If, like me, you support providing people with a broad cash supplement financed by higher taxes on those with higher incomes, please let your congressional representative—and candidates for Congress—know.

The BOOST Act of 2025 (H.R. 6236), introduced by Representative Rashida Tlaib, would provide $250 per month to most adults ages 19 through 67. The payments would not be taxable or counted in determining eligibility for programs such as SNAP or housing assistance. The bill would help finance the payments through an additional tax on higher incomes.

It is a modest but important step toward basic income. It would establish the principle that regular, broadly distributed cash payments can provide greater economic security—and that the benefits of our economy should be more widely shared. The bill is quite cleverly designed.

You can read Representative Tlaib’s summary of the BOOST Act here.

You can find your representative and contact information at Congress.gov.

Ask your representative to cosponsor and support H.R. 6236, and let them know that you support basic income. Whatever form of basic income you ultimately favor, building visible support for concrete legislation is how we begin moving the idea forward.

If you contact your representative, leave a quick “Done” below. And if you receive a response, please come back and tell us what they say.

Thanks!

A mockumentary set in a post-work future where AI and automation have made employment obsolete, and eventually illegal.

Future historians look back in disbelief at a society where people were expected to sell most of their waking hours to employers in exchange for money needed for food, housing, and other necessities.

They explain strange historical practices like job interviews, bosses, performance reviews, commuting, asking permission to take vacations, and being fired.

The United States is treated as a particularly extreme case because many people depended on their jobs for health insurance. Losing your job could therefore mean losing both your income and affordable access to medical care.

Future scholars debate how employment could have been considered voluntary when refusing to participate could leave someone without the means to live.

Meanwhile, the unemployed are completely vindicated.

People once described as lazy, unmotivated, or failures are now portrayed as the first people to reject the ideology of work. Historians call them early post-work visionaries. Activists call them freedom fighters.

A guy who lived with his parents and played video games all day gets a museum exhibit honoring his resistance to compulsory labor.

What do you think of this mockumentary idea?

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.

Canada can't compete with the salaries that top US companies offer. So it should compete with something the US job can't offer: freedom.

If a Canadian gets a serious job offer from a highly selective US company, Canada should offer them lifetime UBI to stay.

No requirement to build a successful company or create X jobs. They could start businesses, do independent research, make games, invent things, or pursue whatever ideas they think are worthwhile.

The US company has already done the hard part of identifying exceptional talent. Canada would simply make a different counteroffer:

Go to the US and work on someone else's ideas, or stay in Canada and get paid enough to pursue your own.

Instead of trying to outpay Silicon Valley, Canada could try to become the safest place in the world to take ambitious risks with financial freedom.

What do you think of this idea?

​

Suppose AI and automation eventually allow society to produce the same amount of goods and services with far fewer hours of human labour.

What should happen to the gains?

Should working hours fall?

Should everyone receive some form of basic income?

Could consumers receive a share of company returns — a kind of consumer ownership based on rights to income rather than control of the company?

Should highly profitable tech and platform companies pay more tax, especially when much of their value comes from data, networks and automation?

Or is there a better way to distribute the gains from automation?

I’m curious what people here would design if the amount of necessary human labour really started falling substantially.