Tweet
Now that RCI is so heavily into timeshare rentals, they are getting a much clearer picture of the REAL market value of timeshare intervals in different parts of the world.
To boost revenue, what RCI can do is charge a sort of Alternate Minimum Tax for timeshare exchange. Heck, if the IRS can do it, why not RCI? I got nailed again this year myself by the AMT.
For those of you who have to pay the Alternate Minimum Tax, you basically end up paying that surtax if you did too well in maximizing your tax deductions or taking advantage of preferred tax items such as capital gains and qualified dividend income. So, the government can basically tell you, you did too well in following our rules, so we are going to take some back.
The same thing can be done in timesharing to reduce excessive trade ups by timesharers gaming the system. All RCI needs to do is figure out who is getting the most unfair number of trade ups as measured by the difference in the average rental rates for the deposit and the exchange. Then, charge a 15% surcharge on the difference. This would be another way to help enforce like for like exchange and create a new revenue source for RCI that they probably haven't considered in the past.
In fact, since so many people are getting nailed by this AMT at this tax time, it might be a great time to announce this program enhancement and position it as a way to help the depositers with dog weeks that have very low trading power.
Okay, this program description is actually something that I would never want to see. But, it would be interesting to me to see how you react to it. How you react is indicative of your timesharing belief system.
If you are a staunch weeks supporter, I think you will react in one of several ways.
1) You think that RCI would actually consider implementing this program because you completely mistrust RCI and wouldn't put it past them to do everything they could to increase revenue at owners expense.
2) You blow it off because you believe that weeks exchange is totally fair based on its method of matching supply and demand. It's so good there isn't many trade ups and so a surtax would almost never be charged.
If you are a staunch points supporter, you may react in the following way:
1) Same as number 1 above.
2) You like that this was raised because it illustrates how unfair the weeks system is in matching supply and demand. Rather than imposing the surtax, you would rather RCI just assigned point values to all weeks based on that rental data.
Anyway, I came up with this because I am ticked off about the AMT and I wanted to come up with something new.
To boost revenue, what RCI can do is charge a sort of Alternate Minimum Tax for timeshare exchange. Heck, if the IRS can do it, why not RCI? I got nailed again this year myself by the AMT.
For those of you who have to pay the Alternate Minimum Tax, you basically end up paying that surtax if you did too well in maximizing your tax deductions or taking advantage of preferred tax items such as capital gains and qualified dividend income. So, the government can basically tell you, you did too well in following our rules, so we are going to take some back.
The same thing can be done in timesharing to reduce excessive trade ups by timesharers gaming the system. All RCI needs to do is figure out who is getting the most unfair number of trade ups as measured by the difference in the average rental rates for the deposit and the exchange. Then, charge a 15% surcharge on the difference. This would be another way to help enforce like for like exchange and create a new revenue source for RCI that they probably haven't considered in the past.
In fact, since so many people are getting nailed by this AMT at this tax time, it might be a great time to announce this program enhancement and position it as a way to help the depositers with dog weeks that have very low trading power.
Okay, this program description is actually something that I would never want to see. But, it would be interesting to me to see how you react to it. How you react is indicative of your timesharing belief system.
If you are a staunch weeks supporter, I think you will react in one of several ways.
1) You think that RCI would actually consider implementing this program because you completely mistrust RCI and wouldn't put it past them to do everything they could to increase revenue at owners expense.
2) You blow it off because you believe that weeks exchange is totally fair based on its method of matching supply and demand. It's so good there isn't many trade ups and so a surtax would almost never be charged.
If you are a staunch points supporter, you may react in the following way:
1) Same as number 1 above.
2) You like that this was raised because it illustrates how unfair the weeks system is in matching supply and demand. Rather than imposing the surtax, you would rather RCI just assigned point values to all weeks based on that rental data.
Anyway, I came up with this because I am ticked off about the AMT and I wanted to come up with something new.
Comment