I am retired military, I paid local property and state taxes when I was active duty. I wanted to support the local city where I lived and not hide behind the "Florida" option or other states that do not have income tax.
The family members of active duty personnel who work should be taxed just like everyone else who lives here; we all enjoy the benefits provided by the local cities including roads, transportation, colleges and schools, libraries, police and fire protection, etc.
It seems to me that it wasn't that long ago that the Federal government provided Impact fees to the local cities to help offset the educating of children who lived in on-base housing.
This is a similar situation. Someone has to pay to educate the military children; if the members aren't paying, someone has to ante up!

If you choose to join an organization you choose to abide by it's set of rules. Therefore, even though the military often deserves honor, no one had a gun to your head to join. Since you were free to choose, there should be no disappointment at being lead by its structure. No one is punished, forced or victimized into the military so don't embrace an entitlement mentality once you join. It's like the immature who get mad at their paycheck, and then their boss, when they agreed to work for the very wage they receive. If you can't abide by the structure of the organization you join then find another avenue for work, or strike out on your own. Remember, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. In other words, don't say, "I didn't know it was like this," when you were free to investigate it before you joined.

Hampton Roads is a low wage area because of the large percentage of ex military who decide to stay here after they leave the military. The local job market is flooded with talented ex military and wages are lowered via the law of supply and demand. I agree that active duty military are not here by choice and should receive some relief. But retired or ex military who choose to stay in the local area should receive no special treatment.

It should be considered as compensation for being forced to move to and live in a places not of their choosing. Life can be hard enough on military families without this added burden. Communities need to look for other tax loopholes to close to make up the lost income.

There is a world of difference between those who are assigned here involuntarily and those who choose to remain here after service. A good many of those assigned here are living here not by choice, but by military necessity. Forcing a spouse to change "home of record" every four or so years comes under the heading of punishment for entering military service. Those who choose to stay here, as I did, willingly adopt local residency for our families.
I have noticed that this subject comes up every once in awhile, and those who are against retaining "home of record" for the spouse either have never been in the military, or were never married while in the military.

- breaks to military spouses are a long time coming and well deserved. Such merits have nothing to with this recession. Those on the "home-front" have earned all the benefits they can garner.

"...doesn't seem like it would have been right to remain a resident of another state while I used the services of this area."
Well, the first poster gets it right. Many thousands of us who transferred into this area never quite left, and found it an ideal place to settle after military service with all the benefits of that service career close by.
So, when we (my wife & I) came up here from Key West in '1979, we decided it was time to settle down too - for the sake of our kids and a stable home environment.
Officially changing state residency and paying respective property taxes are the 'right things' to do. You might - over time, disagree with some of the taxes and the rates, but that's why there are Homeowners and Civic Organizations, City Councils, Local Elections and the like...get involved or just go back where you came from after your tour...if you buy a home here...Pay here!
Nuff said!!!

I would agree with letting spouses not claim residency here within limits. There are Navy people who spend an awful lot of time stationed here. Seems like they should be exempt for the first 4 years or so. I was stationed here twice, from 1979-1987 and then from 1992-2003, when I came back in '92 I had no intention of leaving (and I changed my residency). I retired and stayed, doesn't seem like it would have been right to remain a resident of another state while I used the services of this area.