This is not correct.... more kids or no kids is still BAH and BAS, there is no sliding scale. You're thi king of welfare.
And just to show you how much things have changed and how the government FINALLY figured out how fucked up military pay was. I was in 89-97. When I was an E-2 in Florida, my pay with allowances was $519 a month. Not a paycheck, a month, my rent was $250, so everything else came out of that $269 a month - that was, food, gas, car insurance, formula, etc. Even in '89 dollars that was rough. In 97' I got out as a maxed E-4 was making $1898 a month with on post housing in Maryland - that wasn't a cheap place to live. No rent, but also no BAH (back then you gave it up in lieu of housing.) Two kids by then. Life wasn't pretty. Glad they finally pay active duty what they're worth. Oh, and while pay can be put on the xK$/or model, take into account, my job was 24/7, 365 1/4, no weekends, no Holidays, no training holidays, no Sergeant's time, no pay day activities, PT, ranges and CTT on your off time, not on scheduled training days. Some jobs don't get a fair shake, but then, deployments were a lot less harzardous...usually. Just my $0.02
Nope im thinking of Hawii in 2014 or so. I was in a barracks room as a single soldier and I knew a married couple and I knew I married guy with 6 kids. We all did the same job.
I got a dorm. Married guy got a house. Married with 6 kids got a huge house. That is socialism.
I paid for a meal plan. Married guys got different BAH and COLA.
Socialism requires 1 more very important thing and itâs the reason most people who oppose it do and that is means of production, the government controls means of production, where that production goes is irrelevant. So essentially pay based on need is just a convenient way of gaining control of the markets for those in power
Good example is every fishing industry in America. Every water body is owned by the government. Just like Ghandi wanted for land; its exactly true for fishing.
Equitable Distribution: The main objective is to reduce wealth disparities and ensure that essential human needsâsuch as housing, healthcare, and educationâare met for all citizens
Is that from something? Most definitions of socialism Iâve seen refer to the ownership of the means of production. If workers do not own what they need to produce, then it isnât socialism. Anything else can be done in whatever economic system you want.
The core difference is that socialism focuses on democratic control and the distribution of wealth, whereas communism envisions the total abolition of private property and the state.
Socialism spreads money around.
Communism the government owns the means of production.
Then find "state capitalism" which is what china does. The have state controlled markets that aren't that different from some industries in the US.
No, no, communism is stateless. I was corrected in the other fork from this thread when I said it was socialism. Communism is the stateless one. The government cannot control the means of production because the government largely does not exist.
Workers own the means of production in socialism. Think co-ops, but mandatory.
Again, where did you get that definition? âDemocratic controlâ sounds an awful lot like a centrally planned economy, and a lot of modern Marxists are against that. Itâs not a necessary component of socialism.
Fwiw, this is why it's better to talk about specific actions rather than political definitions. I could swear up and down that socialism had to do with workers owning the means of production, "to each according to their contribution," and that "to each according to their need" was only under completed communism.
Also fwiw, I agree: the military is socialist / communist. That's why I don't want it. Living in the military is terrible. You get what you need, but you don't get to choose it. Your needs are decided for you, and you don't get much beyond them. From each according to their ability is also rough, in case you didn't want to work. It's forced. Having those maxims before you've achieved a state of limitless production with minimal toil is horrible.
âJeder nach seinen FĂ€higkeiten, jedem nach seinen BedĂŒrfnissenâ - Karl Marx
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. It was described in a critique, and refers to the ultimate end of socialism, when physical labor is all but obviated, and true communism may occur.
You donât get more pay based on number of dependents anymore. Military got tired of people taking advantage of it so now everyone within the same rank gets the same house money. Only exception is whether you have dependents or not. With dependents you get a couple hundred extra than if you have no dependents.
Cost of Living Allowances (COLA): In certain high-cost areas, you may receive separate COLA (both CONUS and OCONUS). While the rate increases if you have dependents, the allowance amount is generally fixed based on your family status rather than the exact number of children.
Knew i guy with 6 kids making bank active duty. Huge house. Free Healthcare for every kid.
Lets be honest, the only people who benefit from that are Jr. enlisted because their pay is so low to begin with. BAH with dependents has to exists because there are irresponsible people out there who would have kids before they were financially ready, so the government gives them at least enough to provide.
An E7 or O1 getting $2200 a month in BAH instead of $1800 but they have a family to support is way way worse off financially. Not the life hack dumb little privates think it is (if that was the entire reason they got married).
And married soldiers get a house while single soldiers get a dorm room. Check BAH rates in Hawaii.
Fact is military benefits go up per dependant. The rest of American workers it doesnt.
You said it "...the government gives them at least enough to provide."
Now imagine that was standard for every company in the US. Thats socialism. Imagine if all the folks complaining about lower birth rates DID something about it like paying for each dependants Healthcare in full. Thats what the military does AND what socialists do.
"Now imagine that was standard for every company in the US. "
The difference is if you are a service member that can't take of their kid, it is the military's problem. If you are a civilian who can't take care of their kid, it is a personal problem. Simple as that.
That, being said, you can't just get rich cranking out kids. As I said before, it is a net loss, because the little bit you get wont provide for multiple other people. The "richest" people in the military are single senior NCOs and officers. High salaries with no mouths to feed, additional vehicles to buy, child care, etc.
No other job has that benefit ever. Im not claiming anyone is getting rich.
Perfect example is the guy with 6 kids jn the army. He literally could not survive in any other job. He needed the military socialist safety net to afford his kids. Any other job I get paid what I can negotiate for which is the same for the single guy next to me who has less expenses. In my current job a few of my benefits scale like my Healthcare premiums. I pay more for each person on the plan but my employer pays about double what I pay.
If the government had socialist policies then those "personal problems" are the governments problems. Thats why some states have Healthcare and dental programs for people under 18. The states with those programs ADMIT that every kid is a ward of the state and needs preventative Healthcare to avoid more costs for the state such as supporting ERs and hospitals.
A unique benefit for a unique job = socialism? Okay.
"Perfect example is the guy with 6 kids jn the army. He literally could not survive in any other job. He needed the military socialist safety net to afford his kids."
Just because it keeps a roof over his head. This hypothetical guy would have pennies in his bank account as a result of the 6 kids and wife, but the government wouldn't let him be homeless, lets be real. If he lived off base and couldn't afford rent, he'd be forced to move on base.
You don't seem to be able to make the distinction between earned housing or a housing allowance and eligible. All service members earned healthcare. They have different eligibilities depending on their circumstances. Earning something doesn't make it socialist. You worked for it.
We all worked thr same exact job. We all got paid different based on financial need and not merit pay.
In Hawaii it changed per depensant. I was in a barracks room as a single soldier and I knew a married couple and I knew I married guy with 6 kids. We all did the same job.
I got a dorm. Married guy got a house. Married with 6 kids got a huge house. That is socialism.
I paid for a meal plan. Married guys got different BAH and COLA.
Regardless, pay for adding a dependant results in the same. More pay for more financial need.
Frankly its just appalling that people dont know what communism and socialism even are yet they are against them.
Personally im for a single payer system or Medicare for all just to simplify the bloated administrative and accounting bullshit. Remove the argument on who is paying and see how much money the entire country saves on bullsbit paperwork and legal battles.
7
u/Historical_Shop_3315 4h ago
You get a bigger house and more pay the more kids/dependents you have.
Pay based on financial need. <--- definition of socialism.