I guess it all depends how often someone goes. If my hypothetical 6 and 7 day families go EVERY year, then it's a matter for accountants and financial planners to argue, is it better to perpetually "float" money to Disney or to pay less up front and invest the float or have it liquid for other means? I concede that this is an arguable point, with no obvious right or wrong.
So the way I worded it, it could go either way depending on how one views cash allocation.
However, if I had worded the scenario the way ccw did, then I would totally stand by my assertion. ccw stated that anyone who will go to WDW "for a total of 10 days IN THEIR WHOLE LIFETIME and who can afford the cash outlay would be nuts NOT to buy the longest non-expiring pass they can."
So let's look at my exact situation (using this year's prices because that's all I have easy access to) as an example. We went for 7 park days in 2005, will be going for 6 park days this coming November, and may not go back after that for another 3 or 4 years or so, and then maybe not again for another 3-4 years or more.
If I bought 10-day non-expiration for $416 last year, and used up 7 of the 10 days, I would have had 3 days left over for November's trip. My choice come November would have been to buy 3-day hoppers for $237 for a total outlay of $653, or buy another 10-day non-expiration this November for a total outlay of $832. If I did the latter, I'd have 7 days left over, so my next trip in 3-4 years would cost me nothing as far as park admissions. BUT, Disney holds onto my extra $179 for the next 3 or 4 years.
Now, realize that that is $179 for ONE PERSON'S ADMISSION. For four people, Disney is hanging onto $716 for the next 3 or 4 years. That's a wonderful interest-free loan for them.
In this example, I'll gladly shell out more money 3 or 4 years down the road rather than shell it out now and not have it in my bank account or invested or used to pay the electric bill.