Not Everyone Is on the Same Boat (EMH)

[MariMama]

Do you have any source for this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
https://philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481
There are plenty more if you care to google.

 

[Kimberly9701]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
https://philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481
There are plenty more if you care to google.

You should also spend time googling how much money the private sector contributes. I can't access links now on my phone...but am positive you can find them

You're actually not saving them money. Also, this is how society works. We pay taxes to have emergency response, too and I hope to god I never need them.

What?

What people have issues with are things that used to be free with admission are being turned into upcharge events. I think that is the main point most people are arguing.

I think you are doing a lot of assuming about people's incomes on this board. I get the impression you think people don't like these upcharge events because they can't afford them. Most people online are tactful enough not to talk about their socioeconomic status.

It's not about affording them. It's about seeing value in them and having the OPTION to pay if you wish to. I am definitely not in the top income level, yet I don't begrudge those that are. Most importantly- I don't care what they spend their money on. You should read the entire thread- as it is mostly aimed at attacking the horrid '1%' and companies that people are accusing of catering to them. Disney being one. Which I don't see it, but apparently a few feel this way.

No, she's not. Why should the school get the same amount of money as other schools if they have less students? The tax dollars the government collects from her are trickled down to the schools who need it the most.

Where I live (suburb) the property tax goes directly to the school district that I live in. Our state taxes do go to all the schools. I know this varies place to place though.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The difference is- I am saving the school district money by not sending my son there, as well as providing additional funds. In your scenario you are also using the roads, creating additional wear and tear.
I don't need a tax write off (but wouldn't complain if I got one ). And I'm not going to debate public vs private. I want the public schools to do well. I was just giving an example of things that people may pay for that are beneficial to others, and in the very least money that other people choose to spend that is not at all harming someone else.

I'm really not sure I would go so far as to say you are saving the school district money because you are not sending your child there. It's not exactly 1 less student equals less costs.

I'm ok with knowing that I'm contributing to the wear and tear but I honestly don't know any neighborhoods in my area where you pay a portion of your property tax to use on a road improvements (though I haven't researched in-depthly this-for ours it's part of our HOA contract). That is usually the city's responsibility in which case city funds are used. The city is still responsible for the road conditions but it's a special thing with our neighborhood that we will have to eventually pay (through the fund) to make the road larger. I still pay a portion to my property tax to my city that I live in but I pay that special tax on top of that city part. Like I said above I'm not begrudging having to pay for it but I was using it as an example that others use the road and yet don't pay for it as well as I use the road and yet don't pay the same amount as those who live closer to it.

Here's what stuff are in my property tax configuration with the highlighted part is the road I am talking about:


As an example from above I don't personally use the JCCC (the community college) and haven't taken a class there in 10 years and yet at portion of my taxes goes to them...it's how it works. But we also have one the best community colleges around part of which is because the property tax dollars allow for it (newer buildings, improved buildings, resources, staff, IT systems etc).

 

[MariMama]

It's not about affording them. It's about seeing value in them and having the OPTION to pay if you wish to. I am definitely not in the top income level, yet I don't begrudge those that are. Most importantly- I don't care what they spend their money on. You should read the entire thread- as it is mostly aimed at attacking the horrid '1%' and companies that people are accusing of catering to them. Disney being one. Which I don't see it, but apparently a few feel this way.

I have read every single post in the thread.

 

[Kimberly9701]

I'm really not sure I would go so far as to say you are saving the school district money because you are not sending your child there. It's not exactly 1 less student equals less costs.

I'm ok with knowing that I'm contributing to the wear and tear but I honestly don't know any neighborhoods in my area where you pay a portion of your property tax to use on a road improvements (though I haven't researched in-depthly this-for ours it's part of our HOA contract). That is usually the city's responsibility in which case city funds are used. The city is still responsible for the road conditions but it's a special thing with our neighborhood that we will have to eventually pay (through the fund) to make the road larger. I still pay a portion to my property tax to my city that I live in but I pay that special tax on top of that city part. Like I said above I'm not begrudging having to pay for it but I was using it as an example that others use the road and yet don't pay for it as well as I use the road and yet don't pay the same amount as those who live closer to it.

Here's what stuff are in my property tax configuration with the highlighted part is the road I am talking about:
View attachment 166244

As an example from above I don't personally use the JCCC (the community college) and haven't taken a class there in 10 years and yet at portion of my taxes goes to them...it's how it works. But we also have one the best community colleges around part of which is because the property tax dollars allow for it (newer buildings, improved buildings, resources, staff, IT systems etc).

It is EXACTLY 1 less equals less costs. I think you entirely missed my point. Point being- I CHOOSE to pay extra...my choice. And it isn't harming anyone. I don't have anything against the public schools.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

No, she's not. Why should the school get the same amount of money as other schools if they have less students? The tax dollars the government collects from her are trickled down to the schools who need it the most.

