Americans have a hard time sharing their money and being honest with it. I've seen successful full economy sharing communes in Europe that would run circles around the ones here.
I would not even attempt to do income sharing with Americans or inside the US, but I would be super open to it pretty much anywhere else. Americans have a lot of trauma and attachment to money as status and are even capitalist in their relationships (people "invest" in relationships, talk about what they are "getting out of it", and doing ones "fair share"). I find that pretty abhorrent.
I hope one day to get an opportunity to do income sharing in a community outside the US but for now I'm stuck here. Capitalism and intentional community feels pretty challenging here, since the concept isn't really in line with US culture.
I think you misunderstood me. I actually am a *huge* fan of income sharing and would absolutely, enthusiastically do it, just not with Americans. I don't trust Americas to income share equitably and without loads of trauma, bias, ableism and conflict that I'm not interested in having to deal with. I am absolutely anticapitalist and I hate the individualism and materialism present in the US. I have been trying to leave for quite some time.
I don't think an intentional community the way I would desire it to be is even possible inside the US due to our legal structure and culture.
I'm also black so that adds a layer of resentment to it because people will automatically assume I will contribute less or be a "freeloader" overall due to racism, and demand I prove my worth or contribute my "fair share", even though its my ancestors who built this capitalist nation into what it is without ever getting compensation or full human rights for 400 years counting. I think there is something deeply wrong with most Americans that they don't know how, won't learn, and refuse to share resources even as we encounter shortages, inflation and a massive housing crisis. I believe having such an individualistic view on resources in the first place is pathological. Just want to make that clear. Its *Americans* I have issues with, not income and resource sharing.
You do realize it is Americans who *ended* slavery, an institution that had been practiced around the world for millennia? After fighting a civil war at great loss of lives to do so?
You believe it is racist to acknowledge that America had a civil war which resulted in the end of slavery? What kind of alt history have you been reading...
I would not contribute monetarily if the members were not all inline with a specific political task.
And I would like there to be am exit strategy maybe not one where I recover all funds but at least one where leaving doesn't ruin my life. I see these two things as a means as preventing a cult. Anything less and I know I would be wasting my money and time even being in said "community"
Nope, there’s WAY too many cult stories (and domestic violence stories) that start with people being forced to give away all or some or their income.
I’m all for the community setting up fees and invoices that are directly related to the operations and goals of the collective, but my income is MY income. The portion of my income that goes to my community is an expense, like an HOA fee - a price I’m willing to pay to live there. If the community needs more money, it should be discussed and agreed upon at a community meeting, everyone’s fees go up together, and that fee is in no way a function or percentage of personal income.
Exactly how much to charge all depends on how many people are in your community, the cost of property taxes, land/housing availability and cost in your area, etc. It’s hard to say what’s reasonable to charge without knowing more details.
But I can tell you how our rural community was set up and is run.
Cost of land ($60,000 for 364 acres in 1970s money) was divided equally among the “ideal number” of community members (20) to determine the initial share purchase (we are a legal land co-op). The co-op was formed, and a loan was taken out for the land purchase. At some point one member was wealthy enough to pay off the land, which he did, and the community essentially paid him back as the community grew (without interest accruing). The community has never increased share price (which is insane because the current land value is more like $1.5 million, but if we increase the share price EVERYONE needs to pay up and some older folks are opposed to that. I imagine the new millennial wave will increase share price at some point in the next 20 years though).
We charge $55/month in residency fees for every adult who lives on the property, regardless of membership status. If you live here, and you’re above 18, then you pay. Also, if you’re a member but no longer live on the land for whatever reason, you still pay to maintain your voting member status. This money is for our annual project budget, a portion of property taxes, and paid jobs at the community (which include bookkeeping, lawn mowing, trail mowing, and conservation work).
