05-10-2017, 05:23 PM
(05-10-2017, 05:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's a part of a much larger issue. The Army competes for 18-22 year olds who may want to go to college or a trade school instead. Most of the recruits are from lower socioeconomic levels (particularly the Southeastern US) looking for opportunity. Why risk getting killed or suffer multi-limb and genital amputations for decreasing benefits? Charging $2400 to use your GI Bill certainly isn't going to attract a single recruit. ("I would have joined, but you lost me when you said I didn't have to pay for the GI Bill.")
But, if service members don't take advantage of the GI Bill because they didn't buy in that means that reduces the overall cost. If more service members use their GI Bill that will increase the overall costs. Because the benefits paid out exceed what the service member pays in. That's the nature of the program.
On the surface, a buy in seems like it will defray costs. But, if the buy increases the likelihood the service member utilizes the GI Bill the overall cost will be increased relative to if the service member didn't buy in and didn't use the GI Bill.
Example:
Service member A doesn't buy in. GI Bill pays out $0 dollars.
Service member B buys in for $2400. GI Bill pays out a monthly stipend for 4 years tens of thousands in excess of the original $2400 paid in. According to the online calculator I just used the post 911 GI Bill would pay 100% in state tuition for Ohio State (for example), $1227/month housing, $1000 for books annually. So the program would be -$1600 in the red for just 4 years worth of books.
That is very true. This is why I'd like to see various modeling done as well as some surveying and historical data on utilization. I think it is more complex than simply make them pay or not. I am sure there are various milestones that make it better or worse as a whole for both country and soldier.
I still believe a certification of the training they receive, even if it requires we over train them, would be an interesting approach instead of the GI Bill along with more incentives to hiring those with the Mmlitary certification.
