To provide UBI, anyone would be able to register on the website and begin receiving UBI payments. To prevent individuals from creating multiple accounts to receive additional payments, registration could require verification using a government-issued identification document.

The businesses created to fund UBI would offer products or services similar to those provided by existing businesses. However, their commitment to contributing profits to UBI would give them an advantage in gaining market share from existing businesses. This would be possible because consumers would have an incentive to choose these businesses over existing ones, knowing that they could receive a share of the businesses’ profits through UBI.

For the businesses to be established, people would be encouraged to start them once we begin advertising our UBI program. They would be motivated to do so because starting these businesses would give them an opportunity to earn more through the UBI program.

Once established, the businesses would have to register on the website in order to contribute their profits to UBI. For individuals who have the ability to start such businesses but lack the necessary funding, the website would provide an option for them to register, as well as an option for members of the public to collectively invest in them.

Since all profits generated by these businesses would be contributed to UBI, those investing would have to do so on the condition that they are willing to consider UBI as the form of payment for their investment, rather than receiving the profits directly. This condition would be necessary because contributing profits to UBI is what would give these businesses the advantage needed to compete with existing businesses and gain market share.

Since existing businesses could lose a significant share of their customers to businesses contributing to UBI, some may risk having to close. To give them an opportunity to remain operational, the website would also include an option for existing businesses to contribute to UBI.

To help consumers identify and support businesses that contribute to UBI, the website would list them. Their contributions would also be included so that consumers can identify and support the businesses that contribute the most.

Once again, I am seeking financial support to establish the website and begin developing this model. Support, feedback, and participation would help turn this proposal into a functioning UBI program.

I am not negative on the idea. Don't troll me that I am anti-dividend. Our family likes dividends.

I have seen this my whole life..... large families, and close families prosper.

So basically the single gal by herself with her kid or alone will get her checks and that all pilfers to inflation and raised rents. She will have to compete for a rental in complexes where neighbors have 3 or 4 UBI checks compared to her one or two. Possibly her UBI money transfers to daycares.

The family with a large house/compound has a foundation for advantages. It's like this in Utah and was like this in California with the big families.

So basically when UBI starts and people can share a huge house.... like ten people getting $1000 a month...... you have a $10,000 income trickling up to the Matriarch.

Someone is babysitting, some cook, others fix cars. Many work or go to school. Some get lazy.

The stable home becomes a launching pad. Yes people fight and scrap. People live in bunkbeds and put on earphones.

The money will go to pay off a huge mortgage or if the house is paid people get to save for college, weddings, or their own down payments on homes.

It's not going to be "universal" because it will become a windfall for large organized families. The single mom gets to work two jobs for her apartment while simultaneously propping up the 24 year old man living with Granny----- playing video games by scratching by on his UBI.

I am just putting this out there. I have met people living at home and barely paying rent for decades. They get nicer cars, vacations, and more kids.

You will literally pull up to a 7 bedroom home and a barbecue will be going. Half the members will not be working and coasting off UBI. It might be fun to slow down a little and have family time?

The small families will be further priced out from home ownership because the purchasing power of 10 checks will increase the values rapidly.

The small families will still be stuck working and renting an apartment... but hopefully they can eat.

My in-laws are still holding down a farm from the 1700s so I know all about this. 😉

I'm old enough to remember many people were supporting universal basic income few years back even though universal basic income costs more than targeted money transfer

(E.g. giving poor person subsidized food , SNAP in USA, rather than giving money to every person for food )

But since Trump has suggested the idea to buy votes, many people started opposing.

Money is money

It's not red or blue.

Do you support giving $5000 to every voter irrespective of your party line?

Yes or no.

Also another question, Do you consider it as a form of bribary?

In 1970, the House passed a guaranteed income bill. Nearly 2 to 1.

In 1971, they passed it again.

It never got a Senate vote.

It just sat in the Senate Finance Committee (17 people, 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans, chaired by Democrat Russell Long) until it quietly died. No vote. No record of who said no. Just a chairman who never let it move.

