Does DVC include park tickets?

[Mickey'sApprentice]

I believe that Hilton Head has had some sort of assessment. Could someone provide details?

I know that Vero Beach had hurricane damage, but believe that insurance paid for the repairs.

OKW owners were required to fill out paperwork to NOT extend their contracts to 2057. I believe there were nominal fees related to it, such as getting the documents notarized, and Disney offered some little something to compensate for the inconvenience.

 

[dmoore22]

This is one of those never ending debates that continues to manifest itself in one form or another since before DVC opened. Is it better to buy a car or lease one? Is it better to buy a house or rent? The obvious answer is "It depends." It depends upon your situation and vacation habits.

When we first considered purchasing DVC then, like now, were many spreadsheets and scenarios available to play with and view so that a potential DVC member could make an informed decision. At the time we finally made the plunge the most popular argument against joining was the economy cost. How much return one would receive by investing the cost of a DVC membership rather than purchasing points. The spreadsheets showed that investing the funds, and using the yearly gains to vacation, rather than purchasing allowed one to have their proverbial cake and eat it too. One would show an appreciation in their investment and still have funds for a WDW vacation. Needless to say the disclaimers "Past performance does not guarantee future gains" or "Results not typical" came into play. There was a faulty assumption that investment appreciation would continue and significantly outpace increases in room rates. Recent economic history has pretty much negated this logic.

Again I must emphasize what may work for one family may not be appropriate for another. When we purchased DVC (pre-AP discount era) all of our six children were still in the nest. Invariably when we vacationed we were required to rent a minimum of two rooms and the rules required an adult stay in each room. We decided to take the plunge and bought into DVC. For us it actually cut costs and enhanced our vacation experience. The family stayed in one accommodation rather than being split up. We could prepare fresh meals rather than our budget being at the mercy of the restaurant meals. We could pack lighter since the villa included a laundry. Mom and dad had a room of their own. We staggered our trips so that we would get two trips out of our annual passes meaning we purchased new ones every other year which was cheaper than the Ultimate Park Hopper of that era. As far as the issue of maintenance fees ours have remained relatively stable in the decade since we joined DVC. Some years they actually went down due to DVC not using all the funds and putting them into an escrow account. So far it seems to have balanced out over that past ten years. In addition part of the cost is designated as "property taxes' which, though a small amount, we apply to our deductions when we itemize. Every little bit counts.

In addition to the sites that Greysword provided here is another nice DVC primer: http://www.mouseplanet.com/8739/A_Disney_Vacation_Club_Primer

 

[LisaS]

I would like to caveat this, if I may. It is extremely likely that dues will increase this much, but it is VERY significant to mention that average salaries will also increase by 3%+ over this time frame as well (CPI). Thus the ratio of dues to annual salary will likely remain constant over the term of the contract (i.e. the actual impact of the dues increase will likely not be very dramatic for the term).

The company DH works for froze salaries for several years and then cut them. The cost of health insurance goes up every year with significant cost shifts to employees. For many people disposable income has been going down every year, not up. Many people were laid off and are still looking for work after a couple of years. Maybe those 3%+ annual increases are on the horizon somewhere but I would only buy into DVC if I knew I could handle the dues easily with my current financial circumstances rather than count on increases that may not come.

 

[Greysword]

The company DH works for froze salaries for several years and then cut them. The cost of health insurance goes up every year with significant cost shifts to employees. For many people disposable income has been going down every year, not up. Many people were laid off and are still looking for work after a couple of years. Maybe those 3%+ annual increases are on the horizon somewhere but I would only buy into DVC if I knew I could handle the dues easily with my current financial circumstances rather than count on increases that may not come.

This is a great statement, Lisa, and is absolutely true for the current financial situation. However, I think it is better to look at DVC in a sense if "climate" versus "weather" (or "economics" versus "finances").

Because DVC is a long-term investment that will last between 30-50 years, I feel it is more accurate to measure the affordability of dues over the term based on assumptions of economic valleys and peaks instead of the current financial situation of today. For instance in 1930, the financial situation of the US was pretty grim and there did not appear to be solid future. Over the following 50 years, the economy (and personal income) rose and fell, so by 1980, a recovery was underway again.

In the end, the current financial woes will begin to recover in the next 5 (or so) years and in another 10 we will be well on our way to good times again.

