Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![A Cost Analysis of Dining Facilities: Should the Air Force Continue to Operate Dining Facilities?]( "A Cost Analysis of Dining Facilities: Should the Air Force Continue to Operate Dining Facilities?")
A Cost Analysis of Dining Facilities: Should the Air Force Continue to Operate Dining Facilities?59,99 €![An Economic Analysis Of Expenditure Trends Of Government Of India]( "An Economic Analysis Of Expenditure Trends Of Government Of India")
An Economic Analysis Of Expenditure Trends Of Government Of India30,99 €![Can the Aggressors Continue to Be Effective in the F-5e?]( "Can the Aggressors Continue to Be Effective in the F-5e?")
Can the Aggressors Continue to Be Effective in the F-5e?59,99 €![Relevance: How the United States Air Force Can Continue to Provide Relevant Space Support to Combatant Commanders]( "Relevance: How the United States Air Force Can Continue to Provide Relevant Space Support to Combatant Commanders")
Relevance: How the United States Air Force Can Continue to Provide Relevant Space Support to Combatant Commanders59,99 €![Manned, Fixed-Wing Aviation: Should it Continue to Conduct the Preplanned Interdiction Mission?]( "Manned, Fixed-Wing Aviation: Should it Continue to Conduct the Preplanned Interdiction Mission?")
Manned, Fixed-Wing Aviation: Should it Continue to Conduct the Preplanned Interdiction Mission?59,99 €![Fight for the Strategic Arsenal: Why the Navy and the Air Force Continue to Struggle for Relevance]( "Fight for the Strategic Arsenal: Why the Navy and the Air Force Continue to Struggle for Relevance")
Fight for the Strategic Arsenal: Why the Navy and the Air Force Continue to Struggle for Relevance59,99 €![Should the U.S. Department of State Continue to Use Private Security Contractors to Protect U.S. Diplomats?]( "Should the U.S. Department of State Continue to Use Private Security Contractors to Protect U.S. Diplomats?")
Should the U.S. Department of State Continue to Use Private Security Contractors to Protect U.S. Diplomats?59,99 €
To solve the latest housing short fall, the government approved the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) 1996. Under this program the government contracts private developers to build, own, and operate housing units. The developer then collects rent via housing allowance. At the time MHPI was approved, military members were expected to pay 15 percent of their housing costs out of pocket. Subsequent legislation has increased housing allowance to provide 100 percent of all housing costs eliminating out of pocket housing expense. Given the increased housing allowance, the objective of this research was to determine if there is financial value to the government to retain ownership of military family housing. This was done by calculating the Net Present Value (NPV) of recapitalizing BAH payments into family housing operations over 50 years, the contract period for privatized housing projects. The results show that MHPI provided the greatest financial benefit to the government at the time it was signed into law. This advantage changed when housing allowance increased eliminating out of pocket housing expense to the military member.