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
SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:43

Sharptonguedwoman · 12/01/2026 13:35

How about making it only men and they have to own property?

That would be sexist. But the property idea isn't a bad idea. 🤓

OP posts:
ItsPronouncedThroatwobblerMangrove · 12/01/2026 13:42

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.

I’ll play for a minute before I go back to work (net positive, I’m sure). How would you fund the necessary individual assessments every year to ensure continued eligibility before any election? We vote in local, district, county and national elections. Would you use the tax take to make those assessments every time?

RosesAndHellebores · 12/01/2026 13:42

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:34

Not if they've been a net positive in tax in their lifetime. But, maybe they should lose the vote at some point when they become a burden.

Do you suggest those who are burden be put down as well? They tried that in Nazi Germany. One would hope it will never be tried again.

I am a committed Conservative and have voted Conservative since 1979.

It would be helpful if you went away please.

We are significant contributors, likely never to be a burden. However, I believe every man and every woman should have the vote. That is the only way democracy can be sustained and governments can be representative

Overtheatlantic · 12/01/2026 13:42

TheaBrandt1 · 12/01/2026 13:34

I read in the Times on Saturday that working people are now paying £12k each to support welfare claimants and pensioners. So DH are together paying £24 k pa for this. It’s unsustainable.

Right, so what you do is take that information, query the source and then find other corroborating sources. Is this information backed up by multiple credible sources?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:42

Hereward1332 · 12/01/2026 13:28

Should people who pay higher rate tax get two votes?

Why are you just considering income tax? Should we also look at CGT, Corporation Tax and Stamp Duty to decide if someone has paid enough to get the vote?

You don't get to disenfranchise someone for being vulnerable.

Just real people not companies etc... and if you become net positive you earn your right to vote.

OP posts:
pinkspeakers · 12/01/2026 13:41

You are being incredibly unreasonable to link voting rights to economic status. That's not been true in England for over 100 years. I find it hard to believe anybody would serious suggest this.

The government should be serving everybody, not just the rich. In fact, if anything, they should be putting more weight on serving those with less income/wealth. The rich can look after themselves!

Parky04 · 12/01/2026 13:41

DustyMaiden · 12/01/2026 13:31

I think an iq test would better,

I guess you won't be allowed to vote then.

Ponderingwindow · 12/01/2026 13:41

So you want to completely disenfranchise the profoundly disabled and their parents? This permanent underclass should have no say in government policy?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:41

FudgeSundae · 12/01/2026 13:28

Not totally sure what you mean by net negative. The majority of people consume more in public services than they pay in taxes. Do you mean that anyone who has a chronic condition and requires expensive nhs treatment shouldn’t be able to vote? Or someone who has a disabled child and claims carer’s allowance?

I am not thrilled about the state of things but your suggestion is pretty dystopian.

If you're total contributions are less up to w/e point in your lifetime we're talking about - than total of what you have taken from the state. If you need 'free stuff' that's OK but you exchange it for your right to vote once you become net negative.

OP posts:
Catza · 12/01/2026 13:41

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:34

Not if they've been a net positive in tax in their lifetime. But, maybe they should lose the vote at some point when they become a burden.

In their lifetime, you say... So when would the voting age start then? Because children receive a lot of benefits in the form of subsidised childcare (such as it is), schooling, healthcare etc. At what age do you think they may recoup this investment to begin voting?
How would "a lifetime" net positive tax be assessed in each election cycle?
More importantly, who is going to do that and how much would it cost to set up?

And what else do you think those positive contributors will be voting for? No doubt to cut taxation burden. Which, of course will be perfectly feasible after all the "undesirables" die out reducing pressure on public services.

PeachOctopus · 12/01/2026 13:41

No instead we will choose to go bankrupt as a country and like the 1970’s be forced into a bailout from the IMF that will impose draconian austerity, like what has happened to Greece.
Actually we owe so much that the IMF can not possibly lend us enough if it came to it and so we will have to borrow money from China and give them whatever terms they ask for.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 12/01/2026 13:40

Overtheatlantic · 12/01/2026 13:38

Is someone doing a GCSE in Marxist theory?

Nah, they've ChatGPTd 'how to argue for a return to medieval feudalism and the removal of universal suffrage'.

feellikeanalien · 12/01/2026 13:40

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."

Re-read your OP.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 13:40

Another random letter/number username again🙄

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 12/01/2026 13:38

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:34

Not if they've been a net positive in tax in their lifetime. But, maybe they should lose the vote at some point when they become a burden.

😵a burden😡

Where do students come in this utopia? They don’t pay tax.

Overtheatlantic · 12/01/2026 13:38

Is someone doing a GCSE in Marxist theory?

SBGM247 · 12/01/2026 13:38

Fearfulsaints · 12/01/2026 13:26

What if all the net contributing tax payer vote to rig the system entirely in thier favour so they can contine to get richer and richer? They could do all sorts with few checks and balances.

Also how would you work it. This person is currently having chemo so cant vote, but they did vote last time. Does thier voting right come back after the chemo ends. Is it just the fiscal year the election is in, or do they have to pay back thier chemo before they can vote again.

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.

OP posts:
KurtCobainLover · 12/01/2026 13:38

What about people like me who work part time due to having a disability and get a UC top up? Should I lose my right to vote?

Upstartled · 12/01/2026 13:38

No. I hate all of this equivocating about who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. I've seen threads in which people have advocated for those who are too old not to vote, those who voted Brexit, those who they consider too dim and,now, those who aren't contributing to the Treasury during working years.

I consider you all anti-democratic and idiotic.

GetyourheadoutoftheovenIris · 12/01/2026 13:38

ItsPronouncedThroatwobblerMangrove · 12/01/2026 13:36

Ah, just realised this is probably Reform floating their manifesto on here again, by the back door. As you were, folks.

Of course it is.

Complete drivel.

Elsvieta · 12/01/2026 13:37

Ifailed · 12/01/2026 13:25

On your journey to the 19th century, I assume you'll also be denying women a vote as well?

Yeah, this would deprive a lot more women than men of the vote. SAHMs, carers, women who work but earn very little.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 12/01/2026 13:37

TheaBrandt1 · 12/01/2026 13:34

I read in the Times on Saturday that working people are now paying £12k each to support welfare claimants and pensioners. So DH are together paying £24 k pa for this. It’s unsustainable.

If that's true, the 10% poorest recipients would then be paying around 48% of that back in taxation.

Ponderingwindow · 12/01/2026 13:37

Tomorrow if you get hit by a bus and your medical bills skyrocket, do you deserve to lose your voting rights?

what if you have to spend a year doing painful rehabilitation? Do you not get to vote that year?

what if you are able to go back to work, but you need help with transportation costs because you are in a wheelchair? Your employer also needs to make some modifications and gets help to make those. You are still working an earning, but the government spent more on you this year so your collected taxes don’t offset the expense. Do you lose your vote this year too?

NemesisInferior · 12/01/2026 13:37

Goady thread is goady.

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 12/01/2026 13:36

Im economically inactive because I planned my life to do so, retiring early. I still pay quite a bit if tax every month abd when I reach NPA I will a lot more.
So shod I be allowed to vote?