Lying about child's age for free admission

[user1489773847]

Costing out a day trip to the zoo, now that DC has turned two have to factor in their ticket cost. DH says that we should just say he isn't yet two so it's free, and that everyone does it. Just wondered what the general consensus is on this? I feel bad lying but see his point that DS is still pretty young and could end up napping through a lot of it so won't necessarily benefit.

No, definitely not.

Careful or you will be on the naughty list too

So many people happy to be flagrantly dishonest - not very MN of them

What does this mean? That m "MN" automatically equals honesty and decency? Clearly the amount of people who are posting feeling fine about doing this indicates this cannot be the case?

Oh I already am I am sure

Slightly envious of all these small children... my dc1 is 5 and 128cm tall!! No way could I pass as younger in fact I've been asked for a birth certificate to say they are only 5!!

Dc2 who is 3 is dinky as in looks 2 at the most I may omit how old they are? I asked I will pay!

Just be careful when they get older. Had a red faced moment when he told the bus driver he was five! hahaha

On a train with my then 5yo, and buying tickets the conductor commented that dd looked as though she was 4. We cheerfully went along with this, but dd helpfully corrected her. Conductor's response was to explain to dd that sometimes it's best to keep quiet in such cases. We weren't charged for her.

I wonder if the insurance is valid if your child is the wrong age.

In what sense Pickle?

Trifle, companies will charge the upper limit that people are willing to pay.

Sneaking children in will affect their profit margin.

But they will not charge more because they are already charging the upper limit that people are willing to pay.

Therefore they will not charge more as a result of people sneaking children through.

So, you could suggest that it is morally dubious to shaft say, Alton Towers, out of profits. But it is incorrect to suggest that people are morally shafting other customers due to prices which are hiked due to that behaviour because, crucially, they are already charging the most people are willing to pay.

I'm struggling to understand how you could view it otherwise.

I remember at Paultons, my Dsis1 would be juuust under the height marker so mum and dad didn't have to pay. Once we were in the park though, she would be juuust scraping the (very same) height marker used to demonstrate whether she could get on rides.

I give my children gobstoppers to eat at the counter, it kept them quiet. Also, when one was two and the other five, we used to play "babies" at the counter - five year old would put the dummy in and lie in the pushchair under the blanket (feet tucked up high!) for the height checks.

If we hadn't done this, the places we visited wouldn't have gained a child fare, they'd have lost an adult and a child fare because we couldn't have gone

I can't believe so many people will lie about this.

Factorysettings:

Of course it will affect profitability that people who were projected to pay, don't. They will of course also charge what they can get away with charging, so for some companies profit margins will be high enough that it won't make a huge difference (if their attraction is very popular and they are able to charge enough to make a high margin).

But it is wrong either way.

However, I don't understand how you teach morality and honesty to children as you lie to people's faces to save money

Really easily actually. It's an excellent lesson in nuance and far more helpful than teaching to follow every rule in life just because it exists.

ImFuckingSpartacus:

What's the moral argument for lying so you don't have to pay?

Lie. I went on holiday recently and booked tours 12 year old and under DD was half price. She was 13 and 4 days old!

Factorysettings:

Sorry, so what I am saying is that the cut to profitability could cause them to charge more than many people are willing to pay. Obviously this would result in further declines in revenue if enough people chose not to use the service/visit the attraction. Eventually they would cut prices below the level of profitability and potentially go under. Not great outcomes. Just pay for your kids.

It might be morally wrong. I'm not sure that it is really in the great scheme of things and fwiw I have always paid correctly for all my children, so I'm not trying to soothe a guilty conscience.

I was just making the point that it is incorrect to suggest that prices will go up because of people sneaking children in and that those who mis-report their children's ages owe us do-gooders a debt.

I am shocked so many people would involve their children in lies!

I'm shocked that you're shocked.

Ah, cross post, sorry.

That would only be true if theme parks were operating on the bones of their arse or if they decided they would operate without profit.

Factorysettings:

Of course, but that is more likely when a large proportion of your target market is habitually fiddling you

I doubt it Trifle, I reckon theme parks would quickly retrieve the cost of a three year old's admission in dropped ice-cream and shitty plastic tat.

spartacus

Totally agree with you and love how you've put this.

This is down the meaning of concepts of 'morality' and 'honesty' and what it means to people individually. It's not black and white, just because someone might lie about the age of their child to get into a theme park, it does not then automatically follow as a rule that they are dishonest about in other situations. Why does it have to be either/or? I don't think lying about this makes someone inherently immoral or dishonest.