Please Help Preserve the Low Income Ticket Program

[Mr. Possibility]

I know this is easier said than done as I was drawn for tickets but we need to preserve the LIT program even if that means not getting a ticket. Of course, if you registered for the main sale, you are disqualified but If you were meant to get a ticket on someone else's registration, do not apply for an LIT.

If it weren't for the low cost tickets, I probably wouldn't have been able to go my first year back in 2009. Let's stick together and help all of our friends get the tickets they deserve. Burners with excess tickets, please please please sell at face value to another burner!

[CornMan]

I do not believe that registering for the main lottery disqualifies you for the Low Income.

[Savannah]

LOW INCOME TICKET PROGRAM: Our two previous reduced-cost ticket programs have been merged to create a single, streamlined process for participants and to provide more of these affordable tickets to Burners who need them. This new program replaces our previous Scholarship & Low Income programs.

We have 4000 Low Income Tickets available, which cost $160 each. These tickets are reserved for participants on a limited income who cannot otherwise afford our regular lowest priced ticket. Please only apply for a Low Income Ticket if you truly need one.

The link to begin the application process will be posted here on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 12 noon (Pacific Standard Time). Applications will be accepted until we run out of tickets or Monday, May 1, 2012, whichever comes first. Those awarded tickets will be notified within six weeks of applying. The application link will be removed when we have run out of Low Income Tickets.

The application has more detailed instructions, but here's what you need to know before you get started:

* You cannot have already purchased a ticket through the pre-sale, main sale or purchase one in the open sale.
* Applications are submitted completely online. If you do not have easy internet access we are happy to send you a paper application.
* Tickets are awarded one per person, no couples, families or groups.
* Do not submit an application on behalf of someone else. Each person must submit their own application.
* You must submit digital copies of at least one (1) but a maximum of three (3) financial documents demonstrating your income and expenses. Your name must be listed on the documents
* No payment is taken at the time of application.
* All Low Income Tickets are held at Will Call and paid for at the Box Office, located at the front gate of Burning Man.
* Tickets are non- transferable. They cannot be given to another person or used another year if you are unable to attend. If you can't attend, please email lowincome@burningman.com to cancel your ticket.
* Your ticket will be revoked if you have purchased another ticket or obtained one by other means.

For questions not answered in the above information or our Frequently Asked Questions, or if you haven't received an email copy of your application within 24 hours of submission please email lowincome@burningman.com with your full name and email address used on your application. It may take up to six weeks to review applications after submission - please do not email asking about the status of your application before then.

http://tickets.burningman.com/

[Mr. Possibility]

Setting the record straight. Thanks Savannah!

[CornMan]

Q: If I entered into the pre-sale or main sale drawings but wasn't awarded tickets, can I still apply for low income ticket?
A: Yes. As long as you haven't purchased or obtained a ticket through other means for 2012.

http://tickets2.burningman.com/faq.php# ... conditions

[Savannah]

I stand corrected.

It would appear that you can have registered, you can't have won. So while my highlighted portion is true, it is not as explanatory as it seems. Thank you, Zeke.

Zeke's link to the FAQ sez:

Q: If I was awarded tickets in the Pre-Sale, Main Sale or bought in the Open Sale, can I apply for a ticket through the Low Income Ticket Program?
A: No. To be eligible for a low income ticket you cannot purchase another ticket for 2012.

Q: If I entered into the pre-sale or main sale drawings but wasn't awarded tickets, can I still apply for low income ticket?
A: Yes. As long as you haven't purchased or obtained a ticket through other means for 2012.

[Mr. Possibility]

Q: If I entered into the pre-sale or main sale drawings but wasn't awarded tickets, can I still apply for low income ticket?
A: Yes. As long as you haven't purchased or obtained a ticket through other means for 2012.

http://tickets2.burningman.com/faq.php# ... conditions

This is bad news and it only worsens my fears that folks that could have otherwise afforded higher priced tickets will apply for low income tickets out of desperation. I like the request for documentation but I could certainly muster enough documentation that made me look broke and I reckon most people could too. I don't want the fear and desperation from the main sale to trickle down through to the LIT, that would be a real shame

[Mr. Possibility]

If you registered for but were not awarded tickets in the main sale, you may apply for tickets in the low income program.

My understanding is that if you purchase a ticket in the open sale or apply for tickets through STEP, your application for a low income ticket will be automatically rejected (or an approved application voided/canceled).

That is correct!!

This is an xpost from the main LIT thread. I'm glad to hear that LIT and STEP are "either/or" but I'm very disappointed that registration for the main sale (received tickets or not) doesn't automatically disqualify a person from the LIT. This means one of two things or both -

A) the ticketing team will be flooded by thousands of applications that may ultimately be rejected and should never have been submitted

B) many LIT tickets will be awarded to people that were prepared to pay significantly more for a ticket and thus depriving tickets to burners that can't otherwise afford to go.

