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 15:06

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 15:03

So averaged out between the ages of 18 and 68 I'm a net contributor. But between the ages of 18 and 30 I was a net receiver. The question was how are you compensating me for the votes you wrongfully denied me between the ages of 18 and 30? It's not a maths question at all.

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?

OP posts:
CalishataFolkart · 12/01/2026 15:05

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:55

You could have kids early in your 20s then a blossoming career later if you so chose.

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.

MandingoAteMyBaby · 12/01/2026 15:05

So only the rich get to participate in democracy ?

Um no. That’s oligarchy.

Oligarchy is disgusting. Look at Russia. As for Reform UK - Farage, Tice et al are oligarchs, they are preparing to benefit the wealthy at everyone else’s expense.

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 15:04

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:57

Honestly I’m finding this thread a blast.

It does go to show we need more women in positions of power though
and maybe a bigger island for men like OP

Thanks OP for that 👍 to putting you on your island for dodgy men.
You're welcome

ElectronBlue22 · 12/01/2026 15:03

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:40

Well, earlier I suggested we give kids a blank slate from 18 so everything is free before that. Will that work for her?

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.

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 15:03

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:58

At any point you can do the maths on whether a person has put in more than they've taken out. It's a maths question.

So averaged out between the ages of 18 and 68 I'm a net contributor. But between the ages of 18 and 30 I was a net receiver. The question was how are you compensating me for the votes you wrongfully denied me between the ages of 18 and 30? It's not a maths question at all.

TennesseeWaterfall · 12/01/2026 15:03

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:41

I'll have an island we drop them off on and every month we'll airdrop supplies. They can fight it out and they'll be removed from the gene pool.

Why bother? Lets just euthanize them

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 15:03

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:02

That's not how biology works.

I didn’t say biology.

I said eugenics.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 15:02

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 15:01

Sounds more like eugenics to me.
Disabled won’t be able to vote. So they’ll disappear eventually.

That's not how biology works.

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

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.

Sounds more like eugenics to me.
Disabled won’t be able to vote. So they’ll disappear eventually.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:59

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:57

Honestly I’m finding this thread a blast.

It does go to show we need more women in positions of power though
and maybe a bigger island for men like OP

I have a suggestion for that too. Men won't be allowed to vote unless they've had a daughter. I think the world would look very different if we selected the ability to vote by that... to make it fair we can apply the same logic to Women too / having had a son but less needed IMO.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:58

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 14:56

That doesn't answer the question though does it.

Over a working lifetime or only at specific points in that working lifetime? Which is it?

At any point you can do the maths on whether a person has put in more than they've taken out. It's a maths question.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:58

Swissmeringue · 12/01/2026 14:10

I've got questions about this proposition.

How do we work out who is giving and who is taking? So, for example. My husband earns in the middle six figures and is absolutely a contributor. But I don't work, does half of our children's schooling and our NHS usage count against my "account"? Does that make me ineligible to vote? Or do we count as a unit?

Also, our children are healthy and have no additional needs, so there aren't huge costs associated with their medical care and schooling. If there were, regardless of the over 100k he's paying in tax a year do we count as "drains on society" and therefore lose our vote?

Do we get "credits" if we use private school or healthcare? Are we gonna work out how far everyone drives in a year so we can work out precisely how much pothole damage they are responsible for?

Do parents need to earn more in order to be able to vote as kids take up more state resources?

Obviously I think this is all a terrible idea. I appreciate that our economy is screwed, I really do, but no, I don't think conditional democracy is the answer.

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.

OP posts:
BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:57

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 14:53

Don't allow yourself to feel belittled. He isn't worth it.

Honestly I’m finding this thread a blast.

It does go to show we need more women in positions of power though
and maybe a bigger island for men like OP

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 14:56

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:54

You start from 18.

That doesn't answer the question though does it.

Over a working lifetime or only at specific points in that working lifetime? Which is it?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:55

Rewis · 12/01/2026 14:09

Do you have to earn the right to vote? Once you're 18, you will be net negative for how much public money have been used towards you so once you've paid back the first 18 yesrs do you then get a vote?

Blank slate from 18.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:55

Cortexiphan · 12/01/2026 14:22

So in this system where women with 2 or more kids don't pay tax (which is daft) would mean they'd also automatically lose their vote anyway? So it's a trap?

You could have kids early in your 20s then a blossoming career later if you so chose.

OP posts:
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:54

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 14:53

You said net positive over a lifetime. Now you're saying net positive at a specific point in that lifetime. Which is it?

You start from 18.

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 14:53

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:53

Creepy and belittling

Don't allow yourself to feel belittled. He isn't worth it.

TheCompactPussycat · 12/01/2026 14:53

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:46

From the age of 18 you have the right to vote. You will be contributing from the point you earn. if you become net negative you will lose the right to vote. That's the basic idea. Will prob need some details working out but there you have the intent.

You said net positive over a lifetime. Now you're saying net positive at a specific point in that lifetime. Which is it?

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:53

FuzzyPuffling · 12/01/2026 14:49

He's done it to me too.
Strange MO.

Creepy and belittling

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 14:52

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:51

I consider this thread to be a great success and an adventure so far. A little debate and discussion is good for the soul. I was thoughtful enough to put a trigger warning at the start so I assume we're all here because we want to be.

How do you measure "success" exactly?

Is it a function of how many people you've managed to wind up with your trolling?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:51

BlackCatDiscoClub · 12/01/2026 14:50

Finally OP says something that makes sense. You get my vote. Just make sure the island is televised ok?

Edited

Brilliant idea! Like Big Brother but they get no prizes.

OP posts:
BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:51

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:48

Let's not discriminate.

This entire thread of yours is based on wealth / earnings based discrimination
You are definitely in no position to dictate on that front.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:51

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 14:49

Last time I checked, 81% of the 390 people responding to the poll thought you were unreasonable.

So if you're letting the poll decide, will you now accept that your idea is a shit one?

Thought not.

I consider this thread to be a great success and an adventure so far. A little debate and discussion is good for the soul. I was thoughtful enough to put a trigger warning at the start so I assume we're all here because we want to be.

OP posts: