Each general is the CEO of a multi-thousand person organization. Whether CEO pay is reasonable is a different discussion, but it would be surprising if generals were not paid well.

According to [0], a major general (O-8) makes something like $160k, depending on years of experience. I'm sure there's additional hazard pay and such, but you wouldn't expect a general to be making millions through their core pay.

[0]: https://www.navycs.com/charts/2019-military-pay-chart.html

Yeah but that doesn't include their kickbacks, consulting fees, etc. Can active duty generals sit on the board of directors of companies? I seem to remember a startup I worked at had one either on the board or heavily involved as a consultant but I can't remember if he was active duty at the time.

Active duty personnel aren't allowed to take on a second job, side hustle, etc. without written permission, and I understand that that permission is relatively uncommon. That doesn't completely answer your question (maybe generals get that permission more often), but it may point directionally.

The other thing that can confuse this issue is that Generals and Admirals generally (sorry) keep their titles after retirement. So if you have "Gen. James McClinton" on your board, that doesn't speak to whether or not they're active.

From looking around, it looks like board recruitment efforts toward Admirals and Generals are targeted at those who are retired or nearing retirement: http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2012/01/...

I believe some positions get a stipend (particularly if they are expected to entertain dignitaries) but are generally (ha) not allowed to serve outside positions that might be a conflict of interest. I couldn't find details yet of a specific article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but there are some memos out:

https://ogc.osd.mil/defense_ethics/resource_library/deskbook...

I know a marine general (just retired) and he drives a ten year old Ford Escape. Generals are paid well relative to the rest of the military but definitely are not paid obscene amounts.

Generals are not paid that well, at least not compared to a Silicon Valley software engineer's salary. I think they make ~$200k (https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/ActiveDu...), so if any of them are obscenely wealthy, best guess is they make a lot of money off of "speaking events" like any other person with political connections.

They also have many other benefits, including housing subsidies, commissary access, essentially free health care, etc. Officers especially are compensated very well.

combat zone pay, as well, perhaps?

seems like a general with a 40 year career who could (and did) save all of his money could have accumulated a few million dollars in cars without very many shenanigans, if that was their sole financial goal in life.

Without some concrete statistics, it’s hard to analyze that. A non-trivial number of officers have family money.

In the UK id buy that chaps joining the guards regiment their fathers /grandfathers did

I kind of got the impression that the military isn't seen in that way in the USA and didn't have such a high social status

It’s not as high social status as the UK, but there are plenty of officers who come from relatively wealthy families. The officer corps skews upper middle class, with 40% of ROTC recruits coming from the top quantile of households in terms of income. (At Harvard or Stanford, 65% are from the top quantile.) The other major entry point for officers, the service academies, requires excellent test scores and two letters of recommendation from the Vice President or a Member of Congress.

By no means are officers all from wealthy families, but those folks are definitely over represented.

> The other major entry point for officers, the service academies,

Of academy, ROTC, OCS, and direct appointment, I'm relatively certain that, unless things have shifted recently, the academies are the least significant source of commissioned officers in the US military overall, rather than the second major entry point.

Any indication as to whether this was career or family money?

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting, but wouldn't the taxes of an individual general in the Marines be completely different from the Department of Defense itself?

The implication was that they should be distinct but are not.

I didn't get that at all. Can you explain?

Generals do not earn millions in salary. To afford millions worth of automobiles, the general must have misappropriated funds.

> To afford millions worth of automobiles, the general must have misappropriated funds.

Or have, or at least have once had, a lucrative side business (military personnel can do this, legally.)

Or have inherited money.

Or have a spouse with a greater income or inheritance.

Or restore cars, such that the market value of their vehicles vastly exceeds the purchase price.

Or purchase cars that have significantly appreciated in value for other reasons (lots of high-end luxury cars that are limited run not only are pricey but limit sales to selected buyers, and the market value of the cars is almost immediately much higher than the purchase price and appreciates rapidly.)

Or a combination of the above.

What's the most plausible explanation? My wild guess is inherited wealth. The lucrative businesses come after retirement, as far as I know.

xapata's interpretation of solotronics's post is that "Pentagon's impenetrable, unauditable accounting" + "Reports of trillions of dollars missing" + "General with a multi-million-dollar sports car collection" = The sports cars were paid for by embezzlement.

Of course, it's also possible the general saved up, or made lucky investments, or married into money, or there was an exaggeration or misunderstanding.