It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress report says military paid more than civilians... BS!!!

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Reply to post by macman
 


But those who do not get BAH are given barracks to live in or comparable housing. As for Tricare, sounds like you had a horrible experience. Yes, Motrin is given away like candy at many dispensaries.

Bottom line: no one joins the service to become a bajillionaire. No one has been forced to serve thier country in quite a while. The folks I know joined because they felt an overwhelming desire to serve....and that pot of gold at the end...the post 9/11 GI Bill (another nice benefit).


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
If we are going to discuss the issue of military pay, then we cannot just focus on the lowest rank (E-1) and ignore everything else including marriage, housing, free healthcare, possible tax-free situations, hazard pay, etc.

So first let us get some demographics out of the way. If the OP was about comparing private pay to military pay, then it is duly needed in order to come to a logical and constructive discussion regarding the issue.

U.S. Military Active Duty Demographics (2008)

This link is a slideshow that claims it pulled the data from the Defense Manpower Data Center. I use claims because doing to their website, it requires a login. I will try and independently verify and crosscheck the data, but for now I have good trust in the information.

- In 2008, Active duty consisted of ~1.2 million enlisted and ~200 thousand officers.

- On average, 50% of enlisted personnel are married; 70% of officers

- 93% of enlisted personnel have their high-school diploma/GED or higher; 90% of officers have a BA/BS or higher.

- The average age, regardless of what you hear is not 19. The average age of military personnel is 28 years old.

According to CBO data:

- Average rank across the services is E-5
- Average time-in-service is nearly 10 years.

Again, with CBO data, dating 1999 (can't find newer information, but will continue searching)

Since the average rank is E-5, the break down is roughly as follows in terms of education level:
- 20% high school education
- 60% with some college
- 10% with an associates degree
- 7% with a college degree (BA/BS)
- 3% with an advanced degree

In my data, we will use the averages above. The data set I will be using will be a 28 year old, E-5 with 10 years of service. I will examine both single and married since the average is 50% with that data.

According to military pay charts found here

- An E-5 with over 8 years of service makes $2800.50 a month. That is $33606 a year.
- As an E-5, they will no longer living in the barracks so we need to include BAH (Basic allowance for housing).

BAH w/o dependants - BAH with dependents

These numbers depend on where your home-station is and can vary wildly based on the cost of living for the area. It also depends if you have dependents or not. I will list both. To obtain a good guess estimate, I took a sampling of the three higher rates and the three lower rates and averaged them together.

The approximate average for an E-5, without dependents is around $1400/month for housing.
The approximate average for an E-5, with dependents is around $1545/month for housing.

The above numbers are averaged samples. The amounts vary from city to city. Some as high as $2500/month and some as low as $650/month. I am also only looking at CONUS rates and not oversea rates, which tend to run higher in most instances.

Next, we need to include Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS). Found here

Enlisted personnel receive $323.87/month to offset the cost of food.

In conclusion in regards to average military pay, I estimate the following.

A 28 yr/old, single E-5 makes: $54,292/year
A 28 yr/old, married E-5 makes: $56,032/year

These numbers don't factor in tax-breaks, tax-free access to goods, health care costs (free to active duty), etc. To estimate that, I would have to do much deeper research that I don't have time right now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, now we have some good averages and numbers to compare to the private work force at the same point.

Data isn't quite as broken down the same way from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic. The data set I used is 25yrs or older, working full time, no college or some college (or associates degree), hourly and salary positions excluding self incorporated persons.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2010, average weekly earnings are reported at $345. So monthly and yearly would be $1380 and $16560 respectively.

In conclusion two persons, nearly at the same point in their life in terms of age and education; with one being in the military and the other the private sector, we can clearly see how much more money military personnel, on average are paid far greater than their civilian counterparts. A 28 year old in the military after serving 10 years makes roughly 4 times more than a similar person in the private sector.

As a result, this is an objective view based on pay and doesn't factor in the type of work performed, danger that arises from military service, stress involved, long deployments, or wounds or possibly death. Those are very subjective and can only be included after we establish the baselines I have above.