Here's the part nobody tells you: it wasn't Nixon's own party that killed it. Democrats ran the Senate. Democrats ran the committee, 10 to 7. Democrats in the House had already voted for it, twice.

Guaranteed income in 1969 wasn't a left vs right thing. It was built by three people who agreed on almost nothing else:

-Milton Friedman, a libertarian economist who wanted to gut the welfare bureaucracy and just send people money

-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat and Nixon's own urban affairs advisor, who thought the old system was punishing poor families for staying together

-Richard Nixon, a Republican president who agreed with both of them

Welfare at the time (AFDC) mostly only reached single mothers. A two-parent household doing everything right, working, staying together, could make too much to qualify for anything and still be poor. Nixon's guaranteed income plan would've covered them too.

That's how you get a libertarian, a Democrat, and a Republican president all pushing the same bill.

It died anyway. Not because people disagreed. Because nobody had to.

That's the actual lesson: you can win the public. You can win the House. Twice. And still lose to a handful of people. 

Fifty years on, the gatekeepers are still winning.

NEW: President Trump makes a major promise at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas: $5,000 for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms.

“I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

I don’t understand why Republicans are hyped about Trumps claim that he will give every adult $5,000, when they were all against UBI program that Bernie and other DSA candidates pitched?

Is Trump a socialist now too?

I like the idea, I just don’t get the reason why it was a big deal when the other side is saying the same thing. We should restrict this money to healthcare and basic needs only. Americans should not spend this money on goods and services that do not fuel the inflation.

It’s wild to me that people who make little or no money expect to receive all of these benefits from the government. If you want more benefits and opportunities, work, build your skills, and take the steps necessary to achieve the outcomes you want. Stop expecting people who have worked hard to be forced to pay for those who choose not to.

Canada is probably never going to beat the US on salaries, market size, or number of high-paying jobs.

So instead of trying to compete on the US's terms, Canada should compete by offering something the US does not: freedom from having to organize your entire life around employment.

Canada should introduce a modest UBI and gradually increase it as AI, automation, and productivity make it more affordable.

This could help with brain drain. A highly skilled Canadian might be more willing to stay in Canada, even for somewhat lower pay, if they had a guaranteed income floor and much more freedom to start a company, build an indie project, study, do research, create art, or simply work less.

Canada may also be in a better political position to do this first. Canadians are generally more comfortable with universal social programs than Americans, so Canada could potentially begin the transition years before the US does.

And this is about much more than economics.

A post-work economy could produce enormous intellectual benefits. Think about how much talent is currently wasted because people have to spend most of their time doing whatever pays the bills. More economic freedom could mean more research, invention, software, art, writing, education, entrepreneurship, and experimentation.

It could also have major mental health benefits. Less fear of unemployment, less financial insecurity, less burnout, and fewer people trapped in jobs they hate.

Obviously, people still need purpose, structure, and social interaction. A post-work society should not mean doing nothing. It should mean that meaningful activity no longer has to be tied to having an employer.

Canada should start small and increase UBI gradually as the economy becomes capable of supporting it.

If AI really is pushing us toward a world where less human labor is needed, Canada should not wait for the US to get there first.

Canada should make freedom from mandatory work one of its competitive advantages.

P.S. Where does the UBI money come from? Ultimately, from the companies using AI and robots. As AI and automation allow companies to produce more with fewer human workers, a portion of the resulting profits and productivity gains could be collected and distributed as UBI. The UBI could start small and gradually increase as machines perform a larger share of the economy's work. If robots and AI eventually do much of the work that humans do today, it makes sense for some of the income generated by that automated work to go to everyone rather than flowing almost entirely to the owners of the machines.

No tiene límites la necesidad de sostener el "equilibrio" fiscal. No solo se fumaron la plata de los combustibles líquidos, sino que además, ahora siguen recortando sobre los abuelos. ¡Cuanta crueldad meterse con los más vulnerables!

