We already charge a bit less for a Senior Life Membership than for an under-65 Life Membership. Because hams are so tight-fisted we'll squeeze a dollar bill until George Washington's eyeballs bug out, there's no doubt it would be popular to change the price structure for Life Membership to make it cost less for the ever-increasing percentage of hams who are geezers. Unless, maybe, you had just finished paying for Life Membership under the previous rate plan! What's obviously popular may not be what makes the best financial sense for the organization, however. Would we gain enough Life Members to do no worse than break even by charging less and less for the older and older? If we were only to break even, what's the point of doing it? If we think we would gain enough Life Members to actually improve our revenues, what's the factual basis for that belief? How do we know that an actuarially-justifiable rate would sufficiently approximate a rate that would appeal to a large number of our legendarily-thrifty brethren? If I recall correctly from my times on A&F, we do pretty well with the Life Member assets. I doubt we'd want to imperil that in these financially delicate times. What if our predictions about the effects of changing Life Membership rates turned out to be wrong? We're already seeing words in the Plan about annual membership dues needing to rise. Would being wrong about the effect of changing the Life Membership rates hasten the arrival of an annual membership dues increase and necessitate an even larger increase? If we're seeking something popular to do, socking the annual rate members with a big fat increase ain't it. If changing the Life Member rates will increase our revenues without any effect on what annual members pay, then I'm all for it. But I would need to see a lot of hard facts and numbers to be able to evaluate the chances of being right and the risks of being wrong. 73 - Kay N3KN