[plug] Family membership

[Ian Kent]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Bret Busby wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Russell Steicke wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I thought I'd kick off the discussion that was anticipated last night,
> > about family memberships for PLUG.  I'm in favour of the idea, and
> > suggest that a family membership be twice the cost of a full
> > (non-concession) membership.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Russell Steicke
> > 
> > 
> 
> I suggest that a family membership be less than twice the cost of a full
> membership - maybe the sum of a full membership and a concessional membership,
> so that couples can join cheaper than joining separately, unless both members
> of a couple are eligible for, and join as, concessional memberships, in which
> case I think that no further concession should apply.
> 
> Thus, where one or more partners in a couple are earning an income, the joint
> or family membership fee would be equal to one full adult membership plus one
> concessional membership, and, where both partners in a couple are eligible for
> concessional membership, then their membership fee(s) should be equal to two
> separate concessional fees.
> 
> So, the fee structure would be something like:
> Single - income earning - $10 (currently, I believe)
>        - non-income earning (pensioners, unemployed, students, etc) - $5
>          (currently, I believe)
> Family - sum of Single income earning and Single non-income earning -
>          $15 (from sum of above rates),
>          except where both partners in a couple are eligible for Single
>          non-income earning memberships, in which case the fee is twice
>          the Single non-income earning memberhip fee (Total of $10,
>          from above rates.
> 

Hi Bret,

You've clearly given this some thought.

The fee structure you recommend is quite close to the standard membership 
fee, which is fine.

But what are the advantages, to the family, to Plug?
And what disadvantages can you see with the proposal, for each of the 
above?

Ian