Questions for Michael

[duke88]

13 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Do you actually like that people living paycheck to paycheck have to pay the same amount of £ for goods as people with obscene amounts of money? That people on minimum wage struggle to afford to put food on the table because every time it’s put to certain influencers among society’s rich that they might like to pay a little more to help out strugglers they bounce off the walls with rage and call whoever suggested it a communist? Okay mate.

Of course people pay the same amount for things, regardless of their income. From a practical perspective, how on earth could it possibly be any other way? Should I prove my income (and no, I'm not one of the filthy rich) every time I go to the supermarket so they can work out how much I should pay. The way to reduce equality is to raise the living standards of those at the bottom and have a fairer system of taxation, not introduce a ridiculously complicated and costly system of making people pay more for goods and services, which would be open to abuse on a huge scale.

[Thunderstruck]

23 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Do you actually like that people living paycheck to paycheck have to pay the same amount of £ for goods as people with obscene amounts of money? That people on minimum wage struggle to afford to put food on the table because every time it’s put to certain influencers among society’s rich that they might like to pay a little more to help out strugglers they bounce off the walls with rage and call whoever suggested it a communist? Okay mate.

Everybody should pay the same amount for the same goods and services. There's no incentive to earn any money at all if everything is priced depending on income. The economy would collapse.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

10 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Can I speak as someone whose on minimum wage. Glastonbury or any festival is a luxury,if you can afford to go that's great but if you can't then I'm sorry it's tough. I work 60-70 hrs a week to support my family and have to save really hard for luxuries like this. Really it's no different then going on a holiday,I'd love to go to Hawaii but can't afford it so go to Brighton instead. Frankly I'd be horrified to find out I was paying less then everyone else but getting the same. Sorry but I'm from that generation that you support yourself and if you want something you pay for it or go without

I know you’re just a product of your generation and I’ve nothing against you personally for believing that, but the idea that poor people shouldn’t have nice things and should just be grateful for the crumbs they’re given (which is what that line of thinking basically boils down to) is an awful right-wing take designed solely to keep the little people in their place. Particularly in this current economic climate, saying ‘people should either be able to afford things or go without and they shouldn’t receive any help’ just doesn’t hold up.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Rose-Colored Boy

[tumbles]

10 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I always suspected the alternative site was more a negotiating tactic than a genuine plan. I don't mean they wouldn't have gone through with it, but the end game was to get the neighbours to fall in line. And it looks like the Eavii won.

There had to be a bit more to it than that as Emily defo commentated on an alternative festival (rather than site) around 2016 time. Strong rumours that it would based at Longleat but given the absolute carnage of 2016 (i.e. mud) they were put off by the idea.  I'm sure like you say the large part of it was getting the other land owners back onside so to speak. 

[Thunderstruck]

Also why should someone who has worked hard for their money potentially pay more for their ticket than someone who's been a lazy arse all their life? I get the whole inequality thing and that absolutely exists. But it certainly isn't the sole reason why some have more money than others.

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, tumbles said:

There had to be a bit more to it than that as Emily defo commentated on an alternative festival (rather than site) around 2016 time. Strong rumours that it would based at Longleat but given the absolute carnage of 2016 (i.e. mud) they were put off by the idea.  I'm sure like you say the large part of it was getting the other land owners back onside so to speak. 

As I say, I'm sure they would have gone through with it, but the ultimate goal was what they have - festivals at Worthy without the mercenary tactics from the surrounding landowners.

[shuttlep]

3 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

The logistics of a ballot would be a nightmare.

How would people ensure they and partners/family had tickets?
If to do this they said all registered at one address can be entered together then people would register 50 or more at one address. They could limit it to 4 or 6 per address but then what if an address, such as student digs, had more than that?

These are just 2 or may potential dilemmas a ballot would raise.

and I hate the idea of there being a ballot anyway for all the reasons others have given.

I love how people seem to Think Ballot's are fair.

I have entered the London Marathon Ballot for 10 years in a row and have not got in. you would still have horror stores about not getting in. who do people think that would change!

[Rose-Colored Boy]

5 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

Everybody should pay the same amount for the same goods and services. There's no incentive to earn any money at all if everything is priced depending on income. The economy would collapse.

Even if that were true, it’d only be because we’ve spent the last 150 years telling each other that the only reason to be employed is to earn money, and in line with that there’s never been any emphasis on making employment something that anyone gets much out of except money. Not saying you have to implement full communism but change that attitude in society and the whole game is totally different. 

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

I love how people seem to Think Ballot's are fair.

