On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 09:48:40 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top
but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*.

I would be interested in how you would you go about doing that.

I suppose, to retain fairness, you could have a fixed payment to each
farm with a top up acreage payment. This might detract from any
unwritten agenda to encourage farm amalgamation though.

How does this defend the present agreement as fair?

Fair in the schoolground sense of a group faced with dividing up a bag
of goodies. Any attempt to give less to a *fat* child will be resisted.

The present arrangement is that the fatter the child the more he gets,
a school-child would most certainly consider that to be unfair.