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

Noth about policing, @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack . If I did misunderstand your post , that was perhaps because you didn’t express it sufficiently clearly. An erstwhile teacher of mine used to say that one of the remarkable things about the English language was its huge vocabulary with subtle variations of meaning.
I think it would be better to use our language positively to express your meaning without resorting to that level of expression, which, so far as I can see, adds nothing to the discussion and fails to bring persuasion to the debate.

I think rewarding work (& I make it clear that I regard unpaid caring as the hardest of work), with social privileges is the way forward. Carrot is always more effective than the stick. Make work pay in more ways than just money. E.g. free unrestricted travel passes for under 25s in work. A week of authorised absence allowed in term time for working families. Lots of little things that would motivate & also make working life a bit easier.

Thanks, but I don't need you to to police the tone of my posts. If I feel that someone is talking shit - and offensive shit at that - then I reserve the right to say so as bluntly as I wish.

If you feel that I've broken Talk Guidelines, then by all means, report my posts to MN and let them decide. It is not your job to decide what kind of language is "Mumsnet appropriate".

Well, the plot thickens! I would genuinely be fascinated to learn more about this inconsistency, but perhaps this isn’t quite the place….
However, my point remains that your style of posting isn’t really helpful.
Perhaps you could have suggested the inconsistency in Mumsnet-appropriate language?
On second thought thoughts, perhaps you did use Mumsnet-appropriate language; in that case, perhaps you could try to raise the tone a little for the general good?

You misunderstand. I was not "dismissing Aristotle". I was dismissing the rather poor attempt to co-opt Aristotle in order to try to justify a deeply flawed political argument.

Perhaps if you had remembered a little more of your philosophical education, you would not only have recognised the reference to Aristotle but you would have also recognised that the OP's argument was inconsistent with Aristotelian logic.

Personally, I'm notterribly impressed by people who use what they think is clever-sounding rhetoric in order to hide a fundamental lack of substance. It's what a former teacher of mine might have referred to as "all fur coat and no knickers".

As you say, we're not all philosophers.

Mrs Bennett, I really wasn't meaning to be patronising, and it's good to know you're fine with abstract language.

So, it's a shame that you find the post 'drivel' and 'a badly written word salad.'

Long ago though it was, I can remember enough of my education to realise that OP is referring to Aristotle's final or efficient cause ie the reason things are created or done.

I think the argument could be put more clearly for the purposes of social media, since we're not all philosophers; but it did grate to see such an important idea dismissed in those terms.

Patronising, much? Perhaps if you are so concerned about the tone of posts on MN, you should follow your own advice?

As for the OP's post, it wasn't the use of abstract language that I found wanting. You might be impressed with pointless word salad if you think it sounds good, but I tend to focus more on substance and depth of thought, which was sorely lacking.

I was just about to mention rotten boroughs myself, before I saw it at the end of your post! 😆

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack ,
I don’t think that’s a kind way to communicate. Let’s just assume you’re right and poor SBGM247 is a bit soft in the head.
Wouldn’t it be kinder to just smile and nod , figuratively speaking, eg., ‘Well done @SBGM247. You given us something to think about here.’

Or, on the other hand, the issue is that you just don’t get on well with abstract language, perhaps it makes you look a tiny bit silly to call a well written and thoughtful contribution drivel?

So far as I can see, you appear either unkind or a bit silly yourself. 🤔

Just saying.

Also not true. You often get beautiful parents with very plain children and vice versa. Genes can skip about.

What a lot of badly written drivel.

Zombie thread warning from a poster clearly out for trouble.

The value of work itself needs to be remembered, otherwise there is no point in working any more and the rich ‘positives’ are going to find that out by force before too much longer.

So what's the window for calculation? And is that calculation made ahead of an election or after it?

For instance, my daughter is 21. She's in a minimum wage job. She was claiming benefits for a few months this year. Now she's not. Does she get a vote in the next election? What if she gets ill and spends some time in hospital before the next election? Might that reduce the chances of her getting a polling card? What if I tell her to come home and live off me - so she'll actually contribute nothing herself - but I support her so she's also not taking anything and is part of my household? Does she get a vote? Though, actually, she'd still be using the roads, so that would count against her. Or can I cover that on her behalf?

Or, I guess, the system could be that she does vote, and then the system works out whether or not her vote counts, given what she's contributed or taken since the last election.

I mean, there are deprived areas of the country where, in effect, they wouldn't have an MP at all. Or maybe that MP would be elected by, I dunno, ten percent of the population. The ones with the big houses.

We'd need a name for those constituencies. Ooh! Ooh! How about 'rotten boroughs'?