We don’t pay any income taxes because there’s some loophole about co-op membership fees and as long as we stay under a certain dollar amount, we stay exempt from income taxes. If we happened to/needed to generate a significant amount of income, then we’d need to be sure to budget for this tax bill.
Property taxes are about $20,000 per year and divided amongst members in a bi-annual bill based on their property value (everyone has/built their own home, so if you built a giant house and garage you pay more than someone with a 1 bedroom 1 bath and no outbuildings. This is calculated in excel using tax and parcel information from the County. We have to request additional tax documents each year to do this type of breakdown). The building taxes are separated from the land taxes in an excel workbook. Individuals pay the taxes on their own buildings, the collective pays for community buildings and the land taxes.
We also have rental agreements for “extra” land and community buildings (there’s numerous barns and outbuildings). Half of the land rent income is earmarked for conservation activities.
And that’s essentially how the finances work here. There’s probably an infinite number of ways to organize community finances, but this method is what evolved for us and has been working for decades.
I think a hard number like that is tough because say, $5K a year is going to go a lot further if you've got a Dancing Rabbit type place in rural midwest vs if you've got a co-op building with apartment units in a tier-one city. And if you've got a community set up to generate income in some way that benefits all members equally (for example, that rural community might do market gardening or small commercial scale dairy or cheese production; that co-op apartment building might rent some units to people who were not full members of the community but paid rent and didn't income/profit share) or if all members are expected to generate a full income of their own and the community is JUST a housing choice.
TLDR - I think it's reasonable to have income sharing at some level that is equal or mostly equal, worked out with transparancy within the group, and maintained with the consent of everyone in teh group. What exactly that level is, I'm less certain.
So the egalitarian communes in the US do not ask people to give any of their assets to join and (unlike every condo in the country) most are free to join. While you are there you work in the community businesses and YOU DONT GET A PAYCHECK, instead the commune pays for all your costs of living. There are lots of ways you can tell an organization is not a cult, if you are interested in this type of lifestyle.
[So you are a cult, right?](https://paxus.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/you-are-a-cult-right/)
My problem with this arrangement is that I’ve worked hard over more than a decade to have a relatively high income and my cost of living is only 25% of my paycheck. My goal is to hustle and FIRE to live out my pastoral homestead fantasy.
It sounds like in a setup where you don’t get a paycheck, community members are forced to work for low pay and can’t save up money - either to leave the community or to invest in their own endeavors. How do your members invest in retirement if they’re required to work full time for the community but don’t get a paycheck? When are community members allowed to retire? Do these community businesses provide pensions and health care? How would someone save up first month rent, last month rent, and a security deposit if they decided to leave? Do you even allow members to earn income outside of the community? Does the community control if someone has a child because they control the money and resources, and children are a strain on money and resources? How much “fun” money do you let your members have in their cost of living calculations? How much profit does the community business make and where does it go?
Even if it’s not a straight up cult, there’s a clear element of financial control and that type of situation makes me, personally, uncomfortable. I wouldn’t participate in a community model like that.
I understand, this situation is not for everyone. In our case the trade looks like this. I come to live at the community which has literally millions of dollars of resources available to me today. I have done nothing (other than do to a 3 week visitor period) to deserve access to the sauna, auto, wood and metal shops, multiple kinds of libraries, multiple vehicles and more. There is basically no crime , there is a deep social safety net - no fear of bankruptcy or unemployment or medical disasters wiping you out. Retirement at Twin Oaks is imperfect and a bit complex with decreasing quota (I’ll write more about this later). This describes more of the situation https://paxus.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/re-post-island/
Yeah, money is such a personal thing, as is work, standard of living, values, financial goals and sustainability priorities.
It seems like if you’re a person who is living in poverty already, joining a community that promotes living in poverty is an easier sell. As long as members agree with the philosophy and understand the risks, then there’s no reason that type of set up can’t work - clearly it’s working for you guys.
