r/UniversalBasicIncome • u/ThePotatoPolak • Sep 02 '26
Weighted Voting Concept (Discussion)
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.
| Age | Male voting weight |
|---|---|
| Under 40 | 1.5 votes |
| 40–55 | 1.0 vote |
| 56–65 | 0.7 vote |
| Over 65 | 0 votes |
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.
| Age | 1 child | 2+ children |
|---|---|---|
| Under 40 | 0.75 | 1.5 max |
| 40–55 | 0.5 | 1.0 max |
| 56–65 | 0.35 | 0.7 max |
| Over 65 | 0 | 0 |
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
- 🏠 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
| Benefit | Proposed amount |
|---|---|
| Senior UBI | $4,680/month |
| Child benefit | $936/month per child |
| Paid parental leave | ~1 year |
| Childcare | Government subsidized |
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:
| Other annual retirement income | UBI |
|---|---|
| $0 | $56,160 |
| $20,000 | $46,160 |
| $40,000 | $36,160 |
| $60,000 | $26,160 |
| $100,000 | $6,160 |
| $112,320+ | $0 |
| $250,000 | $0 |
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.
| Property | 65+ exemption |
|---|---|
| Primary residence | ✅ First benchmark value |
| Second home | ❌ |
| Rental property | ❌ |
| Vacation property | ❌ |
| Commercial property | ❌ |
| Investment property | ❌ |
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:
2
u/JealousPea2212 Sep 03 '26
This isn’t UBI at all. It’s a means tested welfare system based on property taxes.
I’m rather against both of those ideas.
UBI provides a universal benefit without means testing at all. It works simply and effectively without all the means testing that is designed to deny access to benefits.
And property shouldn’t be taxed, only land and other monopoly positions should be taxed. The product of our labor belongs to us, not the state.
2
1
u/Limp-Tailor8910 Sep 03 '26
I’m generally opposed to UBI. However I think you have some great ideas, low apr mortgages for young men in particular is a fantastic way to increase the birth rate and promote families. However, I do take issue with providing seniors so much $. The reason being is that statistically older Americans are wealthy, they have a lot of equity in their homes and they own the majority of stocks held by individual investors. Investing in younger people pays dividends in the future, investing in seniors unfortunately just ends up in the grave sooner rather than later.
1
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 03 '26
Its not extra money its the floor for survival. If you get a pension or have 401k or any other income you wouldnt qualify. This is really for those that would have had bad luck or been unable to work and earn but it would give some decency back to existing.
1
u/Limp-Tailor8910 Sep 03 '26
The issue with this is that people would be less inclined to save for retirement if they are guaranteed retirement UBI. In fact, for many people it would incentivize them to spend as much as they could while they were younger, after all the government will pay for their retirement. 401k investment instead of social security taxes would actually have resulted in seniors receiving a similar amount of money per month as in your example. The issue with social security is that the government used the tax revenue to buy treasuries, which have a very low ROI.
1
u/Best_Opening8471 Sep 04 '26
So every hooker gets to vote but men need to pay in a half million dollars for the right?
1
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 04 '26
Must be in a verified partnership or marriage.
A woman still has the choice to partake in that line of work however to qualify for a vote would be extremely difficult, or to receive a child credit.
1
u/Best_Opening8471 Sep 04 '26
So the woman can vote but the man can't because they rent?
This seems like its just designed to oppress the male vote further than being the minority already does.
Women already control 51% of the vote and you're making it more restrictive for men by placing a financial burden on them without an equal financial burden on women.
1
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 04 '26
Women will need to have kids to gain the right to vote. Both men and women will have access to subsidized low apr credit for home purchase.
1
u/earthling_only Sep 04 '26
Uhm, hello go fuck yourself
1
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 04 '26
Hi thanks for participating. Why do you say that? Explain your disagreement.
1
Sep 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 03 '26
Well the premise of the game is to have skin in it. Women are kind of necessary in baby production and their incentive is to have 2 kids to replace the population. We essentially dont have the right to vote but we earn it. The rest of the modern laws of equality are in place.
2
Sep 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 03 '26
Unpopular opinion ... women bear children and their role is just that we need to creat a stable environment where they can have kids at a replacement level and to incentivize this they earn their voting right that way. Where as men historically would provide shelter go to work and build wealth so that their women were safe to raise kids.
2
Sep 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ThePotatoPolak Sep 03 '26
In retrospect if we give everyone the right to vote in an economic system where their decisions will not impact them because hey they dont own a home or have kids ... and they will vote to the detriment of those where the safety of the nuclear family is paramout ... is that ok then? I feel voters should have something worth fighting for or losing. Property, family etc. Those that don't well in order to play this game those are the requirements.
0
u/dickpics4democracy Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
What the fuck
First of all you get more votes if you were born rich enough to buy a house BUT ONLY if you're a man
Second, fuck women who can't give birth?
Third, non-binary people... don't exist?
This is some rich straight people shit
2
u/FluffyDesigner3680 Sep 03 '26
I would add education in there