Nursemanit
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
Considering taxes ( Federal Income/State Income/Florida ToT) - and MF I could rent all my points at $20/point and not make a profit so I am safe -
In my 60 years on this planet, one of the more amusing observations I have made is that when the subject of rule changes arise, Be it sports, civil or criminal law, the tax code, travel, whatever, those who are most vocally against it are typically those most in fear of being in violation of said rule changes.
In other words, the most vocal or argumentative voices on either side are usually the least objective.
With all this talk about rentals limiting availability for members, is it just me who is (1) always able to get exactly what I want at 11 months, (2) usually able to get what I want, or something close to it, at 7-11 months, and (3) very often, via waitlist or stalking, able to get something that makes me very happy when much closer than 7 months?
But, with all due respect, that fact has little to do with the discussion in the thread (as it seems you are alluding to). I'm reasonably certain no one has suggested that you can't make as many reservations on your dashboard as you want to, or make as many changes as you want to those reservations, or change the guests as you see fit. You should (and can) make a hundred every year if you want to. It's what happens after that that makes a difference.I readily admits I have been pretty vocal here and do not rent my points.
Again, no disrespect intended, but this is the perfect example of the argument from anecdote fallacy. You can't simply rely on purely subjective examples from your personal experience, because it overlooks the fact that one (possibly isolated) example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a larger or broader premise.Book at 11 months and always get the resort I want.
Never been shut out of booking a trip. I have engaged in some short term walking…but only for my early Dec trips.
But, with all due respect, that fact has little to do with the discussion in the thread (as it seems you are alluding to). I'm reasonably certain no one has suggested that you can't make as many reservations on your dashboard as you want to, or make as many changes as you want to those reservations, or change the guests as you see fit. You should (and can) make a hundred every year if you want to. It's what happens after that that makes a difference.
The issue is actual point utilization: how many times are those points actually used to check in on a reservation for someone other than the owner. Not simply reserved on your dashboard for someone other than you, but actually used for a reservation where someone checks in and uses those points to pay for the stay.
Internet rental sites are merely used as evidence that there are individuals or other entities that not only make multiple reservations, but then post those reservations for public rent, either on a rental site or Facebook, or wherever. EVERY reservation they make that is posted for rent is one that they anticipate that they will use, and none of them are for personal use.
Again, no disrespect intended, but this is the perfect example of the argument from anecdote fallacy. You can't simply rely on purely subjective examples from your personal experience, because it overlooks the fact that one (possibly isolated) example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a larger or broader premise.
I could also argue that I really love SSR standard view studios (I don't, but go with it), and I've never been shut out, even at 3 or 4 months, and I've never had to waitlist or walk a reservation. Similarly, it's like someone with 700 or 800 points telling a new owner with just 150 that they never have to borrow or buy OTU points because they "know how to better utilize their points".
Ok, well on that note we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.But, not one owner has ever been shut out of booking something at their home resort for a trip they wanted, It might not be a studio, or the view they wanted, but there are always rooms to book 365 days a year.
Same!Mixed feelings on this. I have rented when I had no choice but I did not buy with the intent to rent out nor would I ever reserve a prime week (taking it away from members) to line my pockets.
I'm all for a crackdown on the habitual renters.
Please excuse this nit-picky analysis but I'm a recovering bean counter.My formula test for renting DVC for a "profit".
Contract Purchase Price + Total Maintenace Fees paid to date < Total rents collected from all DVC rentals to date.
Same!
Given how lucrative dvc renting can be, more dvc resorts that cost a lot more to buy, and the low barrier to entry for brokers, it is only a matter of time before spec renting and broker assisted renting becomes prevalent enough to cause a problem. Disney building more DVC resorts to absorb and hide the problem via more availability is a way to temporary mitigate the problem.
I disagreeIs this horse not dead yet? All over 1 owner getting 1 email that may or may not be DVCs official or unofficial stance on renting.... I've read this whole thread and have read the same points stated 17 different ways but with no actual intellectual progression towards any type of resolution. I'm all for healthy debate but I'm officially done reading this one
I agree....and I'm the OP!!!! I've created a franken-thread that just won't die!! Enough already people! I've been on a 10 day vacation since I posted and come back and this is still one of the top threads??Is this horse not dead yet? All over 1 owner getting 1 email that may or may not be DVCs official or unofficial stance on renting.... I've read this whole thread and have read the same points stated 17 different ways but with no actual intellectual progression towards any type of resolution. I'm all for healthy debate but I'm officially done reading this one
Please excuse this nit-picky analysis but I'm a recovering bean counter.
Your formula should spread the contract purchase price out over the number of years of the contract. So, if you are in the 10th year of a 40 year property, only 25% of the purchase price would be appropriate to include.
I disagree. I think the original discussion revolved around that single email for about a page an a half, then morphed into a broader debate regarding the current rental ecosystem. The fact that the issue is still being debated 22 pages later, suggests that that is an underlying concern for more than a few folks, and that this incident simply acted as a lightening rod for THAT discussion. This post, or some other post, doesn't really matter. If it was a moot point, we wouldn't still be here.Is this horse not dead yet? All over 1 owner getting 1 email that may or may not be DVCs official or unofficial stance on renting.... I've read this whole thread and have read the same points stated 17 different ways but with no actual intellectual progression towards any type of resolution. I'm all for healthy debate but I'm officially done reading this one
well???? lolI agree....and I'm the OP!!!! I've created a franken-thread that just won't die!! Enough already people! I've been on a 10 day vacation since I posted and come back and this is still one of the top threads??
However, I see I have a message from a supervisor from MS about my complaint so I may have an update about this soon
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that nowhere in the rules is there a “definition” that a contract is “for personal use”.Arguably, since the contract is by definition for personal use