That depends on your state's laws.

 

[eyehartdisney]

Thanks for the recommendation! I'm guessing it's one of the "Discworld" novels, right?

Found it: Sizzle. "Yes! More posh carriages for the nobs, and..." Here Moist saw the money smile and continued, "Here's a though, for those who aren't quite nobs, but aspire to be like them, well, why not give them carriages that are not quite so plush, but visibly better than the cheapest coaches which are, perhaps, open to the weather. That would give them something else to year for, and you'll have made yet another money pump."
"Yes! Yes! That's the way! Lord Vetinari's way, too. He believes that people should strive to be better in every respect. I can see it now, Harry. Picture a young man taking his young lady on the train and hazarding an extra sixpence to go in the better-class seats. Well, he's no end of a swell, and he'll look around him and think, This suits me down to the ground and no mistake, I could do with more of this.
"And when he goes back to work he'll strive, yes, strive to become a better, that's to say, richer person to the benefit of both his employer and himself, and not, of course, neglecting to thank the owner of the railway, to wit, your good self, who allowed him to have ideas above his railway station. Everybody wins, nobody loses. Please, please, Harry, allow people to aspire. I mean who knows, they might have in the wrong class all this time. Your railway, my friend, will allow them to dream, and once you have a dream you've got somewhere closer to reality." -Terry Pratchett, Raising Steam pg 133

Sorry for the long quote, it just seemed so appropriate.

 

[Skywise]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
https://philanthropy.com/article/As-Wealthy-Give-Smaller-Share/152481
There are plenty more if you care to google.

The Atlantic is just referencing the same philanthropy.com report in the 2nd link.

Secondly, you're looking at 2 points of data. That's not a trend or a truism about who or what donates the most. Just that between 2006 and 2012 those making more than $200,000 report 5% less charitable giving on their IRS vs those making under $200,000 reporting 5% more charitable giving. There was this thing called an economic disaster that happened between 2006 and 2012 plus massive changes in tax law and reporting that don't even accurately show how charitable giving has changed because people are reporting it differently (if at all). (For instance I, for one, DON'T report)

Also, more importantly, note that that's 5% more and less THAN THE SAME GROUPS DID BEFORE... Not an actual percentage of the relative incomes. (Could be the rich are now giving 45% from 50% and the middle class are giving 10% from 5%)

(And let's not even get into the fact that people giving to charity in this way are stealing from others by getting tax credits FOR the giving which may be another reason the under $200,000 increased their reporting on giving)

Since then the wealthy have increased their donations by 28%
http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/p...2014-us-trust-study-high-net-worth-philanthro

 

[TigerlilyAJ]

That's so offensive and generally untrue. Has anyone looked around and seen the philanthropy that typically results in having "excess money". There's no reason to demonize it.

In percentages, the 'rich' donate lesser amounts of their incomes than middle class folks and those who would be considered poor.

Thanks for beating me to it. And that's before analyzing the money given to charities into nonprofits that are working to help people in need (food, shelter, clothing) versus help for political causes, alma maters with billions of dollars in their endowments, and organizations that provide arts/entertainment that are only affordable for wealthier people. That's not "demonizing" anyone. Just stating facts about who gives and to whom.

Disney was created and remained for a long time, an equal opportunity park. Every body paid the same amount and got the same perks. I have no problem with them trying to create the extra magic hour specials, or the exclusive tours etc... More power to you if you have the money. But what I DO have a problem with, is if they start taking away things that used to be included, and start trying to charge for them (ex. the resort fee proposal). I'm also not a big fan of the packages for the shows. I really dislike the idea that if I want a decent spot at what is advertised as a "free" show, that I have to pay an extra $250 for my family of 4 to attend said show. I'm sorry, it should be first come, first serve. You want a good seat? Get there in time and wait for it - just like you have to do with the parades, fireworks etc...

I think two basic ideas need to be kept in mind:
1) There are plenty of people who cannot afford to go to WDW (or cruise in The Haven or fly first class) despite working full time and more, sometimes in multiple jobs. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year, not in a decade will they be able to go. It's not about "working harder" or "saving." The money is not and will not be there. It is not about being "willing" to pay. It is offensive to read people suggesting otherwise to people like me who know and love the people and the children who will never have a WDW experience, the "magic" that everyone here believes in, which is why we want to go.
2) There are different types of experiences one can pay for: those that are enhancements to what other guests can have (better spots for shows, etc.) and things that are exclusive and shut out other guests. EMH are just what the "E" stands for: Extra. They have added hours for some guests. Other things, including the parties, force others out during what otherwise would be normal operating hours. In other words, a few people pay more and get more, and others get less than they used to--while paying the same or more. I don't think most people feel the same about these two categories, so I try to not lump them together in discussions.

