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
Octavia64 · 12/01/2026 14:16

um, most of the intelligence services are technically civil servants.

what about teachers? They are funded by the government?

or nurses in nhs hospitals?

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:15

TheGoldenApplesOfTheSun · 12/01/2026 14:14

Read the room. You’re on a site called Mumsnet where most of us are … drumroll … mums. Who don’t take kindly to the notion that eg a woman staying home on maternity leave or being stay at home parent to a disabled child is somehow not “contributing” enough to society. Sod off.

🥳
well said
but I’d ignore it’s clearly a slow day for OP 🤪

Mithral · 12/01/2026 14:15

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:06

You're exempt if you've served in the army. Everyone else has to be a net positive. You could persuade me teachers and NHS should qualify but people in this thread may feel I'm being a bit wishy washy. Def NOT civil servants and 100% not politicians.

What if you work for a private company but most of your business is providing services to the NHS or another branch of government? Where I work we make about 20% of our annual turnover from various public sector sources - do I have to do a sum to remove some of the taxes I pay from the calculation?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:15

TheGoldenApplesOfTheSun · 12/01/2026 14:14

Read the room. You’re on a site called Mumsnet where most of us are … drumroll … mums. Who don’t take kindly to the notion that eg a woman staying home on maternity leave or being stay at home parent to a disabled child is somehow not “contributing” enough to society. Sod off.

If the family unit is net positive (doesn't matter if child carerer is male or female) then the couple get to vote. Not difficult to understand. In addition, more than x2 children then Women don't get taxed.

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

This thread is fucking mental😂

LoveSandbanks · 12/01/2026 14:14

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:47

Yes, you're dependent on others. You're welcome to have the help but no vote for you!

But you’re only dependent on others because the shareholders of the organisation are refusing to pay a living wage. It could be argued that the shareholders are the ones that are “taking” since their living on the proceeds of others labour!

BrownTroutBluesAgain · 12/01/2026 14:14

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:10

Are you assuming my gender?

No
Your sex

A choice of Gender doesn’t change brain function

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:14

NeverDropYourMooncup · 12/01/2026 14:13

Those soldiers are going to be screwed without the civil servants. And your entire system, what with it needing to be continually assessed, monitored and implemented.

We can pay civil servants well, look at Singapore! I'm just saying they don't also get to vote.

OP posts:
TheGoldenApplesOfTheSun · 12/01/2026 14:14

Read the room. You’re on a site called Mumsnet where most of us are … drumroll … mums. Who don’t take kindly to the notion that eg a woman staying home on maternity leave or being stay at home parent to a disabled child is somehow not “contributing” enough to society. Sod off.

Idontpostmuch · 12/01/2026 14:13

You're scary.

TennesseeWaterfall · 12/01/2026 14:13

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:52

Yes, exactly. You are the smartest person in the thread so far. Most people seem unable to consider it properly.

And you are being unnecessarily goady, and if I didnt know better would suspect a possible troll. However its against the rules to troll hunt, so i will just report.

This also feels quite incelly as well.
Do you believe in Free Man on the Land?

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 12/01/2026 14:13

OK, so your latest posts make it clear that you are actually just taking the piss. You aren't serious, you're just trying to wind people up.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:13

Bobiverse · 12/01/2026 14:10

How is someone this stupid earning so much?

Just means when you become old and less competent, and become dependent on the state, you stop making decisions. Similar thinking to not letting old people have a driving license unless they're competent.

OP posts:
NeverDropYourMooncup · 12/01/2026 14:13

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:11

Civil service is net drain no matter what you get paid.

Those soldiers are going to be screwed without the civil servants. And your entire system, what with it needing to be continually assessed, monitored and implemented.

icouldholditwithacobweb · 12/01/2026 14:12

Would support making people have to pass some kind of questionnaire before their vote is counted to make sure they do in fact understand both the reality of this country and what they are voting for (practicalities aside and could be simple, eg 'Has immigration a) risen, b) dropped c) remainined the same in the last 6 months)), and would also fully support politicians remaining unpaid until they can demonstrate objectively that they have in fact made a good effort while in role to achieve something useful for the country and its people. Proven liars - Boris, I'm looking at you - should also be held accountable and penalised according to the severity of their BS which might make them think twice about peddling lies and half-truths to manipulate the public.