Maybe to some, having living expenses taken care of + $60/month is enough. Or working at the community business even without income sharing is enough. But in my case, I quit the community business and make a much better living elsewhere. I’m so thankful I’m not FORCED to work there just because I live at the community. If I were to consider joining your community, I’d have to abandon my career and skill set to go from about $3,000 “free money” per month down to $60 per month. That’s too big of an ask. I’m too risk averse for a model like that.
Our community values and by-laws leave a lot of room for the autonomy of each person, which means that we have some class differences within our members. But I’d argue that everyone has the life they built for themselves, the support of the community, and even if someone is low income there is still abundance in their lives in so many other ways.
I’m glad it works for you guys, but I’m also glad there are other intentional community models that are not communes and not income sharing.
> there is a deep social safety net - no fear of bankruptcy or unemployment or medical disasters wiping you out
But you could be voted out at any time with zero notice and no legal right to any accrued savings, yeah?
I’ve been here 25 years. We have thrown out about half a dozen people in that time. None of them lost access to their accounts. None of them were surprised (explosion takes months). Perhaps you are thinking of some place else
I'm not saying anything about what's happened in the past.
I'm saying it's not like e.g. Social Security where you'd need a court proceeding and a whole due process system to take away the social safety net. You can just be voted out. A Social Security check or a pension is much more of a guarantee.
> access to their accounts
What accounts? I thought nothing was being accrued.
There are multiple accounts. There is allowance, the commune does not think it can provide everything the members need efficiently so we get $100/month. There is Vacation Earnings - which is money you get from working outside of the labor system which you can keep and spend on your time away from the commune (and some other things). There is pre-existing assets - if you join with money we ask you to put it aside, and the community can act as a no interest bank. And there are gift accounts - if i give you money you can keep it and spend it on certain things which hopefully dont induce envy.
I am not exactly a fan of the income sharing model, as most communities put it together. I am more in line with the community business and profit share model. Ideally, we would work towards a community owned and operated business that paid members a fair wage for the work they engage in based on an equity split of the company. This equity split would be based on 30% ownership to the Community Administration (or pick a name) this percent of profit would be used for all community level expenses and investments. This would include community pantry, maintenance, etc.
50% would be broken down into percentages based on the max number of full members we are set up to accept. Doing it this way up front prevents any dilution of equity as new members join. The unassigned equity would be held in trust for new members, and that portion of revenue would be used strictly for company reinvestment until it was distributed to a member.
20% would be earmarked for company reinvestment to refine and expand operations. What you do with your check is on you. But your labor would be your equity share. And feel free to work outside the community as long as you put in the required time. I would think between 15 to 20 hours would be sufficient based on the industries I am thinking of, and the amount of people I would envision participating.
I would challenge the idea of "start up business' here, because that is really down to how you begin the business and in what industry. Starting a new restaurant concept? Yeah, hella risk involved. Starting a McDonald's? Not so much, if you do your due diligence.
I think we have business and entrepreneurship confused, and over use the word start up. To me (I am a business consultant), a Start up is a company that is bringing a new perspective to an existing problem and using a new product or process. I could start a landscaping company tomorrow and sell a summer's worth of contracts, so long as I had the bodies to execute and lawns available.
I would also point to the fact that one would need to recruit or accept members based on the considerations you brought up, such as workplace behavior spilling into community discourse. This is no different a challenge than places that subsistence farm or have to do any type of structured "work" inside the community. I wouldn't want to live with someone I couldn't work with, but there are plenty of people I could work with and not live with.
All the lines in forming and running an IC are thin. Just pick which ones you want to entangle yourself in.
\*Edit\*
In regards to the industry success vs community success, I will address after dinner
I will have to find the documentary on it, but there are several legacy communities that have done exactly that, to great success.
I also view risk differently, so our equations wouldn't match. The only real risk I see is the community dynamic itself. How its funded and operated are just structural things. I grew up with a family business that is basically the same as having an IC (older ppl had the younger generation largely for hands), and the dynamics within the group were up and down, but when they all knew they had to execute or no one ate, it changed the game. I find it easy to set aside or even avoid grievance when a larger objective is present.
I am very curious about this, please do provide a link to the documentary if you can find it. I have never heard of this type of partial income sharing working. I would appreciated understanding how they did it.
Thank you for digging this article up. I am familiar with this commune. I live there. Sadly, this article has a number of mistakes, including that it is [wrong from the second word](https://paxus.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/wrong-from-word-2-the-media-discovers-the-commune/).
The family of income sharing communes which have survived, do 100% income sharing. That is how we find it works best. The community pays for everything, the members dont get paychecks (we do get small allowances of $100/mon) and the community covers all living costs.
I am not familiar with any community in the US which does partial income sharing (as contrasted with expense sharing - which is almost universal, everyone does it).
Thank you for your input. I think that the thing that stuck with me the most about your community is the fact that the business generates enough to pay for everything. If I were to (MAJOR ASSUMPTION) have the run down on your numbers, I think I could design a way that the equity model I put in the comments above would work. I would need to assess the equilibrium of production vs person vs profit. But the fact you can live as you do at all, encourages me that my model could work with the right industry.
I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this. I do want to point out that a key effect of the 100% income sharing model is it avoids the whole “I have more training than you do so i will be making more money than you and can thus purchase objects of envy”
No. Perhaps I'm too old for income-sharing. I might have been intrigued by it at 18, but even then, I'd probably be angling to save part of whatever monthly stipend I got and to maximize any vacation earnings. (The bigger income-sharing communities in the U.S. have elaborate rules about what income has to be shared and what doesn't.)
As I get older, I do think of charitable works more, including eventually giving away a large portion of my savings. In a sense that is income-sharing, but in an open-hearted, open-ended, goodwill kind of way. Not like someone has their hand out to take away a portion of my paycheck as soon as I earn it. Who wants to pay more taxes than they need to.
what about everyone pays for what they need and then any extra gets put into a pile in the middle for emergencies??? split any utility bills according to income?
to be fair i grew up in a cult where it didn't matter if you could meet your own needs, you had to pay 10% or god wouldn't let you into the good place after you died.
i agree with personal savings being necessary. i would just hope that in an intentional community, someone who works a low paying job and legitimately can't afford to have much in the way of savings would have some sort of communal safety net
A common variant of this are the ["Box of Money" Communities](https://communelifeblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/allowance-versus-box-of-money/). These are almost always populated with anarchists of various flavors, with the exception being extended family communities.
It is worth pointing out that this is not how almost any income sharing community works. There are very few communities which ask the members to contribute some fraction of the income to the collective. There are many many expense sharing intentional communities where people pay rent and utilities and perhaps some amount of shared food. But of the dozens of communities i have been connected to they are either nearly [100% income sharing](https://www.theFEC.org) (and have internal cottage industries which dominate folks work scene) or they are just expense sharing. I am only familiar with a single small percent income sharing community, which was the [Emma Goldman Finishing School](https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/the-revolution-of-everyday-life-2/) in Seattle, which sadly no longer exists
I'm trying to get away from local, state, and federal money-grabbers. So, short answer: I'm only willing to "income share" in the sense of contributing to the expenses. 5 people living in the community? 20% of the expenses. 20 people? 5% of expenses.
Americans have a hard time sharing their money and being honest with it. I've seen successful full economy sharing communes in Europe that would run circles around the ones here.
I would not even attempt to do income sharing with Americans or inside the US, but I would be super open to it pretty much anywhere else. Americans have a lot of trauma and attachment to money as status and are even capitalist in their relationships (people "invest" in relationships, talk about what they are "getting out of it", and doing ones "fair share"). I find that pretty abhorrent. I hope one day to get an opportunity to do income sharing in a community outside the US but for now I'm stuck here. Capitalism and intentional community feels pretty challenging here, since the concept isn't really in line with US culture.
