Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

959 replies

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:21

Trigger warning: strong political views / rant incoming. A shrinking group is expected to fund an expanding system. The system increasingly penalises work while rewarding dependency.

AIBU to think the modern state is a parasite, and that only those who are a net positive in taxes should be able to vote, rather than forcing working people to support an ever-growing dependent class?

Currently ~21% of working-age adults are economically inactive, meaning not working and not actively seeking work (according to a research brief from the House of Commons). Democracy is broken if voters can vote themselves benefits paid for by others. Representation should be weighted toward those with demonstrable responsibility and contribution.

Currently, the state is extractive and hollowing out the middle class. As anyone that has the eyes to see and ears to hear will know, dependency is rising and and demographics are changing at a rate not seen outside of wartime.

To address this simply, I think if you’re on benefits you should lose the right to vote until you’re a net positive. That would restore equilibrium.

This is essentially Chesterton’s test of a society.

"An honest man falls in love with an honest woman. He wishes, therefore, to marry her, to be the father of her children, to secure her and himself. All systems of government should be tested by whether he can do this.

If any system, feudal, servile, or barbaric, does in fact give him enough land, work, or security that he can do it, there is the essence of liberty and justice.

If any system, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Reform, or technocratic, does in fact give him wages so low and conditions so insecure that he cannot do it, there is the essence of tyranny and shame."

If the state could stop turning people into dependents that working people have to pay for, that would be great. The state is bloated, fixated on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation, and actively working against the people it is meant to represent. It is incapable of creating the conditions for wealth, stability, and independence. This is managed decline, and we need some adults in the room who have read a book. AIBU?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 17:13

.

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 17:13

No taxation without representation. So I’m going to give up my job, pay no tax, and claim benefits. I will never pay enough tax to earn the vote (and even if I do it’s not a permanent right) so what’s the point in working at all?

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:13

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:12

By virtue of work and effort

But if we are talking about the family that you're born into, it isn't your work and effort that has made the difference. So why would you think that you're more deserving than anyone else?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:13

ItsPronouncedThroatwobblerMangrove · 12/01/2026 17:10

…this sounds awfully like you’re arguing there’s some sort of inherent genetic superiority in some people. But of course you couldn’t mean that, could you?

Do you think people are equally good at everything? Does everybody get the same marks in maths?

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:12

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:11

It sounds exactly like the OP believes that some people are inherently more deserving simply by virtue of their birth.

By virtue of work and effort

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:11

Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 17:02

It's not only that, it is that those jobs are not valued. Women mostly bear the caring burden and that burden allows the rest of the country to work. We need to re-evaluate what we think are worthwhile inputs.

Yes so family unit would cover that. One can be the childcare and the other the earner. Or both can work.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:11

ItsPronouncedThroatwobblerMangrove · 12/01/2026 17:10

…this sounds awfully like you’re arguing there’s some sort of inherent genetic superiority in some people. But of course you couldn’t mean that, could you?

It sounds exactly like the OP believes that some people are inherently more deserving simply by virtue of their birth.

ItsPronouncedThroatwobblerMangrove · 12/01/2026 17:10

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:58

It isn't luck. You could no more of been born into my family as you could Denzel Washington. There is no alternative universe where you have different parents. You are made up of a genetic code that's been continued through your family since people first became people. Stop drinking the markist kool aid. We are not lego bricks. You cannot just replace people and swap them out thinking it's all the same.

Edited

…this sounds awfully like you’re arguing there’s some sort of inherent genetic superiority in some people. But of course you couldn’t mean that, could you?

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:08

Kirbert2 · 12/01/2026 17:06

That's just as bad as OP's system.

But more honest.

queenMab99 · 12/01/2026 17:07

So money is the only measure of someone's worth? Nothing else is of value?
I think a bloody revolution would be preferable.

Kirbert2 · 12/01/2026 17:06

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:02

A much better system would be if people could buy votes. Say £1,000 a vote. If you can't afford a vote then you don't get a say in how other peoples hard earned taxed money is spent.

Obviously if you have worked hard and invested wisely you can buy more votes. As should be your right as a more worthwhile member of society.

That's just as bad as OP's system.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 17:04

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:58

It isn't luck. You could no more of been born into my family as you could Denzel Washington. There is no alternative universe where you have different parents. You are made up of a genetic code that's been continued through your family since people first became people. Stop drinking the markist kool aid. We are not lego bricks. You cannot just replace people and swap them out thinking it's all the same.