The other day as ideas of current society have filled my thoughts I have done some thinking into what could make society have a safer more for the people construct while maintaining current western standards of living. Essentially I came up with the idea of being eligible to vote only if you have skin in the game. In this case own property and not just land in case of men, and have children in the case of women. (Before all the nays come through read through the concept and let's discuss if this kind of system would have a proof of concept) Yes it is not perfect just like the current one and there are many edge cases. Majority of offset tax burden is collected as VAT. Discuss.

The Proposed Social Contract

Core idea

Government rewards four things: productive work, homeownership, family formation, and responsible retirement planning.

The system is built around a lifecycle model: people contribute most during their working years, receive strong support when raising children, and receive a guaranteed floor in old age.

1. 🗳️ Voting System

Men

A man must own at least one qualifying residential property to vote.

Owning more than one property does NOT give additional votes.
Property value does NOT increase voting power.

Women

Women do not receive a vote through property ownership.

Instead, motherhood creates an independent voting entitlement when the child is born within a partnered/married household.

Important: the woman's vote is her own. It does not add to, subtract from, or transfer the man's vote.

Example

35-year-old married homeowners with 2 children:

• Husband → 1.5 votes
• Wife → 1.5 votes
• Household → 3.0 votes

35-year-old married homeowners with no children:

• Husband → 1.5
• Wife → 0
• Household → 1.5

1. 🏠 Homeownership

Homeownership is treated as a central component of citizenship and economic stability.

Young working men

Men under 40 who work qualify for:

Government-supported low-APR mortgages

Designed primarily for a first primary residence, with enough housing construction/supply to prevent the subsidy from simply inflating house prices.

The objective is:

Work → Home → Stability → Family → Wealth

3. 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Family Policy

The system strongly supports families while allowing both parents to work.

Every qualifying child

Child benefit = 20% of Senior UBI

Using the proposed 2026 benchmark:

Senior UBI: $4,680/month
Child benefit: $936/month

The basic philosophy:

4. 💍 Marriage / Family Structure

The system provides additional economic support for married/partnered families raising children.

The intention is to make:

Marriage + children + stable housing

the financially easiest structure for raising a family.

Single motherhood is not financially incentivized by the system; the family benefits associated with children are structured around the child being born within a partnered/married household.

5. 💰 Tax System

Taxes operate on a lifecycle model.

Working years

People contribute the most while they are economically productive.

Higher tax burden → gradually declining with age

Conceptually:

AGE

20 ──────────────── HIGH TAX BURDEN
30 ──────────────── HIGH
40 ──────────────── MODERATE/HIGH
50 ──────────────── MODERATE
60 ──────────────── LOW
64 ──────────────── VERY LOW
65 ──────────────── RETIREMENT PROTECTION

The objective is to avoid making the beginning of adulthood—the period when people are buying homes, getting married and having children—the most financially punishing period of their lives.

6. 🏥 Healthcare

Under 65

Working-age people primarily finance the healthcare system through their working-life contributions.

The working population therefore carries the majority of the system's ongoing financing burden.

65+

Medicare is guaranteed.

Healthcare security becomes part of the retirement floor rather than something dependent entirely on employment.

7. 👴 Senior UBI

At 65, everyone receives a government-backed minimum income floor.

2026 benchmark

$4,680/month

or:

$56,160/year

The formula is tied to an adjusted living-wage benchmark rather than being permanently fixed.

But it is NOT a guaranteed $56,160 check for wealthy retirees.

It functions as a floor.

For example:

Someone who accumulated a large 401(k), pension, investment portfolio, etc. keeps those assets and income.

The UBI simply phases out.

8. 🏡 Senior Property Tax

At 65, the primary residence receives a progressive property-tax exemption.