Furthermore, folks (like my good friend SmallFry) played by the rules and sat out the main sale with the intention all along of applying for the a low income ticket as she's an unemployed social worker. Now she'll have to compete for a ticket with people that could have purchased a higher price ticket but weren't awarded one? That is fucked. Out of this whole fiasco, this is the biggest fuck up the org has made. It's not too late to change that rule BMORG! Who are you going to piss off? People that were going to game the system? I'd rather piss those people off than deny one legitimate LIT burner a ticket.

[laffingblonde]

Those of us who could only afford the lowest tier are now priced out of the March sale. Just because we were willing to pony up the extra $80 doesn't mean we're not f'n broke. As many of you are probably unaware America is still in the midst of the worst financial crisis in 80 years. The division in this community between those who get to say "F it, I'm going to Europe instead" and those still trying to get a ticket despite the possibility we still might not be able to afford the trip is staggering. They're asking for a minimum of one financial document to prove you're not a lying asshat.

Hopefully all the money they rake in will be well spent in one area at least, choosing worthy burners to bestow affordable tickets upon.

[drutter]

I registered for 240, as that is my absolute maximum (plus gas from Canada, and so forth). I lost the lottery. I do think it's fair that I get the chance at low income passes. After all, I have a very low income. Poverty level, by North American standards anyway. (Not complaining, just providing background.)

That said, for those who registered for 320s and didn't win them, I have to assume that means they could have afforded those 320s. I'm a little less convinced that those people should be allowed to apply for the extremely small number low income passes. We know there are more Burners than tickets again this year, likely by even more of a factor than last year. Thousands of Burners are going to be sitting in the default world while the Man burns, period. I think it's important the few tickets that are available be given out fairly, especially the low-income ones. If you can afford 320, you have a lot more options than those of us who can afford 240.

Anyhow, my next step is, well, STEP. I know there are Burners out there who in the past have always bought the highest tier, because they want to support those of us who contribute in other ways than dollars. And I know some of them entered the lottery and lucked into lowest tier tickets. Hopefully I'm able to connect with one of these people and do some kind of trade. I realize that's essentially like asking strangers for help, but that's exactly how many of us used the old tier system, before the lottery.

[Mr. Possibility]

Those of us who could only afford the lowest tier are now priced out of the March sale. Just because we were willing to pony up the extra $80 doesn't mean we're not f'n broke. As many of you are probably unaware America is still in the midst of the worst financial crisis in 80 years. The division in this community between those who get to say "F it, I'm going to Europe instead" and those still trying to get a ticket despite the possibility we still might not be able to afford the trip is staggering. They're asking for a minimum of one financial document to prove you're not a lying asshat.

Hopefully all the money they rake in will be well spent in one area at least, choosing worthy burners to bestow affordable tickets upon.

I would argue, that in the spirit of sliding scale, if you could have afforded a $240 ticket, yes, you should be disqualified from buying a LIT. That is my opinion. At the same time I can see how you would otherwise be a low income ticket holder and could just barely stretch the extra $80 for a first tier ticket and wanted to increase your odds a bit. Totally understandable.

[Mr. Possibility]

Unfortunately, someone that would have found a way to pay for a $390 ticket will have the opportunity to apply for a $160 one. Epic fail. I suppose their would be a fair number of low income people out there that would have borrowed the money and registered for all tiers to increase their odds as well.

[tattoogoddess]

A view from a low income applier-

Like as stated above I am also one of those people who did not try for the main sale, why. I can not afford it! From past posts you will see I was freaking out trying to find out info about when the money was due by and how much because I needed to know how much to save and when by. This is how >I< feel. If you registered into the main sale you should not be able to do low income. Why? Because by doing so it shows that you have enough to buy a normal ticket.
From when info was posted to when the sale started you had a few months to save up the 240 to 390. So honestly 2 things. 1. you could most likely save $150 by march to get one of these 2. you still have the option for the STEP program to buy a $240 or more ticket.

There are people out there who don't work or are say a street artist and are on a VERY tight budget. My self... I make 300 a month for a 30 hours job (have to love min wage loop holes) and then 500 from my other very part time job per month. So I make $800 per month and I am also in college ( I do not get any money from them. It all goes twords tuition). I pay $400 in rent $90 in utilities and $45 for a phone $30 in public transportation plus food and personal needs such as shampoo and TP. Then every few months clothes. So I really do live pay check to pay check and I have very few needs such as gas for a car, insurance ect. My medical and mental health is paid for by the state thank god or I would be homeless. I will be sending my w2's rental argeement and electric bill and a write out of all my expenses. I want to prove my hardships as I think scamming the system is so wrong and karma is not a nice lady!