By including those factors, it is my opinion that the pay received within military service is sufficient and comfortable once you have put in some time. Of course a new recruit will not be making the numbers I have listed above. Typically a new recruit, on average is 19 years old. Usually straight out of high school with minimal to no skill set. They would otherwise be performing a minimum wage job in the private workforce, which would put them well below the military pay they begin receiving at E-1.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Yet we would still have adequate defenses against invasion since the machinery of war would still exist, along with our 65 million privately armed citizens.


If there were no professional soldiers who would fly the fighter planes? Who would man the tanks? Which people would pilot the submarines and necessary naval fleets? These aren't things that you just pick up in a weekend. They are also things that are necessary to fight a modern war. Whether that means a defensive, or offensive operation.

Who is going to command the troops? Who is going to study the logistics and strategies of war well enough to fight a war? If there is no financial incentive to become trained in these areas who will do it so that our defense is effective?

Who is going to maintain the equipment that is necessary? Who is going to spend hundreds of hours a month ensuring that the machinery of war is maintained? Tanks, hummers, planes, and transport trucks can rust and experience other mechanical issues from just sitting there.

The 65 million armed citizens of America (some estimates put it at 80 million or more) would make a good suplimental force. However, they would not be enough to fight off an invasion force equiped with stealth fighters, tanks, and nuclear submarines. To have the machinery of war and even basic competency in command and tactics requires a certain number of professionals trained in combat and paid to maintain those skills.

George Washington became a good commander because he was first a paid soldier. He experienced war before he attempted to lead during a revelution.

For some one that was in the Navy, you tend to ignore the realities of modern war quite a bit. Your method is an idealistic fantasy that isn't possible. Since ancient times countries have maintained professional armys. They realized simply that if they didn't some one else would. Then they would be unprepared and at a great disadvantage.

The cause for wars of agression do not lay at the foot of the soldier. Many of the soldiers prepare for war while praying for peace. The fault for wars of agression lays at the feet of politicians and corporate interest that believe they deserve a larger portion of the world's wealth even if that means taking it by force. The lack of a professional army would only mean that you end up on the recieving end of agression.

War and the cause of war is a very complex issue. Anyone that believes it is not is either being intellectually dishonest or naive.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you for posting the information. I was going to do that once I got home since it's difficult to do so from my phone.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Who would man the machinery of war?

You think it would be difficult to find volunteers to fly fighter planes?

You think it would be difficult to find volunteers to drive tanks?

LOL

Hell, if there was some place that allowed me to do that on my weekends, I'd have a lifetime membership!

As for the capital ships, this is something that the merchant marine would take care of. The merchant fleet would arm itself since it would not have the benefit of a tax payer subsidized navy to protect its fleet from pirates.

The carriers and such would simply go away, mothballed.

We don't need them.

Carriers and other capital ships are power-projectors. A militia defense force has no need to project power.



edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
Reply to post by macman
 


But those who do not get BAH are given barracks to live in or comparable housing. As for Tricare, sounds like you had a horrible experience. Yes, Motrin is given away like candy at many dispensaries.

Bottom line: no one joins the service to become a bajillionaire. No one has been forced to serve thier country in quite a while. The folks I know joined because they felt an overwhelming desire to serve....and that pot of gold at the end...the post 9/11 GI Bill (another nice benefit).


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Housing is for those with families. Barracks are just that, barracks. Army and Marines barracks are 10-20 guys per unit. Navy members are mostly ship/sub bound. Air Force is 2 airmen per unit, sometimes 1.
I never complained nor have I have heard of any GI complain about the rate of pay. Why, because we know how to make it work and will work second jobs if needed.
I don't like hearing that the Govt, who votes on their own pay, comes out with a BS study stating that the GI makes good money. We both know that is BS.

I went in knowing that I could go to war, and I had no problem with that. But I joined to learn a skill, and be apart of the military.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Housing is for those with families. Barracks are just that, barracks. Army and Marines barracks are 10-20 guys per unit. Navy members are mostly ship/sub bound. Air Force is 2 airmen per unit, sometimes 1.


You are narrowing your argument here. Housing, on base is typically for families. Even that is under-review (at least at the time I said my goodbyes) to allow E-5s and above to occupy base-housing in a roommate type of environment.

Typically, as you progress in rank, the ability to move off base is granted with or without a family. So BAH is definitely in play. There was also a study (can't seem to find it) to have barrack laden soldiers receive BAH and pay for their barracks. This was a con setup in my opinion to funnel money to contracted private housing authorities.