I have entered the London Marathon Ballot for 10 years in a row and have not got in. you would still have horror stores about not getting in. who do people think that would change!

i did my best at shaking my head vigorously when she mentioned this .... think she might have just thought id lost the plot though 

[Thunderstruck]

Just now, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Even if that were true, it’d only be because we’ve spent the last 150 years telling each other that the only reason to be employed is to earn money, and in line with that there’s never been any emphasis on making employment something that anyone gets much out of except money. Not saying you have to implement full communism but change that attitude in society and the whole game is totally different. 

It depends on what aspects you want to change. All of the many good things we have now are down to growth of an economy (and many of the bad things too!), ideally I'd like to not work and have some meaningful life that I found fulfilling. It is difficult to see how it is possible though.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Thunderstruck

[Garrett_Salas]

I really hope the capitalism: good v bad debate finally gets settled here on efests.

[Keithy]

3 minutes ago, Garrett_Salas said:

I really hope the capitalism: good v bad debate finally gets settled here on efests.

And to think it started from Emily making a comment about 'looking at a part ballot' 

[glastolover19]

12 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

I know you’re just a product of your generation and I’ve nothing against you personally for believing that, but the idea that poor people shouldn’t have nice things and should just be grateful for the crumbs they’re given (which is what that line of thinking basically boils down to) is an awful right-wing take designed solely to keep the little people in their place. Particularly in this current economic climate, saying ‘people should either be able to afford things or go without and they shouldn’t receive any help’ just doesn’t hold up.

Sorry but you seem to confuse the idea of want and need. A festival is not an necessity,no one has died from not attending one. Working on your ideas then does that mean if I go buy a Ferrari now your happy to chip in for it?

[slash's hat]

14 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

I know you’re just a product of your generation and I’ve nothing against you personally for believing that, but the idea that poor people shouldn’t have nice things and should just be grateful for the crumbs they’re given (which is what that line of thinking basically boils down to) is an awful right-wing take designed solely to keep the little people in their place. Particularly in this current economic climate, saying ‘people should either be able to afford things or go without and they shouldn’t receive any help’ just doesn’t hold up.

But the sense of entitlement the younger generation of today seems yo have does not work either (I qualify that with having children and seeing their expectations) I don't think glastolover was suggesting anyone be thankful for crumbs, just if you want to go, whatever your income, you work/save for it. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who has worked hard to get to a certain position enjoying that position. It's the equality of people being able to get to that position that needs addressing. Education for example...access to quality teaching, access to higher education, access to apprenticeships that are not used as tax perks and actually pay a proper wage.

[Sasperella]

 

1 hour ago, jyoung said:

No to a ballot. 

Yes to late nights at the Park.

Yes to this post! 

 

1 hour ago, crazyfool1 said:

ha ha ... just been contacted by Bristol live .... told them I have no interest in Talking to them ....more hits on here .. more money to keep the sire healthy 

I'm confused now....did you actually get a job with Bristol Live? Or is that also a joke along with the Somerset Live thing? I want to say congratulations but I can't work out if its real or not 

[Hugh Jass]

23 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

I know you’re just a product of your generation and I’ve nothing against you personally for believing that, but the idea that poor people shouldn’t have nice things and should just be grateful for the crumbs they’re given (which is what that line of thinking basically boils down to) is an awful right-wing take designed solely to keep the little people in their place. Particularly in this current economic climate, saying ‘people should either be able to afford things or go without and they shouldn’t receive any help’ just doesn’t hold up.

I agree that people who need help feeding themselves and their families, keeping a roof over their heads and keeping the power and heating on should have more help... but a ticket to a music festival isn't a basic human right or requirement.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Sasperella said:

 

Yes to this post! 

 

I'm confused now....did you actually get a job with Bristol Live? Or is that also a joke along with the Somerset Live thing? I want to say congratulations but I can't work out if its real or not 

no my job with Somerset live was my sarcastic humour ... cant stand them as they just rip off info for clicks on there site ... but ironically bristol live have asked for an interview ... and thought the reason I didn't want to give them info was because of my non existent somerset live job 

[stuie]

1 hour ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Because inflation rates being higher than wages are rising means the festival entry price is increasingly impossible to afford for exactly the kind of people Glastonbury was initially supposed to be for? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with asking people with more money to pay a higher entry fee to subsidise those with less, it’s exactly what a festival which prides itself on being left-wing should be doing.

Isn't that why we have a tiered income tax system, tax free earning allowances, housing allowances and tax credits for the lower paid?

You can't expect a festival to means test it's punters.  It's a ridiculous idea.

 

[Sasperella]

1 hour ago, the wonderwhy said:

There are plenty of places which offer jobseekers tickets, which are often less than half the standard price- that's essentially the same thing. Manchester International Festival offers reduced tickets for those on a low income (I think ~£15,000). 

Obviously its all trust based, nobody's going to means test that.  

