(US) Introducing Comingle: An opt-in UBI (Universal Basic Income) to provide a stable weekly income based upon users contributing 7% of their income (comingle.us)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by centof@lemm.ee to c/personalfinance@lemmy.ml

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Comingle is an interesting idea that would act as a pseudo emergency fund to provide a stable week to week income for their users. It could act to stabilize your income if you have an irregular income or as an backup plan or insurance for when you lose a job or income source. It works by distributing the average of all their members contributions weekly to each user. Once the service starts, the end result will be a net gain for those with low income and a payment to provide a guaranteed monthly income for higher earners.

For those with low income, any amount of extra money can aid in the pursuit of opportunity and keep things from turning desperate.
For freelancers and gig-workers, reliable weekly income can ease the complications of sporadic cash-flow.
For those with more income, Comingle lets you help others, sends you a little extra cash on slow weeks, and provides a safety-net if things take a turn for the worse.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with them. I just got this in an email newsletter and was intrigued.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] flipht@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Since so much of our social safety net is run by states, and since so much is based on poverty numbers, it's interesting to learn how that poverty threshold was originally calculated

Spoiler alert, it was just made up by some bureaucrat's personal beliefs about "expected costs" for a "normal family."

https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/about/history-of-the-poverty-measure.html#:~:text=The%20current%20official%20poverty%20measure,account%20for%20other%20family%20expenses.

It hasn't been adjusted for the insanity of today's expenses, not even counting inflation. In the 60s, they didn't have the same medical, educational, or transportation costs we do, let alone other stuff like rent and daycare.

It's literally a meaningless figure that is kept artificially low to limit who is eligible for assistance.

[-] centof@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Your link says its based on the cost of food for 3 people in a family at the 1960s . Surely there is nothing else you need in life besides food. /s It didn't account for anything besides food cost. Not housing, vehicle, or gas cost.

Here's a good read by about how ineffective the US's safety net is https://www.scottsantens.com/the-progressive-case-for-replacing-the-welfare-state-with-universal-basic-income/ . TLDR Only 25% of those eligible actually use it.

Side note: this site was unfindable on google even when searching "scott santens welfare progressive" in google. Interesting.

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023

33 points (72.0% liked)

Personal Finance

3857 readers

1 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

WandererLagomorph799@lemmy.ml

nieceandtows@programming.dev

nieceandtows@lemmy.ml