US Military Pay Raise
- Thread starter JBoyd
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
JBoyd said:
They deserve it. Did you happen to look at their pay charts? A Sgt Major w/ over 20yrs active service is currently making $4821.60/mo, USD of course (not that it makes much difference nowdays).
Cheers,
- Reaction score
- 1,427
- Points
- 1,090
Swingline1984 said:
True, but there are a number of allowances that don't factor into base pay. There are also deductions like EI that we make and they don't. Still, I would estimate that at best case they're about 85% of our current rate. I would suggest that the 15% is probably eaten up in our higher cost of living though.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
ModlrMike said:
BUT, they are a different country so what is deducted or not has SFA to do with it.
One word (no, two) for you wrt to EI --
Fucking healthcare. Hope your wife never has a kid in the States. :
15% my ass. Ours is free.I for one, am more than glad to see them get a raise the so richly deserve.
- Reaction score
- 1,427
- Points
- 1,090
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:
Your point is well made, but I was thinking of disposable income as a means of measuring equivalence. It is theoretically possible for a lower wage earner to have greater disposable income than a higher wage earner. Just look at our "progressive" tax structure.
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:One word (no, two) for you wrt to EI --
******* healthcare. Hope your wife never has a kid in the States. :
EI is not a healthcare premium. As I've reached the point where release is retirement and pension, it's a tax from which I personally derive no benefit. I seem to recall that dependent healthcare for US forces was paid by the service. I could be wrong. BTW... our healthcare is not free... we pay the cost through our taxes (think transfer payments to the provinces).[/quote]
SleighBelle the treetopping angel said:
This we both agree on, and I hope I didn't leave the impression otherwise. I was only attempting to illustrate that the difference could be accounted for in the way in which both the pre-tax and after tax wages were formulated.
[/quote]
Interesting comparison chart here:
http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total_compensation.jsp#chart
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
I quite realize that EI is not a healthcare premium ...
The point is that you felt it necessary to debase the value of their raises based upon us be subject to EI deductions et al. Then related how that extra 15% cost of living was eaten up here ...
My point being that if you wish to interject pointless crap that has nothing to do with their cost of living in the US, why are you pointing out the deuctions we have while neglecting to factor in those costs that US cistizens bear out of their pockets?
Statistics are useless -- as is making a column comparing the two when you only wish to point out that which we have deducted and exclude those necessary costs that they fork out for that we do not. Healthcare in the US being a huge one and that is why I used it.
You simply can not compare the US to Canada in this respect. Your 15% figure is bullshit. As for the military paying healthcare costs ... they have families too. So, if the military did NOT pay their healthcare premiums for them, I'm quite willing to wager that their wages would be HIGHER. Do you honestly think that that any employer does not factor in the premiums that he is required to pay for his employees into his salary table? (Much the same as we pay for ours through taxes??)
The point is that you felt it necessary to debase the value of their raises based upon us be subject to EI deductions et al. Then related how that extra 15% cost of living was eaten up here ...
My point being that if you wish to interject pointless crap that has nothing to do with their cost of living in the US, why are you pointing out the deuctions we have while neglecting to factor in those costs that US cistizens bear out of their pockets?
Statistics are useless -- as is making a column comparing the two when you only wish to point out that which we have deducted and exclude those necessary costs that they fork out for that we do not. Healthcare in the US being a huge one and that is why I used it.
You simply can not compare the US to Canada in this respect. Your 15% figure is bullshit. As for the military paying healthcare costs ... they have families too. So, if the military did NOT pay their healthcare premiums for them, I'm quite willing to wager that their wages would be HIGHER. Do you honestly think that that any employer does not factor in the premiums that he is required to pay for his employees into his salary table? (Much the same as we pay for ours through taxes??)
ModlrMike said:Your point is well made, but I was thinking of disposable income as a means of measuring equivalence. It is theoretically possible for a lower wage earner to have greater disposable income than a higher wage earner. Just look at our "progressive" tax structure.
No, unless there's some calculation I'm not aware of, it's impossible for a lower wage earner to have a greater disposable income than a higher wage earner. It's actually the "progressive" tax structure that ensures this.
When one moves into a higher tax bracket (and there are only four brackets), only the income within that falls above the lower bracket is taxed at the higher rate. Each portion of income that falls into the higher bracket is taxed at an increasingly higher rate.
It is therefore a myth that a small raise in pay that bumps one into the next higher tax bracket could possibly cause one to have less take-home pay. If one gets a raise - any raise - they will always make more take-home pay than before the raise, regardless of tax brackets.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
JBoyd said:
Nor was it mine (I never should have tried to compare apples to oranges). Can't we just agree that they deserve it and carry on? I hear JBoyd is offering free hugs if anyone is interested. ;D
Cheers,
- Reaction score
- 1,427
- Points
- 1,090
284_226 said:
Yeah, I should probably have thought about that a little more. I was thinking in terms of benefits calculations. If the higher wage earner pays the benefits from salary, and the lower gets them from the employer, then it's certainly possible for the higher earner to be less well off as their total compensation package might be subject to a higher percentage of taxation. Particularly if the employer funded benefits are not deemed taxable.
284_226 said:
Quite, but we continue to hear it each time we get a raise.
- Reaction score
- 22,021
- Points
- 1,090
I seem to recall (though my Google-fu has failed me) that the structure of Quebec's tax and benefits system means that breaking through certain income levels means the loss of certain benefits, so an increase can actually leave you with less take-home than before. It's not a common issue, but the greater complexity you build into a system the more possibility there is of unexpected interactions, or of unforeseen sub-optimal outcomes.284_226 said:
dapaterson said:
There should be a standard caveat that any discussion regarding pay and taxation becomes completely moot once Quebec becomes involved in the formula. Even the CRA site at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html#provincial doesn't even attempt to explain the Quebec provincial tax. Can't blame them for wanting to wash their hands of trying to explain it!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
All this tax talk gives me the urge to round up some tea and throw it in the harbour. Earl Grey anyone?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
They do deserve it, however they do have many other breaks as well. When I lived at Hill AFB in Utah, the military there get BAH (an allowance you get for the cost of renting in the area) if you chose not to live in base housing (free). They also have the Px which is like our canex, but bigger. Much cheaper prices for the military famiilies there. And all their stores in base have no taxes on what you buy either.
Now yeah, I do agree they deserve it like I said - as what they had to live on wasnt very much.
Now yeah, I do agree they deserve it like I said - as what they had to live on wasnt very much.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
The pay charts are for base pay.Most everyone receives BAH which is non-taxable as are all allowances. So a CSM with 20 years that is assigned to Ft Bragg would make $4990.40 base pay plus BAH of $1259,plus other allowances such as food ect. If that same CSM lived in the Washington DC area his BAH would be $2423.
The downside of our system kicks in upon retirement. Retired pay is based on base pay and not on total pay. :-\
The downside of our system kicks in upon retirement. Retired pay is based on base pay and not on total pay. :-\
Similar threads