Burning Man used to (although not necessarily anymore) do a separate ballot for people to apply to if they were on a (very) low income. I had an American friend who had got a ticket this way. For everyone else, I think the price was the same with no variation based on income. A full on tier system would obviously be too difficult, but I like this idea a lot - I don't think it has to be true that just because you can't afford a ticket to Glastonbury you can't go. For as well all know, if you have enough money you can already spend £6000 on a wooden yurt for five days and get a ticket included if you fail in the main sale....

However, there is no indication from Emily that the part-ballot she is referring to is income contingent. I can't see how it would work any other way, apart from the suggestion about the resale being balloted (and the secret resale too presumably?). I dislike this idea mainly because I have never had any luck in any of these sorts of things where ones name has to be pulled out of a hat or whatever. At least with the current system I can piggyback on the luck of my mates to some extent!

[Sasperella]

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

no my job with Somerset live was my sarcastic humour ... cant stand them as they just rip off info for clicks on there site ... but ironically bristol live have asked for an interview ... and thought the reason I didn't want to give them info was because of my non existent somerset live job 

Haha ok, well, good luck with the interview!!! Assuming you want it 

[Ommadawn]

If you genuinely can't afford to buy a ticket (it's less than £5 a week), you can always volunteer and get a free ticket.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ommadawn

[Rose-Colored Boy]

39 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

Also why should someone who has worked hard for their money potentially pay more for their ticket than someone who's been a lazy arse all their life? 

Again, the idea that minimum wage workers are slouches whilst the fat cats upstairs deserve to be on 10x as much money is a completely ludicrous myth, propagated by the likes of the Daily Mail in an attempt to prevent enough people being unhappy with the unearned extreme wealth enjoyed by the likes of that paper’s proprietor that anything would ever change. It holds no basis in reality and it’s confusing to me that people would seek to trot it out on a Glastonbury forum of all places.

31 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

It depends on what aspects you want to change. All of the many good things we have now are down to growth of an economy (and many of the bad things too!), ideally I'd like to not work and have some meaningful life that I found fulfilling. It is difficult to see how it is possible though.

Even little things like putting the emphasis on positive jobs that help society rather than seem to have no importance, or encouraging employers to trust people to work as hard as they can without watching over them like children, would help. Not saying you have to go full-GDR, but there are attitude changes which wouldn’t be that hard to implement that would help massively.

23 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Sorry but you seem to confuse the idea of want and need. A festival is not an necessity,no one has died from not attending one. Working on your ideas then does that mean if I go buy a Ferrari now your happy to chip in for it?

If it so happened that I was on quadruple your income and we both wanted the same thing, I’d be perfectly happy to pay a bit more so you could pay a bit less, that’d be only fair IMO

21 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

But the sense of entitlement the younger generation of today seems yo have does not work either (I qualify that with having children and seeing their expectations) I don't think glastolover was suggesting anyone be thankful for crumbs, just if you want to go, whatever your income, you work/save for it. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who has worked hard to get to a certain position enjoying that position. It's the equality of people being able to get to that position that needs addressing. Education for example...access to quality teaching, access to higher education, access to apprenticeships that are not used as tax perks and actually pay a proper wage.

I agree with this with the exception of the first part, but an increasing number of people just aren’t in a position to be saving anything. And addressing the significant flaws in our education structure would only (or mostly) help people currently under 16 and it would take 30 years for society to change in line with it, something more urgently impactful needs to be done.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Rose-Colored Boy

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

If it so happened that I was on quadruple your income and we both wanted the same thing, I’d be perfectly happy to pay a bit more so you could pay a bit less, that’d be only fair IMO

 

No based on what you previously said if you earn even slightly more then me then you should supplement my income so in that case put your money where your mouth is and chip in for my Ferrari or just to keep it on topic pay some towards my ticket for next year

[Garrett_Salas]

48 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

Can I speak as someone whose on minimum wage. Glastonbury or any festival is a luxury,if you can afford to go that's great but if you can't then I'm sorry it's tough. I work 60-70 hrs a week to support my family and have to save really hard for luxuries like this. Really it's no different then going on a holiday,I'd love to go to Hawaii but can't afford it so go to Brighton instead. Frankly I'd be horrified to find out I was paying less then everyone else but getting the same. Sorry but I'm from that generation that you support yourself and if you want something you pay for it or go without

Fair play for that. My argument would be that I think the point is that Holidays *shouldn't* be a luxury - everyone should have the opportunity to get away from work, experience something new, exposed to cultural activities. That's not the same as saying everyone should be able to go to Hawaii (Though in an ideal world, why not?!). It's a pretty glib mindset to say that the only things that people should be entitled to are things that they'd die without. 

[Garrett_Salas]

2 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

No based on what you previously said if you earn even slightly more then me then you should supplement my income so in that case put your money where your mouth is and chip in for my Ferrari or just to keep it on topic pay some towards my ticket for next year

A ferrari and going to glastonbury are not equivalent