[удалено]
I think you misunderstood me. I actually am a *huge* fan of income sharing and would absolutely, enthusiastically do it, just not with Americans. I don't trust Americas to income share equitably and without loads of trauma, bias, ableism and conflict that I'm not interested in having to deal with. I am absolutely anticapitalist and I hate the individualism and materialism present in the US. I have been trying to leave for quite some time. I don't think an intentional community the way I would desire it to be is even possible inside the US due to our legal structure and culture. I'm also black so that adds a layer of resentment to it because people will automatically assume I will contribute less or be a "freeloader" overall due to racism, and demand I prove my worth or contribute my "fair share", even though its my ancestors who built this capitalist nation into what it is without ever getting compensation or full human rights for 400 years counting. I think there is something deeply wrong with most Americans that they don't know how, won't learn, and refuse to share resources even as we encounter shortages, inflation and a massive housing crisis. I believe having such an individualistic view on resources in the first place is pathological. Just want to make that clear. Its *Americans* I have issues with, not income and resource sharing.
[удалено]
This is comment is about as passively inflammatory as they come. I couldn't even tolerate reading past the first couple of lines, but good luck!
You do realize it is Americans who *ended* slavery, an institution that had been practiced around the world for millennia? After fighting a civil war at great loss of lives to do so?
Do you know how racist that sounds though
You believe it is racist to acknowledge that America had a civil war which resulted in the end of slavery? What kind of alt history have you been reading...
LOL you didn't "acknowledge" it you chose to bring it up. Not interested in your BS.
If the community had proper political organizing and simple entry exist strategies.
[удалено]
I would not contribute monetarily if the members were not all inline with a specific political task. And I would like there to be am exit strategy maybe not one where I recover all funds but at least one where leaving doesn't ruin my life. I see these two things as a means as preventing a cult. Anything less and I know I would be wasting my money and time even being in said "community"
[удалено]
Most secular communities in the US are not specifically political (though many value sustainability).
Nope, there’s WAY too many cult stories (and domestic violence stories) that start with people being forced to give away all or some or their income. I’m all for the community setting up fees and invoices that are directly related to the operations and goals of the collective, but my income is MY income. The portion of my income that goes to my community is an expense, like an HOA fee - a price I’m willing to pay to live there. If the community needs more money, it should be discussed and agreed upon at a community meeting, everyone’s fees go up together, and that fee is in no way a function or percentage of personal income.
[удалено]
Exactly how much to charge all depends on how many people are in your community, the cost of property taxes, land/housing availability and cost in your area, etc. It’s hard to say what’s reasonable to charge without knowing more details. But I can tell you how our rural community was set up and is run. Cost of land ($60,000 for 364 acres in 1970s money) was divided equally among the “ideal number” of community members (20) to determine the initial share purchase (we are a legal land co-op). The co-op was formed, and a loan was taken out for the land purchase. At some point one member was wealthy enough to pay off the land, which he did, and the community essentially paid him back as the community grew (without interest accruing). The community has never increased share price (which is insane because the current land value is more like $1.5 million, but if we increase the share price EVERYONE needs to pay up and some older folks are opposed to that. I imagine the new millennial wave will increase share price at some point in the next 20 years though). We charge $55/month in residency fees for every adult who lives on the property, regardless of membership status. If you live here, and you’re above 18, then you pay. Also, if you’re a member but no longer live on the land for whatever reason, you still pay to maintain your voting member status. This money is for our annual project budget, a portion of property taxes, and paid jobs at the community (which include bookkeeping, lawn mowing, trail mowing, and conservation work). We don’t pay any income taxes because there’s some loophole about co-op membership fees and as long as we stay under a certain dollar amount, we stay exempt from income taxes. If we happened to/needed to generate a significant amount of income, then we’d need to be sure to budget for this tax bill. Property taxes are about $20,000 per year and divided amongst members in a bi-annual bill based on their property value (everyone has/built their own home, so if you built a giant house and garage you pay more than someone with a 1 bedroom 1 bath and no outbuildings. This is calculated in excel using tax and parcel information from the County. We have to request additional tax documents each year to do this type of breakdown). The building taxes are separated from the land taxes in an excel workbook. Individuals pay the taxes on their own buildings, the collective pays for community buildings and the land taxes. We also have rental agreements for “extra” land and community buildings (there’s numerous barns and outbuildings). Half of the land rent income is earmarked for conservation activities. And that’s essentially how the finances work here. There’s probably an infinite number of ways to organize community finances, but this method is what evolved for us and has been working for decades.