The only reason I think there is not more uprising is that a) The exclusive events don't happen every day, and b) They occur at one park at a time at a resort that has multiple parks. But I fear that could change as the companies take an approach that caters to for the very few who own the overwhelming majority of wealth.
What if you couldn't go to Epcot when MK closes for a Halloween party, because Epcot (and DHS and AK) was having its own party? So, during a week-long stay, you had three days of your vacation where your park time had to end at 7pm? What if AD events became AM (as in "morning") events where those without tickets that cost more than a one-day regular ticket could not enter until noon because people like me with small children could never attend the late nights, but would love to have the run of the park while my kids are fresh? Would you mind then? Because like the AD events, I see them tinkering and experimenting every way they can to see what people will bear so that at some point (different points for different households) every one of us will have to decide when we're going to pull out.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is EXACTLY 1 less equals less costs. I think you entirely missed my point. Point being- I CHOOSE to pay extra...my choice. And it isn't harming anyone. I don't have anything against the public schools.

Umm I think personally we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Me choosing not to go to JCCC full time before going to 4 year university didn't equate to saving JCCC money they still needed to pay for all those stuff I mentioned in my quote. If I were to send my child to private school vs public school it doesn't mean the public school now has less costs they still have to pay for resources too.

While it might be slightly different example my next WDW trip is Sep 2017. Originally it was going to be 5 people going now it's 4 people going. We were all adults and so things were being split equally...however as there is 1 less person going it is actually going to cost more per person even if the overall trip cost is less. This is because of things like the cost for 2 rooms (even one have a slight upcharge for a 3rd adult) was being split among 5 not 4, the rental car is being split among 4 not 5 even though a 5th person meant a larger vehicle, etc.

Maybe your school system is set up differently where 1 student less does exactly equal less cost (a tit for tat so to speak) but I don't think many areas would be like that (just my thoughts though).

 

[Kimberly9701]

Umm I think personally we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Me choosing not to go to JCCC full time before going to 4 year university didn't equate to saving JCCC money they still needed to pay for all those stuff I mentioned in my quote. If I were to send my child to private school vs public school it doesn't mean the public school now has less costs they still have to pay for resources too.

While it might be slightly different example my next WDW trip is Sep 2017. Originally it was going to be 5 people going now it's 4 people going. We were all adults and so things were being split equally...however as there is 1 less person going it is actually going to cost more per person even if the overall trip cost is less. This is because of things like the cost for 2 rooms (even one have a slight upcharge for a 3rd adult) was being split among 5 not 4, the rental car is being split among 4 not 5 even though a 5th person meant a larger vehicle, etc.

Maybe your school system is set up differently where 1 student less does exactly equal less cost (a tit for tat so to speak) but I don't think many areas would be like that (just my thoughts though).

As I said earlier- it varies by where you live. I don't live in the Cincinnati city limits. I do work there so have to pay city taxes as well as result...those taxes get trickled thru the different several city schools. For MY "township" our property taxes and additional taxes go towards the schools in said township.

When I lived in South Florida this was completely different.

Edit- I'm not talking entire tax percentage in any of this. They're portions.

 

[Angel Ariel]

EMH is free if you're staying onsite.

In the 10 years since our honeymoon trip, the price of the onsite hotel we stayed in has nearly doubled in cost while EMH has been cut nearly in half in that same amount of time. EMH isn't free..it's built into the cost of the onsite hotel. It isn't any *additional* money, I agree, but it isn't free either.

 

[mshanson3121]

Thanks for beating me to it. And that's before analyzing the money given to charities into nonprofits that are working to help people in need (food, shelter, clothing) versus help for political causes, alma maters with billions of dollars in their endowments, and organizations that provide arts/entertainment that are only affordable for wealthier people. That's not "demonizing" anyone. Just stating facts about who gives and to whom.



I think two basic ideas need to be kept in mind:
1) There are plenty of people who cannot afford to go to WDW (or cruise in The Haven or fly first class) despite working full time and more, sometimes in multiple jobs. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year, not in a decade will they be able to go. It's not about "working harder" or "saving." The money is not and will not be there. It is not about being "willing" to pay. It is offensive to read people suggesting otherwise to people like me who know and love the people and the children who will never have a WDW experience, the "magic" that everyone here believes in, which is why we want to go.
2) There are different types of experiences one can pay for: those that are enhancements to what other guests can have (better spots for shows, etc.) and things that are exclusive and shut out other guests. EMH are just what the "E" stands for: Extra. They have added hours for some guests. Other things, including the parties, force others out during what otherwise would be normal operating hours. In other words, a few people pay more and get more, and others get less than they used to--while paying the same or more. I don't think most people feel the same about these two categories, so I try to not lump them together in discussions.

