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
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.

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.

itsthetea · 12/01/2026 13:27

Why not just shoot anyone who doesn’t have enough money ? Shoot anyone rather than pay for hospitals. Make life much cheaper

Nevermind17 · 12/01/2026 13:27

Rubbish! You’re effectively saying that unless you are on a high wage, or if you are unable to work through old-age or illness, you should have no agency over your life. Do you believe these wealthy voters will vote in the best interests of the state, or themselves? Who will represent 90% of society?

DrinkFeckArseBrick · 12/01/2026 13:27

What about disabled people or people with long term illnesses or people who have had to give up work to care for disabled / ill / elderly family members? What about stay at home parents, who don't work because their partner supports them (or can't work because the salary would be less than childcare costs). What about those that work in essential jobs but get UC top ups because salaries are so low?

I get not wanting people to get a say when they have voluntarily opted out of contributing to society at all. But I think the proportion of people who have no caring responsibilities, no health issues, and who can work but just choose not to (and who also vote) is very small compared to all the other people who can't contribute because of various complex circumstances or contribute in other ways.

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.

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?

missymousey · 12/01/2026 13:24

That's a lot of pensioners (aka voters) being disenfranchised then!

HappyNewTaxYear · 12/01/2026 13:23

What are YOU contributing to the state at the moment?

Swipe left for the next trending thread