| Re: # adults/common costs | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Jim Ratliff (jratliff |
|
| 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.
___
|
\_|IM
-
# adults/common costs Judy, November 10 1993
- Re: # adults/common costs Jim Ratliff, November 10 1993
- Re: # adults/common costs phalpern, November 17 1993
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.