25th March 2006, 03:18 PM
I would suggest that the IFA needs to do something much more radical liking making the membership fee UKP 20.
As things stand the average archaeologist pays 0.89% of their net income on IFA memebership. The biggest unit in contrast pays .16% of their turn over.
The RAO pay from .16% to .81% of their turnover to be RAO the more you turnover the bigger the discount you get from the IFA.
I would think that membership would double if the fee was UKP 20. A membership of 4000 would yield UKP 80000.
If all archaeological organisations were RAO even at .16% of turnover the income would be 160k a year and the IFA would have an increase of 20% on their budget.
With current membership both on an individual and RAO in order to produce a similar budget how about UKP30 for members equally 60000 and RAO cost of .35% of turnover giving an income of 136k.
These calculation are based upon the figures given in the previous post, assumming a spread of turnovers and a total spend on archaeology of 100 million.
If the key role of the IFA is policing standard and this is expensive why are individuals being expected to pay for the bulk of the cost. The figures for organisations have to be put in perspective. An organisation turning over UKP 1000000 ought to have a profit margin of 20% and thus a profit of 200000. Their contributions can be offset against tax.
As a general rule I think the burden on employers is too great is terms of what you have to provide sick pay, holidays, pensions, training, IFA membership and so on. However I can see a very good case for the IFA raising money this was. Indeed it would be cost effective for most organisations to pay for, in effect, the subs of all of their employees in this manner.
Peter Wardle
As things stand the average archaeologist pays 0.89% of their net income on IFA memebership. The biggest unit in contrast pays .16% of their turn over.
The RAO pay from .16% to .81% of their turnover to be RAO the more you turnover the bigger the discount you get from the IFA.
I would think that membership would double if the fee was UKP 20. A membership of 4000 would yield UKP 80000.
If all archaeological organisations were RAO even at .16% of turnover the income would be 160k a year and the IFA would have an increase of 20% on their budget.
With current membership both on an individual and RAO in order to produce a similar budget how about UKP30 for members equally 60000 and RAO cost of .35% of turnover giving an income of 136k.
These calculation are based upon the figures given in the previous post, assumming a spread of turnovers and a total spend on archaeology of 100 million.
If the key role of the IFA is policing standard and this is expensive why are individuals being expected to pay for the bulk of the cost. The figures for organisations have to be put in perspective. An organisation turning over UKP 1000000 ought to have a profit margin of 20% and thus a profit of 200000. Their contributions can be offset against tax.
As a general rule I think the burden on employers is too great is terms of what you have to provide sick pay, holidays, pensions, training, IFA membership and so on. However I can see a very good case for the IFA raising money this was. Indeed it would be cost effective for most organisations to pay for, in effect, the subs of all of their employees in this manner.
Peter Wardle