Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Combat pay changes proposed

Post by Cheryl Tucker on June 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm with 4 Comments »
June 21, 2012 6:27 pm

I saw this short article on the Associated Press wire on proposed changes in combat pay and wondered what local military folks think about them.

Proposed changes in military compensation would base combat pay on the level of danger troops are in and could make them wait for annual tax refunds to get their extra pay.

The recommendations in a Pentagon review are likely to anger service members. They’re aimed at paying more to troops in the gravest danger and giving the best tax benefits to those who are paid the least.

The report is done every four years and major changes would go to Congress for action. Thomas Bush, director of the review, says officers who are not near the fight can now get more combat pay and tax benefits than the troops who are getting shot at on the front lines.

Leave a comment with your thoughts. We might end up editorializing on this topic.

Caught my eye
Leave a comment Comments → 4
  1. First and foremost those in combat arms units choose to be in them and those in support unit can be killed just like their fellow GI’s. Are they forgetting those who have died while eating chow in the “safe zone”
    I worked with a soldier in a support unit that went to Somalia she was in the safe zone as well and they came under fire.

  2. Dave98373 says:

    This is old news. The major change is restricting officers (pilots, especially) who fly over a part of an area that qualifies for hazardous duty pay. They had been collecting that benefit for a whole month even if they fly over an area for five minutes. That change is way overdue.

  3. billybushey says:

    Dave above refers to imminent danger pay (IDP) which is part of the overall combat pay structure. I have to agree with you Dave. I work for Military Sealift Command and we used to collect the whole $225 for sailing by a listed danger zone. It is pro-rated on a daily basis now and will be a much fairer system, as well as beneficial to a small portion of the DoD budget and the taxpayers.
    As for those who are “in the soup”, they should get more than what they receive now, it should be tax free and they shouldn’t have to wait for it in any fashion.

  4. Misunderestimated says:

    Only the infantry and other line units who actually go down range should get the combat pay.
    REMFs should get a hazardous area pay that is roughly 10% of what the line troops draw, and the hazardous area pay could be done with annual tax filing.
    It’s outrageous that a Colonel in the rear gets more combat pay than a Sergeant leading his fire team against direct fire from entrenched Taliban fighters.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0