3 ms·

> If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. If you don't charge for admissions then there is n

> If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. If you don't charge for admissions then there is no way to moderate how many people visit the site, and you start to create a lot of problems just to deal with the massive influx of people. > I don't buy the argument about bringing in other tax revenue by association. "Everybody else" shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure for the most attractive place in town just because it's the most attractive place... If you ever visit the Sagrada Familia you'll notice that the blocks surrounding the cathedral are packed with businesses living off the cathedral's popularity. Even FC Barcelona and Nike have official stores right next to the front entrance. It is rather obvious that the cathedral is a huge profit source for the city and a lot of companies, not counting the typical tourism and HORECA businesses. Insinuating that the Sagrada Familia is leechng off the poor government's goodwill is simply wrong and the exact opposite of the truth.

colechristensen 8y ago
What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. Nonprofits can be great, but there gets to be a level with so much money that the value to society of not taxing seems lost.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. That's your opinion, and one that is based on your personal assumption that no fee should be charged for admission. > Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. That's a effective way to generate a profitable ticket scalping network for criminal organizations. Is that your notion of a better outcome? > I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. For some reason you've assumed that directly or indirectly absolutely zero money goes into those populist cliches.

colechristensen 8y ago

What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. Nonprofits can be great, but there gets to be a level with so much money that the value to society of not taxing seems lost.

geezerjay 8y ago
> What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. That's your opinion, and one that is based on your personal assumption that no fee should be charged for admission. > Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. That's a effective way to generate a profitable ticket scalping network for criminal organizations. Is that your notion of a better outcome? > I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. For some reason you've assumed that directly or indirectly absolutely zero money goes into those populist cliches.