I never complained nor have I have heard of any GI complain about the rate of pay. Why, because we know how to make it work and will work second jobs if needed.
I don't like hearing that the Govt, who votes on their own pay, comes out with a BS study stating that the GI makes good money. We both know that is BS.


Mostly true. A GI isn't in it for the money. But according to the data I posted above, how can you say that a GI doesn't make good money. It is slow to start, but as you progress and put in more time, the salary becomes quite comfortable.

What I didn't include above is if a GI is married military to military. In that case, they both pull in BAH (unless they again changed that rule). At any rate, two military personnel married together will typically have a household income from $40,000 to as high as $200,000; depending upon rank and time in service. That is a damn decent living considering the perks involved. Tax free goods. 5% surcharge and no tax on food. Free health care for your dependents. Free education.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I served for 24 years; honestly, if I wanted to make more money I suppose I could have done so but I loved the military.

IMO the real pay gaps in the military are at the senior NCO levels. Guys who have been working at something for 15-20 years who know their stuff inside and out - usually with a degree as well make less than junior officers.

I do understand the hierarchy piece and politics of that decision having been both a senior NCO and a field grade officer. Don't want the manager making less the supervisors under him is a position of principle I guess.

I think junior officer pay is pretty consistent with the general population while senior officer pay is likely less than one would make at civilian job with comparable responsibilities.

Especially at the field grade levels - Imagine a job in corporate America where you have a multi-billion dollar inventory of assests to control with 700-800 employees; manage personal staff of 70 or so with facilities and a mission that is literally life and death. In the private sector such a person would certainly make a 6 figure income.

I never felt underpaid always had enough to have a good standard of living as both an enlisted guy and as an officer. Invested well lived within my means and had the ability to buy my farm outright which is a comforting feeling.

However, being a retiree is not all it's cracked up to be and those benefits seem likely to change at any time so I don't really count on them. I do find it hypocritical that congressmen get a huge retirement for a very short term of service in comparison.

That said I do consider myself fortunate to have any benefits at all as most people will work for 24 years for a private company and likely as not get none at all.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




You think it would be difficult to find volunteers to fly fighter planes?


How many people are going to volunteer after the CO says, "Boys you are going to prepare for a real war scenario. Over the next forty eight hours you are going to get a total of eight hours rack time. We are going to have you up and down all day. You are going to fly ten hour practice runs with two hours of down time to refuel and reload. Then you will be back in the air."

When it stops being fantasy camp people will drop out left and right.




You think it would be difficult to find volunteers to drive tanks?


How many people are going to come back after the CO says, "Over the next seventy two hours you will spend sixty hours in your tank. You will sleep in your tank. You will eat MREs out of a cardboard box in your tank. There will be enemys out there with shoulder mounted rockets and they will have tanks. If you are confirmed KIA you will crawl out of your tank and sit on the ground untill the conclusion of excercises."

Real training for ground and air war fare is not fantasy camp. The average person can not handle it and would drop out because of an inability to cope physically or mentally. Then another large group will drop out because the stress and strain will take away from other pursuits. Voluntary training would either be insufficient for the real thing or would drive away nearly every person that attempts it.

You haven't adressed who would maintain the equipment, where the commanders would come from, or who would handle logistics and planning.




As for the capital ships, this is something that the merchant marine would take care of. The merchant fleet would arm itself since it would not have the benefit of a tax payer subsidized navy to protect its fleet from pirates.


Arming to prepare for pirates and arming to handle a battleship or destroyer are two different things. The armor and artillery needed to defend against a large naval ship would add weight and take away space that can be dedicated to cargo. The weight of armor and artillery would cut in to the bottom line of profitability because it would decrease the amount of cargo a ship could carry. The training of men to handle such equipment would also add cost to the shipping of goods. It would actually be more profitable to prepare for pirates and completely avoid countries at war.

That would leave a country at a severe disadvantage. Their supply lines would be effectively cut off as soon as agression started. The only way to ensure it wasn't would be to give the merchant ships a financial incentive to risk the loss associated with joining in the war. Remember the corporation handling those boats has a fudiciary responsibility to maximize profits for the stock holders. That means they could be found legally liable for knowingly entering a war without ensuring they properly cover their risks.