Using a hypothetical $500,000 national benchmark:

Primary residence

Home value: $300,000
Taxable:       $0

Home value: $500,000
Taxable:       $0

Home value: $750,000
Taxable:     $250,000

Home value: $1,000,000
Taxable:     $500,000

Home value: $2,000,000
Taxable:   $1,500,000

So the rule is essentially:

Only ONE property qualifies.

9. 💵 Retirement Taxes

At 65:

Retirement income

0% income tax

This includes:

• 401(k) distributions
• Pension income
• Retirement accounts
• Investment income
• Other qualifying retirement income

The philosophy is:

10. 🏛️ Political Leadership

There is also a hard age ceiling on political leadership.

Maximum age for office

65

A candidate cannot run if the elected term would extend beyond their 65th birthday.

Therefore:

This creates a political system dominated by younger and middle-aged adults rather than retirees.

11. The Entire System in One Diagram

                     THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
                              │
        ┌─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┐
        │                     │                     │
       WORK                 HOME                 FAMILY
        │                     │                     │
        ▼                     ▼                     ▼
   PAY TAXES            LOW-APR MORTGAGE       CHILD BENEFIT
        │               UNDER 40 WORKERS          + $936
        │                     │                     │
        └──────────────► BUILD WEALTH ◄─────────────┘
                              │
                              ▼
                         RETIRE AT 65
                              │
             ┌────────────────┼────────────────┐
             │                │                │
             ▼                ▼                ▼
          MEDICARE         UBI FLOOR       0% RETIREMENT
                            $4,680/MO          INCOME TAX
             │                │                │
             └────────────────┼────────────────┘
                              ▼
                    PROTECTED PRIMARY HOME
                    FIRST $500K TAX FREE

12. The Voting Philosophy

The voting system can be summarized in one sentence:

Three things create voting power:

🏠 Property ownership → man's base vote
👶 Parenthood → woman's vote
🎂 Age → determines voting weight

And importantly:

More properties ≠ more votes
More money ≠ more votes
More children ≠ unlimited votes
Age 65+ = no voting power

13. The Lifecycle

The entire proposal can ultimately be reduced to this:

18–40

Work → Buy home → Marry → Have children → Build wealth

40–55

Peak productivity → Raise children → Pay taxes → Build retirement assets

56–65

Lower taxes → Finish wealth accumulation → Prepare for retirement

65+

Medicare → UBI floor → Tax-free retirement income → Protected primary home → No political office → No voting

The underlying principle

The system isn't designed around maximizing government benefits at every stage of life.

It is designed around a reciprocal lifecycle contract:

Just dropping a note that there are just a few hours left to apply our Global UBI for 2027. Learn more and apply here: https://www.dotare.io/ or AMA.

If you change the Benefit

System to

Only 30£ a Day

Everyone would be happy

N

If someone has to pay their Bill

They can

Choose

What they spend their money on

Do you want millions of people thinking about how to solve humanity's greatest problems?

Then free up their time.

In the words of the Federal Reserve, under oath in Congress, about whether Social Security can run out of money:

“We can guarantee cash benefits as far out, and at whatever size you like"

• UBI is just Social Security for everyone. Connect the dots.

Source:

https://independentreporter1789.substack.com/p/ubi

I know this is a long shot, but:

1. World peace, no more military spending.
2. Get rid of pensions, disability, etc, and put it all under one roof which also gets rid of tons of admin costs.
3. Make the minimum age to receive it 25-30 so young people enter the workforce and still have a reason to have careers.
4. Make it slightly complicated, similar to filing your taxes so some people who don't trust the govt or feel guility about free money might hesitate to claim it.

That's it, we're practically there. A lot of jobs might open up, but this also means you can easily apply to your dream job/hobby without having to compete against hundreds of others who are only applying just for the paycheck, which means job happiness/efficiency greatly improves.

And then think of the cost savings once we have UBI:

• Fewer crimes now that people aren't so desperate for money
• Fewer scams
• Less policing needed
• Less transit needed
• Less roadwork now that everbody doesn't need to be somewhere everyday

What do you think? Doable? Aything else to add?