October 2002 Report Detail G
GENERAL COMMENTS AND ADDENDA TO PROPOSALS
To extend the useful life of most of these proposals, I would urge = surcharges be based on a percentage of event gate fees rather than fixed = surcharge amounts. This should alleviate US $ exchange rate problems, = future inflation and should be more equitable with regards to an event's = size. (Larger events generally carry larger site fees.) I'm in a hurry, = otherwise I would list additional benefits and examples. Bottom line, = keep it simple. Simple calculations, simple wording in governing docs, = etc.
I would substitute ' Gross Event Related Income less Refunds' for = site fees, where this is:
"Event Related describes activity for which the Society was created: = research and education about the period prior to the year 1600 A.D. = Examples are revels, feasts, tournaments, and collegiums. All income = directly related to the participation in the event is placed here, such = as site fees and feast fees." (exchequer's handbook)
Theoretically the Exchequer would file quarterly reports in which the = Event Income was totalled and as part of his report include a check for = x% of that amount. No counting of heads. I can see ways of getting = around the system here, basically running free events and asking for = donations, but this would work on the head tax as well, unless you are = intending to charge a head tax on otherwise free events.
The advantage of this method is that it is very easy to calculate the = amount of the tax, and adjust it for inflation - or what have you. The = branches can in turn implement it as they see fit, They can turn it = into a head tax is they so desire, or they can raise the money by = donations, or by selling coffee at rest stops.
We don't know how much revenue a head tax under any of the proposals = is going to generate. We can reasonably calculate the probable event = income based on previous figures. There are just fewer factors that we = have to guess at. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that $1 per event = is going to be the 'right' amount. Presumably if it raises too much = money the SCA might return it to the Kingdoms, but what if the right = amount is $1.13. Do you really want to deal with that sort of change = making at events? In practice you would probably price the event at the = nearest dollar or half dollar break, and allow any excess or loss to the = next event. If you are doing this you could just as well decide not to = collect it on some events, and to double it on others leaving you = exactly where you are with a tax on event income.
The drawbacks as I see them are inequities between areas with higher = site costs (although this is offset somewhat by income levels) and that = it doesn't have a nice ring to it like a buck a day or event that most = of the head taxes do.
Can we have it as a general amendment to any proposal that requires a = participation fee not based on membership:
Proposal: Replace participation fees currently proposed with a = surcharge on gross event income at a percentage to be determined by the = budgetary needs of the corporation, which may be collected as the = branches see fit.
Jean Louis de Chambertin
Corporate Publications Proposal by Galleron de Cressy
Having a separate TI database at Milpitas seems needlessly = inconvenient. It means I have to mail out two different checks, and it = means duplicated effort to maintain two separate databases.
Why not do this: The central corp. produces TI, as now. The kingdoms = offer TI both as an add-on to kingdom newsletters and as a stand-alone = publication. Every quarter the kingdom sends their mailing labels to = TI's printer or fulfillment house, and a check to Milpitas for x per = kingdom TI subscriber.
Ditto for CA.
For more information on the SCA, see the SCA Home Page