All the scenarios using RBAC at the three different scopes in Azure offer the privilege of managing, deploying and administering various resources as an assigned user without the need of managing a personal subscription. Regardless the RBAC role is assigned for a subscription, resource group or resource scope, all the resources created further on by the assigned users are billed under the one Azure subscription where the users have access to. This way, the users who have billing administrator permissions for that entire Azure subscription has a complete overview on the consumption, regardless who is managing the resources.
One consequence of this situation is that we have endless and interminable debates within philosophy and, where philosophy influences politics, within politics as well ( After Virtue 6-8, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry 7 and Chapter 1). MacIntyre demonstrates this with regard to philosophers by a comparison of the positions of John Rawls and Robert Nozick on what justice is, positions which are mutually exclusive, but internally coherent. Each conclusion follows reasonably from its premises ( After Virtue Chapter 17). Each position has many adherents who can point out the flaws in the other but cannot successfully defend their own position against attack. In the political world, one of the examples MacIntyre uses is the abortion issue in the United States. One side of the debate, drawing largely on a particular interpretation of Christian ethics, asserts that abortion is murder and hence is both morally unacceptable and deserving of legal punishment; the other side, usually drawing either on a conception of privacy or of rights or both, asserts that women should have the right to make a private decision about terminating a pregnancy, and therefore abortion, while possibly morally problematic, deserves the protection of the law. In either case, the conclusion follows logically, that is, reasonably, from the premises. But the starting premises are incompatible, and there is no way to gain everyone's agreement to either set of premises, nor is there even any agreement on what kind of argument might be able to gain a consensus. (And a look at public opinion polls about abortion taken in the United States shows that the percentage of people for or against legal abortion in particular circumstances has basically remained unchanged since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973).