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 15:36

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:29

How about this one?

If someone was born with a disability that meant they were unable to safely work in an employed role but (for example) they are a law abiding citizen, perhaps do some volunteering if able… you don’t think they should have the right to vote in elections that will hugely impact their quality of life?

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.

OP posts:
throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:29

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:22

Yep, I need to think on that one more.

How about this one?

If someone was born with a disability that meant they were unable to safely work in an employed role but (for example) they are a law abiding citizen, perhaps do some volunteering if able… you don’t think they should have the right to vote in elections that will hugely impact their quality of life?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:26

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:23

Not a team then
As I said

We understand each other. That's enough.

OP posts:
BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:23

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:21

They achieved the result of being net positive together. What they each do with their votes is a separate issue and up to them.

Not a team then
As I said

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:22

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:16

Weird to keep flexing the ‘women with more than two kids won’t pay tax’ thing when that will obviously not make them net contributors. So you’re really a man saying ‘women with more than two kids won’t be able to vote.’ Nice trap!

Yep, I need to think on that one more.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:21

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:16

Team means together for a common goal.

A couple doesn’t mean they will vote the same, it’s just two people voting

so cannot ‘ achieve the results as a team ‘

Isn't talking to computers hilarious 🤣🤣🤣

They achieved the result of being net positive together. What they each do with their votes is a separate issue and up to them.

OP posts:
BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:16

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:11

No, they both get a vote. They achieved the results as a team.

Team means together for a common goal.

A couple doesn’t mean they will vote the same, it’s just two people voting

so cannot ‘ achieve the results as a team ‘

Isn't talking to computers hilarious 🤣🤣🤣

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:16

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:14

Aren't we all?

Not usually when proposing an entire overhaul of democracy, no 😁

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:16

Weird to keep flexing the ‘women with more than two kids won’t pay tax’ thing when that will obviously not make them net contributors. So you’re really a man saying ‘women with more than two kids won’t be able to vote.’ Nice trap!

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:14

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:14

Does ChatGPT not have a more sophisticated “I’m making this shit up as I go along” phrase? 😁

Aren't we all?

OP posts:
CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:14

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:09

It's as I just described. Unless I change my mind. We're navigating complexity and the situation is evolving. Thank you for your patience.

Does ChatGPT not have a more sophisticated “I’m making this shit up as I go along” phrase? 😁

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 15:14

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:10

Yes, but you may be putting yourself at risk.

And you think you won't be at risk yourself?

I refer you back to the poll. 81% of posters think you're unreasonable.

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 15:13

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:09

It's as I just described. Unless I change my mind. We're navigating complexity and the situation is evolving. Thank you for your patience.

Hahaha! AI will always fall foul of itself. Have a nice day.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:11

throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:10

“Vote together”?

By together do you mean that a wife in that position can only vote for the same party as her husband?

No, they both get a vote. They achieved the results as a team.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:10

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 15:07

If we're going to have conditional voting, could we perhaps take away the right to vote from anyone who has demonstrably proven themselves to be a twat?

Yes, but you may be putting yourself at risk.

OP posts:
throwawayimplantchat · 12/01/2026 15:10

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:58

Conditional democracy is the answer. Demonstrate you're competent and can make good decisions to vote. It's a good enough heuristic when compared to our current system which is woeful. To answer your other question, DW and DH are a unit so you can vote together if you're net positive.

“Vote together”?

By together do you mean that a wife in that position can only vote for the same party as her husband?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:10

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 15:09

Yeah, same ones who believed in eugenics and master race.

This is just about valuing alpha citizens. Similar.

Valuing productive citizens who contribute and support those that need it. Rewarding them with a vote. Is that alpha?

OP posts:
BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:10

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 15:07

If we're going to have conditional voting, could we perhaps take away the right to vote from anyone who has demonstrably proven themselves to be a twat?

Can I give you the award

Girl Car GIF
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:09

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 15:08

No, because you said it was over a working lifetime. Now you're saying it's worked out at lifetime to date.

Which is it? Make up your mind.

It's as I just described. Unless I change my mind. We're navigating complexity and the situation is evolving. Thank you for your patience.

OP posts:
ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 15:09

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:05

But you said that women with 2+ children would be exempt from paying tax for life. Which means they can never pay in and therefore never “earn” their vote. So it is a trap.

Incidentally there was another group of people who had the policy of financially rewarding women for having large families.

Yeah, same ones who believed in eugenics and master race.

This is just about valuing alpha citizens. Similar.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:08

ElectronBlue22 · 12/01/2026 15:03

No. All kids get that. I’ve earned excess voting credit, I would not want that to die with me (or I might as well stop using private healthcare and burn some benefits by using the NHS) so I would like it to be something that can be inherited so she can get off to a better start in adult life with full enfranchisement. It would be akin to funding a gap year or whatever, she can use my inherited excess while she bums around for a few years before getting a proper job. I’ve been lucky and am wealthy so my heirs should be able to benefit from my superior voting position as well as all my other assets.

Alternatively, on my death bed perhaps I can be matched up with someone on benefits whose politics I agree with, and can allocate my remaining excess to paying off their deficit so they can vote after my passing.

Please design your amazing system accordingly.

Look forward to your ideas on how, when I’m out for dinner with friends, we get the restaurant to report to the government which one of us had the gin & tonic so that person (and no other) gets the alcohol duty on their account.

It's binary. Negative or positive. Not a system of account.

OP posts:
TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 15:08

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:06

At age 25 you're a net negative. You ask me at age 25, can I vote? No.

At age 35 you're a net positive. You ask me at age 35 if you can vote? Yes.

At age 45, you have a health issue and you're a net negative. You cannot vote.

Understand?

No, because you said it was over a working lifetime. Now you're saying it's worked out at lifetime to date.

Which is it? Make up your mind.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 15:07

If we're going to have conditional voting, could we perhaps take away the right to vote from anyone who has demonstrably proven themselves to be a twat?

Locutus2000 · 12/01/2026 15:07

NemesisInferior · 12/01/2026 13:37

Goady thread is goady.

OP just now.

Wicked Tuna Fishing GIF by National Geographic TV
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:07

CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:05

But you said that women with 2+ children would be exempt from paying tax for life. Which means they can never pay in and therefore never “earn” their vote. So it is a trap.

Incidentally there was another group of people who had the policy of financially rewarding women for having large families.

Oh yes, you're right. My bad. I'll have a think about it.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread