Re: # adults/common costs
From: Jim Ratliff (
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 17:12 CST
On  4:57 PM 11/10/93 -0600, Judy wrote:
>re: Jim's comment about considering adults vs humans-
>"I'm not suggesting I _know_ what the _best way_ to allocate commons cost
>is. But I wonder why the number of _adults_ instead of the number of _human
>beings_ would be the appropriate measure of a family's responsibility for
>cost sharing. (Or even the number of _mammals_?) "
>I guess our rationale on using # adults rather than # humans is
>to encourage rather than discourage families w/ kids.
    subsidize at the expense of family units with fewer or no kids.

I can't think of a general argument to support such a subsidy.

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.