You seem to assume that everyone taking more out of the system than they pay in is politically disengaged and would be happy to be ruled by their wealthier "betters", as long as the money kept coming.

This is incredibly naive. If you're from a working-class area where industry was gutted in the Thatcher years and never recovered, and you can't get work, and you already feel dehumanised and hopeless claiming UC . . . well, then voting is one of the only things you can do to say to those in power "we're still here, do something".

If you take that away, you leave people with no legitimate outlet to express their frustration. What do you think happens then, OP? How comfortable are you with violence? Because that's what you'll end up with. Look to communist China and Russia. Look to revolutionary France. It won't end well for you.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. You just expressed it better. The problem of their being so few other options to climbing the ladder is precisely why the education system is stuck in this loop of having to push certain subjects over others. Ones that provide more opportunities to obtain that elusive stable employment.

Given my career history,I'm in no position to look down on anybody, but I was fortunate enough to reach adulthood at a time I could rent a flat on my own on what was not even 'minimum wage' (because it didn't exist) and have money over. Buy a house with my partner in my early 20s even though his earnings weren't that high either.

You are right about where the problem lies, but given the pace at which technology is moving, I can't see how we can really get to where we need to be. More and more industries simply won't need the people at grass roots levels, and those that do don't have enough opportunities higher up. McDonalds needs a lot more servers than managers. Nursing homes need more carers than managers.

And those jobs simply don't pay enough. I don't know what the answer is. Apprenticeships and YT schemes are great, but simply aren't going to fill the mass employment hole.

We pretty much agree on most things, just not on where the system is actually broken. I agree, university should remain a meritocracy. Access should be based on aptitude, with contextual offers where appropriate, rather than pushing everyone through by default. Otherwise degrees do lose value. And you are right about the struggle for some students. Keeping people in environments that don’t suit them helps no one, not the individual, not employers, not the taxpayer.

Where things have genuinely changed is that the career ladder you are describing has largely gone. In the past, people didn’t just skip university, they entered stable organisations that invested for the long term. You could start junior, learn on the job, and expect progression, security, and a decent standard of living. That world has been hollowed out by offshoring, outsourcing, shareholder pressure, and consolidation. Fewer ladders. Fewer rungs. Less patience. Less security. And this is before we’ve even seen the full impact of AI.
That’s why simply saying people should work their way up no longer works. In many sectors there is no longer a way up, just churn. For a growing number of young people, 'going straight into work' now means the gig economy or influencing. The work offers flexibility in theory, but in practice it offers no training, no progression, and no stability. It isn’t a substitute for university and it certainly isn’t a pathway.

So I don’t think the answer is university or nothing. We need credible, respected alternatives that replicate the benefits of university without pretending everyone should be academic - a very narrow view of intelligence. Semi residential apprenticeships are one option. PwC’s Flying Start programme is a good example. Hybrid models that combine work with technical or vocational study, supported by properly funded institutions, can be genuine alternatives to university rather than second class routes. Not be confused with some big name apprenticeships where participants simply plug resource gaps for three or four years and emerge without a defined skill set.

The goal isn’t to look down on people’s backgrounds or break up communities. It’s to give young people a real chance to step outside narrow environments, because some worldviews do become entrenched and exposure matters. I do believe for many, you cannot be what you cannot see. That applies just as much to sheltered kids of the middle, as to disadvantaged ones.

We also need to stop sending mixed messages. We tell young people to stay in education or training until 18, then offer a handful of gold standard apprenticeships and act surprised when most opt for university instead of what they see, or have been told, are low quality, low paid alternatives. We sneer at 'ordinary' jobs in retail, factories, cleaning, or care, treating them as just for failures rather than essential, respectable, roles that should be decently remunerated. How much contempt is there for hardworking taxpayers who have 'ended up' at McDonald’s?

Many people didn’t really resent/ look down on working in retail, care, or manufacturing when those jobs provided stability, a home, savings, and a future. Much of the frustration crept in when work + pay no longer guaranteed a decent roof over their heads or any real sense of security. But we now have an economic system that no longer supports people who work hard...

If we want fewer people pushed into degrees that don’t suit them, we need to rebuild or create industries that are stable, develop medium and long term skills, and offer clear pathways of excellence, like the reputation associated with Rolls Royce apprenticeships. We need jobs that are respected and paid properly, with progression that doesn’t rely on credentials inflation, whether that is Degree or A Levels.

TLDR I don’t disagree with you about university. I disagree with the idea that removing it as the default solves anything unless we rebuild what used to sit alongside it. Without that, the gap isn’t filled by work or opportunity, but by insecurity, churn, and reliance on the benefits system - calling that progress and planning is a mistake.

