAH for.

I agree.

I think if they forced one to give up their BAH, you would simply have people living together and not getting married so they can keep their single BAH...they have a kid, then one will get BAH with dependents regardless. Which is just how it would work as married dual military.


But they wont be able to live together in housing. And if they have a child and become entitled to housing they risk getting kicked out for living together and not being married

Are you serious?

See, I think even that is unfair. I don't think anyone should have to give up their entitlement to BAH, no matter if they live in housing or not. The BAH, IMO, is what makes up for how grossly underpaid the military is compared to a lot of civilians which do basically the same jobs but work less hours.

That is how it used to be way back when. I know my dad and stepdad were disgusted when they went to dual BAH.

I don't think it's fair.. I wont lie... the housing here is CRAP as it is.. and there is a married student couple living 2 houses away with ONE baby in a 4 bedroom just as I am. They are paying E-3 BAH for the same house I am paying E-7 BAH for.

That's my issue. We have the option for Sr. housing here, but because of the wait, we opted to stay put. So we're living in an E6 house (according to PPV, I like my townhome!) but they're getting E7 BAH.

They BOTH work hard for it. They deserve every penny of it. I'm jealous of dual military but they both make sacrifices.

I don't think it is right that if you live in housing one is still getting bah (I don't care if it is single rate or not). When we signed a lease with Forest City and then GMH, it stated that you give up ALL BAH whether you were receiving it as one active duty or two active duty members. If they found you were still receiving it you would be evicted and forced to back pay.
I know when our neighbors were both active duty, they only got bah at the married rate for one because they use to talk about that at our friday night fires. They wished they could have seen the married rate and the single rate

That's my issue. We have the option for Sr. housing here, but because of the wait, we opted to stay put. So we're living in an E6 house (according to PPV, I like my townhome!) but they're getting E7 BAH.

yah there is so sr housing here... there is enlisted and officer. I think there should be sr housing in every housing area.

Are you serious?

See, I think even that is unfair. I don't think anyone should have to give up their entitlement to BAH, no matter if they live in housing or not. The BAH, IMO, is what makes up for how grossly underpaid the military is compared to a lot of civilians which do basically the same jobs but work less hours.

I'm not sure how it works with privatized housing; that's a new thing since we retired. But when we lived in Japan, once we got base housing, we gave up his dependent OHA and my single OHA.

The thing is, you can't live in gov't housing AND still collect BAH, so if you move in, you give it up. That's why we never lived in base housing when stationed CONUS; it was always better for us to live on the economy. Hawaii and Japan.... okay, we took housing. ;-) Generally, duallies are only going to live in housing in an area where they won't do better by staying out in town. INCONUS, we always did better in town.

They BOTH work hard for it. They deserve every penny of it. I'm jealous of dual military but they both make sacrifices.

This is why I got out. I just couldn't do it with kids. Dual Military really make BIG sacrifices, trying to get sea-shore rotations opposite of each other (Navy) and possibily dealing with both gone and somebody else taking care of the kids for a while......it is hard.

eeehhhhhh I am not totally sure how I feel about it. We knew a couple that got pregnant and then got married because they knew they would both be getting benefits from it. Lets say they are deff raking in the $$$$ and not even in a healthy marriage :lol

Oh and she def does not work hard for her money :wink

eeehhhhhh I am not totally sure how I feel about it. We knew a couple that got pregnant and then got married because they knew they would both be getting benefits from it. Lets say they are deff raking in the $$$$ and not even in a healthy marriage :lol


That is SOOO common because of the double BAH.

They BOTH work hard for it. They deserve every penny of it. I'm jealous of dual military but they both make sacrifices.

and even more so than couples who aren't, I think! I agree, they deserve every penny.

Oh and she def does not work hard for her money :wink

Saying they both work hard made me laugh.. just because Tony's ex wife has been in for more than 9 years and she hasn't done more than 60 days at sea total.. She keeps having kids to get out of deployments.. and you know each pregnancy takes you off a boat for quite a while. She's MILKING the system and it happens a lot... she's not the first to do it and not the last. Every one of her 4 husbands have been Navy also.

I agree with Brandi and eelo. I am getting the impression that several of you feel that dual military marriages are almost always about getting more money. You would be surprised to discover that many of us military gals don't just toss out our ethics when we join the service. It is an assumption that many women that have never been AD seem to make. Often based off one experiance with one or two military women. OR as what more often seems to be the case based of pure gossip.

they both do their jobs so they both should get the bebefits that go along with that job

Yeah I do feel that they are both equally entitled to it. It's part of the benefit of the job. Whether or not anyone feels they work hard enough for it.

I have mixed feelings on it though because of the amount of people who take advantage of it or try to "milk the system". Unfortunately, it can't be taken on a case to case basis.

I agree with Brandi and eelo. I am getting the impression that several of you feel that dual military marriages are almost always about getting more money. You would be surprised to discover that many of us military gals don't just toss out our ethics when we join the service. It is an assumption that many women that have never been AD seem to make. Often based off one experiance with one or two military women. OR as what more often seems to be the case based of pure gossip.

I was about to say that I think the amount of people milking the system is extremely low compared to the amount of people who do their job well and deserve the money. Regardless though, even if they are crap bags, I still think it's part of the salary and each person should be entitled. If they are huge crap bags, they should just be kicked out, rather than having BAH taken away.

I guess it is just like many other areas in life where people milk the system....you are going to have a certain percentage right there in the military also.

I agree with Brandi and eelo. I am getting the impression that several of you feel that dual military marriages are almost always about getting more money. You would be surprised to discover that many of us military gals don't just toss out our ethics when we join the service. It is an assumption that many women that have never been AD seem to make. Often based off one experiance with one or two military women. OR as what more often seems to be the case based of pure gossip.

