[H-GEN] Non cash payment - was Re: Constitutional changes I will be proposing at the AGM

[deadcat]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Greg Black <gjb at yaxom.com> wrote:

> [ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
> [ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 19:22, Matthew Franklin
> <matheist76 at westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Russell Stuart
> > <russell-humbug at stuart.id.au> wrote:
> >>> If we feel that Humbug needs more money, maybe to cover some future
> >>> expense, then why not just increase the fee overall?
> >>
> >> As I said in the proposal, I specifically did not want to alter the fees
> >> Humbug receives.  That was quite deliberate, as I wanted to avoid the
> >> rather obvious trap of this proposal getting chewed up and discarded in
> >> because of some irrelevant discussion about the appropriate level of
> >> membership fees.
> >>
> >> If you want to have that discussion and to argue that we should _reduce_
> >> the fees Humbug gets (because that is in effect what you are proposing)
> >> then by all means lets have that discussion.  But I'd rather not get it
> >> tangled up with this one.
> > But to the person that is paying the fee it would look like an
> > increase. If by allowing people to pay online brings in more
> > membership then, depending on the break even point, the fees that
> > Humbug would get would be increased. Not decreased.
> >
> > As to you not wanting to get tangled up in a discussion about the
> > appropriate level of membership fees I'm sorry but you already are.
> >
> > Is it worthwhile going down the online payment model? Are there better
> > ways of doing it? Should we say that the value of membership changes
> > depending on whether people attend meetings or are just online
> > members? Is online membership really just a donation or is it more
> > than that?
> >
> > You've opened up a can of worms here Russell. My opinion is that if we
> > get new members, even if they are online only, then that's a good
> > thing. That's provided that at the end of the day we have a positive
> > figure in the bank and that we aren't spending heaps of time and
> > effort managing the system.
> >
> > I don't care about making money for Humbug. I care about there being a
> Humbug.
>
> I also care about there being a Humbug, very strongly. I think the option
> of online membership payments is worthwhile, at least because it allows
> people who don't live locally to be members.
>
> But not all those who pay online will be non-local. I will certainly pay
> online
> even though I attend each meeting in person. I want online payments because
> I don't use cash. I'm happy to pay more for the convenience, and because
> the
> cost to me of getting cash is far greater than any minor fee we might
> charge
> for the online option.
>
> Cheers, Greg
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at lists.humbug.org.au
> http://lists.humbug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/general
>


I would do online payment too, if there was the option.

I would like to know why we can't just do bank transfers? Lots of businesses
put their
bank bsb and account number on their invoices or other documentation when
they ask for
money and you can just transfer the payment. They usually ask that you put
the invoice
number or other identifying information as the description. I didn't think
it cost the payee
to accept payments in this manner.
I think I may have asked this question of a treasurer once, but I don't
recall the answer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/20100824/223cc6fc/attachment.html>