£200 barrier breached

[gizmoman]

Why only 17500 tickets for the 'unwaged'? after all they don't need to worry about getting time off work so they can all go if we make it cheap enough, put up the ticket price to £400 and make it 50/50 unwaged and full price, there are plenty of toffs at glasto who can afford £400.

[whisty]

So the whole 19 pages have been for nothing as your mates would now be even less likely to go

[Jie Bie]

Hooray, it nearly works! vote Mardy for Chancellor!

[Mardy]

[Wooderson]

I reckon a cool thou for joe-spudmuncher types. 100 nicker for poor hoors but they have to tent down next to a longsie.

[russycarps]

Call me cynical if you like, but I reckon a lot of folk would chance their arm with a fake letter to get the discount. In some ways that doesn't really bother me as I would be paying £215 no matter what and also the festival revenue as a whole wouldn't be affected.

However it would bother me if the allocation of £135 tickets sold out very quickly, due partly to a small but significant number of chancers sending in fake letters, which in turn left genuine claimants (who maybe had to wait a while for a letter to be issued by their local Job Centre) with a choice of paying £215 or requesting a refund for their deposit.

[Jie Bie]

try not worrying so much about whether other people are somehow getting a slightly better deal than you. This is why so many rich people are miserable, they are constantly worried that other people have discovered ways of getting even richer than they are.

In this hypothetical ticket scenario there isnt a separate pool of tickets for the poor and the rich, everyone would be fighting for the same tickets, just the poor would pay less for theirs.

[Mardy]

right, I've got it. Average UK income is 26000 (gross). A glastonbury ticket is 210 quid, so it's 0.0081% of the average salary

So, here's what we do, the cost of your ticket is 0.0081 of your salary. You earn 40,000 your ticket costs £323; you're on the dole, your tickets costs significantly less.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Call me cynical if you like, but I reckon a lot of folk would chance their arm with a fake letter to get the discount. In some ways that doesn't really bother me as I would be paying £215 no matter what and also the festival revenue as a whole wouldn't be affected.

However it would bother me if the allocation of £135 tickets sold out very quickly, due partly to a small but significant number of chancers sending in fake letters, which in turn left genuine claimants (who maybe had to wait a while for a letter to be issued by their local Job Centre) with a choice of paying £215 or requesting a refund for their deposit.

[eFestivals]

In this hypothetical ticket scenario there isnt a separate pool of tickets for the poor and the rich, everyone would be fighting for the same tickets, just the poor would pay less for theirs.

the unfortunate consequence of working it like that is that the festival wouldn't be able to set its budgets until all of the tickets had been sold, because the changing proportion sold to the waged and unwaged would vary the income.

It's also the case that other economics of the festival would change too. For example, the stall pitches are priced against an estimate of how much money they'll take and make - but if the spending money of the audience varied wildly year on year (as it would do from a variation in the numbers of unemployed) then it gets difficult to make a fair estimate.

[eFestivals]

right, I've got it. Average UK income is 26000 (gross). A glastonbury ticket is 210 quid, so it's 0.0081% of the average salary

So, here's what we do, the cost of your ticket is 0.0081 of your salary. You earn 40,000 your ticket costs £323; you're on the dole, your tickets costs significantly less.

I'd love it of lots of things within society were priced in that sort of way.

Maybe it'll happen one day - but first would have to come the public publication of all tax returns (something which I feel desperately needs to happen anyway).

[russycarps]

Did you even read my post?

[The Nal]

right, I've got it. Average UK income is 26000 (gross). A glastonbury ticket is 210 quid, so it's 0.0081% of the average salary

So, here's what we do, the cost of your ticket is 0.0081 of your salary. You earn 40,000 your ticket costs £323; you're on the dole, your tickets costs significantly less.

Edited October 10, 2012 by The Nal

[russycarps]

right, I've got it. Average UK income is 26000 (gross). A glastonbury ticket is 210 quid, so it's 0.0081% of the average salary

So, here's what we do, the cost of your ticket is 0.0081 of your salary. You earn 40,000 your ticket costs £323; you're on the dole, your tickets costs significantly less.

Edited October 10, 2012 by russycarps

[Mardy]

I'd love it of lots of things within society were priced in that sort of way.

Maybe it'll happen one day - but first would have to come the public publication of all tax returns (something which I feel desperately needs to happen anyway).

[Mardy]

Yes. You were concerned some people might try and fraudulantly claim discounted tickets.

You then went on to worry that a non-existant allocation of discounted tickets would sell out faster than normal tickets due to hypothetical frauds.

[whisty]

right, I've got it. Average UK income is 26000 (gross). A glastonbury ticket is 210 quid, so it's 0.0081% of the average salary

So, here's what we do, the cost of your ticket is 0.0081 of your salary. You earn 40,000 your ticket costs £323; you're on the dole, your tickets costs significantly less.

Edited October 10, 2012 by whisty

[The Nal]

That said I've found this thread fundamentally dispiriting. It's depressing that people think unemployed people are somehow 'the other' or less important. We're all one payday away from that situation.

[abdoujaparov]

because we live in a society and value everybody equally.

[eFestivals]

Its a huge invasion of privacy ....

Unworkable.

It's neither in the democratic countries that do it - the scandinavians, for example.

http://www.infosquares.com/readingcomprehension/source/readingcomp_9.html

(just the first easy link I found. Don't judge me on it lol)

As likes to be said when it suits a repressive measure (which this isn't): if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

One of the problems that exists in western society is the myth that the rich work hard...yet we all work fucking hard, just some are better paid for it. .... if the incomes of the rich can be properly justified as they klike to say they are, thjen let's justify them by knowing what they are (instead of being lied to).

It'll also shaft all the criminals known as rich people who are rich because they're not paying their taxes.

And a public publication of peoples activities on the dole too surely? Are they looking for jobs? Are they using government education programs? How much money do they spend down the pub etc?

If such justifications of how a person's time is spent & or how their money is spent is not asked from all, it should not be asked. Either it's right that some people are eligible for public support or it's not.

Edited October 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

absolutely agree. I know none of these things are going to happen, no matter how much fairer it would be. Got to keep on believing though, eh Neil?

either that, or take up the gun.

That said I've found this thread fundamentally dispiriting. It's depressing that people think unemployed people are somehow 'the other' or less important. We're all one payday away from that situation. Guess I was hoping for more empathy, more solidarity on this forum. Damn, this is the closest anything has made me come to thinking 'nah, I don't want to go to Glastonbury any more', not if this thread is representative. Not all of course, some diamonds among the dogshit, as ever.

Nicely put.

But nothing being said here is anything different from what is said 'out there'. And that's the problem, not specifically anything Glastonbury.

[Verbal]

Yes but I work harder than you & contribute more to the economy by way of tax which ultimately goes to those poor souls who cannot work. Why should I pay more again in subsidy, sounds suspicious like communism to me!

Hypothetical of course.

[The Nal]

It's neither in the democratic countries that do it - the scandinavians, for example.

http://www.infosquar...dingcomp_9.html

(just the first easy link I found. Don't judge me on it lol)

As likes to be said when it suits a repressive measure (which this isn't): if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

One of the problems that exists in western society is the myth that the rich work hard...yet we all work fucking hard, just some are better paid for it. .... if the incomes of the rich can be properly justified as they klike to say they are, thjen let's justify them by knowing what they are (instead of being lied to).

It'll also shaft all the criminals known as rich people who are rich because they're not paying their taxes.

If such justifications of how a person's time is spent & or how their money is spent is not asked from all, it should not be asked. Either it's right that some people are eligible for public support or it's not.

[eFestivals]

This

The 40% tax I pay already is not enough?

It's not. The proof is in the fact that the country is fucked.

The country is not only fucked because of too-high public spending. They're two sides of the same coin, and tax receipts from the richest have been going proportionally down no less than public spending has gone proportionally up.

[abdoujaparov]

That said I've found this thread fundamentally dispiriting. It's depressing that people think unemployed people are somehow 'the other' or less important. We're all one payday away from that situation. Guess I was hoping for more empathy, more solidarity on this forum. Damn, this is the closest anything has made me come to thinking 'nah, I don't want to go to Glastonbury any more', not if this thread is representative. Not all of course, some diamonds among the dogshit, as ever.