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

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.

If this is true, then that is a huge problem for society. You can't have only those with six figure incomes supporting a hugely bloated state.

However, I think that you may only be looking at income tax and not including VAT contributions?

JFC

I don't even have the words for just how stupid & nasty your posts are.

Looks like that is what he wants to return to. The post is just goading anyway.

Half a second of thinking would give a very good reason why this is dangerous. Those with enough to pay tax will ensure they always have govts which benefit them, with no interest in improving life, income, health for the rest. Suppose if you’re totally selfish (and deeply stupid) you could think this was ok…

A fifth of people agree with OP so it's not obvious to everyone. That's more than the percentage of people that would vote for Labour if a general election was called tomorrow.

I think OP is being a bit goady but there is some logic to her overall argument. The welfare system was created in very different times under very different conditions. Anyone can see that it has the potential to bankrupt us as a country if not carefully managed and crippling workers and the economy with an uncontrolled tax burden. What are the checks and measures for the welfare system at the moment to stop this happening? Well basically democracy. What happens though when the majority are dependents on the state and it is in their interest to vote for ever more welfare? Where does this leave us?

Ultimately the country will go bankrupt, no financial bodies will lend us any money and will be forced into taking drastic measures including making unprecedented cuts to welfare. In the long term a bloated welfare state doesn't work for anyone but in the short term turkeys don't vote for Christmas and people are too short sighted to understand that spending now will lead to huge problems in the future.

so if you don't earn much until you're 40 you don't get to vote then you do?

or if you are net negative until you're 75 then you win 20 million on the lottery you can vote?

you really haven't thought this fatuous proposal through at all.

People on benefits voting doesn't bother me. People like you being allowed to vote does bother me

What an utterly abhorrent attitude you have, OP.

Do you genuinely believe that disabled people, unpaid carers, older people on lower incomes, and people in essential but low paid employment should have no voice in how our society is run?

Do you just assume that people who aren't net contributors in tax terms make no contribution to our society in other ways?

And yes, I am a net contributor in terms of my taxes - not that it should matter.

I would hate to live in a society where decision-making is led by people like you.

Ooh. I remember them.

It's an idea and we definitely need more of those. How would it work with young people starting out in a career, do you count their health and education costs contribution against them or their parents? Or do you write off education costs and only look at things like benefits. Would that mean an 18 year old at university wouldn't be able to vote but an 18 year old working minimum wage would? Would university students be barred from voting until they had paid off their student loans. The net contributor over a lifetime makes it more interesting as a thought experiment. Also the blockchain keeping ledger of in/out is pretty cool. It'll never happen but I love it as a concept for a manga.

Sometimes our more right wing friends wonder why Marx exists. But they shouldn’t really given this

So, an ex public service worker who is disabled in the course of duty (fireman, soldier, policeman) should not be allowed to vote?
Sorry, but I don't think OP has thought very hard about this one. Why would anyone write a post like this, especially someone clever enough to earn over £100,000?
Something isn't right!

No, it doesn't make me feel better.

Only the people who agree with you are smart? That's a remarkably childish viewpoint

Well, that would be Reform's core voter base disenfranchised, I suppose. Tempting, but no.

Don't forget that among the men, only land owners will be able to vote.

So doing a good thing means you should be disenfranchised? Well that sounds rational...