Re: a slush fund for temporary financial relief
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
> On Oct 20, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Alan O'Hashi via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] 
> cohousing.org> wrote:
> 
> A "slush fund" may make assistance a one-stop shop, but if a person or family 
> is in distress, the community will rise to the occasion - no coddling 
> necessary.

I agree. I think this is wonderful advice

I wouldn’t call it “coddling” necessarily, but there is no easy way to do 
institutionalized subsidies on a continuous basis. Judging “need” is in the eye 
of the beholder. And it creates beggars and givers. Or beggars, donors, and 
judges. 

People will step up when it is an emergency. And the focus will stay on the 
need and the generosity rather than on a regulatory systems.

One person reported that when he needed to go to graduate school to remain 
employed, he found an envelop with $200 (adjusted for inflation) in his cubby 
every month. He never knew where it came from. In another people made 
contributions to an adoption fund for a single parent. Dinner, theater, and 
babysitting for a German family leaving after a two-year fellowship who had not 
been able to afford a visit to the Kennedy Center.

People also donate things that either enrich the community or in the end lower 
monthly fees — A flat of flowering plants in the spring. A new rug for the 
playroom. Monthly deliveries of supplies for the CH. Toys for the playroom. 

The impulse to set up special funds, etc., are well intended but hard to 
administer. That’s why a basic income would be less costly than the enormous 
system of allotting and regulating food stamps, subsidized school lunches, aid 
to dependent children, etc. 






Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.