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

I apologise if my phrasing has offended. I did say above that our treatment of people with additional needs is central to being a decent society. I also said that a medical opinion and an activist opinion are unlikely to be similar.

It's basically the system that existed in the 1700s and 1800s. As you correctly point out the problem is that the wealthy (who are only allowed to vote) would always vote for lower taxes and only the minimum in healthcare and welfare to stop the poor from revolting. However as we saw with the French and Russian revolutions the poor make up the majority of the population so if they feel ignored or disenfranchised then they will simply start a revolution.

The problem with the current system is that it is in the interest of the majority of voters (who are not net contributors) to vote for whichever party promises ever greater Government spending (health care, benefits, education etc etc). There is a limit to how much this can be funded by "taxing the rich" so more and more is funded by Government debt. This ultimately results in fiscal collapse.

Weird post. I wasn’t harping on about the disabled. Also I don’t see what operations and surgeons has to do with the discussion, nor why the opinions of a surgeon vs the opinions of an activist paraplegic is relevant to this discussion.

You haven't that I've seen. I was responding to your comment about ''harping on'' about the rights of disabled people.

I don't think I have said anything that could be interpreted as removing rights from anyone.

Not as it should, no. But my not having a vote at all, which was your proposal, would give me even less, wouldn't it?

Under a plural vote system, you would probably qualify for at least two votes in my view. One for being over 18, and the second for your public service to looked after children. If you and your partner are married/in a recognised partnership, you'd probably qualify for a third for having some stability. So while it is quite complicated, it would actually grant you more influence over the political debate, not less.

As long as people are happy to suggest taking their rights away, be it voting or something else, it will get ''harped on'' about.

So nothing outside your family? No, not enough.

Give time, care, education, support to someone you don't care about. So far, all you do is pay tax. A bit of a taker really.

Society benefits more from nurses, social workers, road sweepers, teachers, carers than it does from you, Daddy Warbucks. Get off your high horse.

Pull the other one.

If you needed an operation @SweetcornFritter , you'd see a surgeon. I'm not willing to cut bits out of you!

I don't think harping on about the rights of the disabled is very helpful. Almost all of us acknowledge that their protection and dignity is essential to considering ourselves a civilised society. But if you asked me whose opinions I would rate more valuable between an orthopaedic surgeon and an activist quadraplegic, I would struggle to calculate the relative values.

So I still don't get any say in the industry I work in? Oh, good. Somebody with an unrelated degree gets to vote for a government with education being the forefront and I get no say in it because I don't meet rather daft criteria.

I’m a foster carer for our local authority to 3 children, 2 with complex disabilities. As a foster carer I don’t earn enough to pay tax. I’m not eligible for any benefits as my husband works full time.
By your reasoning I shouldn’t be allowed to vote as I’m not paying taxes? What about the amount the local authority are saving by paying me less than £1 an hour to care 24 hours a day 7 days a week for children/young adults with complex disabilities who will never be able to live independently, require all their personal care needs met, tube fed and medication through the night.
what about parents of disabled children who can’t work because of caring commitments do you think they aren’t contributing to society?

Enough staff to adequately address needs. Permanent staff who aren't exhausted because there aren't enough staff.
Standardised systems so you don't have one school using ReadWriteInc and another using something else.
Proper facilities for SEN instead of dumping them in the classroom and crossing fingers.
But mostly, I just want to be listened to. As a non-net contributor who does the job, I want a say in how it should be done from a point of knowledge which those who don't do the job frankly don't have.

If some people genuinely believe that disabled people and/or their families should have less rights through no fault of their own then they are past saving.

and perhaps keep in mind that everyone is an accident or illness away from disability.

No idea how this relates to what I wrote. Of course I would want to be operated on by a fully trained surgeon, one who pays his taxes and has the right to vote, so how does this answer my question, which to remind you was to explain how not having the vote improves outcomes for the disenfranchised.

I see. It's funny now is it?

The lame excuse of the sexist and racist.

Talking about taking away the right to vote for disabled people and those who care for them isn't ''fun'' when you have a disabled child.

Chesterton is being misapplied here. His test was whether a system lets ordinary people live securely through honest work and build stable lives. If that isn’t happening for lots of people, Chesterton’s point is that the system has failed, not that those people should lose their vote.
Using him to argue for restricting political voice is the opposite of what he was saying.

So going back to when only the gentry got a say in the running of the country?
sounds horrific!

Do you want the workhouses back too?

Just so I’m clear - the majority or nurses and teachers are not net contributors. So you don’t think they should vote either?

Of course it's low stakes. I seriously doubt that there are any senior SpADs lurking for ideas.

But I do think that there is room to explore a representational system that acknowledges effort and work. I award everyone one vote, at 18, to stick to the status quo. But when you might finish your degree, you'd earn another for being better educated. Complete professional training and the final exams would entitle a nurse, teacher, doctor or accountant to a third vote; this might encourage employers to buck up their ideas about staff training, which would be a plus. Marriage or property purchase could be another vote. None of this limits an ordinary person's aspirations via wealth or privilege, because they are all steps any sensible society wants its citizens to aspire to fulfil individually. It think it would be important to say there's not a ladder of completing the steps. Some of these votes would be parallel, so you might get 1-2-4-6. or 1-3-5-6.

None of them are purchasable.

One would be a period of civic/public/military service, which might parallel further or degree education, awarded for years of service. I haven't thought it through closely enough to explain any details, and I also think you have to plan in an entrepreneurial route.

So on election you hand your paperwork to the clerk and you get handed the appropriate number of papers. You can split your vote across parties, or cast them all for the same party. The vote count might be a nightmare however.