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

That's fine instead of your taxes paying me to look after disabled family members (plural so your getting a bargain in you £86 taxable income a week) you can pay that and then some a day for carers to come in

I would love the break a 40 hour working week would give me

No but I think there should be a little test on political knowledge during your vote that you have to pass for your vote to be counted 😁

What about student loan, will it be wiped from the ledger once an equivalent amount of net tax has been paid or does it specifically need to be paid off before the vote? What transactions is the ledger tracking, just payments to/from the government or also debts/assets to 3rd parties?

Everyone pays tax as we all pay VAT - how do you propose tracking that spend for eligibility ?

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?

You of course know you’re being unreasonable, are you suggesting everyone who retires should be stripped of the vote, everyone who is sick or disabled? That’s really the road to facism.

We have an inequality problem, lots of reasons for it, successive governments transferring wealth from the collective to a few wealthy companies and individuals hasn’t helped. Let’s not pretend the rich have all earned their wealth, much of it is off the back of exploitation and generational privilege. The super wealthy want you to blame the poor for your tax bill, but actually the scandal is all the ways that people benefit from society without contributing to it. For example Starbucks pays no corporation tax in the UK, they lease their branding from another company in The Netherlands in order to declare a net loss on their UK business which in turn allows them to avoid tax. I’m very sure they aren’t alone.

When the banking crisis response was studied quantitative easing (the UK government printing money) resulted in that money ending up in the hands of people who were already rich, almost none of that extra money in the system worked its way to ordinary people, but we all took the hit when inflation outpaced wage growth.

Council housing being sold is another example, homes were owned by the state and lots of people (not just the very poorest) had a secure home as a result, all these houses were sold and now a massive chunk of that housing stock is in the hands of private landlords who are making a tidy profit from renting to people who 40 years ago would have had a secure council tenancy.

Have you seen what’s happened to children’s homes? Again something previously run by the state now run for profit by private companies who are making huge profits.

We have an aging population which has enormous care costs and successive governments have acted in a short term fashion which has reduced state assets and increased state debt. Those that have most benefited from this are able to minimise their own tax liability. We have one of the most complex tax systems in the world, it isn’t like that to benefit ordinary workers.

People who are struggling to find a well paying job should absolutely be able to vote for a government that they think will help them. Taking votes away from anyone is a slippery slope. The next government might decide you don't need a vote.