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
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:36

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 16:35

A lot of it is about luck though.

I was lucky enough to be born into a loving, stable and supportive family who got me off to a good start in life. I was lucky enough to have a family that prioritised education and encouraged me to learn. I was lucky enough to go to an excellent school. I was lucky enough to be born with a high IQ that enabled me to do very well in academia and subsequently in my career. I was lucky enough to have opportunities when I was growing up to develop the soft skills that have helped me to succeed in the workplace. I have been lucky enough to have had good health throughout my life and not to have had my opportunities limited by disability. I have been lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time for multiple jobs. I have been lucky enough that my nearest and dearest have been in good enough health that I haven't had to give up work in order to care for them. Etc etc.

Yes, I've worked hard, but it would be a lie to say that I haven't also been incredibly fortunate.

There is no luck in a family through the generations. It's an endless amount of work, love, toil, hardship that each generation has endured to give better to the next. What on earth are you talking about? It's not 'luck' it's real people you're related to that did that for you.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:35

Havanananana · 12/01/2026 16:34

There’s a case for only those who pay tax having a say in who raises tax, but it’s still not morally right.

No - there is no case for this. If the only people who had a say in how taxes were to be raised and by how much were "the taxpayers" then they would just vote to reduce taxes for themselves, and cut all of the benefits and subsidies that taxes pay for.

This is essentially what all right-wing governments and parties propose, including the Conservatives and Reform.

It is also the situation in the USA, where those who have money can enjoy a good standard of private education and private healthcare - and everyone else can make do with second class services often delivered under third world conditions.

But you're OK with people voting to have more other people's money? That they didn't earn?

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 16:35

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

It's not just about luck though is it.

A lot of it is about luck though.

I was lucky enough to be born into a loving, stable and supportive family who got me off to a good start in life. I was lucky enough to have a family that prioritised education and encouraged me to learn. I was lucky enough to go to an excellent school. I was lucky enough to be born with a high IQ that enabled me to do very well in academia and subsequently in my career. I was lucky enough to have opportunities when I was growing up to develop the soft skills that have helped me to succeed in the workplace. I have been lucky enough to have had good health throughout my life and not to have had my opportunities limited by disability. I have been lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time for multiple jobs. I have been lucky enough that my nearest and dearest have been in good enough health that I haven't had to give up work in order to care for them. Etc etc.

Yes, I've worked hard, but it would be a lie to say that I haven't also been incredibly fortunate.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:34

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 16:31

Saying poverty is the default starting state shows a complete lack of awareness about generational wealth, parents being able to help their adult children with deposits in order to not be stuck with high rents that leave them unable to save etc. Your arguments sound like those a privileged sixth former with a very limited awareness of the real world, and little interaction with people outside of their own social bubble, would make.

Poverty is the default starting state. If you have a parent who has worked hard to provide something for you is a good example of how people can set their children up for success. Should we redistribute that wealth to give to families that didn't make that effort? Can you hear yourself?

OP posts:
Havanananana · 12/01/2026 16:34

There’s a case for only those who pay tax having a say in who raises tax, but it’s still not morally right.

No - there is no case for this. If the only people who had a say in how taxes were to be raised and by how much were "the taxpayers" then they would just vote to reduce taxes for themselves, and cut all of the benefits and subsidies that taxes pay for.

This is essentially what all right-wing governments and parties propose, including the Conservatives and Reform.

It is also the situation in the USA, where those who have money can enjoy a good standard of private education and private healthcare - and everyone else can make do with second class services often delivered under third world conditions.

StrawberrySquash · 12/01/2026 16:33

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 16:30

”financially” is the last word of that sentence.

No other contribution to society is worthy of representation in this thought exercise.

Can I ask why?

Nigel Farage for example is probably a net taxpayer on paper. But if you include the damage he's done to the UK economy, not so much.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:33

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 16:30

”financially” is the last word of that sentence.

No other contribution to society is worthy of representation in this thought exercise.

Can I ask why?

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.

OP posts:
Boomer55 · 12/01/2026 16:32

If net wealth makes more better people to vote, does this mean Johnson, Farage and Rees Mogg are the voice of the people? 🙄

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 16:31

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

"Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others."

Poverty is the default starting state.

Saying poverty is the default starting state shows a complete lack of awareness about generational wealth, parents being able to help their adult children with deposits in order to not be stuck with high rents that leave them unable to save etc. Your arguments sound like those a privileged sixth former with a very limited awareness of the real world, and little interaction with people outside of their own social bubble, would make.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:31

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 16:30

I guess in a way I have a certain amount of respect (probably the wrong word) for someone at least admitting they believe something cruel, unfair and discriminatory rather than tying themselves in knots pretending they didn’t mean what I thought they meant.

I hope you don’t ever share this opinion with any disabled people in your lives. Having said that, it would be quite good for them to know how you see them so they can remove you from their lives.