Edited

You're talking crap now. On an individual level, your genetic and familial inheritance is pure luck and nothing else. You did absolutely fuck all to "earn" your genes or the family background into which you were born, and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you were no more deserving than a child who was born into a very different family.

But your arguments are becoming increasingly sinister now. I suspect that you're being deliberately offense because you're enjoying winding people up - at least, I sincerely hope that that's the case and that you're not actually as morally bankrupt as you appear to be. Either way, I pity you.

Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 17:03

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:18

I added a screenshot showing current voting results. I assume you can't see it on your end yet as it has to be approved. FYI 21% agree with me so far.

That means 79% don't agree so far.

Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 17:02

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:17

They're at minimum wage because gov keeps importing low cost people to do to those jobs. If the jobs didn't get filled they'd have to raise wages. Think about supply/demand.

It's not only that, it is that those jobs are not valued. Women mostly bear the caring burden and that burden allows the rest of the country to work. We need to re-evaluate what we think are worthwhile inputs.

SerendipityJane · 12/01/2026 17:02

A much better system would be if people could buy votes. Say £1,000 a vote. If you can't afford a vote then you don't get a say in how other peoples hard earned taxed money is spent.

Obviously if you have worked hard and invested wisely you can buy more votes. As should be your right as a more worthwhile member of society.

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 17:02

What net benefit is there for the high earning, hard working, disabled person in this scenario not having the vote?

The NHS has ‘lost’ the money that funds their treatment either way. What benefit is there for the greater good / “betterment of all” if they don’t have a vote?

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 17:01

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:00

You could do anything you like but does someone else think it's valuable enough to pay you for it?

I think it’s more valuable than anything else. But people can’t afford to pay volunteers.

And in your world, volunteers would be everything.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:00

ilovesooty · 12/01/2026 16:59

We don't have to. You've previously stated it.

Could be fluid.

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 17:00

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:10

Are you assuming my gender?

No, your sex.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:00

Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 16:59

Nothing is free. It is free at the point of access. We all pay for it before or after we use it.

Agreed.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 17:00

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 16:58

Depends what you mean by “value”

Someone in this model could give full time hours of volunteer work and not earn representation. They could, in theory, provide free childcare to enable parents to work and earn the vote, while not earning it themselves because they don’t pay income tax.

A person could donate their time and expertise to provide free healthcare, keeping the workforce healthy and generating wealth, but not have the right to representation.

Working for the greater good is valuable to society unless you only judge “value” to be money in vs money out?

You could do anything you like but does someone else think it's valuable enough to pay you for it?

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 12/01/2026 16:59

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:09

Blank slate at 18. You get everything free before 18.

Nothing is free. It is free at the point of access. We all pay for it before or after we use it.

ilovesooty · 12/01/2026 16:59

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:10

Are you assuming my gender?

We don't have to. You've previously stated it.

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 16:58

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:33

Money is just a representation of value and time isn't it. I don't care so much about the £ just using it as a heuristic to make the argument that people need to contribute and earn, and those who aren't capable of that need looking after and are dependents. Instead, we have a broken system where people who aren't working can be better off than those that are.

Depends what you mean by “value”

Someone in this model could give full time hours of volunteer work and not earn representation. They could, in theory, provide free childcare to enable parents to work and earn the vote, while not earning it themselves because they don’t pay income tax.

A person could donate their time and expertise to provide free healthcare, keeping the workforce healthy and generating wealth, but not have the right to representation.

Working for the greater good is valuable to society unless you only judge “value” to be money in vs money out?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:58

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 16:54

Of course it's luck.

Yes, my parents worked hard to give me the best possible start in life, and I'm sure that their parents and grandparents worked very hard before that, but as a child being born into that family, I did nothing to earn that lucky start in life. It was purely an accident of birth.

A baby born into a very different family with far fewer privileges and/or a significant disability would have been no less deserving than I was.

You can kid yourself all you like that it isn't luck if you like, but you'd be wrong.

It isn't luck. You could no more of been born into my family as you could Denzel Washington. There is no alternative universe where you have different parents. You are made up of a genetic code that's been continued through your family since people first became people. Stop drinking the markist kool aid. We are not lego bricks. You cannot just replace people and swap them out thinking it's all the same.

OP posts: