Reader Mumbles McGuirk sent this in.
I received an email from the American Meteorological Society announcing that their dues will now be based on the member’s income! But it will be voluntary, you choose what income level you say you have. What could go wrong with that! So social engineering comes to the scientific community.
Here is the text of the email:
“As AMS celebrates its 100th anniversary and looks forward to its second century, you will see many indications of how the elected leadership and hundreds of volunteers are transforming the Society not only to meet current and future challenges, but also to expand its role as a vibrant home for those in the weather, water, and climate community. One immediate change that will allow us to achieve this vision is a new dues structure for full Members that was approved by the AMS Council (the elected governance of the Society) at their summer meeting. The dues for Associate and Student Members will not change. The new structure is being implemented this fall for the 2020 membership year.
Dues are a critically important source of revenue that allows the Society to offer programs for members, but it is important to ensure that dues are not so high as to be an impediment to participation. Accordingly, the new structure will set each member’s dues based on that member’s annual income. This approach will be more equitable and inclusive and will reduce membership barriers for many individuals in our community. We know that some early career and retired members, in particular, have found the previous “one size fits all” dues (which were $111 in 2019) to be a financial challenge, despite the value that membership brings to them professionally and personally. After careful consideration, the Council has set the new structure for full Members as follows:
Annual Income Yearly Dues
- < $35,000 $ 35
- $35-55,000 $ 55
- $55-85,000 $ 85
- $85-115,000 $ 110
- $115-150,000 $ 135
- $150-250,000 $ 170
- >$250,000 $ 210
Those in higher income brackets are being asked to pay higher dues than they did previously, while those in lower brackets will see lower dues. We hope those whose dues go up will accept this increase, understanding that they are helping those earning less, such as early career and retired members, to fully participate in and contribute to AMS programs and take advantage of AMS benefits—thus allowing them to be an integral part of the AMS family.
It is important to note that we are asking members to voluntarily choose the dues tier that most closely matches their annual income at the time they renew each year (or for new members when they join). No information about which tier a member has selected will be accessible beyond the staff processing the dues, and the information will not be released or used for any other purpose.
We envision that this new structure will not only be more equitable but will also help to broaden AMS membership—attracting many who would have joined earlier if not for the barrier of the dues and retaining those who have retired but would like to continue participating in AMS initiatives. (Note that those who have been members for over 25 years and have attained the age of 70 will continue to be relieved of paying dues if they so request.)
With several new and expanded services rolling out in the coming year (more on these in future columns), AMS membership is a greater value than ever before, and this new dues structure brings it within reach of everyone in the community, better preparing us for our collective future.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Meteorologist for 35yrs. Never even considered joining these fools. And that is what they are by and large. It’s hard to digest the idiocy I hear being spewed at some meetings I have attended…a handful over the years, when it comes to CAGW. Ick. Looking forward to retiring in less than 10yrs.
Hmm, they tried this at 20th Century Motor Company and it didn’t work out well.
“We know that some early career and retired members, in particular, have found the previous “one size fits all” dues (which were $111 in 2019) to be a financial challenge…, How do they know that?
Once again, the subliminal message – the elderly are wearing ratty housecoats and eating catfood… In reality most people are doing very well in this country, thank you very much, and are doing better as they get older:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2011/demo/wealth/wealth-asset-ownership.html
Median Household Net Worth by Age
<35 $6,676
35-44 $35,000
45-54 $84,542
55-64 $143,964
65-69 $194,226
70-74 $181,078
75+ $155,714
If you can't find $111 to be a member of a professional society, maybe you don't really belong. Wait, maybe that's the goal? I suppose the otherly employed extinction rebellion activists will be able to scrape up $35 from between the cushions of their parents' sofas and and join and tilt the votes towards the idiotic. Or maybe they just intend to drive away those who find social engineering distasteful?
But there is a difference between “Net Worth” (value of properties owned) and Net expendable income (what is available to squander after responsibilities are met)
Most 20 somethings don’t own a house perhaps a used car
Most 30 somethings don’t own a house either (they own a mortgage and are beginning to build principal net worth though most of their payments are going to intrest)
Net worth correlates with growing income. My point stands, if you can’t afford $111 to join a professional society, perhaps you don’t really belong as a member. And that raises the question of why they would try to lower the already low bar to entry? Note students and “Members from countries with developing econ” (whatever tf that is) are $20/yr., so the poor professionals already get a break.
Good Point
(Net worth can also be increased through asset appreciation without increasing income.
Every quarter I place $7,500 into my 401K but most quarters it gains more than double that (after having it for 30 years) I could stop putting my money into it (knock my income down to zero) and it would still continue to grow as long as I didn’t get disbursements from it)
Buttering everyone up for no income no fee and welcome aboard all the Gretas everywhere.
Yep.
The Ecological Society of America has the same pricing scheme. It’s been that way for awhile. I’m not sure how they check income. Haven’t really cared since letting my membership lapse when the society chose to focus more on policy and shaping public opinion than on basic research.
I am puzzled why so many want to equate this with some of the socialists efforts. The whole point of socialism is that the money is taken by “sword bearer”…. i.e. by force. Unless membership in such a society is required for employment in the field, they are quite free to do these kinds of things, without promoting socialism.
Many groups have lower fees for students, because they hope the student will learn that it is valuable to be a part of the group, and will continue their membership later. And they may offer free membership as an act of charity.
But, this is all the opposite of socialism. Socialism is fundamentally about taking, whereas charity is about giving.
Joe. The swords will come later.
Just spoke with a German citizen this weekend about the Budesliga. He told me that the cheap seats are just that – less desirable seats that are all behind the goals. These seats offer the poorest overall viewing experience and are only conducive to having a party atmosphere (drinking, cheering, bands playing, chanting).
These types of seats are equivalent to bleacher seats at a baseball game. The seats are cheap, but the view is not great. He told me the seats on the main area of the field are MUCH more expensive.
What happens when this mentality hits the grocery store? Will you have to present your tax return to find out how that loaf of bread cost?
What will a loaf of bread cost for a “1%”er?
What will a loaf of bread cost for one paying with food stamps? (Oh …. wait …)
PS Several decades ago I bagged groceries. (No. I wasn’t a teenager living at home.) I remember taking a shopping cart of food out to the car of someone who paid with food stamps. I put the groceries into the trunk of a brand new Cadillac. I couldn’t afford a car.
I think this oldie fits into talk of “income inequality”.
“Tax code explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12..
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.”
From each according to his ability – to each according to his needs. The ultimate dream of communism – and I have to admit that I also hope that perhaps eventually our world could become a bit like that like that. But will this move us toward that goal? And is this the goal of the Meteorological Society?
American Meteorological Society Takes On Income Inequality.
______________________________________
The question is: How much $$ will a donor, in possession of 7.3 billion $s, get returned from a 7.3 billion $ donation
ment to compensate 7.3 billion affected people globally for CO2 taxes needed to fight environment threats.
The answer is: the donor gets $ 1 back from his possession, his donation.
A 2nd time he won’t be able to donate.
______________________________________
Not very renewable, such Green New Deals !