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

so whats your solution for men who don't pay a decent amount of child support when they are fed up with playing happy families?

Right, so that tracks my income tax and NI. Possibly also could pick up my council tax and any SDLT if I move house. Maybe even ties in the negatives from use of the NHS.

But where do I send all my receipts in so I can claim my “credit” for all the VAT I’ve paid on anything I’ve bought, the fuel duty on my petrol, the APD on my flights? Do I submit my Tesco receipts weekly or annually? Do I have to highlight the line items where I’ve bought Coca Cola so I can have the sugar tax applied to my balance? Oh god, what happens when I re-use a carrier bag, do I have to have 10p deducted from my running total?

Anyway, I’d be in credit personally. I’m very lucky: I went to a private school, never even had to have a student loan, I have the fabled Mumsnet six figure salary on which I pay a shitload of tax, I’ve been blessed with excellent health so far (and private healthcare and dentistry for the times I’ve needed it) and I don’t even have kids to be using other public services. So honestly I think by your metrics I’m seriously up so far. But I don’t want to waste that if I die tomorrow! Can I put it in my will to leave to my niece so she’s well set up with voting credit for life?

Perhaps the wealthy with excess voting credit could set up some kind of fund to share this bounty with those less fortunate… perhaps even… some kind of benefits system??

You can talk about what you like, but a man on a women's discussion forum, shit stirring? Maybe not.

And yet we both know that your initial rant was not written by you.

No. You just enjoy being unpleasant and have people run around justifying their lives and vulnerability. How miserable you must make any others unfortunate enough to encounter you in real life

What incentives are these?

I would consider you to be making a greater contribution to society if you wrote your own posts instead of using ChatGPT. Who's to say you should be allowed to vote when you're outsourcing your brain for something as low-stakes as a rant on an internet forum?

But why is money your only metric for earning a vote?

What about all the corruption in certain industries, which just ends with a fine or suspended sentence. Those people remain net contributions, but have often stolen or embezzled from innocent people, stolen taxpayer money in government contracts they never fulfilled, just trails of corruption. But they can keep voting because they’re still paying tax?

Carers and volunteer workers who keep a significant percentage of the population of this country alive, safe and well aren’t earning a vote purely because you only measure their worth in money?

If there’s a MrsSBG hiding under the stairs we can point you to some good divorce threads

🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆.

So how do you figure this will work if you only become net positive as you get older (promotions, no longer have dependent children), ending your working life as net positive overall? How would you compensate me for the votes I should have been able to use earlier in my life because you didn't have a working crystal ball?

I've already responded to your "argument", such as it is, in my previous post on this thread. It doesn't warrant a detailed rebuttal because it is so obviously flawed.

As for attacking your character - well, yes. If you suggest a morally abhorrent policy, then people will inevitably draw conclusions about your character and moral compass.

The reality is that if you couldn’t work this out for yourself or didn’t see fit to post this obvious consequence then you have no business in telling women what they must do with their bodies to have rights.

You are a depraved person

Ah, OP, you're the man who, on another thread, declared you are only here "for the lols", and didn't mind if you got banned.
Trying hard!

Elon is that you?

But wouldn't that mean they haven't paid enough tax to vote.... And why women, not the dads?

But this is very strongly incentivising the family to be set up so that the woman (who gave birth) is the one out earning money - seems the opposite to what biology dictates to me.

And in the OP's utopia, who owns the housing stock?

Whose income goes to a property owner each month as rent?

And who sits there receiving that rent each month, merely for owning the property?

Because we know all about this system.

Those at the top of the system can work less or not at all. Their income is the rent they receive from the workers. Currently a lot of that rent is provided via benefits via taxes, topping up the workers to pay to the property owners.

Under the OP's system, the property owners receive a good income from the rents and can therefore pay for many of their needs and they also pay some tax. So they get to be net tax contributors and vote for a government which serves only them.

The lower-paid working people's wages are insufficient to pay the rent and cover all their other needs, and they pay less income tax. So they never get to vote. They will be under a government which serves the property owners; and not only has no interest in trying to serve the working people but is motivated to keep them disenfranchised forever (to keep its constituents happy). Low wages and no employment rights are just fine for the property owners.

The OP's system does not give the working people "enough land, work, or security [or] the essence of liberty and justice."
Instead it locks into place "wages so low and conditions so insecure that he cannot do it, there is the essence of tyranny and shame."