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

Like the White Queen, I am capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast. However, by this time of the evening my credulity is all spent for the day so I am afraid it can't stretch far enough to take you seriously!
Once again, your commitment to maintaining this grotesque comic character is admirable. Dozens of posts on and you still haven't broken keyfabe, anyone would believe you are genuinely making these unhinged suggestions in earnest, rather than the elaborate satire it is. I sincerely hope I am right, as I said the idea that you might be for real makes me shudder!
In the vanishingly unlikely event that your representation of yourself and your circumstances is anything approaching the truth, it would surprise me that such a high worth individual would be frittering their valuable time away annoying people on MN, wouldn't someone as busy and important as you pay someone to make a nuisance of themselves on the internet on your behalf?
Also, top tip for starting future troll posts, you could have cut out most of the waffle and just said that you favoured replacing democracy with plutocracy, which entirely and succinctly sums up your farcical suggestion and would have had a similar impact to your more long-winded OP. Though, as I said previously, your OP is already a pitch perfect satire of the kind of drivel that a certain type of person, who I assume you are parodying, would spout on the internet in order to make themselves look more intelligent than they actually are. Just wanted to give you some ideas for your possible future efforts in internet irritation.

Like the White Queen, I am capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast. However, by this time of the evening my credulity is all spent for the day so I am afraid it can't stretch far enough to take you seriously!
Once again, your commitment to maintaining this grotesque comic character is admirable. Dozens of posts on and you still haven't broken keyfabe, anyone would believe you are genuinely making these unhinged suggestions in earnest, rather than the elaborate satire it is. I sincerely hope I am right, as I said the idea that you might be for real makes me shudder!
In the vanishingly unlikely event that your representation of yourself and your circumstances is anything approaching the truth, it would surprise me that such a high worth individual would be frittering their valuable time away annoying people on MN, wouldn't someone as busy and important as you pay someone to make a nuisance of themselves on the internet on your behalf?
Also, top tip for starting future troll posts, you could have cut out most of the waffle and just said that you favoured replacing democracy with plutocracy, which entirely and succinctly sums up your farcical suggestion and would have had a similar impact to your more long-winded OP. Though, as I said previously, your OP is already a pitch perfect satire of the kind of drivel that a certain type of person, who I assume you are parodying, would spout on the internet in order to make themselves look more intelligent than they actually are. Just wanted to give you some ideas for your possible future efforts in internet irritation.

So why have you proposed a system that isn't meritocratic? Wealth generators do not intrinsically have more 'merit', and I explained why that is the case.

In the past, I've worked for people who fit your original 'net contributor' metric. If it was up to them, they'd vote for every policy that ensured they didn't have to provide any basic health and safety and should only pay the barest minimum of wages. In fact, I worked for some of these pre- minimum wage and I can tell you now, none of them would have voted for a minimum wage.

Many of the employment rights we have today we wouldn't have if only the 'wealth generators' had a say. How is the owner of a nursing home who cuts corners and pays staff as little as possible to gain the wealth which makes them a 'net contributor' of more merit than the minimum wage whistleblower who stood up to their practices? Yet under the system you propound, the supposed 'meritocratic' one, the owner would have a vote because apparently they are 'better qualified'.

A meritocracy is not a bad idea, your mistake is your quantification of 'merit'. Lots of absolute amoral shysters earn a lot of money.

I guess that would rule you out, then. What a shame.

Votes aren't only based on financial issues.

In that case, disabled people should only be able to vote regarding issues involving disabilities.

Oh wait, most of them wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Why should someone be able to vote on issues involving disabilities if they don't know anything about it?

So low paid staff such as cleaners and nurses should get to vote then?

Honestly, fuck off. People's worth in society isn't measured solely by how much tax they pay. And if you earn less than about £50k you aren't a net contributor. Of course that amount increases if you have health issues or children too.

I'm a net contributor to the pot but have also been a lower earner. My value as a member of society isn't higher now.

So an interesting concept that was indeed practiced in the 1700s and 1800s. The obvious glaring flaw is that the wealthy will always be incentivised to vote for whichever party promises to have the lowest taxes.

The problem then is that is that the poor tend to get a bit upset about living in poverty and dying early. Being the majority they then tend to revolt (as Marie Antoinette and Tsar Nicholas found out the hard way).

On the other hand in our current democracy where 1% of highest earners pay 30% of all income tax, the next 25% pay 75% and 43% pay no income tax at all then voters are incentivised to vote for whichever party promises to pay for the most benefits and services. Or as Alexander Tyler put it:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

So both options have their flaws. In order for democracy to work long term you need voters to vote based not just on their own self interest. Unfortunately that is not in human nature and voters will always prioritise immediate benefits over fiscal responsibility, leading to instability.

But it wouldn't happen like that. It DIDN'T happen like that. Not all wealthy people understand wealth creation as a whole. Many only understand it from their specific perspective. As in 'I have acquired it, and I'd prefer fewer people had the opportunity to acquire similar because that means less for ME. It also means fewer people will be willing to work for ME at the low rate I will pay them. It is not in MY interest to vote for policies which enable more people to acquire the wealth I have.'

This is the basis on which societies with restricted voting such as you suggest work. Human will always fight to preserve their own interests. In a democracy, restricting voting only serves to ensure that fewer interests are served. Historically, the net result of these policies has been feudalism and an inescapable class system which has not ended well.

The Soviet Union is a prime example. Lots of us agree that wasn't great. Few people think about the cause of the revolution, the reason that system came about. It came about precisely because of the sort of feudalist system which ensured the peasants had no say in how the country was run and no means of getting a say apart from the one they eventually chose.

Our system may be imperfect. But it's a damn sight better than restricting the democratic right to vote to a handful of self-interested individuals who are unable to think beyond their own wealth retention and their need to retain a class that exists only to serve the business of the 'wealth generators'. Most wealth generators do not, in fact, have much interest in the wealth of the nation as a whole, which is why they are rarely at the forefront of campaigns to increase wages for those they employ.

You can just say “it wouldn’t” rather than give me a non answer because obviously it wouldn’t.

OP

AI will make most middle jobs redundant, there will be a few incredibly wealthy people, more so than now and many more unemployed than now.

Have you not thought ahead? Perhaps your job won’t exist in 5 years and you will lose your vote as well as your income.