What are your thoughts on income based pricing?

MommyToAshley wrote: Just wondering what your thoughts are on income-based pricing? I have noticed a trend lately with items that are purchased from "expendable income" are now being priced based on income.

I don't agree with it. It really hits hard for people that are self employed because they go off our gross income. Even though we pay twice the taxes of someone that is hired by an employer, that isn't factored in. But, even if that weren't the case, I still don't agree with it. So, if you work harder to get paid more, you should pay more? Doesn't sound right to me.

I would completely agree with the policy if it had to do with the necessities like food, shelter, or even education (but we already have programs in place for these). I think everyone should pay the same price for any extra curricular activities or items that are not essential.

Just wondering what your thought are?
Plus, to be honest, I just feel like griping because we are just your average middle class family, and I have to pay twice the price as my neighbor for the same thing.

C&K*s Mommie replied: Are you referring to the activites that you have Ashley in??

luvmykids replied: I'm in the same boat as you, and I don't think it's fair either. I hope I don't offend anybody but I feel like it's almost a form of discrimination.

This is kind of related, and I thought interesting: there was a TV show not too long ago that talked about marketing, and it said that prices for identical items were higher at stores in neighborhoods with higher median incomes, from grocery chains to WalMart and Target and Sears. That really pushed my buttons!

Maddie&EthansMom replied: I hate it, too. And for all the same reasons...they don't factor in the taxes.

MyLuvBugs replied:
I totally agree with you. DH and I were talking about this the other day. It's like the government doesn't want you to get ahead. No matter what you do....you're still in the same place in the end b/c of roadblocks like this. What really irritates me is the fact that we are working so darn hard to stay middle class or get to middle class....yet the upper class don't have to work hardly at all to stay were they are?
Sorry for the soapbox rant. But I do agree with you. Why should I have to pay twice as much as my neighbor who makes a couple hundred less than me? It just doesn't make any sense.

dolfinrse replied:

I have noticed that at several stores where I have bought baby formula for Madison. Walmart by our house is $5.92 per can, but I work in an area that is more upper class I guess you could say. I went to a Walmart around there and paid $6.09. Granted, it is only .17 per can, but it does add up over time.

kimberley replied: i have received subsidy for daycare, community school sports, and prenatal classes when the boys were small. without out it, i wouldn't have had the opportunity to finish school, have my children socialized or have an inkling of what having a baby would be like. i am not sure if this is the same thing you are talking about. sorry you are so frustrated. it doesn't seem fair that they don't consider the amount of taxes you pay. it should be based on net income.

MommyToAshley replied:
No need to . I think it is great that you wanted to finish school and that you got assistance for daycare. to you for continuing your education while taking care of your children too! I don't know that I could have done that and you should be proud of yourself. I am all for state funded parenting classes. And, I personally think school athletic programs should be free to students... we certainly pay enough taxes. I think all that falls into the "educational" category.

I am talking about the extra curricular things. Like...joining the Y, taking dance classes, or ice skating. The other day, I picked up the latest calendar from the library and there was a sheet on books you could order (to buy). The prices of the books were based on income. I looked into buying circus tickets and there are different pricing tiers based on your income. I've also noticed the different prices in restaurants or grocery stores (same chain) in different neighborhoods. A loaf of bread is worth X amount of dollars. The price of the bread shouldn't change depending on whether you make $6/hour, $60/hour or $600/hour. The list seems to be endless, I see more and more examples of it every day.

MommyToAshley replied:
See above for a few examples

MommyToAshley replied:
I too don't want to offend anyone (and I hope I haven't), but I feel the same way.

kimberley replied: i must live in a cave because i never heard of stuff like books or circus tickets costing more because of your income. what business is it of theirs? (feel free to enlighten me if you wish ) for groceries here, every city has it's expensive or cheaper stores.
and thanks for the kind words. i was pretty proud of that myself.

i just wanted to add that even now that we still struggle financially.. i know we are not broke like when i was alone with the boys and would never take a subsidy from someone who really needs it. i was a single mom then and i hope no one thinks worse of me because of it.

Kaitlin'smom replied: okay I have also never hear of circus tickets and books costing mor eor less depending on income. How are they really to know and what businees it of theres? Gas is the same from town to town I drive thought a few cities and its cheeper where i live but in more 'expensive' cities/neightborhoods its always more. I dont knwo about groceries, that would be interesting to compaire. I am just shocked they can sell you books or circus tickest based on income thats seems so absurd.

C&K*s Mommie replied: That makes a third person who is/was in the dark about circus tickets, and library activites. It simply is none of their business.

