The intent of my original posting on this subject was not to argue for or against reinstating a time-payment plan for Life Memberships — rather, it was to point out the (often complex) interplay between policy-setting and administration, and how incomplete and/or imperfect communication between and among all parties (in this case, Board, Administration, and Membership) seldom, if ever, advances the objectives of the organization or enhances perceptions of it by its “customers”.  That last bit is, I think, the same as Mark’s point.

Jay commented:  "Some of us who waited until later in life to become life members did it for reasons that weren’t purely economic … “  Absolutely!  In fact, that was also true for many of us who were relatively young at the time we took the plunge, shortly after the Life Membership was introduced:  In addition to our simplistic financial analysis, we saw Life Membership as a “badge of honor” — an affirmation of our belief in the longevity of both ARRL and ourselves.   Today, perhaps that “badge” is better represented by Diamond Club membership, but I concur with Jay’s point that the decision to purchase a Life Membership is often not strictly financial in origin — especially if the LM is marketed with a certain amount of cachet attached to it.

Rick’s analysis of the actuarial risks is, of course, spot on — as is his statement that the decision to accept or reject those risks is “the prerogative of the Board".