Re: Per Household or per person? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:57:44 -0700 (PDT) |
Your answer was interesting and appropriate. Unequivocally perfect financial equality is greatly elusive, in terms both theoretical and pragmatic. Trying to make everything "fair" down to the last penny corrodes many other aspects of one's social and political relationships. I'm glad you worked it out without bogging down in excruciatingly precise accountings. RPD On Mar 19, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Diana Carroll <dianaecarroll [at] gmail.com> wrote: > It's true. And our group came to the threshold of failure on two occasions > (depending on how you count). > > Part of what affects how much people contributed is how much faith they have > in the project, how much risk they are willing to take with their money, and > how badly they want it to happen. > > There was no loss sharing agreement. Everyone put in what they could knowing > the risk. And this affects us to this day, because money WAS/is being lost, > in differing amounts for different people.
- Re: Per Household or per person?, (continued)
-
Re: Per Household or per person? R Philip Dowds, March 19 2013
- Re: Per Household or per person? Sharon Villines, March 19 2013
- Re: Per Household or per person? R Philip Dowds, March 19 2013
- Re: Per Household or per person? Diana Carroll, March 19 2013
- Re: Per Household or per person? R Philip Dowds, March 19 2013
- Re: Per Household or per person? Diana Carroll, March 20 2013
-
Re: Per Household or per person? R Philip Dowds, March 19 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.