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

You've already moved the goalposts away from net contributors being able to vote to net contributors you don't approve of being disenfranchised.

Shame, those soldiers probably could have done with some weapons, food and clothing at some point (the first riots, most likely). But now there's nobody wanting to do the job that gets those things to them.

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?

i can’t believe what I’m reading!

I worked for 30 years, from age 16 (no university for me, my parents couldn’t afford to send me) till I couldn’t work any longer due to disability. Do you, OP, think I should have been stripped of my right to vote? I’m waiting……

Certainly nobody seems to give a damn about the sex disparity of those who feel so burdenous that they seek out assisted suicide in countries in which it's legal.

That's totally illogical given your other arguments. Surely people who choose to have more children are putting more strain on public services in your dystopian views?

Or an “Assisted Dying “ Bill which originally was intended for those who had terminal illness, to relieve their suffering but now seems to be touted as it could be used by anyone who felt themselves to be a burden, poor or a bit depressed

That wouldn’t happen. Those jobs have been minimum wage long before immigration became a hot button issue, and will continue to be minimum wage even if all immigrant disappeared from the UK.

There are “menial” but vital jobs which will always be minimum wage and the people doing them will barley ever be a net contributor.

So, answer based on that. Do you see the people doing those jobs as a waste? Do you see them as people not contributing to society and do you think the UK would be a wonderful country without people in those roles?

I get your frustration, but I think your post misses the point. Limiting the vote to net contributors won’t fix anything when the real problem is that Labour’s budget and 'growth' policies actively reduce the number of contributors while simultaneously rewarding dependency. An economy with too few people paying in... What could possibly go wrong?

Labour won’t go anywhere near the genuinely wealthy, so instead they are perfectly happy to raid the 'broad shouldered' middle to pay for their own bad decisions. The reality is many benefits are too generous because they’re barely linked to what someone has put in, they’re open-ended, far too easy to opt into, and increasingly detached from any expectation of moving on. Just look at the size and direction of travel of the current benefits budget. Meanwhile many people who work and don’t qualify for help get hit from every direction.

If the Government wasn't bad enough we have an electorate that votes based on jealousy, entitlement and slogan rather than reality. They wont accept the reality that money is limited, and the Government doesn't have the backbone will to tell long-term non-contributors that the current system isn’t sustainable. I am not sure they care as long as they think the government is sticking it to anyone with more than them.

Take those fucking flowers away from my post OP🤮.

Interesting thought experiment but you can't be serious.. how are you measuring how much public services people have used? How much pavement they've walked on, road they've driven on (or has the benefit of being a passenger on etc). And are school costs being counted against the parents who chose to give birth or the children who benefit from the education over their lifetime? Are you counting the cost of policing only against criminals or the victims of crime? Does someone receiving carers allowance have that count against them, or are you allowing for the fact it would cost the state more in providing care of they weren't around? Are you taking into account that a lot of higher rate tax payers get that rich by employing people in such low wages or hours that they have to rely on state benefits as well?

Anyway, obviously it's right that more then half the population (the 'mean' earners and below) are net recipients from the state, because otherwise the state would be making a profit ie overcharging on tax. So I'm not sure what moral point you are making really.

Ooh I missed this! If I stop paying tax then our family will certainly become net negative (I earn about £200k and DH doesn't work) so do we then lose the vote? I guess I'll accept that.

Edited to add - actually wouldn't mums not paying tax be a massive incentive for families to have SAHDs? This would be very radical.

But then they'd be a net contributor and eligible to vote. Otherwise, why do the job?

When she is barefoot and pregnant there shall be no divorces

Why? What help is political knowledge in voting? The vote is predicated on the idea that all citizens - whatever their intelligence or education or wealth - have a right to a say in who governs and collects taxes. Political knowledge has no bearing on that whatsoever.
But you are joking! 😀What's worrying is that at least one poster agrees with you!

No. I am a high rate tax payer too.
But denying people a vote in a democratic country for being , unwell, disabled, old, losing their job, being pregnant, fleeing violence having to start again, being a carer or other reasons why people can not be a net contributor at one stage of another is not a world i want to live in.
We all pay tax anyway, not everyonr pays income tax but we all buy things and use public services and should be able to vote.
Have you not read any history books at all?

Why are you responding to your own OP, OP?

The problem is that so many jobs are minimum wage that even if you work full time, you still get a benefit top up. So you’d take their vote away? Just because they’re minimum wage… don’t you realise that a whole load of those workers are vital?

We need people emptying bins, cutting grass, litter picking at the side of the road. We need carers, the country would literally have people dying in the street and in their homes without carers. We need shop workers, we need delivery drivers.

What is your vision of a country if all minimum wage workers stopped doing those jobs? The country would fall apart. But you’re essentially saying that, for society, those jobs are worthless so you don’t deserve the vote?