LOL---- back in the Dark Ages when we got married (1984; I have kids the same age as some of you!), the only way to get "married BAH" was to claim the kids, if you had any. So for at least one set of orders, we had to completely change the kids' dependency statuses from my records to his records, so that when he went to sea, we didn't lose his BAH. Our next set of orders was shore duty for both (Hawaii), and since housing was difficult to get at the time, we stayed out in town with one 'married' and one single BAH, and the kids stayed on his Page 2. But we had friends who went through all that crap three times- changing the kids' records from her SSN to his SSN and then back to her SSN, each time they transferred. Talk about a nightmare!

Things have changed, they really have.

Well, it makes sense. Even when they live in base housing.

Are you thinking they should lose their BAH altogether, or that both checks should go into the house? The way it is with us, DH gets BAH, and then they take the WHOLE thing out again for the house, because we live on base. It's the same way for everybody on base. So, technically, if one of them pays rent, the other should be allowed to keep their whole (albeit reduced) BAH. Otherwise, you're telling me that because they both live in the same house, they should pay TWICE the rent? That's absolute bullshit. If DH and I were both in, we would pay $1300 for the end unit of a FOURPLEX, (he pays $650/mo now, because they take BAH out) or $700 downtown for a HOUSE with almost full utilities. They'd have NOBODY living on base who was dual military, and then they'd lose funding for base housing because less people lived on base.

That's like saying if you get a job, Donna, you'd have to start paying rent too, because you both earn money and you both live in the same house. You'd lose your shit if the military told you that your rent doubled because you got a job, so why should military members have to pay that, or suffer that consequence?

Well, it makes sense. Even when they live in base housing.

Are you thinking they should lose their BAH altogether, or that both checks should go into the house? The way it is with us, DH gets BAH, and then they take the WHOLE thing out again for the house, because we live on base. It's the same way for everybody on base. So, technically, if one of them pays rent, the other should be allowed to keep their whole (albeit reduced) BAH. Otherwise, you're telling me that because they both live in the same house, they should pay TWICE the rent? That's absolute bullshit. If DH and I were both in, we would pay $1300 for the end unit of a FOURPLEX, (he pays $650/mo now, because they take BAH out) or $700 downtown for a HOUSE with almost full utilities. They'd have NOBODY living on base who was dual military, and then they'd lose funding for base housing because less people lived on base.

That's like saying if you get a job, Donna, you'd have to start paying rent too, because you both earn money and you both live in the same house. You'd lose your shit if the military told you that your rent doubled because you got a job, so why should military members have to pay that, or suffer that consequence?

That's exactly what duallies get told. That's why they tend not to live in government housing, unless housing on the local economy is mad expensive.

I agree with Brandi and eelo. I am getting the impression that several of you feel that dual military marriages are almost always about getting more money. You would be surprised to discover that many of us military gals don't just toss out our ethics when we join the service. It is an assumption that many women that have never been AD seem to make. Often based off one experiance with one or two military women. OR as what more often seems to be the case based of pure gossip.

Nope mine is based off what I have personally seen. That you, and the other ladies that were active duty on here are NOT the norm. This is not just off my experience with women in the military while I have been married, this is my WHOLE life.

Just off the top of my head, I can name 15 couples IN housing that are in convience marriages, sleeping in seperate bedrooms, dating, etc.... but collecting that extra BAH. All the while, taking up 3 bedroom houses that is needed by families.

If you (general) want to be in a convience marriage and collect the extra BAH.... fine. but housing shouldnt be an option to do that. My opinion is if you live in housing you lose ALL bah, no matter what.

Saying they both work hard made me laugh.. just because Tony's ex wife has been in for more than 9 years and she hasn't done more than 60 days at sea total.. She keeps having kids to get out of deployments.. and you know each pregnancy takes you off a boat for quite a while. She's MILKING the system and it happens a lot... she's not the first to do it and not the last. Every one of her 4 husbands have been Navy also.

:yes she has done no time at sea and gets out of everything. I think that she is in the navy and ya she is in the navy but she doesnt even work

I said that I dont really have an opinion on it because I can only base opinion off of a few couples. So I wont judge everyone else. Its just the few that I have seen are all the same.

They both work for it, why should they be penalized just because work in the same profession?
I AGREE!!!!!!

Well, it makes sense. Even when they live in base housing.

Are you thinking they should lose their BAH altogether, or that both checks should go into the house? The way it is with us, DH gets BAH, and then they take the WHOLE thing out again for the house, because we live on base. It's the same way for everybody on base. So, technically, if one of them pays rent, the other should be allowed to keep their whole (albeit reduced) BAH. Otherwise, you're telling me that because they both live in the same house, they should pay TWICE the rent? That's absolute bullshit. If DH and I were both in, we would pay $1300 for the end unit of a FOURPLEX, (he pays $650/mo now, because they take BAH out) or $700 downtown for a HOUSE with almost full utilities. They'd have NOBODY living on base who was dual military, and then they'd lose funding for base housing because less people lived on base.

That's like saying if you get a job, Donna, you'd have to start paying rent too, because you both earn money and you both live in the same house. You'd lose your shit if the military told you that your rent doubled because you got a job, so why should military members have to pay that, or suffer that consequence?

Last time I checked, for a single person to get BAH, they had to show PROOF that they were paying rent somewhere. UMMMM isnt the higher ranking person paying the rent. so why do they need it?

Nope mine is based off what I have personally seen. That you, and the other ladies that were active duty on here are NOT the norm. This is not just off my experience with women in the military while I have been married, this is my WHOLE life.

Just off the top of my head, I can name 15 couples IN housing that are in convience marriages, sleeping in seperate bedrooms, dating, etc.... but collecting that extra BAH. All the while, taking up 3 bedroom houses that is needed by families.