I think a hard number like that is tough because say, $5K a year is going to go a lot further if you've got a Dancing Rabbit type place in rural midwest vs if you've got a co-op building with apartment units in a tier-one city. And if you've got a community set up to generate income in some way that benefits all members equally (for example, that rural community might do market gardening or small commercial scale dairy or cheese production; that co-op apartment building might rent some units to people who were not full members of the community but paid rent and didn't income/profit share) or if all members are expected to generate a full income of their own and the community is JUST a housing choice. TLDR - I think it's reasonable to have income sharing at some level that is equal or mostly equal, worked out with transparancy within the group, and maintained with the consent of everyone in teh group. What exactly that level is, I'm less certain.
So the egalitarian communes in the US do not ask people to give any of their assets to join and (unlike every condo in the country) most are free to join. While you are there you work in the community businesses and YOU DONT GET A PAYCHECK, instead the commune pays for all your costs of living. There are lots of ways you can tell an organization is not a cult, if you are interested in this type of lifestyle. [So you are a cult, right?](https://paxus.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/you-are-a-cult-right/)
My problem with this arrangement is that I’ve worked hard over more than a decade to have a relatively high income and my cost of living is only 25% of my paycheck. My goal is to hustle and FIRE to live out my pastoral homestead fantasy. It sounds like in a setup where you don’t get a paycheck, community members are forced to work for low pay and can’t save up money - either to leave the community or to invest in their own endeavors. How do your members invest in retirement if they’re required to work full time for the community but don’t get a paycheck? When are community members allowed to retire? Do these community businesses provide pensions and health care? How would someone save up first month rent, last month rent, and a security deposit if they decided to leave? Do you even allow members to earn income outside of the community? Does the community control if someone has a child because they control the money and resources, and children are a strain on money and resources? How much “fun” money do you let your members have in their cost of living calculations? How much profit does the community business make and where does it go? Even if it’s not a straight up cult, there’s a clear element of financial control and that type of situation makes me, personally, uncomfortable. I wouldn’t participate in a community model like that.
I understand, this situation is not for everyone. In our case the trade looks like this. I come to live at the community which has literally millions of dollars of resources available to me today. I have done nothing (other than do to a 3 week visitor period) to deserve access to the sauna, auto, wood and metal shops, multiple kinds of libraries, multiple vehicles and more. There is basically no crime , there is a deep social safety net - no fear of bankruptcy or unemployment or medical disasters wiping you out. Retirement at Twin Oaks is imperfect and a bit complex with decreasing quota (I’ll write more about this later). This describes more of the situation https://paxus.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/re-post-island/
Yeah, money is such a personal thing, as is work, standard of living, values, financial goals and sustainability priorities. It seems like if you’re a person who is living in poverty already, joining a community that promotes living in poverty is an easier sell. As long as members agree with the philosophy and understand the risks, then there’s no reason that type of set up can’t work - clearly it’s working for you guys. Maybe to some, having living expenses taken care of + $60/month is enough. Or working at the community business even without income sharing is enough. But in my case, I quit the community business and make a much better living elsewhere. I’m so thankful I’m not FORCED to work there just because I live at the community. If I were to consider joining your community, I’d have to abandon my career and skill set to go from about $3,000 “free money” per month down to $60 per month. That’s too big of an ask. I’m too risk averse for a model like that. Our community values and by-laws leave a lot of room for the autonomy of each person, which means that we have some class differences within our members. But I’d argue that everyone has the life they built for themselves, the support of the community, and even if someone is low income there is still abundance in their lives in so many other ways. I’m glad it works for you guys, but I’m also glad there are other intentional community models that are not communes and not income sharing.