So these tickets I feel are really set up for people who NEED them due to income or having no income. In a nutt shell it kinda irks me off to know that my application may be denied and that ticket gave to someone who was able to afford a "real" ticket from the start when I have to cut costs where ever I can to be able to go. No ride share.. have to take amtrak 35 hours, eat canned soup, no fancy costumes ect ect. The only thing I am spulging on is my low camp fee just because I have many friends in that camp.

Thats just my 2 cents. Not everyone will feel this way thats ok.

[imnepiphany]

I am extremely low income living on disability alone. I bought a top tier ticket last year in the last online sale and gathered the money to go by selling possessions that meant less to me than attending Burning Man for the first time. It was a hunch that I would find what I have been seeking. I was right. I am offended that anyone would think, that because I am willing to sacrifice one thing for another, I should not qualify for the low income ticket program. I tried to buy a regular ticket this year, as I have been selling things again, and was not successful. Now, instead, my truck is repaired so it can make the trip again. I also have applied for the low income ticket program, because I qualify. Just because I am low income, I don't take advantage of all the available programs, if I can find a way to do it on my own. Maybe that is because I am quite older. Sometimes, I do accept the assistance. Don't fault me for that, please.

[PLuMPs]

I personally feel like there should not be low income tickets. In the past many people exploited this as a method to get a cheap ticket, and anyone who truly had the desire to attend and didnt get low income still found a way to buy a ticket. Im sorry but if you cant figure out a way to come up with another couple hundred bucks then maybe you shouldnt be taking a week long vacation to the middle of nowhere. I say raise the average ticket price and make it one tier.

[maryanimal]

Ok, first off, I have nothing but admiration for tattoogoddess, imenepiphany, and any other burner that has to scrimp and save, and use the LIT program, to enjoy the one thing during the year that may just mean the most to them, and that includes myself. "We" don't have to explain to anyone why we do what we must do to get to TTITD.

And how DARE anyone like the PLuMPS on this thread, or any other thread for that matter, tell people if they can't afford it, they shouldn't go to the burn!! Who in the hell do you think you are? We have enough Judgment Police in here already. Most of them are trolls anyway...

So you should just take your negativity and hit the road buddy. And all you good folks, don't pay a nickle of attention to this type of naysaying.

You will get your tickets!! I'll be sending all my good vibes your way, cuz right now, it's all I have to give!

Love you lots!!



It took everything I had NOT to cuss like a sailor. I'm just a passionate person...

[BBadger]

And how DARE anyone like the PLuMPS on this thread, or any other thread for that matter, tell people if they can't afford it, they shouldn't go to the burn!! Who in the hell do you think you are? We have enough Judgment Police in here already. Most of them are trolls anyway...

The problem with that word "shouldn't" in that context is that it can be taken different ways. On one hand, it can mean the person is undeserving; on the other hand, it can mean it's not considered the responsible thing to do, but that risk is up to you. My own opinion is the latter: if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it; don't overstretch yourself. It doesn't mean you should not be allowed to have or do something. Save up your money, or take the risk, or whatever; that's your own choice. I just don't really agree that we should be promoting what I would consider irresponsible financial behavior.

Therefore, I find the low-income program's existence rather dubious, even if it really isn't much skin off my back. I don't buy the concept of "need" in the context of what fundamentally amounts to a vacation in the desert. It's like "need" in the context of owning an iPhone. I could see a low-income program in the context of sponsoring Muslims to go to Mecca--they "need" to go there as one of their pillars of faith--but a ticket to Burning Man?

Even ignoring that, the amount saved on the ticket price falls into that gap where it is only marginally effective. On one hand, the money saved is not a very significant fraction of the total cost to attend; on the other hand does the person even have the resources to take advantage of the ticket, for a luxury vacation no less?

Again, this is not to say that people with lower-incomes should not ever enjoy themselves at BM or elsewhere. You're welcome as any person. The low-income program itself though: my impression is that it saves some people some dough, but on a luxury item they could probably afford anyway, or shouldn't stretch themselves for at this time anyway.

[lemur]

My own opinion is the latter: if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it; don't overstretch yourself. .

but they can afford it.. thats the point.

they offer something they can afford.

[lemur]

the people arguing against the low income program tend to argue against the people who it applies to saying things like 'if [they] cant afford [a higher priced ticket] [they] shouldnt go'

..when really what it boils down to is them basically saying 'if some customers of the LLC cannot afford a higher priced ticket the LLC shouldnt be offering a lower priced one'

your beef is basically one that tells the LLC they shouldnt offer tickets at prices they decide.

irrespective of financial ability of the individuals, it really boils down to that you dont think the LLC should offer tickets at prices they deem acceptable.

and thats just silly.