If you (general) want to be in a convience marriage and collect the extra BAH.... fine. but housing shouldnt be an option to do that. My opinion is if you live in housing you lose ALL bah, no matter what.

I agree :yes I KNOW there are good woman in the Navy.. I joined.. wasn't in long but I was still there.

and omg.. you arent kidding about the number of convenience marriages. There are SO MANY here as well all over housing, it's crazy.

They BOTH work hard for it. They deserve every penny of it. I'm jealous of dual military but they both make sacrifices.

ITA!

Hm... I'm all for it. It's part of the benefits package. When you look at how much a military person makes it seems okay when you see it with BAH and stuff like that... So to me then you are making the 2nd military member make lower salary just because its a housing allowance? If two people were working in the real world they would have more money for a better house, why can't it be the same in the military, to me it makes it more real world. JMO.

I agree with Brandi and eelo. I am getting the impression that several of you feel that dual military marriages are almost always about getting more money. You would be surprised to discover that many of us military gals don't just toss out our ethics when we join the service. It is an assumption that many women that have never been AD seem to make. Often based off one experiance with one or two military women. OR as what more often seems to be the case based of pure gossip.

I agree with this too!:yes

It seems that a few of you are basing your opinions on personal grudges... They work for it they earn it.

It seems that a few of you are basing your opinions on personal grudges... They work for it they earn it.


I don't have grudges against the people I've seen milking the system. I even get along with Tony's ex wife now ;) But I've seen it happen time and time again first hand.. even people I'm friends with have done it... I don't agree with it but I don't have a grudge against them.

Last time I checked, for a single person to get BAH, they had to show PROOF that they were paying rent somewhere. UMMMM isnt the higher ranking person paying the rent. so why do they need it?

Why shouldn't they get it? Just because your husband is paying rent doesn't mean you don't need money. If you lived downtown with your boyfriend, and he payed rent, and you were military, you could still bring in the bill and say, "rent comes out of our joined income, I need BAH." You have to pick up the slack - where he pays rent, your check still goes to electricity, water, garbage, etc. It's still coming out of their joined income, so technically, although she's not paying the exact rent bill, she's still paying for the bills that money COULD have paid, if there was no rent bill.

She's still (assuming SHE is the lesser-ranked spouse) entitled to her priveledges. And I don't know how the Navy does it, but if you're not living IN base housing in the AF, you GET bah. Regardless of whether you PAY rent or live in a van down by the river.

If you imply that just because SOME people abuse the system, others shouldn't have it, should I say that because SOME people bring their friends/family to shop in the commissary on a regular basis, that we shouldn't have a commissary? Or because SOME women keep their id's even after they get divorced or their spouses get out of the military, and still go on base with them, that wives shouldn't have ID's?

If you imply that just because SOME people abuse the system, others shouldn't have it, should I say that because SOME people bring their friends/family to shop in the commissary on a regular basis, that we shouldn't have a commissary? Or because SOME women keep their id's even after they get divorced or their spouses get out of the military, and still go on base with them, that wives shouldn't have ID's?

nice point

I only read the first page of this but...

I think that if they are living out in town then they are most definitely entitled to both spouses getting BAH. I however do NOT think it is fair if they are living IN base housing for one person to still be pulling BAH.

I also agree with those who have said that it isn't fair for someone with say and E-3 BAH allowance to be living in the same housing as someone who is an E-6. It isn't fair at all for the PPV (or housing) to be collecting more money from someone with a higher pay grade for the same house they are giving to someone with a lower paygrade. Though I do understand the issues with people having more kids, even if they are a lower pay grade, needing a house just as big or bigger than someone with less (or no) kids and a higher pay grade. I think they need to figure out someway to make it fit accordingly, so those with a higher pay grade and less kids aren't forking over more money for a house smaller than someone who is a lower pay grade, but has a bigger house because they have more kids. They should only be charging that higher paygrade person part of their BAH (equivilent to what the lower pay bigger family is paying) in a situation like that.

For the record, until fairly recently, like within the last 80-100 years, marriage was NEVER ABOUT love. People got married because men needed women to cook and clean. Women got married because they needed to be taken care of. Dowry's on a daughter's hand in marriage ensured that old men would be taken care of after they couldn't work any more.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?

For the record, until fairly recently, like within the last 80-100 years, marriage was NEVER ABOUT love. People got married because men needed women to cook and clean. Women got married because they needed to be taken care of. Dowry's on a daughter's hand in marriage ensured that old men would be taken care of after they couldn't work any more.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?

I would have been like Jane Austen and been a spinster forever because I couldn't marry for anything but love. I would just have to write about it then...LOL.

I would have been like Jane Austen and been a spinster forever because I couldn't marry for anything but love. I would just have to write about it then...LOL.

I LOVE Jane Austen, but that's a whole different thread, lol. I agree with you wholeheartedly - I could never imagine a life with someone other than my husband, and if we get two nickles to rub together, one of them gets mad and walks away, lol. I'm not saying it's RIGHT to marry for convenience, but it's not wrong, either, and it's certainly smart, moneywise.

For the record, until fairly recently, like within the last 80-100 years, marriage was NEVER ABOUT love. People got married because men needed women to cook and clean. Women got married because they needed to be taken care of. Dowry's on a daughter's hand in marriage ensured that old men would be taken care of after they couldn't work any more.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?

Wow, I hadn't really thought of it like that but you're right and you really did bring up some good points. Nice post, Kiwi!

I always thought BAH was just part of your pay... and that the military just tells you which part they are taking for rent... like.. a really helpful budgeting tool (haha)
on that same note, i also thought that BECAUSE it is part of your pay, you get it whether you use it or not. It is your pay. they just give it a special name. I never thought of it as rent money... more like... living expenses.

The way i see it is... in the civilian world, regardless of jobs and pay, both members of the marriage will receive ALL of their pay. if they can afford for just one person to pay rent with money left over... then they get to save more... to buy better things.

People in the military already lose plenty of things (time apart, having to move away from family, children needing to change schools, expenses to go home to visit family... ) why should people in the military ALSO lose money to save for the future just because they got married to another member in the military?

military gets special bonuses... health care, dental care, commy/px.... we get that BECAUSE we are in the military and DAMMIT its not an EASY life. we are separate from the civilian world and are reminded of that every single time someone else logs on to say 'my friends dont understand' or 'we wont be able to talk for the next month' or 'i really miss my family' or 'i dont know if we can afford to fly to see each other/see family/go home for the holidays' or 'a member of the family died... and its going to take all our savings to get ourselves to the funeral'

the examples go on.

why should people in the military, having to deal with that... PLUS double the shifts/work/duty... ALSO have to give up the money they were promised? so many people lose what they were promised anyway, BAH shouldnt be one of them.

like i said... i dont see it as "rent." i say it as part of the pay check but with a special name for if/when it needs to be USED as rent. i think of it as part of my living expenses allotment.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?

Haha, the divorce rate in India is a lot lower, too. ;-)

I always thought BAH was just part of your pay... and that the military just tells you which part they are taking for rent... like.. a really helpful budgeting tool (haha)


That is how I have thought of it also. I have never considered it to not be part of the package deal. When I think of their salary, I just automatically calculate that in there.

Now, from the standpoint of being someone with a large family who desperately NEEDS to be in housing, especially in a place like SD, I do see the other side of this. I wish there was a way to open up more housing... boy do I ever. But I just still don't think it's fair for a dual military couple to be penalized by taking away part of their entitled salary, simply b/c they are dual.

Wow, I hadn't really thought of it like that but you're right and you really did bring up some good points. Nice post, Kiwi!

:) Thanks!

For the record, until fairly recently, like within the last 80-100 years, marriage was NEVER ABOUT love. People got married because men needed women to cook and clean. Women got married because they needed to be taken care of. Dowry's on a daughter's hand in marriage ensured that old men would be taken care of after they couldn't work any more.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?

thanks for this post :D

while i as well could NEVER get married for anything besides love, and while it DOES make me sad when people do get married for anything besides love (love is amazing and i just want everyone to feel it.... ) you are definitely right.

DATING is a new concept. people never dated... they courted.. but dating and courting arent the same. similar.. NOT the same. chaperone's were required as well. and not just because god will smite you if you have premarital sex. it is because you were no longer desirable. you werent clean and pure... and then you probably wouldnt get married. no one would have you because you are USED GOODS.

it sucks when people just use the system... but that will happen no matter HOW many rights you take away from everyone, including the good, honest people.

if we take away everything being used by someone else... we wouldnt be america anymore. we would have NO freedoms, rights or privileges.

tardy to the party, but I think in housing no one should receive BAH. We don't so why should someone else? just because they are dual? That to me is not cool.
out in town i don't care, I know rent is high and yes everyone is entitled to what they qualify for.

tardy to the party, but I think in housing no one should receive BAH. We don't so why should someone else?

You don't receive dual military pay b/c you're not dual military. If you worked at walmart, you'd still get to keep your whole paycheck without having to match the amount that your husband pays to PPV for housing, so I don't see why someone in the military should have to give up theirs either?

You don't receive dual military pay b/c you're not dual military. If you worked at walmart, you'd still get to keep your whole paycheck without having to match the amount that your husband pays to PPV for housing, so I don't see why someone in the military should have to give up theirs either?
Because BAH is for a specific thing. like rent. If i got BAH at another job and I was living somewhere that they paid for me to live i would expect to give it up. Just like BAS is only for a married military member or when a galley isn't available yet when DH goes out to sea we get it taken away? Why we didn't stop being married just because he went on the boat.
They aren't taking away base pay, but something that is an allowance you get. If you aren't paying rent then you shouldn't receive it. that is how i feel

Because BAH is for a specific thing. like rent. If i got BAH at another job and I was living somewhere that they paid for me to live i would expect to give it up. Just like BAS is only for a married military member or when a galley isn't available yet when DH goes out to sea we get it taken away? Why we didn't stop being married just because he went on the boat.
They aren't taking away base pay, but something that is an allowance you get. If you aren't paying rent then you shouldn't receive it. that is how i feel


I agree

Because BAH is for a specific thing. like rent. If i got BAH at another job and I was living somewhere that they paid for me to live i would expect to give it up. Just like BAS is only for a married military member or when a galley isn't available yet when DH goes out to sea we get it taken away? Why we didn't stop being married just because he went on the boat.
They aren't taking away base pay, but something that is an allowance you get. If you aren't paying rent then you shouldn't receive it. that is how i feel

But if you live out in town and one person's BAH covers rent, then the other wouldn't technically be paying rent either? We pay rent to PPV, they just take it out automatically unless we choose to pay by check which we are doing right now. It's still rent though, just like if we rented a house out in town.

If they are both entitled to it, then yes.

But if you live out in town and one person's BAH covers rent, then the other wouldn't technically be paying rent either? We pay rent to PPV, they just take it out automatically unless we choose to pay by check which we are doing right now. It's still rent though, just like if we rented a house out in town.
I have no issue when you live out in town, yes it's something you qualify for, but in housing I feel they should be bound by the same rules that a single member is.

People may consider BAH as far of the paycheck but in reality it is a separate housing allowance specifically meant for rent.

I have no issue when you live out in town, yes it's something you qualify for, but in housing I feel they should be bound by the same rules that a single member is.