Nothing stopping someone who is 'disabled' from being productive is there? Unless you mean they're not cognitively capable? In which case they shouldn't be voting.

OP posts:
CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 16:30

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:03

Yes, not all opinions are equal. Your ability to vote should be based on your commitment and ability to contribute.

”financially” is the last word of that sentence.

No other contribution to society is worthy of representation in this thought exercise.

Can I ask why?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:30

StrawberrySquash · 12/01/2026 16:29

What's your point though? That being poor is the default so having no vote should be the default?

That people who work had to give their kids more and do better for themselves should be rewarded instead of having a system which thinks all wealth must be redistributed, that the state somewhere is our parent and has a right to do that. That the incentives are perverse and we're in a situation where the benefits system in this country is broken.

OP posts:
throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 16:30

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:36

Correct. I think they deserve to be looked after, to pursue happiness and everything else, but as they're taking out more than they're putting in they haven't earned the right to vote.

I guess in a way I have a certain amount of respect (probably the wrong word) for someone at least admitting they believe something cruel, unfair and discriminatory rather than tying themselves in knots pretending they didn’t mean what I thought they meant.

I hope you don’t ever share this opinion with any disabled people in your lives. Having said that, it would be quite good for them to know how you see them so they can remove you from their lives.

JHound · 12/01/2026 16:29

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:29

Silly strawman.

I don’t think you know what a strawman is.

JHound · 12/01/2026 16:29

This is approximately the same level of daftness as JD Vance suggesting people with kids should have more votes than those without.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:29

JHound · 12/01/2026 16:27

Oh it would massively disenfranchise women compared to men.

Maybe that’s why OP supports it.

Silly strawman.

OP posts:
StrawberrySquash · 12/01/2026 16:29

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

"Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others."

Poverty is the default starting state.

What's your point though? That being poor is the default so having no vote should be the default?

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 16:29

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

"Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others."

Poverty is the default starting state.

Well not at the moment in this society. In yours it would be for all the worker bees.

But the likes of you and the nobs would be fine.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:28

Tabletricia · 12/01/2026 16:25

While wholly disagreeing with the OP’s premise, I do think there is an issue with voters thinking that those on £100k etc are ‘totally loaded’ and therefore should shoulder any tax increases single handedly, despite the many threads on here showing that if you’re a single parent with 2 kids in nursery and on £101k then someone on the minimum wage with housing benefit, child benefit, UC top up etc can easily have much more disposable income. People cannot comprehend other people’s finances.

Last year the Scottish government raised the income tax on those earning from £75k-£125k from 42% to 43%, conveniently forgetting that the marginal rate of tax for those earning £100-125k was already 65%. Did the finance minister understand this? I’d bet my bottom dollar she’s utterly clueless.

There’s a case for only those who pay tax having a say in who raises tax, but it’s still not morally right.

Exactly.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 16:27

Meanwhile, I can't imagine thinking that someone should be disenfranchised simply because they're not fortunate enough to be able to earn as much as I do.

It's not just about luck though is it.

OP posts:
JHound · 12/01/2026 16:27

BadgernTheGarden · 12/01/2026 13:29

Are you including everyone not earning enough to pay tax?

This would target the poor, a lot of women, disabled people and the young as well as the scroungers you are trying to target. Back to where it was years ago only male, wealthy people over a certain age could vote.

Oh it would massively disenfranchise women compared to men.

Maybe that’s why OP supports it.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 16:27

StrawberrySquash · 12/01/2026 16:10

YABU because it would be heavily weighted in favour of the rich. Part of the reason any rich person is rich is lucky, be that inheritance, an amazing skill like a footballer, or just being in the right place at the right time like Bill Gates. See the Malcolm Gladwell theory that Gates hit a very specific point in time when his obsession and hard work aligned with a specific market gap. Obligatory throat clearing that the Beckhams and Gateses of this world work hard for their money too.

Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others.

So all in all that makes for an unbalanced electorate. It also values people accordingly to their wealth which is an unpleasant idea.

"Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others."

Poverty is the default starting state.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 16:27

angelos02 · 12/01/2026 16:10

I agree OP. I can't imagine not paying in but having a say in how it is spent!

Meanwhile, I can't imagine thinking that someone should be disenfranchised simply because they're not fortunate enough to be able to earn as much as I do.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 16:26

ContentedAlpaca · 12/01/2026 16:20

But if we don't educate people well, the country will suffer

I think that’s the point.

An uneducated population will enable pyschotic inhumane zealots to rise to the top

Wordsmithery · 12/01/2026 16:26

So SAHMs (or dads), those with disabilities that prevent them from working, the retired, carers, volunteers... In fact anybody who doesn't meet your narrow definition of contributing to society (i.e. based on the amount of tax they pay).... All disenfranchised.
Wow.
Why not go that extra tiny step and say they should be euthenised?

Swipe left for the next trending thread