Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property?-Sliding Fees

[Sue Pniewski (SPniewski]

Liz- 
I think this would be a much more effective discussion if you didn't
personally attack the writer's ideas/thoughts/feelings.  

That said, I don't think Kay's stories prove your theory.  I think she
accurately demonstrates that different ways work for different groups.
IMHO, I don't think a sliding scale is fair.  I think a sliding scale is
socialistic at best.  Everybody needs to contribute equally to get the same
benefit.  Otherwise, all the people out there who are working VERY hard for
their money will basically be subsidizing the people who make less.  It's
fine if the people who make less feel comfortabhle with their income level,
it doesn't have to elevate or lower their "status" in the community, but
sliding scales do just that.  SOme people are forced into subsidizing
others.  I would think that would stir up a bunch of resentment, whether or
not you realize it.  Maybe you should think about that more carefully.  
To Illustrate:
Why should I pay twice as much as Mr. Jones next door, because I work very
hard, scratched and scraped through school to get a better job, worked 2
jobs to pay off my student loans and make sure my kids go to good schools,
then pay more than Mr. Jones because he's not willing to make the same
sacrifices?  I certainly don't feel that he should, but I also don't feel he
should benefit from my HARD work and sacrifice.  This country was founded on
the ideal that we all work hard to get ahead, provide for our families, and
help your neighbor if he needs it, but not to subsidise his lifestyle.
I know those of you out there with the idea that it's ok to subsidize thy
neighbor think this is some utopian way of diversifying your communities,
and that's fine if you can live with that, but some of you are bound to feel
resentment towards those getting to slide on the assesments, whether or not
you admit it. Sorry but as a tax lawyer working with lower income clients
pro bono I have seen thousands of families working just enough to pay the
bills so they can get earned income credit (free money from my and your
pocket via taxes) and then live off that for a few months.  The abuse is
staggering!  They don't want to work.  They giggle at my desk about getting
$5,000 plus in free money.  We are moving away from the idea that it's
admirable to work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor, and moving into
the mindset of lets see how little we can get away with working and still
have enough cash to buy those tommy hilfiger jeans.  IMHO subsidies are
rewarding the people who don't choose to work as much.  I know, perhaps some
would find that offensive, sorry, I don't mean that those who choose to
teach in a school that doesn't pay much whould be less valued than those
that choose to be doctors, not at all, they are both valuable and necessary,
but I do think that we should all be treated equally.  We should not be
valued by our income at all.  TO do that, we can't make people pay more or
less according to their incomes.  If one member pays less, than someone else
has to pay more, or else the COMMUNITY as a whole makes do with less.  So
what that does is bring the whole community down to the income level of it's
least affluent member.  I can't see how that benefits anybody, except the
self righteous ones who are sure they are doing the best thing by being
charitable to the poor.  Charity is great, but it should be volunatary.
Sliding fees are forced charity, which suddenly is not charity, but
socialism.  They also give the lower spectrum of income no incentive to
strive, for a better job, a better career, this is going to open up a whole
bunch of response I'm sure, just my opinion...  Temporary abatement in case
of need might be more fair.
Because if you assess at the lowest common denominator of income, then
hamstring the gifters by not allowing gifts, or by attaching huge
contingencies to the gifts, suddenly everybody is living in the standard of
living that the least affluent member is living in.  So why work hard?
Sounds more like a commune than a community, because it's just another way
of income pooling.  
The only way to be fair is to assess each membership stake equally.
I really feel that assessing people more or less based on INCOME is bound to
create resentment sooner or later.  How are the communities that are doing
the sliding scale getting around this? Human nature will dictate that there
is bound to be some resentment, spoken or not.
Still trying to hash out details here and need the input.
     


-------------------------------------
Susan Pniewski, Esq.

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Stevenson [mailto:tamgoddess [at] comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:54 PM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of
community property?

> 
> Some real-life examples:
> 
> The University of Utah Medical School was offered multiple millions, with
> the proviso they be renamed after the donor.  The administration accepted.
> The medical school faculty and staff's hostile reaction to the
announcement
> of the proposed name change was such that they returned the money, with
> apologies.  A year or so later, the U of U College of Business cheerfully
> renamed itself for the same donor.

THis is not cohousing, or a community, except in the broadest sense of the
term. How does this apply?
> 
> During construction, an adjoining piece of land was for sale.  The
cohousing
> group didn't have the money to purchase it, although a number of people
felt
> it would be nice to have the land for an orchard.  Several members were
> willing to put up the money, with the idea that eventually the group would
> pay them back.  During a difficult meeting, a couple of other members
> protested that if these people were willing to loan money to the group,
they
> should loan it for *whatever* the group wanted to do with it.  The
proposal
> was amended that the loan repayment would be a voluntary assessment.  The
> deal fell through when the land was taken off the market.  A year later, a
> member purchased the land herself, and regards it as her private property.

If a community decided that they needed to prepare in advance for the
purchase of a larger plot of land, they might be able to pull it off. I
still fail to see how this illustrates anything but a failure of your
process. We have similar trouble trying to make decisions quickly, when they
involve money and/or a big change for the community. THis doesn't mean that
we abandon the process. If it were really important to your community to
have that land, you'd have it.

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L