Another Rip off.

[Shorts]

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

Yeah, but how many of those 16 and 17 year olds want/try to get in pubs, clubs and cinema under-age -you can't have it all ways all the time

Basically, we're all happy when we're getting a bargain and we all whine when we feel others are getting a bargain and we're not (me included, it's human nature) -life's not fair, but in the UK it ain't too bad in the big (world) scheme of things.

As I've said before, entrance charges (zoos and otherwise) is all down to economics. The marketing people's job is to try to pitch price structures to maximise their revenues (which all zoogoers, and supported conservation programmes, ultimately benefit from).

For anyone vaguely knowledgable of economics the pricing structures are based around using discriminating monopolies to exploit differing elasticities of demand (no, come back/wake up it's really interesting.......).

 

[Johnny Morris.]

Notice you didn't quote my second paragraph:



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.

Of course Children aren't likely to better themselves, so aren't worth subsidising are they?

I've worked all my life, i appologise that you have to subsidise my children. Of course hopefully they'll be subsidising you when you retire. I hope i've raised them well enough to realise that they shouldn't have to grumble about subsidising you in your dotage. The road you seem to be going down with your argument, is you shouldn't be paying for the nations childrens, education or health care.

 

[RowanGreen]

May I point out FOR THE THIRD TIME I've said I'm quite happy for the government to subsidise up to two children. Everybody with children currently gets benifits from the government (which my taxes pay towards of course...). Put some of that money towards your ticket OK?

So please, if you want to argue against me, at least argue against what I'm actually saying.

PS: Shorts, you speak a lot of sense. Though I'm not sure about that stuff about playing Monopoly with elastic bands...

Rhino: I think it must be enough of a shock for some of our kids going from being put first/spoilt/protected/free transport/low cost everything to being an adult with adult responsibilities and adult prices. Maybe it's better if it's done in stages over several years?

 

[Julz]

I actually kind of agree with the OP. If you are going to have a discount for children then if should be for ALL children so up to 16.

You wouldn't have a discount for OAP's, students or other concessions where they only qualified up to a certain point. You either have a discount that people qualify for or you don't imo.