04 May 21, 06:38PM
(04 May 21, 06:31PM)driAn Wrote: An other approach is to have no fee at all and have some individuals pay the costs. It requires less administrative overhead but it's not particularly fair.
I understand your train of thought, however: How fair is someone paying 25 a year for ownership, with potential to just be excluded at any time? You pay for 'ownership' that can be taken away at any time. Seems a bit odd to me. Just trying to get the full picture here