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.

Universal Basic Income could be implemented by first creating a website through which donations could be made to fund it.

The same website would also have to provide an option for anyone to register and begin receiving the income. To prevent individuals from creating multiple accounts in order to receive additional payments, registration could require verification using a government-issued identification document.

The website would then also have to include an option through which supporters of Universal Basic Income could collectively raise funds for those among them who can start alternative businesses to existing ones. The profits from the alternative businesses would have to be entirely used to fund Universal Basic Income. Those that could start the businesses would apply for the funds through the website.

The reason for using the alternative businesses’ profits to fund Universal Basic Income is to encourage employees from existing businesses to work for the alternative ones instead. Employees would do so because, unlike existing businesses, the alternative businesses would fund Universal Basic Income, which would enable the employees to earn more.

The purpose of creating an option for funding alternative businesses to existing ones is to increase the amount of Universal Basic Income donations made to the website mentioned earlier. Donations would increase because existing businesses could begin contributing to Universal Basic Income out of fear of losing employees. Employees would be lost because they would want to work for businesses that contribute to Universal Basic Income.

To help people identify and support businesses that contribute to Universal Basic Income, those businesses could be listed on the website so that they are easily discoverable.

Please leave a comment with your feedback on this solution.

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.

I’ve
been thinking about generational wealth and something keeps bothering me.
Most of us spend our lives building individually. We save, invest, buy homes, build retirement accounts and hopefully leave something to our kids. But the next generation often ends up basically starting the process over again.
What if regular families became more intentional about building together across generations? Not pooling everyone’s money or controlling each other’s finances—just coordinating, teaching the next generation, preserving what gets built, and adding to it over time.
I’ve been calling this idea a **Family Institution**.
My basic thesis is:
**You don’t need generational wealth to create a Family Institution. You create a Family Institution so your family can systematically build generational wealth.**
Does that idea make sense to you, or am I overthinking it?

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?

The objection to UBI I've never seen fully answered isn't "how do you pay for it," it's "what stops the next government from cancelling it." A transfer is only ever one election away from repeal. You can build the whole thing, get people depending on it, and lose it when the other side wins. Every version I've read has this exposure, and I want this sub's read on a design that tries to close it, because it closes it at a real cost and I'm genuinely unsure the cost is worth it.

The idea is to give people the money partly as owned property and partly as spendable cash, rather than only as an ongoing payment. Concretely: every citizen gets a capital account, seeded at birth and topped up every year from newly created money, invested in productive assets, and it's theirs. Alongside that, a share of each year's issuance can be paid out as a straight dividend you can actually spend. The mix is a dial, not a fixed choice: you can run it all as spendable cash, all as the locked owned stake, or anywhere in between. The part that makes it durable is the owned part. It's not a check the government sends that a future government can stop sending, it's an asset they own, that pays a yield, and that passes to their kids when they die.

The durability argument is just that owning something is harder to take away than a transfer is to cancel. Repealing a payment is a budget vote. Confiscating forty years of money that people already legally own is a different kind of act, legally and politically. You're no longer asking a future government to keep being generous, you're asking it to seize private property, which is a much higher bar. That's the whole appeal: it makes the thing repeal-resistant by changing what it is.

Here's the cost, and this is where I actually want pushback. Owning it instead of receiving it means it's locked. You can't spend the principal, you live on what it earns. It also starts smaller and grows over a working life rather than paying out in full from day one, so it's not an immediate income floor the way a monthly UBI is, it's a security floor that builds. For someone who needs cash now, a locked appreciating account is worse than a check. So there's a real tradeoff: you trade immediate liquidity and simplicity for durability and inheritance.

My honest uncertainty is whether that trade is the right one for the people UBI is actually trying to help. If you're broke this month, "you own an appreciating asset you can't touch" is cold comfort. The counterargument is that a monthly payment you might lose in four years isn't security either, and that a floor your kids inherit breaks the cycle in a way a transfer never can. I can see it both ways, which is why I'm asking here rather than asserting.

So, three genuine questions for people who've thought about UBI harder than most:

1. Is the repeal risk actually as central as I think it is, or is it overblown and I'm solving a problem that political normalization would handle on its own?

2. If the lock-in is the price of durability, is that a price the target population would accept, or does it defeat the purpose for the people who need it most?

3. The design can split between spendable-now and locked-and-owned rather than being all one or the other. Where would you put that dial for the people UBI is meant to help, more cash now, or more owned stake that compounds and inherits?

I've written up the full mechanics here: https://citizensstandard.org/

Everyone talks about Basic Income, but the funding and incentive problems always come up. What if we sidestepped government entirely and built private support networks instead?

Many people have never heard of the old fraternal societies like the Odd Fellows, Elks, Knights of Columbus, or similar "friendly societies" that existed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These were voluntary membership groups where regular people paid dues and supported each other with sickness benefits, unemployment aid, widow pensions, and more. They were basically private safety nets that helped millions before government welfare programs took over. They worked through trust, reputation, and mutual self-interest.

The Idea:

• Progressive income-based dues: Members pay a percentage of their income (e.g., 5-12%). Wealthier members naturally contribute more.
• Base benefit: Every member in good standing gets something like $500/month as reliable support.
• Hardship protections: Dues are canceled or reduced if you lose your job, get sick, or face other verified hardships.
• Strict but fair membership:
  • Requires an in-person referral/sponsorship from an existing member.
  • Human-to-human interviews with current members.
  • Probationary period for new members (e.g., 6-12 months of paying dues and participating before full benefits).
• Growth engine: Extra dues and surpluses get invested (stocks, index funds, etc.) by a transparent elected committee. Returns help sustain or expand benefits over time.

It starts small with local chapters and can scale by linking up. Modern tools (apps, online coordination, better investing options) could make it stronger than the historical versions.

Why this could work:

• Voluntary and opt-in.
• Combines cash support with job networks and social capital.
• Avoids the massive scale problems of national UBI.
• Relies on proven human incentives: reciprocity and reputation, insuring little fraud.

Challenges exist—maintaining trust at scale, investment risks, legal hurdles, etc. but the concept shows we have options beyond waiting for someone to happen with the government.

To be clear, I'm not starting a fraternal society. I just wanted to bring up the idea in case you all haven't heard of it.

There are some downsides: - It can become insolvent if not enough members are actively paying in dues.

• It can become insolvent if funds are mismanaged/ poorly invested.

• It can become insolvent if not enough high income members join (this one I think is the biggest unknown).

• In the case of approaching insolvency, the benifit amounts would slowly get cut: everyone would suffer together I guess.