Jughead

Actually, California tried to do that not so long ago (90s?). It went even further than that: their argument was that any income earned in CA was "California sourced" (which is generally true), and, while one's military income was exempt (for non-residents), one's retirement income was not. Soooo (by CA's reasoning)... if, during a (say) 20 year career you were based in CA for 5 years (25% of the time), then 25% of your retirement check was "California sourced" and would therefore be taxable by CA--no matter where you lived. That went to 100% if you lived in CA, of course, subject to normal credits for taxes paid to other states.... That got shot down rather quickly in Federal Court (I don't recall how high it got, I don't think it made it to the Supreme Court).

Can't speak to California (though I suspect it's the same as Fed), but the general rule with the IRS is taxability date is determined when "constructively received"--i.e., when it hits your bank account.

Who's bringing their kids over to play...?

I was recently asked a question via PM that makes me think I may have been unclear above. In an attempt to clarify: If you want to maximize your tax advantage, don't put any CZTE into the Roth. The point is to "retain" your ability to make tax-deferred contributions to the traditional TSP. Since the Roth "counts against" your $18K whether or not made from CZTE funds, you will forego the opportunity to make a traditional contribution (and defer those taxes) when you're home. If your goal is to max the Roth ($18K) and you're not worried about getting a current-year tax advantage, it doesn't really matter when you put into the Roth. If your goal is to max the amount in your TSP *and* max the Roth, you should put non-CZTE money into the Roth (up to $18K), then put CZTE money into the traditional (up to $35K). If your goal is to maximize your current-year tax advantage, put non-CZTE money into the traditional (up to $18K) and CZTE money into the traditional (up to $35K). As always, you have to choose between Roth & traditional for that $18K, and it's important not to exceed $35K of traditional contributions from CZTE money, lest you lose the ability to max the $18K portion (due to the overall $53K limit). My personal approach was always to maximize the current-year advantage--I maxed the traditional, both non-CZTE & CZTE. YMMV, and there are strong arguments for using the Roth, too. All of the above assumes (a) you're not above the officer CZTE limit; and (b) you're not deployed the entire calendar year. In the case of the former, you have to take into account that you have "some" non-CZTE money each month. In the case of the latter, you may be making enough CZTE money not to have to worry about "saving" your $18K Roth contribution until you get home, and/or you actually may NOT be able to make a tax-deferred traditional contribution for the year (if you don't have any taxable income to begin with).

Incorrect (though, you could look at it exactly the other way around--put $18K toward traditional with CZTE money, then put $18K toward Roth). The $18K limit refers to the "elective deferral" limit, which applies across all similar employer-sponsored retirement account--TSP, 401(k), 403(b), etc., whether traditional, Roth, or a combination. If you're AD, the 401(k) issue doesn't apply; if you're Guard or Reserve, it's important to understand that all the limits involved apply to total contributions to ALL such accounts. Roth contributions count against the elective deferral limit, regardless of whether they're "after tax" because they came from tax-exempt earnings or if they've actually come from taxable income. If you want no-kidding source documents, you'll need to dig through the IRS' instructions; otherwise, the TSP site makes it pretty clear: https://www.tsp.gov/planparticipation/eligibility/contributionLimits.shtml If it's important to you to max your Roth TSP, AND you want to maximize your total contribution above the elective deferral limit (via CZTE money), you must avoid putting any CZTE money into the Roth. While deployed, put as much as you can into your traditional TSP (I'm assuming you're not above the officer limit, i.e., you get 100% tax exempt), being careful not to exceed $35K ($53K - $18K). Then, during non-CZTE months, put your money into the Roth side. Adjust as required based on your specific situation (number of months deployed, how much you can afford to put in, how close you can get to the limits, etc.). Short answer: no. Longer answer: CZTE money is month-by-month--you can't "save" it up to be used in another month. TSP contributions have to be made directly from earnings (you can't make a "deposit"). BL, you can only put money "above" the $18K limit *to your traditional TSP* during CZTE months. If you want to max out your Roth, "save" at least $18K (don't contribute more than $35K of CZTE) for non-CZTE months, then make those contributions when you're home. See my reply to Disregard for more details.

How quaint.

Ah... that's the distinction I was missing. Thanks!

AFAIK, Roth TSP contributions cannot come from tax-exempt money....

Unless they totally re-design the AR system (i.e., relocate the receptacle), I don't imagine that would be much of an issue (continuing to use the E-4 for currency). Disclaimer: extensive AR time, zero 747 time

U-2 I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>....

It's been suggested to me from time to time on BODN that I EABOD... but, I didn't know there was a cookbook!! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/148259143X

"All regionals suck equally" was the advice I got when looking, and I certainly believe it. My advice, pick the one that will cause you the least ass pain. If you're lucky enough to live where there's a base for one or more regionals, stick with those. If you're going to commute no matter who you fly for, find the most pain-free commute you can*, then stick with those carriers. Don't be bought off with snake-oil ("flow" programs)--your goal is NOT to be around long enough to ever be eligible for those. Also: I wouldn't rely (i.e., wait) on a regional job to get the ATP--get that on your own and apply directly to major/legacy carriers. If you're starting with Envoy (or whomever) in the next couple of weeks, that ship may have already sailed; if you're still active duty and talking several months or more down the road, put that time to use for yourself--unlike money, you can never get that back!--and get your apps in. I was lucky to bypass the regionals altogether (I'd applied in order to get 121 time & stay current; I got hired by a major before my regional class date arrived)... but, I had my ATP in-hand. The time/money you spend on the ATP (time is small; money, less small, but still insignificant when viewed as part of the big picture) will be MORE than recouped if you get hired even a month sooner at your "target" legacy airline.... Good luck! * I recently saw CommutAir (EWR & IAD bases, I think) has some sort of paid-commuting (I assume that means postive space & a hotel room) program. I know NOTHING about the company, so I am NOT making any sort of recommendation for/against; just passing some info you may find helpful.

