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

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.

Pensioners, students, carers, low paid workers…

This old "net contributor" fallacy again.

Firstly, someone's contribution to society should not be measured solely in terms of money or tax paid. Millions of people in low-income jobs contribute to society in non-financial ways, and without them society would collapse. Whether they are performed by people who are unskilled or even well educated, there are countless vital jobs that are so poorly paid that people have to claim benefits in order to survive. There are people such as carers who "earn" virtually nothing but whose contribution saves the State thousands of pounds as the people they are caring for can stay in their own homes and not require the services of paid carers 24 hours a day. There are low-paid workers such as transport workers and construction workers, without whom there would be no trains or roads for the supposed "high earners" to travel on. There are cleaners in hospitals, refuse collectors, technicians and so on whose contribution is only noticed when they're not there. Doctors and surgeons might be well-paid, but no operations can take place if the hospital and operating theatres are not clean and equipped with fully functioning devices, and no patients are going to be treated unless the admin team has managed the schedules, ensured that the patients and staff know who is coming, when they are coming and why they are coming.

Secondly, "net contributor" only measures someone's status at any given moment in time. For the first 21 or so years of their lives, most people are paying very little, if anything, in income tax. They are receiving education and healthcare, are travelling on public transport and on public roads, their lives protected by police officers and so on. Likewise for the last 21 years or so of their lives, most people will not be "contributing" in the sense that they might be receiving more in benefits and state pension than they are paying in income tax.

Thirdly, "net contributor" usually only refers to income tax, but people pay plenty of other taxes. 20% of the price of many purchases goes towards VAT. People pay fuel duty, and alcohol and tobacco duty. They ultimately pay any duty imposed on imported products.

Forthly, the Government does not only raise taxes through income tax, and it is not only individuals who pay tax. Companies and corporations pay tax (and NI contributions, which are just another form of tax).

What a stupid thing to think, write and post on the internet.

Have we helped enough with putting together your argument for your school debating team?

So this sounds like a Chinese style social credit system?
Start with voting and then add in other punitive measures?

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

I can take or leave voting. Voting has never done anything to help my own lifestyle though it may have helped others.

We have cost the govt very little. Haven't used the state school system. Only used the NHS for one birth out of 3.
We're lucky to have three healthy children and no disabilities.
How would you factor in people that don't do paid work but do volunteer. Or family carers who save the state on the coast of care?

Anyone is only a freak accident or serious illness away from not being a new contributor. What happens then?

You'll also knock out a disproportionate amount of women due to caring responsibilities.
The more I think about it the worse an idea it is!
An electorate should represent it's society as far as is practical.

Not really, as that requires these philosopher kings to own no property and receive no salary. Which pretty much renders your entire system of conferring authority only upon those who have wealth defunct.

I am just about a net contributor as a teacher but I think I contribute an awful amount to society. Are my colleagues on mainscale not allowed to cite be user they have chosen to work in public services rather than go into a high paying career post graduation?

It's like the machismo-filled Cabinet Office which made so many mistakes during covid. See the evidence of then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Helen McNamara:

Just a day after Cummings’ appearance she told the Inquiry women became invisible overnight and “the exclusion of a female perspective led to significant negative consequences, including the lack of thought given to childcare in the context of school closures.”
[...]
MacNamara’s witness statement added: “There was a serious lack of thinking about domestic abuse and the vulnerable, about carers and informal networks for how people look after each other in families and communities. There was not enough thinking about the impact on single parents of some of the restrictions. There was a disproportionate amount of attention given to more male pursuits in terms of the impact of restrictions and then the lessening of the same (football, hunting, shooting and fishing). There was a lack of guidance for women who might be pregnant or were pregnant and what those who were key workers should do.”
[...]
Yesterday, the inquiry was read messages in which MacNamara was described as a “c**t” by Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Boris Johnson – something she said was “horrible to read” but was “both surprising and not surprising”.

“Macho” overconfidence was pointed to as an issue in government decision making, and this was echoed later by David Halpern, former chief executive at Whitehall’s Behavioural Insights Team.

• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/covid-inquiry-ppe-domestic-violence-helen-mcnamara-boris-johnson/

And only the rich, healthy OAPs at that!

What's also interesting is that the OP appears to recognise "looking after my DW's family member with dementia" as a contribution to society and the country.

Presumably he is not waged to do this care? And therefore not taxed on doing this care?

So he does recognise (in some recess of his mind) that it is possible to be contributing to society – sometimes extremely heavily – without that contribution appearing in the tax record.

And of course there's a correlation between the people who are doing lots of unwaged work and the people who do not earn enough to pay much tax. As women we understand this very well.

This one-dimensional "only taxable income is a metric of human contribution" is the sort of nonsense I thought we'd seen the back of with the move from a male-centric world view. But no, apparently still alive and well and dominating the OP's thinking.

Also what about children. If I have lots of kids do their costs count against me? You'll take the vast majority of parents out of the electorate if so. It'll be OAPs, nepo babies and the childless.

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

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.

ok, thanks for showing us who you are.

Yes, I think that was it....

But contributions to society aren't limited to how much tax you pay. Or indeed how many children you pop out.

I do wonder about these goady, baity sorts of posts...