Carriers and other capital ships are power-projectors.


Carriers ensure that you can drive your agressor all the way back home. You don't have to worry about him falling back to some island and waiting for back up to arrive. You can float your carriers in close ad unleash waves of attacks to quickly destroy the military infrastructure. It also gives you quick access to their fleets. You can unleash waves of planes to minimize the ability of your enemy to land troops on your soil. Destroyers and other ships can serve a similar purpose and actually keep the wolf from the door.

Of course, all of those things would be pointless. Since there would be no professional soldiers to maintain the early warning systems, we would be getting our rears handed to us before we could gather our scattered forces for a counter strike.




edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


65 million gun owners versus an invading army of a few hundred thousand would end very badly for the invaders.

Weekend warriors do their job just fine in the national guard when called to active duty.

There is no need for a standing army, and certainly no need for a standing army of mercenaries.

If there is the threat of invasion, people would donate their time without pay.

The difference is that when people are not paid, foreign wars of aggression become impossible. No one will volunteer to fight a foreign war of aggression without pay, but everyone would volunteer to play with heavy machinery on the weekends and defend our borders if needed.


edit on 1-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


To support your notion, here is what James Madison said about this very subject. From Federalist Essays No 46, Madison says:

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government..."

While he supported a regular army we can probably come to the determination that the reserves or guard would suffice and satisfy this statement.

But below, he expands on the benefits of free citizens ability to arm themselves and repel a threat.

"...still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

Here he explains the numbers, of course if we were to adjust this to todays population we can see how a free people armed would always outnumber a standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men."

This last portion of the paragraph is my favorite. Speaking directly of free people, armed and organized amongst themselves will always be the best defense. Always.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You do know that people get paid for joining the National Guard, right? You can also attend officer school on your weekends and transfer in to active duty as an officer when you finish. National Guard soldiers also get access to the GI Bill and other incentives given to active duty soldiers. So, they have a financial incentive to under go the more hard core training. The reserves and National Guard do not even come close to proving your point.




65 million gun owners versus an invading army of a few hundred thousand would end very badly for the invaders.


Any country with an ounce of planning would realize the first step would be bombing the armories, the rail roads, power plants and water treatment facilities. Then they would start focussing on bridges that cross the mississippi river. That would effectively cut the country in half. In less than a week we would be in no better position than Iraq is currently.

People would be thrown in to chaos because they lost all of their modern comforts. The ones that aren't will be fighting just to hold on to what little bit they have and survive. When refugees start fleeing the citys and ransacking the country side do you think people are going to worry about protecting the borders or their family?

After a few weeks of bombing then they send in the troops and it becomes a war of wills. 65 million people with semi-auto rifles and guns might win, but it would be a war of atrition that would utterly destroy the country and make it unlivable for decades.




The difference is that when people are not paid, foreign wars of aggression become impossible.


Don't forget when we went in to Iraq about 50% of the country believed Sadam was involved in 9-11. With the right propaganda campaign people will believe people are a threat even when they aren't. Do you think people wouldn't have volunteered to atack Iraq aimply for revenge? Do you think the people that believed he had an atom bomb wouldn't volunteer to fight for the "defense" of their country. It doesn't matter that he was a toothless tiger. People thought he was a real threat.

Study modern war and propaganda. I think you have a lot to learn about both.



edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: fingers faster than brain

edit on 1-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Finding volunteers to fly fighters or volunteers for sub service?

Right no problem.

Being able to TRAIN them so they didn't kill themselves or their shipmates in time to respond to a hostility?

No way in hell.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

The typical US GI is an E3 to E-5. Yearly salary is between $22k to $30k (with benefits).
No comparison.



Doesn't that make them suckers? Sheesh I'd never let one of my sons join up, the elite are literally taking the piss out of the poor idiots, I read somewhere that over 70,000 GI's had been wounded in the ME campaigns, there's nothing brave or patriotic about being taken for a ride by a bunch of con men.


CX

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is no need to pay soldiers.

People will fight on their own if their is a real threat to their liberty.


No offence but take a good look at a lot of the US population. Do you think they'd be fit enough to fight should a threat suddenly come your way?

I'm sure the same could be said about the brits and every other country out there. The armed forces are fit and trained to fight. Civillians are not.

If they want equality, i hope they just raise the civvies pay. If they lower the troops pay after puting them through the crap they have done, i hope every member of the US armed forces marches on Washington and does an Egypt on thier greedy asses.

CX.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Congress couldn't find its own a$$ if the directions were in their back pockets.

How about they have a great big helping of stfu and cut their pay and benefits instead? Oh I forget: they feel justified in voting themselves payraises regularly, no matter how p*ss-poor their performance.

S & F

edit on 1-2-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: snafu


I agree 1000%.

I think the pay of every Congressman/Senator/President etc should be pegged to the armed forces pay.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I see by your answer that I've won this debate.

If you say no, then you are an anti-American wussy.

If you say yes, then your argument that we need to pay soldiers is refuted.


Mnemeth1 your so full of it your eyes are turning brown.

I give you honor for your service, but you of all people should know that our job is to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic... or domestic enemies are many right now including every CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberger and any other Globalist traitor.... not our Fellow military members.

We as civilians are to blame for not fighting harder against this insanity that is going on domestically that projects them internationally. They can not protest as they are under UCMJ and you know it well that they could be executed for disobeying an order in a time of... whatever they lie and call war now a-days.

Originally posted by Bkrmn
Anyone with the gall to say soldiers make more money than civilians, should be shipped to Afghanistan for at least one tour. Not only will the sphincters have to worry about their own survival and that of their mates,


Amen.
reply to post by MikeNice81
 

Excellent arguments throughout. Well said.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
In conclusion in regards to average military pay, I estimate the following.

A 28 yr/old, single E-5 makes: $54,292/year
A 28 yr/old, married E-5 makes: $56,032/year

These numbers don't factor in tax-breaks, tax-free access to goods, health care costs (free to active duty), etc. To estimate that, I would have to do much deeper research that I don't have time right now.


Your whole argument goes out the window the second the first bullet flies.

The ONLY comparison that makes since is those government employees or subcontractors who work in the same theatre as the E-5 you are referring too.

And those numbers have already been attested to range from several tens to several hundreds of thousands more... for NON COMBAT workers.

Excellent break down, but fatally flawed theory and already addressed/answered in initial couple of posts...


Originally posted by CX

No offence but take a good look at a lot of the US population. Do you think they'd be fit enough to fight should a threat suddenly come your way?

I'm sure the same could be said about the brits and every other country out there. The armed forces are fit and trained to fight. Civillians are not.

If they want equality, i hope they just raise the civvies pay. If they lower the troops pay after puting them through the crap they have done, i hope every member of the US armed forces marches on Washington and does an Egypt on thier greedy asses.

CX.


Excellent points. If China were to invade there is no way in hell even the (lets aim high and say) 10% of the population WILLING to fight would BE ABLE to fight...



Everyone. Wonderful posts and discussion on all sides here. Even if I disagree I am glad for your posts. Forgive me if this is a very near and dear subject to my heart and I'm a little harsh. I just am sick of the BS as they slash funds to those who need and deserve their pay while giving millions to their buddies for doing nothing.

I have had 2 hours sleep in the past 48 and I'm a little frazzled at this point having spent the last 8 hours driving.

peace,
pianopraze



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I served 4 years in the US Navy.


Ok, then. If the military shouldn't be paid, I think you ought to pay back the money you made while in the Navy for 4 years.

Oh, and any college or training you received? How about paying back the cost of that, too.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


Military Payscale for 2011

I was talking to a neighbor the other day and was informed that another neighbor of ours had recently acquired a non-union railroad job working as a conductor for a private railroad and getting $72 an hour. I was shocked.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Maybe you didn't read my post correctly. I was providing objective data, based on statistics available on how much money the average military member makes. That being 28 years old and E-5.

I made no mention to those that are contractors. I was merely pointing out military pay to private pay amongst the same demographics.

Even then at the end of my post I explained that the subjective portions of the argument need to be included which can be summed up as potentially death when faced with combat.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I served 4 years in the US Navy.


Ok, then. If the military shouldn't be paid, I think you ought to pay back the money you made while in the Navy for 4 years.



What is this? Kindergarten?

C'mon Jerico, you can argue at a higher level than this.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join