LLC offers a ticket that people of all types can afford.

whats so wrong about that ?

the focus seems to be too much on the people buying the tickets, and not the business deciding the prices.

buying a low income ticket doesnt mean you cant afford to go to burning man.....it means you can afford to go to burning man, using a ticket provided by burning man at one of the prices theyve offered.


this reeks much more of what individuals should be doing, in some peoples minds, than what the business should be doing.

people who apply for low income tickets can afford to go to burning man using a low income ticket.

a low income ticket is like any other ticket... just like the $390 ticket in fact.. its just at a different price..

[clocksnmirrors]

Or....

Instead of having a different price for low income tickets, why not make all tickets $240, or $200, or $180?

$180 x 50,000 = $9,000,000.

That HAS to be more than enough to set up porta potties in the desert.

What's wrong with that?

[BBadger]

a low income ticket is like any other ticket... just like the $390 ticket in fact.. its just at a different price..

But they're not. Low-income tickets are "special" in that they're specifically reserved for people who can prove that they have a low-enough income for lower-priced tickets. It's a "needs"-based ticket. The tier-1 tickets, on the other hand, are "just tickets at a different price" and while some people have stated that they can't/won't go if they don't win that tier, it's not supposed to be the same kind of ticket that low-income tickets are for.

As a "need" based ticket, the low-income program fundamentally relies on the individual's qualifications. So yes, the person's "situation" is bound up with the ticket. "Should" you go if you can't afford it? No. Or rather, that would not be the responsible thing to do. But that's for people can decide themselves.

For the program itself though, yes, we can question its purpose or what it actually accomplishes. Whether or not the LLC decides that this is how it wants to do "business" is not really my interest. However, I do question this concept of "need" in the context of a vacation in the desert. I find it rather silly. Nobody "needs" to go. People may want it.

My guess is that it mostly just saves some people extra money, but generally isn't the defining factor in enabling people to go. In the former case, is the program just to sponsor a cheaper vacation for low-income people? In the latter, that's a razor-thin fence for qualification. It doesn't seem very effective to me really.

Again, while it may seem like a contradiction, let it be clear that it's no skin off my back that the low-income program exists any more than the tiers do. Even if I weren't lucky enough to get a ticket, the low-income program is not to blame anymore than burgins--and I'm not joking or being sarcastic. I'd obtain a ticket through STEP, or not. I'd have fun with friends some other way because, well, Burning Man is not a need, it's a want.

[BBadger]

Or....

Instead of having a different price for low income tickets, why not make all tickets $240, or $200, or $180?

$180 x 50,000 = $9,000,000.

That HAS to be more than enough to set up porta potties in the desert.

What's wrong with that?

Please consult the Afterburn Report. This is 2010's. It's not just portapotties.

[lemur]

a low income ticket is like any other ticket... just like the $390 ticket in fact.. its just at a different price..

But they're not. Low-income tickets are "special"

"only" "in" your "mind"!

[lemur]

a low income ticket is like any other ticket... just like the $390 ticket in fact.. its just at a different price..

But they're not.

yes they are like any other ticket, the gate staff tears them just like any other ticket and it grants you entry the same way a tier 1 2 3 or tier 500 ticket would grant you access to burning man

Low-income tickets are "special" in that they're specifically reserved for people who can prove that they have a low-enough income for lower-priced tickets.

and a pre-sale ticket is special in that they were specifically designed for people who wanted to order a ticket during the holidays.. people willing to pay $420 for a ticket... yet just the same as a low income ticket in that both allow people to go to burning man at prices they can afford.

It's a "needs"-based ticket. The tier-1 tickets, on the other hand, are "just tickets at a different price" and while some people have stated that they can't/won't go if they don't win that tier, it's not supposed to be the same kind of ticket that low-income tickets are for.

its a ticket you must apply for to get, it is in fact a ticket at a different price, theres a step you have to jump through to get it, its just like a tier 1 ticket except a tier one ticket has less hoops to jump through.... all burning man tickets are the same... its just your perception of them that makes them different

As a "need" based ticket, the low-income program fundamentally relies on the individual's qualifications. So yes, the person's "situation" is bound up with the ticket. "Should" you go if you can't afford it? No. Or rather, that would not be the responsible thing to do. But that's for people can decide themselves.

its a differently priced ticket you must apply to be able to get.. the it you refer to when saying can't afford it doesnt apply because the people who apply for a low income ticket can afford one. basically youre saying that burning man shouldnt have a ticket priced at this tier. thats silly

For the program itself though, yes, we can question its purpose or what it actually accomplishes. Whether or not the LLC decides that this is how it wants to do "business" is not really my interest. However, I do question this concept of "need" in the context of a vacation in the desert. I find it rather silly. Nobody "needs" to go. People may want it.

you can question why anything happens, it doesnt make your intention any less stupid. scarequotes or not it is their business, they decided to offer tickets for people who can afford all kinds of things.. need and want or desire doesnt even come into it, maybe only in the minds of people trying to assert their financial superiority it does.... otherwise, all it is is a seperately priced ticket that is in every single way just like any other burning man ticket. all burning man tickets are the same.

