> I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Are you saying we shouldn't be happy with such an arrangement? Charging people mo

> I mean, sure, if you're happy with charging people more the more they use. Are you saying we shouldn't be happy with such an arrangement? Charging people more the more they use seems maximally fair. > Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer. Only if we consider the payment alone. That money doesn't need to disappear into a void; it could be paid out as a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. UBI) and thus outright subsidize smaller orgs and individuals. If you use more than your equal share, you pay more in water taxes than you get back in dividends; if you use less than your equal share, you get back more in dividends than you pay in water taxes. Hard to get more fair than that. > it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water I'd say food is right there beside those two categories - especially since both those categories themselves depend on food.