Originally Posted by
machz990
For most americans the majority of their wealth is the equity in their homes. Most americans that aren't home owners work hard to get their foot in the door and become home owners. Now with this package you would go backwards. Many would have to sell their home in the US and become renters. Now you lose out on market gains and tax advantages of home ownership and go back to p!$$ing your money into the hands of a landlord. So while you are sipping on your $12 draft beers in Paris you aren't accumulating any equity in a home and you've dropped the biggest tax writeoff most americans have. That alone is a huge step backwards. Count me out. I am voting NO.
In 1997 I was one of the AF captains sent to talk to USAFE CC Ryan on retention issues. Even with solid COLAs, etc, I pointed out that moving every 3 years cost (some) folks a lot of chance to build equity (unless they do the long distance landlord thing--sometimes an option but not in a BRAC town). I also pointed out another flaw--the working wife who has a solid career of her own is often forced to give up working or accept a less attractive position. There are some real costs to moving a lot, and especially to moving overseas. One man's trash in another's treasure--but I think for a family with school kids or a wife with a profession--this move isn't going to attractive at all. I had "adventures" when I was in my 20s and 30s...in my 40s I crave family time, income potential, and stability. To each his own...