SomersetBrie · 12/01/2026 14:12

How are you working out net positive? I am actually interested in knowing whether I am or not.

I think you are also assuming that most people want to vote. Lots of people don't even bother.

SweetcornFritter · 12/01/2026 14:12

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:57

Correct.

So basically you want a system that leads to greater inequality, where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:12

Parcell · 12/01/2026 14:11

No.

I am a net contributor. I think supporting people who cannot contribute more, such as the sick or disabled, carers, the young and the old is part of the price we pay for civilisation rather than barbarism.

I would not like the see nurses or bin collectors or retail workers disenfranchised because they can’t earn more. Everyone contributes to society in different ways it is not just financial.

Of course people should not be able to make living on benefits a lifestyle choice, but that’s a miserable existence frankly.

Everyone should be paid fairly and the state should not have to top up wages or pay inflated prices for poor housing to private landlords.

We're supporting them ofc! That's why they're 'dependents'. If you're not dependent you get to vote! Gz, you earned it.

OP posts:
LostInTheDream · 12/01/2026 14:12

This is the most insane thing I've read on here in a long time.

This would be a return to the 19th century, this disenfranchisement of the majority of people when you consider it over the whole of someone's lifetime, some of which are the most vulnerable in our society. This is not something we should be wanting. Wages have stagnated over a number of years, for those that are working, the prospect of considering themselves wealthy without inheritance are reasonably low.
For the 20% who have said YANBU I wonder if they know how much health care, education etc would cost. How much of a buffer do you have in case an illness or accident causes you to become disabled and not able to work. Lucky for you if you have that, most people don't have this though.

We also live in a society where our taxation systems are complicated and people plan to avoid any income and corporation tax they are able to. What about these people? Are you suggesting this would incentivise paying tax? 😂
Seems an odd way of doing that when you could just overhaul taxation.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:11

tilypu · 12/01/2026 14:10

So if your income comes from working in the civil service, say you earn £30,000. And your taxes are £5,000, and your non salary 'costs' paid from taxes are £4,000. Can you vote or not?

Civil service is net drain no matter what you get paid.

OP posts:
Parcell · 12/01/2026 14:11

No.

I am a net contributor. I think supporting people who cannot contribute more, such as the sick or disabled, carers, the young and the old is part of the price we pay for civilisation rather than barbarism.

I would not like the see nurses or bin collectors or retail workers disenfranchised because they can’t earn more. Everyone contributes to society in different ways it is not just financial.

Of course people should not be able to make living on benefits a lifestyle choice, but that’s a miserable existence frankly.

Everyone should be paid fairly and the state should not have to top up wages or pay inflated prices for poor housing to private landlords.

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:11

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.

A Mum/Dad, Husband/Wife can be counted as one unit for the purposes of this discussion to encourage the family unit. Mums with x2 kids or more don't get taxed. Military are exempt.

OP posts:
tilypu · 12/01/2026 14:10

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:06

You're exempt if you've served in the army. Everyone else has to be a net positive. You could persuade me teachers and NHS should qualify but people in this thread may feel I'm being a bit wishy washy. Def NOT civil servants and 100% not politicians.

So if your income comes from working in the civil service, say you earn £30,000. And your taxes are £5,000, and your non salary 'costs' paid from taxes are £4,000. Can you vote or not?

Bobiverse · 12/01/2026 14:10

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:38

It's net positive over your lifetime. So, you get to keep voting as long as that's true. Ofc things happen to people where they need help with health or education or w/e so yes you can have it. Just in exchange for your vote if you're going to be a net negative.

How is someone this stupid earning so much?

Octavia64 · 12/01/2026 14:10

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 14:06

You're exempt if you've served in the army. Everyone else has to be a net positive. You could persuade me teachers and NHS should qualify but people in this thread may feel I'm being a bit wishy washy. Def NOT civil servants and 100% not politicians.

What about the navy or the raf?

Swipe left for the next trending thread