The only reason I think there is not more uprising is that a) The exclusive events don't happen every day, and b) They occur at one park at a time at a resort that has multiple parks. But I fear that could change as the companies take an approach that caters to for the very few who own the overwhelming majority of wealth.
What if you couldn't go to Epcot when MK closes for a Halloween party, because Epcot (and DHS and AK) was having its own party? So, during a week-long stay, you had three days of your vacation where your park time had to end at 7pm? What if AD events became AM (as in "morning") events where those without tickets that cost more than a one-day regular ticket could not enter until noon because people like me with small children could never attend the late nights, but would love to have the run of the park while my kids are fresh? Would you mind then? Because like the AD events, I see them tinkering and experimenting every way they can to see what people will bear so that at some point (different points for different households) every one of us will have to decide when we're going to pull out.

What was your point in quoting my comment? I didn't "suggest" any of what you're saying. Or even come close to saying anything like that.

 

[hiroMYhero]

Dropping in to remind everyone to please follow the DISboard posting guidelines.

Also letting everyone know this thread is being moved to the TPAS Community Board where this discussion can be continued.

 

[mshanson3121]

No, she's not. Why should the school get the same amount of money as other schools if they have less students? The tax dollars the government collects from her are trickled down to the schools who need it the most.

Yeah she potentially is. More students = more funding for many schools.

 

[jade1]

I think two basic ideas need to be kept in mind:
1) There are plenty of people who cannot afford to go to WDW (or cruise in The Haven or fly first class) despite working full time and more, sometimes in multiple jobs. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year, not in a decade will they be able to go. It's not about "working harder" or "saving." The money is not and will not be there. It is not about being "willing" to pay. It is offensive to read people suggesting otherwise to people like me who know and love the people and the children who will never have a WDW experience, the "magic" that everyone here believes in, which is why we want to go.

Somewhat agree.

Not everyone can or will be able to afford it.

After 30 years of 80 hour work weeks, we have been fortunate enough to visit a lot. Can name 8 children that we have taken and 2 families that would have never gotten to go otherwise. However, 7 of those children are now going on their own because they had a great time, and are positive hard working adults. The other, lets just say is content to just not try to hard.

What if you couldn't go to Epcot when MK closes for a Halloween party, because Epcot (and DHS and AK) was having its own party? So, during a week-long stay, you had three days of your vacation where your park time had to end at 7pm?

1. That would be called every day at Universal.

2. That's why WDW does this IMO, they have 3 other parks on regular hours.

 

[iivye]

Yeah she potentially is. More students = more funding for many schools.

Where I live the state funding per student doesn't cover the actual cost of educating one student so in my area she would be saving the school money. I also send my child to private school and still pay high school taxes which stinks but I feel worse for those people who never had children or the elderly who are on fixed incomes and still paying high school taxes.

 

[Kimberly9701]

Thanks for beating me to it. And that's before analyzing the money given to charities into nonprofits that are working to help people in need (food, shelter, clothing) versus help for political causes, alma maters with billions of dollars in their endowments, and organizations that provide arts/entertainment that are only affordable for wealthier people. That's not "demonizing" anyone. Just stating facts about who gives and to whom.

Every single example you stated is "helping" someone. And they aren't just affordable for "wealthier" people.

Also, if this statement below is not in some aspect 'demonizing' then I don't what is. This is a complete non truth. And there is nothing to back up such a statement. I mentioned Bill Gates earlier, do you have any idea how much he gives? On a personal level and through their foundation? Is that not an example of empathy? And Bill and Melinda Gates are not even close to the only examples of this type of giving.

It really did strike me that someone raised in that level of luxury would be less likely to develop much experience of empathy for other people.

Yeah she potentially is. More students = more funding for many schools.

To accurately finish the equation-----

= more cost above funding provided.

 

[mshanson3121]

To accurately finish the equation-----

= more cost above funding provided.

Some places yes. Probably many. But not accurate everywhere, no. But regardless i still dont understand the "mine dont go to the school so why should i pay" mentality Taxes are what they are.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

As I said earlier- it varies by where you live. I don't live in the Cincinnati city limits. I do work there so have to pay city taxes as well as result...those taxes get trickled thru the different several city schools. For MY "township" our property taxes and additional taxes go towards the schools in said township.

When I lived in South Florida this was completely different.

Edit- I'm not talking entire tax percentage in any of this. They're portions.

With all due respect if you say 1 less student equals less costs as a blanket statement you're going to find the majority do not agree as that is not how funds are formulated where they live. It does seem your experience is atypical and thus do not represent what most would find if they sent their child to private vs public school. That's not to say others here on the board don't have the same as you do but the majority likely don't.