Another Rip off.

J

Johnny Morris.

Well-Known Member
I now have a son of 15, who also shares my interest in zoos, but i notice quite a few zoos are charging full price for 15 year olds, i know it's only a few quid, but i think this policy is wrong, and in my opinion should be illegal.
 
So are discounts for minors a legally protected right in the UK? I thought it was merely a courtesy or marketing policy by each facility. Alternatively, I suppose they could make their income by simply eliminating any such discounts.
 
Zooplantman said:
So are discounts for minors a legally protected right in the UK? I thought it was merely a courtesy or marketing policy by each facility. Alternatively, I suppose they could make their income by simply eliminating any such discounts.
Click to expand...

No, all such discounts are discretionary. It can be annoying, especially if you have a busload of kids, but adult charges can kick in at 11 years or above. But this applies to all sorts of things, entertainment, travel, etc. not just zoos. What can be paradoxical is if you have children who are say 15, they pay an adult price although their siblings with a student ID pay less.
 
If you made it illegal you'd very quickly see the adult costs shoot up to cover the difference at most places, I'm sure.
 
A 15 year old is certainly old enough to get as much benefit and enjoyment from a zoo visit as an adult. Seems like no big deal to me (but then again I don't have kids). Of course I guess it depends on the regular admission price of the zoo. My zoo (Reid Park Zoo) has an adult admission of only $7 US, which is probably cheaper than a child's admission at many other US zoos.
 
Arizona Docent said:
A 15 year old is certainly old enough to get as much benefit and enjoyment from a zoo visit as an adult. Seems like no big deal to me (but then again I don't have kids).
Click to expand...

Absolutely, if anything I think there's an argument that children should pay full price anyway. As stated they, theoretically, can get just as much enjoyment as an adult and arguably more (they can fit in the swings in the playground better than me and wouldn't get the funny looks:D). On a bad day I resent paying a higher price to subsidise bratty kids running around. Ramming the point home, if a child buys a DVD they pay the same price as me for the same experience, why should zoos be different?

In reality, I accept that children get discounted as part of the marketing to maximise turnover and help make the zoos better for all (and not having kids helps towards making me lucky enough to afford the bit extra).

If you really want (as near as damn it) half-prices children's admission you can always go to the (great) Belfast Zoo. You may flinch at the air fares though:D
 
The idea that this should be illegal is insane. I am aware this is in the UK, and not in the US, but in any developed, Capitalist country (as the UK is, at least partially), something so minor should never be illegal. I am speaking from the point of an American here, who laws are different, but doesnt that infringe on person property rights. If there is such a thing as too much government regualtion, then this is it.

And being 15 myself, I would be happy to pay full price, as I do at most zoos and other attractions, because, as stated above, I get probably 10x more enjoyment out of the zoo as neary any adult.
 
“All environmental problems become harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”

David Attenborough

Personally I don't see why people who have kids should have them subsidised at every turn. In the UK you already get government payments for the kids. Where I live transport is also free (and prices for adult tickets are soaring). There's even free swimming (and again, adult tickets are ridiculouse). Basically you choose not to use contraception, that's your choice and maybe you ought to be prepared for the costs involved.

Personally I'd keep the government payments, but for a maximum of 2 kids. And no more freebies on the taxpayer. If businesses find it pays to make kids cheaper, then that's their choice. But I think there's a real irony if zoos are subsidising kids, when less kids means more space for endagered animals in the future.
 
RowanGreen said:
“All environmental problems become harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”

David Attenborough

Personally I don't see why people who have kids should have them subsidised at every turn. In the UK you already get government payments for the kids. Where I live transport is also free (and prices for adult tickets are soaring). There's even free swimming (and again, adult tickets are ridiculouse). Basically you choose not to use contraception, that's your choice and maybe you ought to be prepared for the costs involved.

Personally I'd keep the government payments, but for a maximum of 2 kids. And no more freebies on the taxpayer. If businesses find it pays to make kids cheaper, then that's their choice. But I think there's a real irony if zoos are subsidising kids, when less kids means more space for endagered animals in the future.
Click to expand...

Good grief!
I'm not going to get into a debate about why "kids are subsidised at every turn." But on the Zoo front, I'm pretty sure almost all zoos would disappear, with less kids in the world. As for my original point, i still think that 15 year olds are being discriminated. In the eyes of the law they are Children, why are they being treated differently to other children?
 
Johnny Morris. said:
Good grief!
I'm not going to get into a debate about why "kids are subsidised at every turn." But on the Zoo front, I'm pretty sure almost all zoos would disappear, with less kids in the world. As for my original point, i still think that 15 year olds are being discriminated. In the eyes of the law they are Children, why are they being treated differently to other children?
Click to expand...

Because the zoo is on private property (I assume)! They should be able to charge whatever prices they want! If no one wants to pay them, people will not come and the zoo will fail. That is how Capitalism works!
 
Johnny Morris. said:
Good grief!
But on the Zoo front, I'm pretty sure almost all zoos would disappear, with less kids in the world.
Click to expand...

Well, with less humans (kids generally growing into humans...) there would of course be fewer zoos, because of reduced demand. There'd also be more space for animals in the wild, so I don't really see what the problem is. If you see the main function of zoos as for education, then you only need an appropriate number of zoos for the human population. If you see the main function as conservation, then the fewer humans there are, the less need.
 
RowanGreen said:
Personally I don't see why people who have kids should have them subsidised at every turn. In the UK you already get government payments for the kids. Where I live transport is also free (and prices for adult tickets are soaring). There's even free swimming (and again, adult tickets are ridiculouse). Basically you choose not to use contraception, that's your choice and maybe you ought to be prepared for the costs involved.
Click to expand...

Um, we subsidise children because children are integral to the continued function of our society.

And people who don't have kids should, in theory, have way more money since raising cats cost far less than humans. And cats don't even like going to the zoo.
 
Notice you didn't quote my second paragraph:

RowanGreen said:
Personally I'd keep the government payments, but for a maximum of 2 kids. And no more freebies on the taxpayer. If businesses find it pays to make kids cheaper, then that's their choice. But I think there's a real irony if zoos are subsidising kids, when less kids means more space for endagered animals in the future.
Click to expand...

I did say I was happy for the government to provide support for up to 2 children. That's all that's needed to keep the population even (though hopefully people choosing to have less would result in a gradual decline). If people want more than that they definitely shouldn't expect people to subsidise them. And if the government is already subsidising parents, why should parents expect to be subsidised again? What exactly are they spending the government subsidies on?

As for students and OAP's: OAP's have been (in general) contributing to society, financially or otherwise, for many years. Students have put off getting a wage in order to better themselves and become better members of society (in theory at least!). Both give some reason to subsidise them.
 
I see no problem in having a 'one-price-fits-all' for zoos (and for other things such as public transport, cinema tickets etc). What annoys me is when somewhere has child and adult prices separate, but charges somebody who is legally a child as an adult. People aren't adults until they are 18 (or is it 21), so I don't know where zoos, cinemas, buses, trains etc got the idea it was between 11-16 :rolleyes:
 
If you can have kids at 16 I'd say child status should stop there.

I don't have any problem with children getting into attractions cheaper than adults (I don't have kids by the way). I'm sure once the kids are in they bring more than enough extra revenue in 'pester power' to make up for the discount in admission price.

If children paid the same as adults I can guarantee that numbers through the gates would drop, resulting 1) in less gate revenue; and 2) a massive drop in subsidiary spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top