There are various level of resource sharing to consider. There is the basic expense-sharing model of traditional housing co-operatives (paying into a system for paying rent/lease/mortgage, maintinance, utilities, and maybe food). There's income-sharing, which tends to scare a lot of people ;0) Then there's full on asset sharing, which really scares people.

(bucket adds:)
Where the money comes from is also an interesting aspect. Do the individuals work for outside businesses? Do they own the means of production or are they working for wages?

A community business as the primary source for the communities income serves as a great equalizer. The ownership of the means of production is what makes the ruling class the ruling class, according to Marx.
(end bucket's addition)

A level of economic autonomy and flexibility is important; avoiding classism is also important. In considering a model that is economically just I would suggest considering various sections of the UN Charter on Human Rights. Here is what I think is the most relevant passage:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

In the absence of state or local gov't taking responsibility for the fulfillment of this, I think organizations created for, among other things, mutual support (i.e. community) ought to take it as their responsibility to fulfill this.

Personally, I like model developed by the Emma Goldman Finishing School <www.egfs.org>. They have a system involing shared labor and income, but allow for personal earning/spending after the necessary contributions by each member have been made. But there is a spending cap (some $$ amount per year). Any earnings beyond this cap are donated to the community's "social-justice fund", the main purpose of which is to start communities similar to Emma's.


So just to throw out posible problems early, what about folx like Jeremy Google, who has a high salary (which potentially could be capped like Emma's does) but also has stock options, of varying and unspecified value? Alternative to a cap (which is a fixed amount) might be a tith (which is a fraction of income. This aspect more than diet, location, spirtuality, relationship model will determine hwo lives at the place. Marx was right, it is economic determinism. - Paxus

A stock option, or other unrealized asset, might not be considered until it was turned into cash and then could fall under the rules for income for the community. If stock options are significantly in lieu of salary, ie, the member is not contributing near the community's expected amount, I could see the option being transferred or cashed out to the community.

I think there are too many varieties of commodities to codify all of the possible arrangements. Each plan could be somewhat individualized within a framework of principles: say, some combination of the Emma model and the Twin Oaks model of pre-existing assets being set aside.

One important point to consider will be whether members can accumulate assets towards retirement or pension, either within the community or to use after they leave the community. What do others think would and wouldn't work in those cases?

I might point out that the New York Catholic Worker makes no attempt to regulate finances, relying entirely on personal responsibility, commitment, and example. They also maintain a large network of extended community- regular contributors, volunteers, and folk who maintain ongoing roles and jobs, some of whom don't live in the physical community. In two recent cases, two people who didn't live in the houses, retired to the houses after a lifetime's contributions, receiving full-time care and support.

-Thomas