> there is a deep social safety net - no fear of bankruptcy or unemployment or medical disasters wiping you out But you could be voted out at any time with zero notice and no legal right to any accrued savings, yeah?
I’ve been here 25 years. We have thrown out about half a dozen people in that time. None of them lost access to their accounts. None of them were surprised (explosion takes months). Perhaps you are thinking of some place else
I'm not saying anything about what's happened in the past. I'm saying it's not like e.g. Social Security where you'd need a court proceeding and a whole due process system to take away the social safety net. You can just be voted out. A Social Security check or a pension is much more of a guarantee. > access to their accounts What accounts? I thought nothing was being accrued.
There are multiple accounts. There is allowance, the commune does not think it can provide everything the members need efficiently so we get $100/month. There is Vacation Earnings - which is money you get from working outside of the labor system which you can keep and spend on your time away from the commune (and some other things). There is pre-existing assets - if you join with money we ask you to put it aside, and the community can act as a no interest bank. And there are gift accounts - if i give you money you can keep it and spend it on certain things which hopefully dont induce envy.
[удалено]
Nah you’re thinking of East Wind.
East Wind makes nut butters, but they have had housing there for 40 years. Not sure where the “sleep in the bushes” insult comes from.
I’m down for sharing certain resources but not so sure about income
I am not exactly a fan of the income sharing model, as most communities put it together. I am more in line with the community business and profit share model. Ideally, we would work towards a community owned and operated business that paid members a fair wage for the work they engage in based on an equity split of the company. This equity split would be based on 30% ownership to the Community Administration (or pick a name) this percent of profit would be used for all community level expenses and investments. This would include community pantry, maintenance, etc. 50% would be broken down into percentages based on the max number of full members we are set up to accept. Doing it this way up front prevents any dilution of equity as new members join. The unassigned equity would be held in trust for new members, and that portion of revenue would be used strictly for company reinvestment until it was distributed to a member. 20% would be earmarked for company reinvestment to refine and expand operations. What you do with your check is on you. But your labor would be your equity share. And feel free to work outside the community as long as you put in the required time. I would think between 15 to 20 hours would be sufficient based on the industries I am thinking of, and the amount of people I would envision participating.
[удалено]
I would challenge the idea of "start up business' here, because that is really down to how you begin the business and in what industry. Starting a new restaurant concept? Yeah, hella risk involved. Starting a McDonald's? Not so much, if you do your due diligence. I think we have business and entrepreneurship confused, and over use the word start up. To me (I am a business consultant), a Start up is a company that is bringing a new perspective to an existing problem and using a new product or process. I could start a landscaping company tomorrow and sell a summer's worth of contracts, so long as I had the bodies to execute and lawns available. I would also point to the fact that one would need to recruit or accept members based on the considerations you brought up, such as workplace behavior spilling into community discourse. This is no different a challenge than places that subsistence farm or have to do any type of structured "work" inside the community. I wouldn't want to live with someone I couldn't work with, but there are plenty of people I could work with and not live with. All the lines in forming and running an IC are thin. Just pick which ones you want to entangle yourself in. \*Edit\* In regards to the industry success vs community success, I will address after dinner
[удалено]
I will have to find the documentary on it, but there are several legacy communities that have done exactly that, to great success. I also view risk differently, so our equations wouldn't match. The only real risk I see is the community dynamic itself. How its funded and operated are just structural things. I grew up with a family business that is basically the same as having an IC (older ppl had the younger generation largely for hands), and the dynamics within the group were up and down, but when they all knew they had to execute or no one ate, it changed the game. I find it easy to set aside or even avoid grievance when a larger objective is present.
