AIBU to think if you're a net negative in tax you shouldn't be able to vote?

Nobody pays 55% tax. It’s impossible with the personal allowance and basic rate tax band. Additional rate is only 45%.

Because women are another category of people that has often been denied the vote. Women and non-property-owners got the vote in the UK at the same time: in 1918. Even then, it was another ten years before women had completely equal voting rights with men.

Why would it be women??!

That amounts to outright discrimination against sick or disabled people. Who's next? Pensioners? Women? Unpaid carers who can't work?

Yes, but not every criminal goes to prison.

Anyone in prison does lose the right to vote during their sentence @Bushmillsbabe.

35% in some local elections (though in my ward it actually reached 50%) - !'m happy to say it's not that bad in general elections. 60% last time, and I thought that was shockingly low!

Unpaid carers especially are invaluable, yes they do it out of love but it is hard work and the amount they save the NHS and the country is astronomical

The NHS would crumble without them, as would the countrys finances

Yes , quite. Thank you for your thoughts.

I wouldn't describe the current net recipient's as a slave class, I think your whole argument rests around the fact that they aren't in fact. There are net recipients who receive state funds and then choose to avoid work, they are able to spend on luxuries if they so choose.

In your model I can foresee a situation where the net recipients are forced into work with no choice (I am not against this in some form, I do feel that if someone is physically able to work and has been receiving benefits for over 12 months they should be doing volunteer work for the benefit of the nation/community. Such as litter picking, maintaining local parks or similar. There needs to be far more thought and regulation around who gets exemptions but a general policy framework) I can also see a situation where the net recipients are not given a choice on spending, they are given food stamps and that is it, no excess spending allowed. It would be full on feudal surf levels.

Well, you don't think you're scolding me or being patronising.

I don't think that my post in any way got in the way of constructive conversation.

We are each entitled to our own perspectives.

However, if you were really interested in engaging in a constructive debate about the views expressed by the OP, then you could have simply ignored my comment, or reported it to MNHQ if you believed that it broke Talk Guidelines, and then carried on with your deep and meaningful conversation. Instead, you chose to go off on a virtue-signalling tangent about "Mumsnet-appropriate language" which totally distracted from the subject of the thread.

Again, that's your prerogative. Going off on irrelevant and unnecessary tangents isn't against Talk Guidelines, and from my perspective, the OP's musings were not particularly interesting or worthy of debate in the first place so it's no great loss. But I do think it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of getting in the way of constructive conversation when you're the one that has chosen to go off in this particular direction. I am perfectly happy to agree to differ and to leave it at that, as expressed in a previous post, but for some reason, you seem more eager to continue the conversation with me than to engage with the rest of the thread.

It's getting a little boring now, I'm afraid, as it seems that we are just repeating ourselves. I would therefore be grateful if we could just agree to disagree, and you can perhaps then get back to making a constructive contribution to the OP's scintillating conversation.

I really don’t think I’m scolding you, being patronising nor any of the other things you mention.

My point remains that expressing oneself as you did gets in the way of constructive conversation.

@Sixtysomething

Firstly, I don't require any validation from you or your former English teacher. I have not made any claim that my post was one of the finest examples of the English language, nor indeed that it was intended to be. This is Mumsnet and not a work of literature. I was merely agreeing with the fact that the English language can indeed be used to convey specific nuances and meanings, and pointing out that some of those nuances and meanings might not always align with your personal version of what constitutes "Mumsnet-appropriate" language. I do not post here to please you.

With regard to my manner offending you...well, I would apologise but I don't really feel the need. I found the OP's posts offensive, illogical and poorly written. I am perfectly entitled to express this view on an open Internet forum, and indeed, perhaps if you had chosen to engage with me as to why I thought that the OP's post was drivel, we could have had a productive discussion. Instead, you appointed yourself to scold me in an incredibly patronising manner because you didn't approve of my tone. Arguably, that intervention was far more likely to derail the discussion than my original comment, and yet you chose to do it anyway.

Of course, it's entirely your prerogative to lecture other people about what they should or shouldn't post on Mumsnet, as this isn't against Talk Guidelines, but equally, it is my prerogative to choose to ignore your recommendations if I don't find them be of any value or interest.

As for having a constructive conversation around the OP's nonsensical arguments, i don't think I'm stopping you from engaging with the discussion. However, it seems that you're more interested in trying to teach me how to behave than you are in engaging with the debate.

This is all very well and of course we can agree to differ.

Firstly, my teacher was talking about the subtlety of the English language. I'm sure she wouldn't have included your comments as fine examples of English usage.

Secondly, I don't agree with Op's suggestion, not at all. In fact, I assumed from the outset that it was actually a joke. I'm now starting to think perhaps he was serious.

You comment was on the Aristotelian bit, which I personally thought was interesting. and merited consideration, rather than your dismissal.

Having thought it over, I think there is a flaw in it, but I don't think that was probably what you meant when you dismissed it as you did.

Yes, your manner does offend me, quite reasonably , I think, as it makes productive discussion difficult - nothing to do with sanitisation, euphemisms etcetera..

Anyone can see in ten seconds that it's a ridiculous idea that only 'net contibutors' should vote. That doesn't mean we can't have a constructive discussion around it, if that's what people want to do.

Your teacher was right. The English language does indeed have a huge vocabulary with subtle variations of meaning. And amongst those variations of meaning, we can sometimes opt for expressions of disgust or disdain. Such responses won't always be appropriate, of course, but sometimes there is a place for them.

You might think it would be "better" to always use language "positively", however you choose to define that. You are perfectly entitled to hold that view, and you can word your own posts in whatever way you like. Others might find your tone rather condescending and patronising, but that's not really your problem. Just as it isn't my problem if you find my posts too blunt.

Personally, I wouldn't ever want to see Mumsnet sanitised to the extent that honest and unvarnished opinions are edged out in favour of polite euphemism and the pretence that all views are equally valid. I welcome the directness and robust exchange of opinions on these boards. Back in the real world, women are constantly socialised to "be kind" and to avoid saying what they really think - MN is one of the very few places where we can just tell it as it is, and I value having an honest space where we aren't expected to treat obnoxious and offensive views as worthy of respect.

We can agree to differ.

Agreed about the slave class, bearing in mind the human propensity to enslave(in various ways).

But the issue you face with your suggestion is it does not guarantee competent people would be in power and it most certainly does not guarantee people with good morals or those who are thinking about the best outcomes for everyone would be in power.

The average human puts themselves first or at least their direct family. Even more so when those who suffer as a result are not people that they know personally.

By limiting votes to net positive cost to the state you will almost certainly guarantee in the long term a slave class is formed.

It wont happen overnight but there will be a slow creep towards more and more exploitation for those who do not have the vote ultimately culminating in some form of slave class.

Absolutely agree, motivate and engage

A vote is a fundamental right of being in a democracy and cannot be linked to paying tax. Not so long ago that women were thought not deserving of a vote and thankfully we have moved forward from that.

Contribution to society can be measured in much more than pounds and pence, those who volunteer either officially or unofficially to help others, those who take on unpaid responsibilities, such as school governors etc.

There could be a discussion that those who don't respect our laws and right by committing criminal offences could potentially lose their right to vote, but even that is tenuous.

I agree completely, @survivingoutofspite.

For a start, there are many ways to contribute to society - raising children, volunteering, unpaid caring, to name but three - and these are equally valuable.

Secondly, we are all affected by the decisions made in Parliament, and therefore we all deserve a say in who is representing our interests there. If only tax payers could vote, you could very easily end up with a government that focussed only on policies that benefitted the tax payers, to win/buy their votes, and the vulnerable in society would be thrown under the bus.

No, voting should be for everyone
You are being very unreasonable

Just saying...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning