GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House panel approves military-civilian pay parity for 2004

• 1350
  

  Isn't the cost of the DOD civil employees that keep the war going worth the $1B increase to the budget? The cost of the war certainly outweighs the civil service employee wages.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2003 4:28 PM
• 1240
  

  Enough, already! Debating percentages and talking about the relative tax amount is a fringe issue. The real issue is how total military pay has far outstripped civilian GS pay for the same work over several decades. Why? Because the military has to compete with the private sector for the people, and they have to pay accordingly.

  In 1975 I left the military as an O-3 with five years of service, to take a comparable position, doing similar work, as a GS-11. The difference in total pay, on an annual basis, was only about $100 less for the civilian position.

  A few years ago, I knew an O-3 leaving the service, with an advanced degree, who I really wanted to hire as a civilian. The vacancy was classified as a GS-13. Even hiring the individual at GS-13, Step 10, the O-3 would have taken a $6,000 annual cut in pay. This was before deductions for retirement, health insurance, and tax witholding. Needless to say, the "cost" was too high, and the individual went to the private sector.

  I don't begrudge the military their pay raises, but why should the civilian raise be any less? The only thing that has kept my standard of living comparable to my military "peers" is the financial stability of having the same house for the last 20 years. Last year's raise was very promptly consumed by the rise in health insurance premiums and the Long Term Care policies for my wife and I.

  Leave the percentages the same - at least.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 1, 2003 3:47 PM
• 1192
  

  In the cost comparison of the officer's pay, does he get taxed on his gross pay of $66,000.00 or his base pay of $46,602.00?

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 28, 2003 8:51 PM
• 1182
  

  In response to the uniformed services officer who wrote about the military-civilian pay parity issue as comparing apples to oranges: In your example of the civilian worker getting more from a 4% raise than you, based on the raise being applied against his/her total salary of $66,000 versus the raise being applied only against your base pay component of $46,602 of your total amount of $66,000 yearly compensation, "Did you compare the apple of being taxed on the entire $66,000 versus the orange of taxation on $46,602? If the number of tax exemptions are the same for each, and assuming a 27% tax rate, the civil servant pays more than $5,200 per year in federal taxes than you on the same amount of total compensation. Consider that when you think the same percentage figure allows pay parity to be exceeded by the civil servant.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2003 5:31 PM
• 1181
  

  $2 billion added to a $450 billion deficit? That's less than one half of one percent impact. Sounds like the only deficit reduction program some of these lawmakers know is to take it out of the federal employee.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2003 3:04 PM
• 1179
  

  For 3 years I have seen the military-civilian pay parity issue take its place in annual debate before the house and senate, as reported by this website. Yet I never see any discussion or mention of the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges. As a uniformed services officer, my "raise" is based upon base pay, not housing and subsistence allowances that make up my entire pay package for comparison with the private sector or federal civilians. My current annual salary is approximately $66,000. Of that, base pay equals $46,602. Therefore a 4% raise equals $1864.08. A federal civil servant receiving a 4% raise on their equivalent $66,000 annual salary would receive an increase of $2640. As you can see, military-civilian pay parity is not achieved, it is exceeded by the civil servant. Consider that the next time you consider parity.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2003 12:17 PM
• 1167
  

  "Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., opposed the measure because it would add more than $2 billion in spending at a time the federal government faces a deficit of $450 billion. Istook distributed a chart showing that since 1996, federal civil service pay has risen at a higher rate than both the cost of living and Social Security payments." But he didn't show the inequality between the government sector and the private sector. Government employees are paid significantly less than private sector employees for the same jobs.

  I sit next to military people that do the same work I do and they make a lot more than I do. They get promoted - I cannot be promoted (words of three of my supervisors). I do not move around in the service so I cannot get a promotion - why do they apply military standards to civilians and then say they should get paid less? Even when salaries are the same the pay is not equal - I pay a part of health care insurance, they don't. I pay part of my retirement, they don't! I get no housing allowance, they do! I get no uniform allowance, they do! If the boys in Congress want parity they should increase civilian pay more than military pay to make up for the difference in benefit costs and housing allowances!

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 25, 2003 6:39 AM