My guess is that it mostly just saves some people extra money, but generally isn't the defining factor in enabling people to go. In the former case, is the program just to sponsor a cheaper vacation for low-income people? In the latter, that's a razor-thin fence for qualification. It doesn't seem very effective to me really.

the program doesnt only save people money. the program exists to give another way to get to burning man.. your implications about who should be able to take a trip to burning man aside.. the program is highly effective, it has allowed well over 10,000 people to go to burning man at a price they could afford.

Again, while it may seem like a contradiction, let it be clear that it's no skin off my back that the low-income program exists any more than the tiers do. Even if I weren't lucky enough to get a ticket, the low-income program is not to blame anymore than burgins--and I'm not joking or being sarcastic. I'd obtain a ticket through STEP, or not. I'd have fun with friends some other way because, well, Burning Man is not a need, it's a want.

of course it is a contradiction, exactly like the post above by PLuMPs. You make your case for it not needing to exist, that you dont think people should be going to burning man if they cant afford the same price you might pay for a ticket and that the LLC shouldnt offer tickets at the prices they decide are good.. and then you make the case that you dont even really care.. but even in your contradictory section about it being no skin off your back you again assert your financial superiority over those who can afford a low income ticket by trumping out the terms want and need again..

clearly your beef with the low income program isnt about the low income program, it is about seeing things through the mindset that asserts your financial superiority while casting disdain on those who do not share your financial means, or who would spend their money in a different way than you would.


DULY NOTED: BBADGER CAN AFFORD THINGS AND WOULDNT STOOP SO LOW AS TO BUY A TICKET AT A DIFFERENT PRICE OFFERED BY THE LLC.

thanks for turning it into some social us vs. them fight. the low income program isnt food stamps, it isnt welfare, it isnt medicare. its just another price tier of tickets to get in to burning man.


get

over

your

self




(hey!! did you guys see that post? i went through the whole thing and i didnt need any scare quotes!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. When the enclosed text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself),[3] that the writer feels its use is potentially ironic, or that the writer feels it is a misnomer. This meaning may serve to distance the writer from the quoted content.

GOOD ONE BBADGER.

[maryanimal]

Very well said lemur!

[BBadger]

of course it is a contradiction, exactly like the post above by PLuMPs. You make your case for it not needing to exist, that you dont think people should be going to burning man if they cant afford the same price you might pay for a ticket

Reading comprehension Lemur. I only stated that if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it. Yes, I believe that it is financially irresponsible to go on this BM luxury vacation if the difference between going and not going is the price difference between a ticket purchased via the normal sale or via the low-income program. You're stretching yourself too thin. You're shouldn't go ("shouldn't", for those who don't understand, meaning it is unwise in your financial situation). If this is "financial superiority" as asserted below, then so be it.

and that the LLC shouldnt offer tickets at the prices they decide are good

Nope, never said the LLC shouldn't decide to sell tickets for whatever price they want. It's a business, and if they see that it's working, or are simply testing it, so be it. Only that I don't think the program is really that effective for what it is, and I doubt its value.

and then you make the case that you dont even really care.. but even in your contradictory section about it being no skin off your back

No skin off my back in the same way that I don't agree with how vegans choose their diets and the reasons behind them, but hey, if a vegan wants to do that, no skin off my back, right? Let's put it this way: I'm not concerned about what kind of "better uses" some may claim those tickets allocated to the low-income program could have. I do not feel I've lost anything from the program's existence, and that's what "no skin off my back" would mean right?

you again assert your financial superiority over those who can afford a low income ticket by trumping out the terms want and need again.

Financial superiority meaning what? Am I acting with "financial superiority" in this context because I think that people should save up their money if they want a luxury good that badly, and that stretching your finances to the limits for a vacation is financially irresponsible? Oh that kind of "arrogance"?

Hell, I could just as easily apply to this low-income program with the same qualifications as most of the applicants. I don't because I save my discretionary income to attend, and for other things. Do I want a pat on the back? No I don't. Do I expect the same of others? Yes I do. I also believe that if I were to the income level where the price difference between regular tickets and low-income tickets were significant that a luxury vacation like BM would an entirely unnecessary expense that would stretch my finances too much, or anyone in a similar position. If that's a negative way of approaching a financial situation, well, I really don't know what to say except good luck with that.

clearly your beef with the low income program isnt about the low income program, it is about seeing things through the mindset that asserts your financial superiority while casting disdain on those who do not share your financial means, or who would spend their money in a different way than you would.

