4 ms·
The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit. Which doesn't seem exactly fa
by oh_sigh 5y ago
The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit. Which doesn't seem exactly fair, since many of the service users may be in similar financial circumstances as the lady in the article, but just make better decisions regarding their money.
- worik 5y ago> Which doesn't seem exactly fair There is so much injustice perpetrated in the name of fairness
- oh_sigh 5y agoI guess it is a difference of opinion about injustice. I see it as an injustice to take money out of a poor person's pocket now to pay for the failures of a different, unrelated poor person.
- abdullahkhalids 5y agoIn my country electricity rates increase in slabs as you consume more. The highest consumption users (usually the rich and fortunate) subsidize all low consumption users. So poor people are not affected by the choices of their own class. But we as a society show benevolence to the poor and the unfortunate in this way
- pythonaut_16 5y agoIn many situations unfairness is a form of injustice.
- ihsw 5y ago
- __del__ 5y agoi don't think raising rates for other customers is what "eating the cost" means. it's also possible to profit less.
- oh_sigh 5y agoEnmax doesn't make a profit, because it is wholly owned by the City of Calgary and returns all remaining funds as a dividend to the city. Which amounts to about $50M/year, or about $40 per citizen.
- __del__ 5y agoi'll correct myself: maintaining the $40/citizen city funding by raising costs for other customers is not what "eating the cost" means
- googlryas 5y agoThe payments to the city are variable. There is no fixed "$40/citizen" payment being made. The utility company not charging individuals responsible for increased costs those increased costs leads to the utility returning less money to the city, which would ultimately lead to cost increases if the excess funds went negative. I find it interesting that you're latching onto the "eat the cost" phrase(which may have been incorrectly used) but you aren't too interested in rectifying your gross ignorance of the actual details of the system you're making claims about.
- tomrod 5y ago> The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit Seems moral to me. As a community member, I'm happy to play a bit to ensure those unable to pay don't freeze in the winter Signed, -Texan who was without power during a major cold snap and wonders why the "independent" electric grid isn't an active priority
- slibhb 5y agoNo one's stopping you from emptying your savings account and giving all your money to people who would derive orders of magnitude more utility from it than you.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago"We have a necessary resource in sufficient quantity to allocate it to everyone who needs it, how can we do that with the current allocate-to-almost-everyone system that already exists?" "HA TRICK QUESTION! that's unnecessary because individuals can simply choose to partially and temporarily alleviate this issue in a very limited way!" ??? This is how you think?
- mikestew 5y agoA lot of people think that way. Try a conversation about taxes, specifically what one might consider a "fair share". Inevitably some jackass waltzes in with "well, nothing is stopping you from paying extra", and sometimes even handily posts a link to the IRS site, as if that's a clever argument. "Nothing stopping you..." is all-too-often another way of saying, "I will make no attempt at making a good-faith argument".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 5y agoAye. Its this type of folks that also suggest leaving a community when they hear another's complaints. In short, trolls.