Some good points have been made here, but I'm one of those that likes to fly with more altitude. Altitude to me is safety. I have more time to react to an unexpected situation if it occurs.
I agree if a pilot is using the chute for nothing more than to allow their ultralight to go over normal weight restrictions, than that's the wrong reason for using such a device. However, look at the Merlin Lite, the Badland's F series, the Belite, and similar ultralights - these aren't your average open cockpit ultralights. I think the correct statement would be ultralights typically fly low and slow, but they don't have to fly low if they don't want to. There are even paramotorsists that go up to 10K feet. For those type of pilots the emergency chute is an option if they desire it. Closed cockpits have a tendency to allow higher altitude flight without freezing your .... off.
So, is it a trick? It can be, but I don't see it as one in the Merlin Lite or the Badland F series (which the Badland doesn't come with one by default, but I will have one on mine).
As for the initial fee, absolutely - chutes aren't cheap, nor is the repacking but each has to determine what value to place on their own life. For me, it's worth it. For others, maybe not. It's a personal choice.
The mention of the use of a chute in an ultralight, that the need would only be for a catastrophic failure is the same as the example given for the Cirrus; an engine failure, at night, over the Rockies would be a catastrophic failure - the engine has stopped. If that's not a catastrophic I'm not sure what is. If either aircraft had an engine failure during the day over the Rockies the situation would still be catastrophic. Find a place to land over the Rockies, it's almost impossible. And with the Cirrus being a production aircraft, under FAA maintenance regulations, I think it more likely for the ultralight to have a catastrophic failure. And this is the bad part - this would be the case because there are a lot of ultralight pilots that are untrained idiots. They will overstress the ultralight and have no clue how to actually fly. You've seen the braggers on YouTube "my first ultralight flight and with no training". These people are idiots.
I've not seen any statistics on accidental launches of emergency chutes. I can only say I know of only one and that's because it was caught on YouTube by a paramotor who somehow kicked his hand pulled chute out during launch.
The Comelli chutes come in two models. The up to 500Lbs model and the up to 1024Lbs model. They cost about half the price of BRS chutes and weigh less because they aren't as complex. The up to 500Lbs chute is only 11Lbs, so pilots wouldn't be putting on a 50Lb chute to get 24Lbs added on for max empty ultralight weight.
A comment several back stated "the nice little Italian chute was designed for a little faster aircraft so with Ultralight speed one would be using it close to its margin", but this I believe is incorrect. Comelli advertises their chutes for everything from paramotor's to ultralights, so I don't believe an ultralight would be close to the chutes margin. They sell by gross weight of the plane they are to be attached to.
The statement "but there may be heavier systems that cost less and are more robust than the very light systems designed to free up extra pounds to legalize a slightly heavy ultralight." makes the accusation that these chutes were designed specifically to legalize a heavy ultralight. This in my opinion is incorrect. Add on why would someone add on a heavier system to free up extra pounds to legalize a slightly heave ultralight?
Both BRS and Comelli have been around for a long time. They don't design safety chutes so pilots can get past the 254 weight limit. It just happens that they have a product that can be placed on an ultralight if the owner decides he/she wants that safety device. That device with the 500Lbs chute allows 24Lbs-11Lbs of extra ultralight weight. However if the 1024 chute is chosen, the ultralight is still overweight because it weighs in at 30Lbs, putting it 6Lbs over the limit if the ultralight was at or near max standard weight.
Also ultralights with floats are allowed to go over the standard weight too. Are those made just so the ultralight can get past the 254Lbs limit?
These are allowed options by the FAA so I don't see an issue. Besides, most ultralights I've been looking at have a max or gross takeoff weight of 500 to 550Lbs. It doesn't really matter what the ultralight weight is (not meaning they can go past the weight limit just if they want to). Just saying that ultralights don't carry much weight anyway. The pilot can only add so much along with themselves and then there done. So weather the ultralight weighs in at 254 or 278, there's still for the most part a hard limit at 500 to 550 depending on the ultralight. The pilot doesn't gain anything but a safety device or floats for water landings.