Military gets substantial increases!? Beware readers, consider the source. This statement is from a person who belives that $2,000.00 US Dollars in combined support for one child barely brings the child above poverty!!!
Yes, they might want to consider the source!! How many years, exactly have you been involed with the military, either as a spouse or a member? In 2002 the military member got a 6.8% pay raise. In 2003 they got 4.8%. I'm not sure what the 2004 raise is but it's higher because of Bush and his desire to keep men in and make it more attractive for those considering coming in.
On top of pay raises their BAH was raised 7.5% in 2003 and their BAS was raised 4.8%. The ex husband of this poster has had a substantial increase in military pay over the last 3 years. Oh, and, if, at any time during that period he decided to reinlist he got right aound $4,000 paid to him in bonuses. That counts as income.
How do I know all this. Cause I'm about to face my ex in court on the 3rd of August and requested the information from the military pay office where he is stationed.
1. Due to the matter of law increases, NO ONE should voluntaryly increase their CS, then it is a gift;
Believe it or not, it can be written into the agreement that an increase is automatic with every pay raise of the parent paying support. I did not say anyone should gift their child the support that child deserves. Only you would look at doing the morally right thing toward a child as a gift. Believe or not the world is full of fathers who feel it their moral obligation to support their children...you just don't happen to be associated with one of them.
2. substantial is relative, thats why there is a percentage guideline as to what quals. for increase;
You are right. That jerk living in Germany with his new family might not view his raises as substantial. The woman raising his child on her own probably would though. I'm betting the courts will also if she ever gets in front of a judge.
3. If there is a two year rule for civilians so should there be for military;
Well, I guess if you have found yourself a member of an armed forces that has been downsized to the point of a severe shortage then civilian rules don't apply. That is what the president, congress and the senate think anyway. It's their opinions that count, not yours.
4. and finally, what if the guy's enlistment is up, seeks work in the civilian market only to find his pay would be less then if he stayed in the service. What are we to do now, tell him enlistment is no longer voluntary because now it decreases his income? Or, are you of the opinion that you make more in civilian markets and therefor should leave the military? Or are those increases in military pay just to substanial to ever "quit" the service?
You went off on a tangent here. Introduced a subject that had not even been introduced. It's a mute point anyway cause there is a stop gap in place. Most active duty members are finding themselves unable to get out because of the shortage and the fact we are at war. Thousands of those who had gotten out have been recalled. Now, when the time comes that they have the freedom to choose which they should do, reinlist or get out, I really have no opinion one way or the other. The majority of them get the kind of training in the military that will enable them to get good jobs if they get out. Who cares which one they do.
snodderly