As for the drivers of the annual dues increase, these are likely to shift in the next decade or two as well. For instance, there was already a shift underway in 2007 with employer provided health insurance, where employers were offering a lump-sum of cash for annual health maintenance and emergency medical issues, while providing catastrophic health insurance coverage for their employees. Thus, the average healthcare consumer was free to shop for the best rates on things like x-rays, prescription drugs, medical treatments, and even physician visits. Of course, this was impacted by the healthcare legislation and the recession.

Other drivers of dues rates include where products and support services are provided. With many companies moving their operations (manufacturing, call centers, banking, etc) offshore, it is safe to assume these costs will continue to remain fairly low with a small increase, since foreign labor laws and benefit requirements are different than the US (before this gets someone's ire up, it is a normal economic cycle. The US stole many manufacturing and service jobs from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the late 20th and early 21st centuries are witnessing a shift of these jobs toward Asia).

In the end, the amount of dues required in 2041 and 2051 will likely remain relatively constant in relation to household income (unless something really bad/weird happens like the end of the world in 2012 or the US decides to go into a period of complete isolation from the global economy ).

 

[LisaS]

You make great points but I've always been a "hope for the best, plan for the worst" type so I don't factor in possible salary increases when deciding whether or not to purchase something.

in another 10 we will be well on our way to good times again.

At that time my DH will be retired so salaries may be back up but he will no longer be earning one! We'll be relying on the rest of you to keep putting money into Social Security so we can continue to receive it and use it to pay our DVC dues! Perhaps we'll retire to FL and get part time jobs at WDW. I've always joked with DH that I want to work at the naked mole rat exhibit in AK when I retire.

 

[Greysword]

I reread you post, Lisa, and I wanted to add a couple things for perspective.

I agree that anyone who is unable to handle the annual dues for DVC at the moment should not buy into the program. It would certainly be foolish to buy a luxury item if daily expenses can not be met.

However, I would like to address a key word in your earlier post, which is significant as many do it (including myself) as it provides generalities. (Directed towards the community, not Lisa) While I agree that MANY Americans are currently out of work or underemployed, there are a GREAT MANY that are not, and I would caution anyone that makes a financial decision to understand the difference. In addition, I would again caution everyone against making a comparison of the affordability of annual dues in the year 2041 against the average salaries in 2011.

To make the first point (about the severity of unemployment/underemployment), I'll provide some numbers.

According to a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), 14 million Americans are unemployed with another 2.4 million "marginally attached", which they explain, "These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey." This brings the total of people able to work but not employed to 16.4 million. The total available workforce is 153 million (according to the report), which brings the actual unemployed rate to about 11%.

According to the gallop poll website, the under-employment rate (unemployed+those part-time that want to be full-time) is about 18% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149285/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-August.aspx). This means 23 million Americans need full-time jobs.

I agree this is MANY . Luckily, about 82% of Americans (4/5) that can work are fully employed, which is MOST .

The point of all this is that while the current unemployment/underemployment rate is high now, it is important to note that the country is at a low point in our financial health, which will improve (in another five years, or so, as I mentioned in my other post). When that happens, salaries will rise with the cost of living as they have usually done. Using the current economic climate as a barometer for the term of a DVC contract isn't a good idea (as dmoore implied in the second paragraph of his post).

In my opinion, it is critical to account for annual dues increases when attempting to determine the financial viability of DVC for someone's family. However, it is also critical to account for WDW resort rack rate increases (to determine the amount of savings/premium paid) and against reasonable salary increases (to determine affordability) over the term of the desired contract.

To that end, the US economy will fluctuate into another strong peak (like the 1990s) and another severe recession or depression (and likely back up again) over the course of the contract. Make a DVC purchase with the long-term implications to your family's financial health in mind and you will likely find DVC is an excellent and affordable option.

 

[dianeschlicht]

Too bad t he OP hasn't been back to take part in the discussion. Kind of a "drive by" post, but it sparked some good debate here!

 

[goofy4tink]

I have friends that love WDW...they would go about twice a year and stay at CSR. They loved CSR. But, they got upgraded to the Polynesian about 18 months ago. Well...they liked that whole 'deluxe' experience. And since they knew that we loved our DVC, they took a tour. Then, they called us to see what we thought. I told her that DVC wasn't going to save her money..in fact, it would have her spending more money... Why, she asked. I told her that once she got those points in her hot little hands, she was going to start going down twice a year!!! And that will mean more airfare to be paid, and more dining costs to cover. And yep...that's exactly what has happened.

Never buy DVC if you think it is going to save you money...especially if you currently stay at mostly value and moderate resorts. You may be better served by renting points from a DVC owner for those villa stays.