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

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

on all your income? or do you also have a tax free allowance like everyone else and tax is graduated up to 55%?

anyway, you are talking bollocks and i'm glad you aren't a decision maker. 😃

I’m currently re-reading a Ken Follet book set in the late 1700’s to early 1800’s.
People who made less than a certain amount per year were unable to vote. This meant the mill owners held all the power and the workers or those laid off/injured (probably at work)/ widowed etc could be imprisoned, hung or starved to death for as little as speaking out of turn. Oh and women had even fewer rights ie none whatsoever.
It would be immoral and absolutely wrong to remove the right to vote from one or more sections of society.
Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge.

Wouldn’t this also rule out working parents with children in state schools, who used the NHS for their births and their medical care? And all pensioners? And probably all standard rate taxpayers? So you’re advocating for the rich and very rich to be in charge of the country. There’s a word for that, and it’s not democracy.

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

This is the fucking stupidest idea I have read on here in a long time.

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.

You might be interested in this more or less piece on whether half of the UK gets more in benefits than they pay in tax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002kfn8?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Personally I think that peoples situations are far too nuanced for blanket policies. The number of people who are genuinely making the choice to not work and fund their lives from benefits I think are really small. The bigger majority are those that have found themselves in situations where working isn't possible or feasible and as a result are begrudgingly reliant on the state.

It's also a really difficult time for employment at the moment. I was made redundant in February last year and in my industry over £2 billion investment has been withdrawn from the UK as companies have made the decision to invest elsewhere. Jobs are few and far between. The biggest problem we have is the drive for profits and that means not investing in the UK. The company I worked for went from profitable to 3 rounds of redundancies in the year from it going from a listed company to a private company. The biggest difference? It went from having industry specialists on the board the hedgefund managers.

I'm looking at taking a career break for a couple of years whilst I focus on my children as we have seen a huge improvement in my daughter's development since I've been at home. I have a 4 month old as well and I will be looking at a job that fits with school life to bring in a little money. I am in the lucky position that we don't need a second wage to fund our lives. I currently get standard child benefit and maternity allowance but my partners wage covers the rest of our expenditure.

A couple with 2 children would have to pay £68,000 a year in tax to become net contributors. That would mean one person on a salary of £180,000, or two earning £105,000 each!

“If they would rather die they had better do it and decrease the surplus population”

Well if you don't want to live in a democratic society you can always go elsewhere

I think an iq test would better,

I'd rather see a system where everyone contributes what they can for the benefit of all and vulnerable people are properly supported and cared for.

Oooh, back to feudalism.

Think I'll just sit and watch for Peasants' Revolt 2.0.

we should just go back to only property owning men have a vote. Right?

Are you including everyone not earning enough to pay tax?

This would target the poor, a lot of women, disabled people and the young as well as the scroungers you are trying to target. Back to where it was years ago only male, wealthy people over a certain age could vote.

What, over a lifetime or just temporarily?

so like if I’m in hospital I can’t vote because for the week I’m in hospital I’m costing the state more than I pay in tax?

if over a lifetime how would you tell except at the end of it, by which point it’s too late I have voted many times.

Working age. Pensioners aren't working aged.

I am a lower rate taxpayer and don’t claim benefits but rely on state services like the NHS.

You’d end up with a system where the politicians voted in would cut benefits and services until
dependent people all died off in the long term. I don’t think that’s the right solution to the problem although I acknowledge that things are getting worse but how much is that linked to the decline of services like the NHS making people sicker long term?

Btw economically inactive people would include pensioners who are the most enthusiastic voters atm. I also don’t see people working and getting topups as shirkers.

Wages have stagnated this century because of policies like tax credits and I’m not knowledgeable enough to suggest how we can get rid of the system of wage top ups without inflation getting out of hand but there is a definite problem.

Yeh. Great idea. And those who are net contributors can have more votes for every £10K they contribute. A sort of reverse hunger games. FFS.

No, that would be horrendous. Dystopian even.