Hmm.. So if I was an E7 with 10 years in like my husband, we should pay $3,200 a month to housing instead of $1,600 just b/c I happen to be enlisted also?

I am shocked that people don't think that dual families shouldn't get that extra BAH if they are in housing! Why would you give that up? For our family, that would be almost $2000 a month in benefits! I most definitely think that they should get BAH if they are in housing...

Hmm.. So if I was an E7 with 10 years in like my husband, we should pay $3,200 a month to housing instead of $1,600 just b/c I happen to be enlisted also?

I don't think so.. I just think one member in the couple should be entitled to the BAH in the first place :D

People may consider BAH as far of the paycheck but in reality it is a separate housing allowance specifically meant for rent.

yes, BUT my point is that if we live out in town, his check would cover the BAH just like it does now. So, technically, I guess that would mean that if I don't need the money to pay rent out in town (since his covers it), then I have to give up my housing allowance b/c it's not technically going to rent?

I have no issue when you live out in town, yes it's something you qualify for, but in housing I feel they should be bound by the same rules that a single member is.

I'm not familiar with this whole PPV thing; I retired over 10 years ago. Are you saying that in a dual military couple, only one surrenders BAH in PPV? This is different from how it was before PPV- if you lived in housing, you completely gave up BAH, whether you're single military or dual military.

Does anyone know for sure what the regs are on this, or maybe where I can find them? It sounds really awkward to me that anyone living in housing would still collect BAH, even at the single (lower) rate.

I don't think so.. I just think one member in the couple should be entitled to the BAH in the first place :D

Right, but if you get married when you already both have 5 years in, who loses their benefits?

Hmm.. So if I was an E7 with 10 years in like my husband, we should pay $3,200 a month to housing instead of $1,600 just b/c I happen to be enlisted also?
Yes i do
I lived in a crap house, not even enough for our family size. An E-3 with no kids was living in a 3 bedroom paying less then I was. That isn't fair either. It won't ever be fair. But there has to be a line somewhere. If BAH was included in base pay it would be different, but it's something extra, what you pay for living in housing.

Right, but if you get married when you already both have 5 years in, who loses their benefits?

Well I don't see it as a penalty.. but I'd say the couple... should get dependant BAH.

I'm not familiar with this whole PPV thing; I retired over 10 years ago. Are you saying that in a dual military couple, only one surrenders BAH in PPV? This is different from how it was before PPV- if you lived in housing, you completely gave up BAH, whether you're single military or dual military.

Does anyone know for sure what the regs are on this, or maybe where I can find them? It sounds really awkward to me that anyone living in housing would still collect BAH, even at the single (lower) rate.

One of my neighbors is dual military. She still gets single BAH.

If a husband and wife both are on active duty and have a child, the higher-ranking spouse gets BAH at the “with-dependent” rate and the other receives it at the “without-dependent” rate. In dual-military couples without children, the husband and wife both receive BAH at the without-dependent rate.

http://www.militarytimes.com/benefits/pay/military_basicpay_housingallowance_2007hbml/

everything i am googleing, it seems to be different for each base

I'm not familiar with this whole PPV thing; I retired over 10 years ago. Are you saying that in a dual military couple, only one surrenders BAH in PPV? This is different from how it was before PPV- if you lived in housing, you completely gave up BAH, whether you're single military or dual military.

Does anyone know for sure what the regs are on this, or maybe where I can find them? It sounds really awkward to me that anyone living in housing would still collect BAH, even at the single (lower) rate.
I also think each PPV has their own rules and regs.

Yes i do
I lived in a crap house, not even enough for our family size. An E-3 with no kids was living in a 3 bedroom paying less then I was. That isn't fair either. It won't ever be fair. But there has to be a line somewhere. If BAH was included in base pay it would be different, but it's something extra, what you pay for living in housing.

:eek We will have to agree to disagree then.

We're in a tiny three bedroom house with soon to be four children, one of them being a newborn, paying almost $1,600 a month. So, I know about it not being fair. But to say that someone should pay DOUBLE the rent to PPV simply b/c they are dual makes absolutely no sense to me at all, unless you think it's fair for any dual INCOME families to pay double the rent. I wonder how many people would flip their lid if they knew that getting a job meant that you'd have to start paying double for rent?

Right, but if you get married when you already both have 5 years in, who loses their benefits?

(not necessarily directed specifically at you; I think I understand your position on this)If a dual military couple has to give up benefits, then a couple that has one military and one civil servant or government contractor should fork over the bennies too.

Neither one have to take a pay cut simply because of who they married. If the spouse worked for a government contractor, or was a civil service employee, or took any number of high-end jobs, part of the bennies of that job include a Cost of Living Allowance, which is designed to compensate for the higher costs of housing, rents, and other living expenses in that specific area.

I don't get the idea that just because two people work for the same company, one should have to give up earned benefits.

:eek We will have to agree to disagree then.

We're in a tiny three bedroom house with soon to be four children, one of them being a newborn, paying almost $1,600 a month. So, I know about it not being fair. But to say that someone should pay DOUBLE the rent to PPV simply b/c they are dual makes absolutely no sense to me at all, unless you think it's fair for any dual INCOME families to pay double the rent. I wonder how many people would flip their lid if they knew that getting a job meant that you'd have to start paying double for rent?

:yes Especially when you consider the cost of childcare when both parents are military.

See if people want to argue not allowing them to recieve dual BAH is a penalty... I could argue that I'm being penalized for staying home and raising my kids right and we should get some extra money for me doing that.. but people would find that to be a ridiculous arguement, just as some of us see dual military getting double BAH as ridiculous. If I was a civilian working I would not get a special pay specifically for housing like I would if I were enlisted. BAH is NOT part of the base pay, it's an extra pay specifically given for housing.

