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

Im talking about the U.K.
because that’s the country the thread is about.

If anyone wants the evidence requested in the pp we are seeing it right now

I think you’ll find huge welfare states tend to have more frequently occurred in non-democracies.

I'm always inwardly complaining about 'fuck and run' type OPs, so gotta give credit where it's due.

The result is our huge and unaffordable welfare state

Mnet let some of the truly outrageous CEM threads run
this
is extremely mild in comparison

Where’s your evidence for the assertion in your second paragraph? In the past majorities (in modern democracies) have often voted for parties that promise fiscal responsibility, not always but sometimes depending of course on their perception of societal needs at the time. Obviously democracy is flawed, but there is no better system that we know of, best to try to hone democracy to improve it, rather then throwing it out in favor of uber-menches :)

It's essentially a return to the 1700s and 1800s and as you correctly point out that didn't turn out too well for the likes of Marie Antoinette or Tsar Nicholas.

As an alternative we could discuss how the risk of a financial collapse could result in an authoritarian regime where no one gets to vote. Except that I think too many posters would find such an academic (even though it's more likely than OPs suggestion) too upsetting or triggering.

Fair play, OP, you really committed to the bit here. 213 direct replies at time of writing - impressive, honestly. Well done you, you clever little thing 👏

Jesus wept, if you think this is an academic discussion, typically academic discussions involve: facts, data, reasoning, nuance and above all humility. Until someone has bothered to even understand some basics of how society works there’s honestly not much point engaging with this nonsense, it would honestly take too long, better to at least make them aware at the very least of the most obvious flaws in their understanding in the hope they will read something unbiased in the future.

No taxation without representation!

Aside from being intrinsically unjust, many posters have correctly pointed out that such a proposal would never work in reality and result in societal instability (a revolution).

What interests me is that no one is commenting on the current democratic structure where the majority will always vote for whichever party promises the most in services or benefits, which will then result in financial instability - an economic crash and poverty.

I didn’t read the whole waffle because I got the disgusting drift from from the first few paragraphs. So what you’d like to see is the uber rich making all the political decisions? What a novel idea! Eyeroll. You’re punching down when you should be punching up.

I see this is a big thread already but this is an absolutely ludicrous idea. It spells the end of democracy and an outright, open return to slave ownership in the name of democracy. It’s been a threat for a while: it shows just how far the Overton window has shifted, this would have been an unthinkable idea 20 years ago and in fact when I suggested we were on a path to this kind of thinking, under other usernames, I was laughed at.

It might be different if the economy was not totally shafted and people’s work was actually valued according to their true value to society. If anyone was paid according to the cost of living. But that’s a total laugh in this joke of a country.

Recent values of the amount required before one escapes being a ‘net drain’ and becomes a ‘net positive’ mean that very very few working people would be included - the last time I saw this ridiculous concept brought forward the figure was lower than median wage ffs. Nurses, who already pay to work while training, would be considered a net drain, as would teachers, firefighters, police officers and, ffs at this time, even the bloody common soldiers in the army!!! You want an army without a vote do you? FOTTFSOFAWYGTFOSM

Ditch this rapidly op. No we will not be slaves.

When voting started in this country, only “respectable” well established men were allowed to vote.

That didn’t work too well. 🙄

We all, regardless of personal circumstances, have to live in this country, so everyone is entitled to a vote. 👍

It is impractical to implement and as history has shown when it has been implemented in the 1700s and 1800s it would never work for long before the disenfranchised rebel and start a revolution.

So your solution then is to cancel any discussion (theoretical or otherwise) in case someone is offended.

The basis of any debate is that one or both side risks being offended. If you don't allow that then we are stuck with only discussing beautiful sunsets, warm hugs and cute puppies.

Stupidest idea I've read on here in a long time and you can't argue with stupid, so I'm not going to even bother.

Honestly if you find theoretical academic discussions too hurtful then my advice is to stay away from them. It's a good thing that people have the freedom of speech to discuss such topics.

To repeat, aside from a few irrelevant oddballs, no one in real life is going to take away the vote from the poor or female or non land owners etc.

It's just not going to happen and we are not going to go back to the 1700s.

Only "here for the lolz" - in his own words.

I don't think you'd have to go very far to find people who do advocate exactly that. I can think of at least one British male who has argued that women shouldn't vote and who is listened to by a significant number of young men. And the OP has literally suggested it so you assertion that "no one is actually suggesting taking the vote away from say the lower paid or female or non land owners in real life" is nonsense because he literally just has. Whether he meant it in jest or not is irrelevant.

Perhaps it seems like a theoretical discussion to you but this is how ideas gain a foothold. And the "Haha, silly you, it's not really going to happen" is simply a way of encouraging people to let their guard down.

Besides, how do you think any policy change starts life if not as a theoretical discussion?

I don't know what you mean by 'theoretical discussion'. This is not an academic conference nor a scientific journal.
MN is not the place for theoretical discussions.
Life is very hard indeed for some people; some people are very unfortunate in the cards that fate gives them.
MN exists, I thought, to give support and advice.
Many reading this thread , especially in its early stages, may be amongst the lowest paid and hardest-working members of society, potentially saving the state a fortune by supporting the sick and disabled either on a low wage or for free as a family member.
How are they to know that this spirited proposal to withdraw the vote from them because of their 'dependency' was simply theoretical?
In fact, I disagree that it was in fact theoretical in a forum like this - it's just too pointed.
The chattering classes should chatter in private , where they can't hurt the vulnerable.

No one is being cancelled, just called out for their callous and uninformed opinion.

FFS - it's a theoretical discussion.

It's full on cancel culture that we can't have a theoretical discussion in case someone gets offended or triggered.

No personal insult to you, just a fact about this book.

You’d better hope chronic illness or disability never affects you, hadn’t you. I don’t think I’ve ever come across as nastier post on Mumsnet. Hang your head in shame, OP.