There's that "financial superiority" term again, like I'm sitting here sipping wine and munching fine cheeses, looking down upon all the common masses. What a funny impression you must have. Casting disdain people who do not share my financial means? Not at all. I admire people who work for what they have, who save for what they want, who place value upon things you cannot buy. In that line of thought, I've already stated, save your money and you can buy what you want. Anybody can attend, it's just a function of time.

On the other hand, do I think it is financially irresponsible to spend more than you can afford, or be stretched to the limits for something? Yes I do. If that thinking is being "financially superior" then again, so be it, and good luck to you and your life!

As for the low-income program itself, I find its value dubious because 1) I don't believe in subsidizing luxuries; 2) the program's purpose is for those for whom it would be impossible to go without it--not last resort, only resort--which I think is rarely the case; 3) given (2), the savings the program comprises such a small fraction of the overall cost of the trip that it isn't effective. And yes, again, I do think if you're applicable for (2), that's stretching things too much, but that's beyond the reasons for having the low-income program in the first place.

Some people may call me out on (1) above, but I flat-out don't think luxuries are something that should be subsidized. I believe in subsidizing necessities, or possibly trying to accelerate a change that would normally be take too long. Maybe the low income program falls into the latter category. Still, I consider BM a luxury vacation that should be saved up for if you're hell-bent on attending. This doesn't mean I think BM should be an elitist event, but rather like everything, if you want it bad enough, save up for it.

Still, beyond (1) let's look at this low-income program. It's supposed to be only-resort, not "I'd rather just go cheaper resort"--because that's basically everybody, and why most people will opt for the cheapest tier no matter what financial means (yeah, even me, despite your incorrect assertion). So how many people really qualify for that? Not even tattoogoddess would apply by that definition, as she could afford the lower-cost tier, and entered into the lottery for it. It would mean $80 is the difference between going and not going at the cheapest tier.

I don't think the program is really accomplishing what the LLC states it is for. I think that most of the low-income applicants are people who can prove they qualify as low-income, which would also include myself, but either didn't win a ticket in the lottery and are trying to get an equally cheap or cheap(er) ticket via the low-income sale (e.g. tattoogoddess), or simply don't want to pay $240 or more to go even if it could be done. Those aren't the people the program is for. Yes, that is an assumption, but to me, the intended $80-means-I-go-or-don't-go case seems extremely rare to me, especially considering the cost of the rest of the trip--and the ticket ought to be outright free if the situation is really that desperate. As such, I don't think the program, as it is, serves the interest of the program's intentions, and even if it does, isn't that helpful.

As a low-income program, I'd rather see it be applicable to people more like tattoogoddess's case, where it's not "only resort" to apply to the low-income program. Rather it should be considered a helpful savings, or a greater opportunity to win at the cheapest tier. This would be instead of the current program being "only resort," or having it abused as a secondary means to obtain a ticket.

DULY NOTED: BBADGER CAN AFFORD THINGS AND WOULDNT STOOP SO LOW AS TO BUY A TICKET AT A DIFFERENT PRICE OFFERED BY THE LLC.

Never said or implied. Where the hell did you get that? I don't fault people at all--or expect otherwise--for applying and/or buying tickets at the lowest price offered. Hell, it's why I think the whole "buy tickets at the highest price you can afford to save tickets for less fortunate burners" is a complete crock of shit with its believers countable on one hand.

My belief is that all individuals, companies, businesses, self-preserving entities etc. should be expected to exploit every advantage given to them. You build systems around that assumption to obtain the result you want. If the LLC thinks its low-income program, or its expansion this year, is doing the job, that's their call. However, I think it's not doing its job, and again, I don't like subsidizing luxuries. Nowhere have I stated, or implied, that people are to be faulted for taking advantage of any and every cost-saving measure, or even for that matter for "abusing" a system because of extraordinary circumstances (like the applying when not able to get a T1 ticket).

Oh and congratulations on knowing what scare quotes are. Yes, their use is intended as stated in that definition. Now people can put a name to the rhetorical device. Still, did you feel "clever" (oh look at that) posting that definition?

[junglesmacks]

Dead on. Bravo.

[PLuMPs]

HAHAHAHA it's so fun to throw a little gas on the fire. Thank you Bbadger for making so many of my points much clearer. Yet I fear there is no point beating a dead Lemur. All tickets are the same? Really? Really? If all tickets were the same they would be the same price and everyone would have equal access to these tickets. Maybe the $1000 tickets being scalped on ebay are like a wealthy ticket program? They are just a ticket at a different price right?