For the record, until fairly recently, like within the last 80-100 years, marriage was NEVER ABOUT love. People got married because men needed women to cook and clean. Women got married because they needed to be taken care of. Dowry's on a daughter's hand in marriage ensured that old men would be taken care of after they couldn't work any more.

People, ESPECIALLY American people, act like it's SUCH a scandal when people get married because of anything other than the ooey gooey feeling of love. They LOVE hearing about two morons who have no money sense, but love each other, get married, but hate when two good friends say, "Hey let's get married, split the benefits, and sleep in separate rooms." There are STILL arranged marriages in some countries. I remember a news article and an interview, where a woman said in India, if you can find an Indian American man, who has a good job and a lot of money, it's the best possible match. They marry for reality, not love. There, that's called life. Here, it's called a scandal. Why?


That was a great point. How many times have I seen on here people getting married right before a deployment because its convenient. Thats what we did when he went to sea duty. I wouldnt be with him while he was deployed so we ran off and got married. It was convenient. I love him but that was not why we got married quickly.

:eek We will have to agree to disagree then.

We're in a tiny three bedroom house with soon to be four children, one of them being a newborn, paying almost $1,600 a month. So, I know about it not being fair. But to say that someone should pay DOUBLE the rent to PPV simply b/c they are dual makes absolutely no sense to me at all, unless you think it's fair for any dual INCOME families to pay double the rent. I wonder how many people would flip their lid if they knew that getting a job meant that you'd have to start paying double for rent?


If ya'll had double BAH though odds are you'd be out in town in a nice place, ya know?

If ya'll had double BAH though odds are you'd be out in town in a nice place, ya know?
Very true, I only knew a handful of dual military that lived in housing because you made money living out in town.

This is what I dont get. Before everything went to PPV, you just lost BAH period. To me PPV is no different except that we get the BAH but it is turned around and paid out on allottment.

So back in the day before PPV, it was the same. An E9 lost their BAH for the same house that and E1 lost BAH for. I honestly dont see the difference.

See if people want to argue not allowing them to recieve dual BAH is a penalty... I could argue that I'm being penalized for staying home and raising my kids right and we should get some extra money for me doing that.. but people would find that to be a ridiculous arguement, just as some of us see dual military getting double BAH as ridiculous. If I was a civilian working I would not get a special pay specifically for housing like I would if I were enlisted. BAH is NOT part of the base pay, it's an extra pay specifically given for housing.

So what would you think if they maintained two residences then? Say... one near a school, and one by the beach or something? Or rented a second residence and rented it out...

That was a great point. How many times have I seen on here people getting married right before a deployment because its convenient. Thats what we did when he went to sea duty. I wouldnt be with him while he was deployed so we ran off and got married. It was convenient. I love him but that was not why we got married quickly.

Very true. One guy G was stationed with even got married "by proxy" while in Bahrain.

See if people want to argue not allowing them to recieve dual BAH is a penalty... I could argue that I'm being penalized for staying home and raising my kids right and we should get some extra money for me doing that.. but people would find that to be a ridiculous arguement, just as some of us see dual military getting double BAH as ridiculous. If I was a civilian working I would not get a special pay specifically for housing like I would if I were enlisted. BAH is NOT part of the base pay, it's an extra pay specifically given for housing.

It might not be labeled as basic pay but how many people would actually join based on the military basic pay alone? Not many that I know of, because not many people would be able to survive hopping around from duty station to duty station with dependents and only living off of the measly basic pay with out these "extras". Those extras are not labeled as basic pay but it's pretty much understood that you're entitled to them. So, to take them away just because they aren't technically called "Basic Pay" is a little silly.

Very true, I only knew a handful of dual military that lived in housing because you made money living out in town.

i know out here you see it more. you get more house for money here in housing that you do out in town.

It might not be labeled as basic pay but how many people would actually join based on the military basic pay alone? Not many that I know of, because not many people would be able to survive hopping around from duty station to duty station with dependents and only living off of the measly basic pay with out these "extras". Those extras are not labeled as basic pay but it's pretty much understood that you're entitled to them. So, to take them away just because they aren't technically called "Basic Pay" is a little silly.

but most of the 'extra pay' is only available once married or after a certain rank. So when you join you go in with an idea that your base pay is your base pay.

So what would you think if they maintained two residences then? Say... one near a school, and one by the beach or something? Or rented a second residence and rented it out...

I don't really understand where you're going with that question :confused.. sorry :lol

I don't care where they live.. base housing or buying... I just think a dual military couple should recieve 1 BAH payment as a couple, not double BAH.

If ya'll had double BAH though odds are you'd be out in town in a nice place, ya know?

and the military would be losing just as much money that way. That's why I don't see why it's even an argument. Whether we live in housing and collect BAH or live out in town and collect BAH,t he military loses the same amount of money. Honestly though, I don't even look at it as the military losing "their" money... it's the service member's entitlement, as far as I'm concerned.

See if people want to argue not allowing them to recieve dual BAH is a penalty... I could argue that I'm being penalized for staying home and raising my kids right and we should get some extra money for me doing that.. but people would find that to be a ridiculous arguement, just as some of us see dual military getting double BAH as ridiculous. If I was a civilian working I would not get a special pay specifically for housing like I would if I were enlisted. BAH is NOT part of the base pay, it's an extra pay specifically given for housing.

No, if you were a civilian, you'd get paid a reasonable hourly rate or salary, not be subject to unpaid overtime, and your paycheck would reflect the wages in the area you lived (in other words, you'd be paid what you're worth). If your employer was dead-set on hiring YOU and wanted to make the job the most attractive to YOU because of your amazing skills, s/he'd probably offer a sign-on bonus, or a company car, or a utility allowance, or closing costs and moving expenses for your transfer, or any number of things that are available in the common market for those with highly sought-after skills.

BAH is an allowance that is given, tax-free, to assist military members with housing costs and is one of the myriad of tangible and intangible benefits that make a tour or career in the military attractive to prospective employees. In other words, it's a recruiting tool.

It might not be labeled as basic pay but how many people would actually join based on the military basic pay alone? Not many that I know of, because not many people would be able to survive hopping around from duty station to duty station with dependents and only living off of the measly basic pay with out these "extras". Those extras are not labeled as basic pay but it's pretty much understood that you're entitled to them. So, to take them away just because they aren't technically called "Basic Pay" is a little silly.


When you're living in base housing you ARE only living off of the base pay since all of the BAH goes to housing... As a dual military couple.. if they only received 1 BAH payment rather than 2 they'd still be getting it...

but most of the 'extra pay' is only available once married or after a certain rank. So when you join you go in with an idea that your base pay is your base pay.

but you go in knowing that if you tough it out for the first year, that you WILL get those entitlements. People don't join thinking that they might get housing money... they join KNOWING they will once they get past schooling and bootcamp. People are aware of the payscales and entitlements when joining, so they know what to expect, or at least most people do.

I don't really understand where you're going with that question :confused.. sorry :lol

I don't care where they live.. base housing or buying... I just think a dual military couple should recieve 1 BAH payment as a couple, not double BAH.

I thought you were saying that the issue is if they both live in housing, they shouldn't get double BAH. So I am saying well what if one person claims they live in housing, and the other person "rents" out on town, but rents that out to recoup the costs...

ok... i can definitely understand why people don't like the idea of someone getting rent money that they dont have to spend (can save)

but i think that if someone has to pay DOUBLE rent (dual couple, neither getting BAH) then they should get DOUBLE the house. it should be WORTH that extra rent. it shouldnt be worth just the one persons BAH... it should be worth BOTH BAH.

otherwise, i think both should still recieve BAH anyway... even though that means one gives it for rent, and one gets to save it.

The Navy says they will provide all military members a place to live. If you are single that is the barecks, if you are married that is base housing. If those are not available they will provide you with the money to pay for a place to live.

I thought you were saying that the issue is if they both live in housing, they shouldn't get double BAH. So I am saying well what if one person claims they live in housing, and the other person "rents" out on town, but rents that out to recoup the costs...

She said she doesn't think any dual mil couple should receive double bah no matter where they live.

I thought you were saying that the issue is if they both live in housing, they shouldn't get double BAH. So I am saying well what if one person claims they live in housing, and the other person "rents" out on town, but rents that out to recoup the costs...


Oh no.. my stance on it is a dual military couple should recieve one BAH payment as a couple, not 2. Reagardless of whether they live on or off base.

She said she doesn't think any dual mil couple should receive double bah no matter where they live.

Ohhhhhhh... my mistake, I'm sorry. In that case, you guys are nuts and I am out of here. Doesn't make any sense to me! :lol

Ohhhhhhh... my mistake, I'm sorry. In that case, you guys are nuts and I am out of here. Doesn't make any sense to me! :lol


:lol no one has to agree with me... I just think different than most :P I don't care if people don't agree I still like ya'll :D

A married couple is legally viewed as one unit.... so recieving BAH as one unit makes perfect sense to me :D

A married couple is legally viewed as one unit.... so recieving BAH as one unit makes perfect sense to me :D


By whom? By what legal entity? Are you speaking for a state? The federal government? A church? A community? What?

Because I can tell you that the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Illinois, the State of Montana, and the federal government all allowed me to choose whether my spouse and I view ourselves as "one unit" or as individuals. Check your tax forms- you may have that choice also.

A married couple is legally viewed as one unit.... so recieving BAH as one unit makes perfect sense to me :D

But then by that thinking, should they get one pay unit too?

thank god we aren't limited to only one salary or one child per unit :lol

But then by that thinking, should they get one pay unit too?

Jinx, you owe me a diet coke :rofl oh, caffeine free. :lmao

:lol no one has to agree with me... I just think different than most :P I don't care if people don't agree I still like ya'll :D

Oh I totally agree... I am just surprised that military wives think the "pay" (benefits, whatever) should be reduced for having two people in the family serve, when a lot of us say that the pay/housing should be increased for the single member.

I basically see it as: double the sacrifices, double the deployments, double the pay and benefits..

Jinx, you owe me a diet coke :rofl oh, caffeine free. :lmao

:roflmao All I have is Diet Caffeine Free Dr. Pepper! :thinking Hope that will hit the spot lady! :wink

Oh I totally agree... I am just surprised that military wives think the "pay" (benefits, whatever) should be reduced for having two people in the family serve, when a lot of us say that the pay/housing should be increased for the single member.

I basically see it as: double the sacrifices, double the deployments, double the pay and benefits..

for me all of that is fine until it comes to actually living in housing. Like Donna said before PPV you lost all your BAH to live there dual or single, why is it any different now that it's PPV nothing has really changed as far as housing goes, why now are there different rules??

for me all of that is fine until it comes to actually living in housing. Like Donna said before PPV you lost all your BAH to live there dual or single, why is it any different now that it's PPV nothing has really changed as far as housing goes, why now are there different rules??

Couple ideas on that (may or may not be right, just ideas)

PPV is run by a Private company; chances are they weren't aware of dual BAH payments. My guess is, if they thought they could get additional payments for units that duallies live in, they'd take it in a heartbeat!

Alternately, it may have been how that particular company got the contract to run the PPV: "This is how much we estimate it will cost us to run your housing, so this is what we'll charge..."

A third possibility is that the PPV company and military disbursement/pay offices may not be readily hooked up; that is, the PPV company only requires payment from one military member per household. and their software isn't set to register a second allottment for one housing unit. They probably think like civilians, so it doesn't make sense to them that Couple X pays $1000 to live in this house, while similarly-ranked Couple Y next door pays $1400 to live in an identical house.

Just some ideas......

Couple ideas on that (may or may not be right, just ideas)

PPV is run by a Private company; chances are they weren't aware of dual BAH payments. My guess is, if they thought they could get additional payments for units that duallies live in, they'd take it in a heartbeat!

Alternately, it may have been how that particular company got the contract to run the PPV: "This is how much we estimate it will cost us to run your housing, so this is what we'll charge..."

A third possibility is that the PPV company and military disbursement/pay offices may not be readily hooked up; that is, the PPV company only requires payment from one military member per household. and their software isn't set to register a second allottment for one housing unit. They probably think like civilians, so it doesn't make sense to them that Couple X pays $1000 to live in this house, while similarly-ranked Couple Y next door pays $1400 to live in an identical house.

Just some ideas......
Actually with PPV its the same as before the only difference is that your BAH is on your LES and is alloted right back out to whatever your PPV company is.. So in essence nothing has changed. I am sure that these companies are very aware of how the BAH thing works, most of them own multiple housings in different parts of the country. When you sign your lease there are tons of papers to fill out, like if you are both military or just one of you is, so it's not like they don't know.
PPV was supposed to make housing better and less complicated. It really doesn't its just more bureaucratic then ever

Actually with PPV its the same as before the only difference is that your BAH is on your LES and is alloted right back out to whatever your PPV company is.. So in essence nothing has changed. I am sure that these companies are very aware of how the BAH thing works, most of them own multiple housings in different parts of the country. When you sign your lease there are tons of papers to fill out, like if you are both military or just one of you is, so it's not like they don't know.
PPV was supposed to make housing better and less complicated. It really doesn't its just more bureaucratic then ever


:yes

Oh I totally agree... I am just surprised that military wives think the "pay" (benefits, whatever) should be reduced for having two people in the family serve, when a lot of us say that the pay/housing should be increased for the single member.

I basically see it as: double the sacrifices, double the deployments, double the pay and benefits..

Exactly!!! Yes some may take advantage of the system . BUT that is the way it is everywhere.

I don't mind the more sr. one in the relationship getting the full BAH with dependents and the spouse getting the single BAH.... Doesn't bother me. They're both AD, so they deserve the benefits!

I haven't read the whole thing, but I agree. It was the only thing worth both of us being AD when I was in.

Oh I totally agree... I am just surprised that military wives think the "pay" (benefits, whatever) should be reduced for having two people in the family serve, when a lot of us say that the pay/housing should be increased for the single member.

I basically see it as: double the sacrifices, double the deployments, double the pay and benefits..

They are proposing that single BAH 95% of married BAH, currently I think it is 75% something like that. I think they should receive the exact same amount. BAH should not be based on marital status, but on paygrade. Just as in the civilian world, you are not paid based on marital status, but the job you do. JMO......

They are proposing that single BAH 95% of married BAH, currently I think it is 75% something like that. I think they should receive the exact same amount. BAH should not be based on marital status, but on paygrade. Just as in the civilian world, you are not paid based on marital status, but the job you do. JMO......

I don't agree with this one...sorry.

when you are single, you can get a small little apartment just for yourself. You pay for what you get. When you are married, you need a larger apartment. Also, BAH is based on Rank. You get more the higher you go. If my DH puts on E-6 from E-5 it is almost a $150 more a month pay jump just in BAH, that doesn't include the pay raise he would get.

What I think is if you are a dual military, you get the single rate of bah apiece. This way, you are both getting what you deserve but you're not out to scam anyone.

I don't know if I put that right...oh well.:nutts

I completely see how it's fair in every situation EXCEPT housing. How is it fair for that family to still be recieving BAH (even though it's the single rate) WHILE living in housing?
They shouldn't be receiving it while in housing. When I was in the Marine Corps, my husband (at the time) was also in the Marine Corps. We lived in housing and both our BAH was recouped.

I see no problem with it. It is a perk of the job and shouldnt be taken away just for beong married. As far as pay and housing goes..... if you dont like the amount you pay for base housing then go live out in town. We are happy with our townhouse and we have E2-Chiefs on our street.

I think they're both entitled to it as they both are in the military and it's part of their benefits package.

When living in housing, I think it's fair for the senior to give up the BAH but the for the other to continue getting single BAH. My reasoning for this is that each person's BAH is supposed to be enough to rent ONE place. They're only renting ONE place living in housing so they should only have to give up one BAH. If they're required to give up both BAH pays, then they should be alloted 2 houses in base housing because it'd be 2 BAH's they'd be giving up. But no one wants to give them 2 houses and they don't need 2 houses (or a house and a barracks room since one is with dependants and one is at the single rate). Since they're not being provided 2 places to live based on their 2 BAH's for each of them being in the military, then it's only fair they get to keep one of the BAH's.

no they both get it. one get married BAH and the other gets single. even when living in housing, the one recieving single bah STILL recieves it.


This isn't true... as a dual military couple they actually both get single if they DO NOT have children. If they do have children one would receive married BAH and the other would receive single BAH. Now if they lived in Housing they would lose it all just like we all do they don't get any exceptions.

Here is the website to where you can look up about Dual military, choose JTFR Vol 1, Apr 2008, Chapter 10, part C

http://dodtravelregs.hqda.pentagon.mil/propub/template.htm?view=main



chapter 10, Part C Member to Member, then after that go to part D which is
Government Quarters and thats where you can see where they lose there BAH where they live in housing.

my boss and her husband are dual military and there second BAH pretty much pays for me...if one or the other didnt work they woudlnt need me soooo...yah i think its a good thing if they are both military they are making double the sacrifice and deserve to make more money i think