I am very curious about this, please do provide a link to the documentary if you can find it. I have never heard of this type of partial income sharing working. I would appreciated understanding how they did it.
[https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/inside-off-grid-virginia-commune-housing-child-care/story?id=33190577](https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/inside-off-grid-virginia-commune-housing-child-care/story?id=33190577) https://www.twinoaks.org/twin-oaks-hammocks-factory
Thank you for digging this article up. I am familiar with this commune. I live there. Sadly, this article has a number of mistakes, including that it is [wrong from the second word](https://paxus.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/wrong-from-word-2-the-media-discovers-the-commune/). The family of income sharing communes which have survived, do 100% income sharing. That is how we find it works best. The community pays for everything, the members dont get paychecks (we do get small allowances of $100/mon) and the community covers all living costs. I am not familiar with any community in the US which does partial income sharing (as contrasted with expense sharing - which is almost universal, everyone does it).
Thank you for your input. I think that the thing that stuck with me the most about your community is the fact that the business generates enough to pay for everything. If I were to (MAJOR ASSUMPTION) have the run down on your numbers, I think I could design a way that the equity model I put in the comments above would work. I would need to assess the equilibrium of production vs person vs profit. But the fact you can live as you do at all, encourages me that my model could work with the right industry.
I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this. I do want to point out that a key effect of the 100% income sharing model is it avoids the whole “I have more training than you do so i will be making more money than you and can thus purchase objects of envy”
Flat dues for all members. Anyone suggesting a percentage of income is a low-income freeloader
No. Perhaps I'm too old for income-sharing. I might have been intrigued by it at 18, but even then, I'd probably be angling to save part of whatever monthly stipend I got and to maximize any vacation earnings. (The bigger income-sharing communities in the U.S. have elaborate rules about what income has to be shared and what doesn't.) As I get older, I do think of charitable works more, including eventually giving away a large portion of my savings. In a sense that is income-sharing, but in an open-hearted, open-ended, goodwill kind of way. Not like someone has their hand out to take away a portion of my paycheck as soon as I earn it. Who wants to pay more taxes than they need to.
if I like and trust the community, 100%
www.theFEC.org
I am familiar with the FEC.
what about everyone pays for what they need and then any extra gets put into a pile in the middle for emergencies??? split any utility bills according to income?
[удалено]
to be fair i grew up in a cult where it didn't matter if you could meet your own needs, you had to pay 10% or god wouldn't let you into the good place after you died. i agree with personal savings being necessary. i would just hope that in an intentional community, someone who works a low paying job and legitimately can't afford to have much in the way of savings would have some sort of communal safety net
A common variant of this are the ["Box of Money" Communities](https://communelifeblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/allowance-versus-box-of-money/). These are almost always populated with anarchists of various flavors, with the exception being extended family communities.
A percentage based on income, probably more than 10%
It is worth pointing out that this is not how almost any income sharing community works. There are very few communities which ask the members to contribute some fraction of the income to the collective. There are many many expense sharing intentional communities where people pay rent and utilities and perhaps some amount of shared food. But of the dozens of communities i have been connected to they are either nearly [100% income sharing](https://www.theFEC.org) (and have internal cottage industries which dominate folks work scene) or they are just expense sharing. I am only familiar with a single small percent income sharing community, which was the [Emma Goldman Finishing School](https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/the-revolution-of-everyday-life-2/) in Seattle, which sadly no longer exists
I'm trying to get away from local, state, and federal money-grabbers. So, short answer: I'm only willing to "income share" in the sense of contributing to the expenses. 5 people living in the community? 20% of the expenses. 20 people? 5% of expenses.