i43 - Possible new venue

[Hutch]

What? If somebody pays more money they should get a better product, it's the same for everything. It's win:win, rich people get a better experience because they can afford it, and the seller gets more revenue because they can charge different prices for different people. Nowhere does the poor guy lose.

What about the over crowding of standard class carriages on trains, while the first class carriages remain empty? The people paying less are penalised by not paying more as they do not get the full service they have paid for Ie a seat. Also with Festival or concert tickets, if tickets are reserved for a higher price range, that limits the amount of people who can pay the lowest rate, forcing some people to buy more expensive tickets if their price bracket is more expensive or to go without. Why not just equalise the quality of the product or have a ballot to decide who gets what? If there is a high demand for the lower price range why should a few rich people be allowed to enjoy a service more just because of their wealth when more people could enjoy it?
By saying "Money = better standard" you effectively deny people access based on their wealth, which is classist behaviour.

However: As people have earned their money they have the right to spend it as they please, and some things do have a higher value cost, which means they should have a higher price. But should someone pay more money for medicine that works better, offering a better life to a rich person?
And with regards to a better product...... does it always equal one?


The poor man does lose.

[Chazlene]

What about the over crowding of standard class carriages on trains, while the first class carriages remain empty? The people paying less are penalised by not paying more as they do not get the full service they have paid for Ie a seat. Also with Festival or concert tickets, if tickets are reserved for a higher price range, that limits the amount of people who can pay the lowest rate, forcing some people to buy more expensive tickets if their price bracket is more expensive or to go without. Why not just equalise the quality of the product or have a ballot to decide who gets what? If there is a high demand for the lower price range why should a few rich people be allowed to enjoy a service more just because of their wealth when more people could enjoy it?
By saying "Money = better standard" you effectively deny people access based on their wealth, which is classist behaviour.

However: As people have earned their money they have the right to spend it as they please, and some things do have a higher value cost, which means they should have a higher price. But should someone pay more money for medicine that works better, offering a better life to a rich person?
And with regards to a better product...... does it always equal one?


The poor man does lose.

I agree with most of that and so do the people who decide on these sort of things probably, but they're still implemented in order to make money... so getting rid of them is probably just not pratical since in many cases they're needed just for the organisers/clubs or whatever to stay afloat.

[Calneon]

By saying "Money = better standard" you effectively deny people access based on their wealth, which is classist behaviour.

That's the basis our whole society works on, if that wasn't the case it would be communism.

[Hutch]

That's the basis our whole society works on, if that wasn't the case it would be communism.

No, it's not communism, providing access to people is a socialist idea, you can't just tar every idea with a red communism brush to make it seem bad. I'm not suggesting redistributing wealth or setting up a state or everyone owning the means of production or free access to anything. Learn the difference.