Agreed. My question, though, is how this would save money. Save 11F bodies to fill other billets, sure--but save money? I doubt it, at least not in anything less than a complete actuarial sense--and probably not even then....

Long gone, unfortunately. The whole building was demolished 8-ish (?) years ago.... Perhaps that's why they're closing the base?

Sort of, but probably not the way you're hoping. CZTE is month-to-month; the fact that you're on a 365 is irrelevant*, except for the month of payment. During that month, your pay is exempted up to the CZTE limit for officers (based on the highest enlisted pay + HFP). So, to the extent your normal pay is below that limit, you'll get an additional exemption on the bonus payment up to the limit. The bulk of the bonus payment is taxable income. If you're not already maxing out your TSP, you could use your bonus as a tax deferred contribution to avoid paying current-year taxes on it (whether or not you're in CZTE status). *a 365 certainly is relevant from your overall tax liability; while the bulk of your bonus will be taxable income, your overall tax liability for the year will be very low, since most of your income is exempt (I'm assuming your military wages are your primary income; if not, the advantage remains but will be proportional)

I've been chewing on this since it was posted--I find myself returning to it several times a day. I'm not prepared to argue with a single word of that paper. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a retiree--but, recent enough to have seen, more or less, all of the factors the author mentions. My question is simply: why?? Is the author (and a large portion--a majority in my experience--of his peers) simply wrong, nothing to see here, move along? As waltopfor said, many of these things are discussed on BODN, so I guess we're all delusional, too in that case. Is it really so impossible for todays CGOs & FGOs to retain that impression when they make the GO ranks? (While I take Blair's point, I don't believe that 100% of those promoted are the "yes men.") Of course, it was several years ago (as many as 15 or so?) when I first started to hear inklings of this line of thought--so the "today's" FGOs of that timeframe have either departed the service or have become today's GOs.... Or, as I'm becoming more convinced, does the time literally never come when the officer who feels this way gets promoted "enough," to a position where he "can do something about it"? Is the only thing worse than our current system of, say, performance reports every other possible system? How can this issue of ingrained bureaucracy & "yes men" (the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone) be fixed, if those at the bottom are powerless with an ever-increasing tendency to centralized control (no one makes a decision) and those at the top are predominantly those who believe in the system ("it worked for them") and/or cannot effect the system-wide changes needed, despite their high rank?? That's the more interesting question to me. I think the point that there's a problem, as laid out far more eloquently in this paper but discussed informally in every corner of the AF, is made, and I haven't heard any serious rebuttal from any corner. What now?? I have no idea, but I sincerely hope my successors are more successful than my own meager (and largely meaningless) attempts going forward....

Seriously? First hit off of Google (from Equifax): http://learn.equifax.com/cs/Satellite?c=DS_General_Cont_C&childpagename=DecisionSimple%2FDS_General_Cont_C%2FDSGeneralContentTemplate&cid=1189578994233&pagename=DecisionSimple%2FPage%2FDSLayoutTemplate&ParentLinkID=1162919656130 Plenty of other sources will tell you the same thing, if you care to look. Now, it's certainly not the only factor (as the quote above indicates ~10%), and how many is "too many" is rather vague. You clearly have a good handle on your own credit and haven't suffered--so, good for you. I submit that is more about having the rest of your financial "picture" squared away (again, good for you) to the point where there's little or no effect on your tier, and a lot less about how you're somehow "helping" yourself by having multiple credit card accounts. Take your hypothetical twin with the same exact credit history & debt as you, but who does not have a laundry list of open credit cards--you may well be in the same tier, but his raw score will be higher. Under today's historically low interest rates, that's a non-issue (who cares what the raw score is? you only care what it gets you); if that picture changes and it gets tougher to achieve the top tier (i.e., higher raw score required for best interest rates), that may or may not be true in the future.

Gravedigger, I certainly believe in using credit cards for convenience & bonuses/perks, but yours is a situation that actually can bite you. Having too many open, unsecured lines of credit reduces your credit score (making it harder to qualify for and/or putting you in a higher interest tier for mortgages, car loans, etc.), and it also works against you for those loan apps in that your limit (not actual balance alone) factors in to your "total debt" (for purposes of the app). Recommend closing those cards you're not actively using. Hell, you could probably re-open in 6 months for more bennies, since you appear to enjoy the game....

Slander, you & Brabus are saying two different things. Key word in definition of "Instrument" is "require"--if conditions *require* the use of instruments, then it's instrument time; in other cases when you maintain attitude* via instruments (but conditions do not *require* doing so, i.e., when it's not IMC), that's "Simulated Instrument." If you "just like to be accurate" in your records, you should be logging Sim Inst for the conditions you cite (when not in IMC). Airspace classification is irrelevant IMO, but accomplishing an instrument procedure (SID/STAR/IAP) definitely meet the definition of Sim Inst (or Inst if in actual IMC). (Deliberately not touching the "night = instrument" argument, that's been beaten to death both in the AF & FAA definitions--with no convincing answer either way.) *Note, it's not how you navigate that determines your instrument status, it's how you maintain attitude.

UDCI

An example of the standard award for a job well-done...?

When did you file? Your 3 year clock starts at the later of the due date or actual file date. If 2010 was a CZTE year for you, you could easily still be within that window. I've had the IRS query me about CZTE in the past. Each time it was only to confirm the effective dates. No idea what they want with you, of course, but it's not necessarily anything to sweat about....