[lemur]

I only stated that if you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it.

low income applicants can afford to buy low income tickets

Yes, I believe that it is financially irresponsible to go on this BM luxury vacation if the difference between going and not going is the price difference between a ticket purchased via the normal sale or via the low-income program. You're stretching yourself too thin.

low income applicants arent stretching themselves too thin, they can afford to go on a BM luxury vacation if they have a low income ticket

You're shouldn't go ("shouldn't", for those who don't understand, meaning it is unwise in your financial situation). If this is "financial superiority" as asserted below, then so be it.

spending money to go to burning man is not unwise for low income ticket applicants because they can afford to go if they have a low income ticket

Nope, never said the LLC shouldn't decide to sell tickets for whatever price they want. It's a business, and if they see that it's working, or are simply testing it, so be it. Only that I don't think the program is really that effective for what it is, and I doubt its value.

you didnt say it but youve made a case for it not needing to exist. such as saying you dont think that it is effective and you doubt its value

Am I acting with "financial superiority" in this context because I think that people should save up their money if they want a luxury good that badly, and that stretching your finances to the limits for a vacation is financially irresponsible?

they can afford to go, using a low income ticket that they have saved up for. Your comments seem to imply they shouldnt be allowed to save up for a low income ticket. Your comments claiming you might be able to apply to the low income program, but havnt, because you were able to save up more money, reeks of if-i-can-do-it-why-cant-they bootstraps type superiority mentality. characterizing people who can afford to go to burning man using money they saved up for to go while using a low income ticket as financially irresponsible again reeks of more financial superiority.

low income ticket holders are financially responsible and they can afford to go to a luxury burning man vacation using a low income ticket they saved up for.

Hell, I could just as easily apply to this low-income program with the same qualifications as most of the applicants. I don't because I save my discretionary income to attend, and for other things.

you seem to be implying low income ticket applicants do not save their discretionary income and that they spend it on other things.

Do I want a pat on the back? No I don't. Do I expect the same of others? Yes I do.

you seem to be implying that low income ticket applicants want a pat on the back. you also seem to be implying again that low income ticket applicants do not do as you do, by saving discretionary income to attend the event.

I also believe that if I were to the income level where the price difference between regular tickets and low-income tickets were significant that a luxury vacation like BM would an entirely unnecessary expense that would stretch my finances too much, or anyone in a similar position. If that's a negative way of approaching a financial situation, well, I really don't know what to say except good luck with that.

low income applicants can afford to go to burning mans luxury vacation if they have a low income ticket. if low income applicants were stretched too much financially to be able to reasonably attend the program would not be as much as a success as it is, with over 10,000 people using it over the recent years.

There's that "financial superiority" term again, like I'm sitting here sipping wine and munching fine cheeses, looking down upon all the common masses. What a funny impression you must have. Casting disdain people who do not share my financial means? Not at all. I admire people who work for what they have, who save for what they want, who place value upon things you cannot buy. In that line of thought, I've already stated, save your money and you can buy what you want. Anybody can attend, it's just a function of time.

financial superiority is not synonymous with rich. as you said earlier, you make the case for being able to apply for a low income ticket but suggest that you dont because you save money...implying that low income applicants havnt saved their money.. And again in this block of text you imply that low income applicants do not work for what they have and do not save money to buy what they want..

Low income applicants have saved enough money for long enough time to be able to attend burning man using a low income ticket. You seem to imply they havnt saved enough, but they have.

low income applicants can attend burning man because theyve saved enough money to go to burning man and can attend burning man using a low income ticket theyve saved for.

On the other hand, do I think it is financially irresponsible to spend more than you can afford, or be stretched to the limits for something? Yes I do. If that thinking is being "financially superior" then again, so be it, and good luck to you and your life!

low income applicants are not being financially irresponsible. they can afford to spend the money they saved to go to burning man using a low income ticket that they have saved for.

the money low income ticket applicants spend is saved in the same way participants saved for other priced tickets.

As for the low-income program itself, I find its value dubious because 1) I don't believe in subsidizing luxuries

it was stated that the low income program was (at least in part) subsidized by the pre-sale tickets, which those people were willing to spend money on to get. If you didnt believe in subsidizing those tickets you were able to opt-out of that sale.

2) the program's purpose is for those for whom it would be impossible to go without it--not last resort, only resort--which I think is rarely the case;

whether you believe it or not for many applicants the low income ticket program is their only resort.

3) given (2), the savings the program comprises such a small fraction of the overall cost of the trip that it isn't effective. And yes, again, I do think if you're applicable for (2), that's stretching things too much, but that's beyond the reasons for having the low-income program in the first place.

historically savings hasnt been the only aspect. you spoke of savings and a matter of time and that was in consideration as applicants to a low priced program were able pay for their ticket at the Will Call box. This allowed people to save up money all year long to get to the burn.

Some people may call me out on (1) above, but I flat-out don't think luxuries are something that should be subsidized. I believe in subsidizing necessities, or possibly trying to accelerate a change that would normally be take too long. Maybe the low income program falls into the latter category. Still, I consider BM a luxury vacation that should be saved up for if you're hell-bent on attending.

the LLC determines the pricing structure for tickets offered. one of the prices is a lower priced ticket, one is a very high priced ticket.

everyone who attends using a low income ticket has saved up to be able to attend burning man. again you seem to be implying that they havnt.

all low income ticket applicants can afford to go to burning man using money they saved up to go to burning man.

This doesn't mean I think BM should be an elitist event, but rather like everything, if you want it bad enough, save up for it.

all low income ticket applicants need to save up money to go to burning man, again you seem to be implying that they havnt, or dont.

Still, beyond (1) let's look at this low-income program. It's supposed to be only-resort, not "I'd rather just go cheaper resort"--because that's basically everybody, and why most people will opt for the cheapest tier no matter what financial means (yeah, even me, despite your incorrect assertion). So how many people really qualify for that? Not even tattoogoddess would apply by that definition, as she could afford the lower-cost tier, and entered into the lottery for it.

for many people the low income program is their only resort, whether you believe it or not and whether you know of people gaming the system or not. there are many people who can afford to go to burning man using a low income ticket.

that person you mention isnt the only applicant to the low income ticket program.

I don't think the program is really accomplishing what the LLC states it is for.

it accomplishes everything the LLC wants it to whether people game the system or not it allows people who can afford to go to burning man using a low income ticket to go to burning man.

I think that most of the low-income applicants are people who can prove they qualify as low-income, which would also include myself, but either didn't win a ticket in the lottery and are trying to get an equally cheap or cheap(er) ticket via the low-income sale (e.g. tattoogoddess), or simply don't want to pay $240 or more to go even if it could be done. Those aren't the people the program is for. Yes, that is an assumption,

Yes, it is an assumption, not the best one to make, and certainly not an assumption grand enough to nullify the the existance of the low income ticket program

but to me, the intended $80-means-I-go-or-don't-go case seems extremely rare to me, especially considering the cost of the rest of the trip--and the ticket ought to be outright free if the situation is really that desperate. As such, I don't think the program, as it is, serves the interest of the program's intentions, and even if it does, isn't that helpful.

applicants applying to the low income program represent a wide variety of people with wide varieties of financial capability, not every person is like the example of yourself or the person you mentioned.

many people applying to the low income ticket program can afford to go to burning man using money they saved up if they have a low income ticket.. the system works for those people.

As a low-income program, I'd rather see it be applicable to people more like tattoogoddess's case, where it's not "only resort" to apply to the low-income program. Rather it should be considered a helpful savings, or a greater opportunity to win at the cheapest tier. This would be instead of the current program being "only resort," or having it abused as a secondary means to obtain a ticket.

you seem to want to exclude people who can save up to go to burning man using a low income ticket, if that low income ticket is their last resort. you have made the case many times that these people cant afford to go to burning man and therefore shouldnt be able to go.

applicants to the low income ticket program can afford to go to burning man with a last resort low income ticket that they have saved up for.

Oh and congratulations on knowing what scare quotes are. Yes, their use is intended as stated in that definition. Now people can put a name to the rhetorical device. Still, did you feel "clever" (oh look at that) posting that definition?

such use of scare quotes is intellectually dishonest. one neednt use scare quotes to affirm their disagreement with someone else. use of scare quotes only serves as a way to discredit someone or something without doing it in words... in short, it is lazy



THE LOW INCOME TICKET PROGRAM KICKS ASS AND IT HAS HELPED MANY BURNERS ATTEND BURNING MAN, PEOPLE WHO KICK ASS, AND THE FOLKS RUNNING THE PROGRAM ALSO KICK ASS.

[lemur]

All tickets are the same? Really? Really? If all tickets were the same they would be the same price and everyone would have equal access to these tickets. Maybe the $1000 tickets being scalped on ebay are like a wealthy ticket program? They are just a ticket at a different price right?

all burning man tickets are the same

Gift tickets are the same as low income tickets, and 240 tier, and 420 tier tickets.

all burning man tickets are treated the same at the gate by the gate crew, they dont even look at the price on the ticket, they rip the ticket and return the stub to the participant

all burning man tickets give all participants the same access to burning man and no ticket is any different from any other ticket to burning man.

the only difference in the tickets is individual perception of the tickets.

every burning man ticket is effectively and functionally the same no matter how much one spent or didnt spend on their ticket. they all are treated the same at the gate to burning man and all previous believed differences between the ticket tiers or gift or low income tickets are meaningless as the people flow in to the city in the exact same fasion.

the only difference in the tickets is an individuals perceptions of the differences that do not functionally exist.