I believe the better question to ask is:
If a community had to distribute profits what is the most equitable way to do it?
What profits though? The profits of free collaborative news site with adverts are always going to be very low on a per-user basis. How much money can you get for showing ads to 1 person?
Unless you're saying that it should just be the very very top submitters who get paid. But didn't Netscape.com already try paying "top submitters" to come use their site?
How much money can we make showing ads? Good question.
But how much money can be distributed if the objective is to be truly equitable?
Maybe its sustainable, maybe its not. But we had to ask this question. Who else would be this foolish? :-)
Its not just submitters who share the profits. People who read and vote are helping to filter and sort content. They are just as important.
Sorry to be snarky but this idea seems so ridiculously silly that I just can't comprehend how anyone could entertain it for even a second. What am I missing?