As for extracurricular activities. I do not agree at all, either. It should be a flat rate for all. Yet if a low income family, or a single parent wishes to provide more for their child than what their income would usually allow, ideally I would think that the buisiness would allow for a discounted rate or extended pay program. This will allow all who wish to enter the program to do so, but it will be fair with the pricing, unless in extenuating circumstances, where the parent is honest and they are given a small reprieve from paying xx amount of $$ and still allowing their child into the program.

It really is no one's business, that does not need to know, how much you or your DH or my DH makes. In my case, my financial aid is based on my DH's income- I understand this, and give them that information. But for random people to know his income, no I will not disclose that to them-- esp if it means that we will be put in a different bracket, higher or lower than the average.

I am surprised that they allow such to go on, over circus tickets-- when surely they have to expect an uproar over it.

Grocery stores are typically higher than places like Wal-mart, no matter what part of town you are in. I have not noticed Wal-mart being pricier in certain parts of town, either. Some are nicer and have cleaner facilities depending on the area of town. Chain restaraunts I had not noticed either. Gas stations are like that, but it is almost normal to go 2miles down the road to see a 10cents jump. Even two stations across the street from one another will usually have a 2-5cent range. I do not understand that, at all.

kit_kats_mom replied: Are you sure that the circus tickets were't based on the seats? I know that the Ringling Bros circus tickets are more expensive the closer to the middle and the floor you sit. Or is it a club type circus?

In general I agree with you about income based pricing although I don't believe that I've run into it in anything besides counseling and/or medical costs when I had no insurance.

It certinaly doesn't seem fair. However, I'm just going to play devils advocate here. If you were a small business owner, say a dance instructor, and you wanted to offer your services to all kids. You figure your breakpoint is $500.00 each month to cover music, building rental, costumes etc. You can viably teach 50 kids 4 lessons per month. Thats $10 per kid. Then you need to make some money to pay yourself something. So maybe $15 bucks per kid per month. But then you realize that many kids who enjoy your program aren't coming back because the family simply can't afford it. You tack an extra $5 per month to the more privileged childrens cost so that the less fortunate can still participate.

Ok, if my math is wrong, please excuse. I'm telling you I am a math stupid head. LOL

luvmykids replied:
From the business owners point of view I see what you're saying but how is that fair to the "privileged" people? I understand the good cause thinking in allowing the less fortunate to participate, but other than government tax programs and other subsidies, why should one family basically pay for another?

If that were me, and the dance teacher talked to me and said "You know so and so may not be able to continue, would you be willing to pay $5 extra to help her do so?" I would say sure in a heartbeat. But for it to be tacked on without my knowledge or forced is totally unfair and totally unprofessional.

And just because Family A earns more than Family B doesn't mean they necessarily have more expendable income, or that they don't value a good fair price.

kit_kats_mom replied: Like I said. I was just playing devils advocate. And it's not fair. Nothing is fair, isn't that what we are teaching our kids? Life is not fair. Giving a woman a job over a male with the exact same skills is not fair but it's done every day.

why should one family basically pay for another?

ummmmmm, Some may see a benefit to a more privleged child being exposed to those who are less so and visa versa. I dont' really know. Also if the business owner can get more children involved in a program, it's always better for them.

And just because Family A earns more than Family B doesn't mean they necessarily have more expendable income

And boy do I hear you sister. In fact, it's been proven over and over again that most peoples standard of living (read: monthly bills) go up as their income does. There never really is "expendable income" is there? Even if you have some left over after the monthly bills, there is always saving for retirement, college etc. IMO there is no one who's income is expendable. LOL

Frankly, I would probably just choose to not particpate if I knew that I was being charged more just based on my income.

MM'sMama replied:
I don't think its right and I don't like it ether. A good friend of mine is self employed and she has a heck of a time during months where she doesn't make as much. While I see the point and know it is a godsend to some I think it could be done a lot differently. KWIM?

My3LilMonkeys replied: Maybe I'm just living in the dark ages but I don't think we really have anything that is based on income around here of that sort. Some things you can apply to get assistance for if you are low income but that's it.

luvmykids replied:
ITA, and thats why I said if I was given the choice I would gladly kick in an extra $5 or $10, it's the idea of someone else making the decision for me that bothers me, a lot.

And I'm totally behind subsidies, etc for situations like Kimberley mentioned and would never look down on someone for needing/accepting help. But I think this type of thing is a totally different animal.

And I guess on top of that, I think it's ridiculous and insulting and really kind of negates the mentality that I'm trying to instill in my kids, which is that you don't categorize people based on money or things.