I do see what you are saying. But I also think university still needs to be a meritocracy. I don't want to see bright kids denied an opportunity due to financial constraints, but the current system of most children expecting to go into higher education simply isn't working. We've got young people doing degrees that they need a lot of help and support with because they just aren't up to it academically. Not everybody is.

But there's a lot less opportunity now to work your way up through a company without a higher education qualification. Why? We had perfectly capable middle and senior management who'd learned 'on the job' as it were, in the days when as little as 5% of the population went. Obviously it's important that that 5% is the brightest and best, not just the richest, which used to be the problem, but access for all shouldn't equate to 'pushing everybody through the system at the cost of the value of the system', which I think is what is happening now.

And it's costing the country a lot, as fewer and fewer graduates are earning enough to pay back their student loans in full or even at all, and employers aren't overly impressed with graduates who still need their hands holding because that's how they've managed to get a degree. These aren't incapable people, these are people who might have done far better working their way up through the ranks, but instead were obliged to force themselves into the'round hole' of study, which is only going to give them all those skills you mentioned if the environment fits their mental aptitude and approach.

When everyone not only could get a degree, but has to get a degree because there are so few other options to move forward, the whole process is then forced to fit the students, including simplifying and offering extra support. It ceases to become the very thing that gave it value and it becomes just an extension of school. Basically, we are keeping kids in school until their 20s. And some of them would do so much better if they'd been at work from the age of 18, or even 16, because the working environment/learning on the job would have suited their aptitude better.

Slightly off track, again, there, sorry.

There's too much to unpack in this post, but here is clumsy abbreviated attempt. Whilst I believe we agree on most of your points, helping disadvantaged children escape cycles of low aspiration is how you create future contributors. Narrowly training kids for today’s jobs may look efficient, but it bakes in inequality and ignores the behaviour of corporates and the government. You also need to have people prepared to do the jobs being trained for - the shortage of care workers is a case in point.

Broad education builds confidence, adaptability and social mobility, important skills that turn children into independent, resilient adults who will eventually become contributors/ net contributors. The real problem isn’t Shakespeare versus skills but a government and society fixated on immediate fiscal returns, at the expense of the long game. You can see evidence of this everywhere, in our infrastructure, education, the benefits system, healthcare etc. There is a preference short-term vote winning sticky plasters rather than wholescale reform, retraining, and / or other strategies that might actually reduce dependency.

I don’t think seeing an English graduate working in a coffee shop automatically means the degree was a waste. What’s changed is the system around graduates, from government polices, housing costs, the financial cost of pursuing a degree to the number of graduate opportunities and the level of financial security those jobs now offer. In the 1990s, an ordinary job alongside a degree could still lead to stability and the realistic prospect of buying a home. These days I suspect for many grads and non grads Work + Pay ≠ security (long term and/or short term).

If university is no longer accessible/affordable/ available then we need something that replicates the benefits it provides, especially the chance to be taken out of a narrow environment. That experience matters almost as much for those from privileged but sheltered backgrounds as it does for those from disadvantaged ones. Without some form of disruption, horizons remain narrow and opportunities disappear.

Once again, I totally agree, but the further we go down the technological rabbit hole, the more education will be geared towards life in that world.

OP and PPS have pointed out the problems with the few financially supporting the many. I don't think this can be totally explained away by the idleness of the 'many', who could 'just' get better jobs. The higher up the ladder you climb, the fewer jobs there are, and whilst that has always been the case, it's getting worse.

So, what are we to do? We've, frankly, enough graduates working in coffee shops because there simply aren't the positions for thousands of social/media studies majors, who, in the past, would have been your builders/factory workers etc. And, frankly, I think a lot of the push towards degrees for all has more to do with massaging unemployment figures than anything else. Universities have become businesses, rather than seats of learning.

Education in and of itself is never a waste. But state education, as funded by the taxpayer, unfortunately does have a duty to turn out productive members of society who can, in their turn, pay in.

Re swapping/adopting children into new situations. This one chimes. My DH was born mid-50s. His parents wanted two children, but failed to carry another pregnancy to term, so after five miscarriages, they adopted a baby girl in 1963. She was given up for adoption by a very young woman who fell pregnant with a married man. Eventually they got together, were married and stayed together to death, but they never managed to have another child. It was a very sad situation for everyone, but arguably saddest of all for the adopted child who is clearly (as an adult with a very MC background and private education) not on the same level intellectually.

The real crime is turning education into a luxury only accessible to those with deep pockets.