[Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees

[Redhawk]

I agree with HE Gefjon.  It truly isn't right.  Both HL Wulph and I pay for a 
substaining membership.  Perhaps some one could explain the difference between 
substaining and associate and the value of having a substaining since I can't 
seem to remember.
So someone gets a case of the beak, sues the SCA and the populace suffers for 
it. I thought that is why we have a hefty insurance policy.  Perhaps it doesn't 
cover attorney fees... Idunno..  I agree that all adults need to pay the same 
price and the little ones (children not little adults) can be associates.  Until 
they reach the age of  obtaining a blue card.  Then I feel the kids need to pay 
the adult price.  With a blue card, they are then playing an adult game.
Redhawk




________________________________
From: Kristine Alvarez <kristinela at yahoo.com>
To: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 5:04:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees

--- On Thu, 12/2/10, Sondra Gibson <sgibson at edulog.com> wrote:

From: Sondra Gibson <sgibson at edulog.com>
Subject: Re: [Artemisia] Fwd: [Announcements] Membership Fees
To: "Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 3:28 PM
Well, it appears that some of us may be priced out of the organization.
That will make a sustaining membership $45.  Which in my opinion is WAY too
much.  

I also very strongly resent the fact that single people are subsidizing
families.  The majority of couples these days have 2 incomes, to pay for the
monthly expenses on one home.  Which generally puts them in a better
financial position than single people living on one income.  Why should one
of them be charged $10 while single folks have to pay $45?  That is just
totally wrong.  All adults should have to pay the same price.    

Gefjon
_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
_______________________________________________
 
I understand your frustration. The single memembership would go up 22% and the 
family membership would go up only 13%. However, to assume that all families 
have 2 incomes is wrong. Even when there are two incomes, families have often 
more expenses than singles. I'm sure a suggestion to increase the family 
membership more than the single membership increases would be in my opinion more 
fair that to suggest that both adults pay a full membership. That would be an 
increase of 60% for family memberships and I'd bet that it would price families 
out of the game much quicker that way.
 
Things are costing more and more these days while income is decreasing for all 
of us. We have to accept that it's affecting all aspects of our lives and we may 
have to make unfortunate decisions to cut costs for non-essentials. I hope we 
can all find a way to keep "playing."
YIS,
Kristine Ragnvaldsdatter
 
 


      
_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia