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

Because it's a theoretical discussion and no one is actually suggesting taking the vote away from say the lower paid or female or non land owners in real life.

I'm confused as to why posters can't understand this.

No it is most certainly not, it is simplified junk written by an intellectually dishonest far-right anarcho-capitalist. I’d advise you to read something that does not appeal to people’s fear and ignorance in an attempt to make a quick buck.

A very interesting idea, OP. I understand your initial point (I've not RTFT) but how on earth would it be implemented?

Some lower paid professions like teachers could be a net negative, but overall give back to society.

Interesting.

I don't understand why MN has allowed this thread to run?
It's so full of contempt for some of the lowest paid and least regarded members of society, who do such a valuable job. I'm thinking of personal care assistants, teaching assistants and many others, I'm sure, who keep our society going, and are almost always female; not to mention the unpaid carers.
It's clear from the posts that many others, like me, have found this ham-fisted attempt to goad us truly offensive.

It's all about clicks I suppose?
But what about MN's commitment to kindness?

I guess we're pleased for OP that he's enjoyed himself so hugely. 🤔

Due to gradual shifting of the tax burden to indirect taxation, almost half the money going into a poorer household is going straight back out as taxation anyway

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/

• 'The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23
• The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax'

So maybe the useless eaters are less useless than you thought.

If political parties did that then they would always remain political candidates rather than elected politicians.

Sadly the majority voters primarily vote out of their own self interest- this is human nature.

So if you have two candidates :

A) promises increase spending funded by nebulous assurances such as "efficiency savings" "economic growth", "closing tax loopholes " etc etc or
B) promises increased spending funded by tax increases.

Then A would always be elected. A will then say in the first 6 months that their promises are no longer possible normally blaming the previous Government for this.

The same would apply to promises of tax cuts without any cuts in services provided by "efficiency measures", "economic growth " etc etc.

It’s an old idea
Its how voting was in the 1800s
Then it was based on property ownership and men only
Thats why there were riots

We have evolved thankfully

You might find it interesting. Opinions may vary.

I'll ask again - how do you envisage your idea would actually work practically? Would it be up to individuals to calculate before each election?
You must have thought about this before suggesting such a radical idea for discussion.

Most people vote for themselves
If parties acted for the country as a whole it wouldn’t be a problem

I wouldn't disenfranchise those who weren’t deemed clever enough no more than I would disenfranchise those that didn’t earn enough, or didn’t own property or were women. All of which we did in the past
It’s not democratic. Everyone has a voice and we don’t get to pick and choose what some consider to be the right sort.

We all know the majority of people that would lose the vote and their voice if it was based on passing some test.

...

I agree but not in monetary terms.

Too much structural inequality and far too much complexity for that to ever work.

Being able to demonstrate your understanding of the electoral system, the law and your critical thinking skills is a basic. If you've ever commented on an AI generated image of Farage in front of an imaginary medical CENTER saying he wants to support the NHS, immediate red card and lifetime voting ban.

It's up to voters to elect a financially prudent party

It’s up to the Political parties to not make promises the country can’t afford
and to maintain financial stability.

Firstly before everyone gets het up please remember this is a theoretical discussion- no one in real life is going to be taking away your vote.

So turning to your point, if you disenfranchised the poor or those without land or those below a certain age or income threshold etc then you will surely have instability in society as the disenfranchised who make up the majority will protest or ultimately revolt. There are real life examples of this such as the French and Russian revolutions.

However this worth noting that in the current system then the majority who are "net takers" from the state will always vote for a political party that promises to give them more paid for by taxes on the minority rich and debt. This will ultimately lead to financial instability as there is a limit on how much you can tax the rich or increase debt.

So one model will result in societal instability and the other will result in financial instability.

So by being born into the 'wrong' sort of family which you say was inevitable, were the Jews who were persecuted, tortured and murdered during the Holocaust really to blame for what happened to them?

Instead of thinking that 'bad things happen to good people', you are saying that 'bad things only happen to bad people'.

No totally dystopian that would disinfranchise millions.

However an IQ test and an in person hand written or dictatated essay on current political issues/policy should be mandatory for the majority. Anything less than a C and you don't get to vote that time until you do your homework.

Then I don't have to listen to Brexit regrets by those who didn't bother to do anything other than look at the side of a bus.

It should also stop the vote Farage brigade in their tracks. What are they going to write? Brown people bad stop boats, as they drag their hairy knuckles across the ink?

Would you exempt the police and armed forces from your twisted proposals about who should be allowed to vote?

If your plan was implemented, there would very likely be mass riots by the majority of people who would be disenfranchised by these proposals and these would probably include the more junior members of the police and armed forces.

I hope you are rich enough to employ your own private militia and to pay them enough for them to fall into your 'rich enough to have a vote' category of citizens.

Rant away. The government is growing the dependency class whilst raiding the same tax payers over and over again. I take issue with that.

I wouldn't take hard won rights away from people, other than the perceived right to make lifestyle choices and be funded by tax payers.

@SBGM247 how do you envisage your idea would actually work practically? It sounds like a complete administrative nightmare to me. Would it be up to individuals to calculate whether they are net positive each year (or maybe just for the period of time in between elections?)

The turnout for the last general election in the UK was low at 59.7%. I really don't think we should be implementing a system to further reduce turnout. If anything, we should be providing more education and openness to politics so the general public are not so put off from voting.

Can you imagine? We’d all have to fill in a form to say how often we drive on the roads etc?

And education would presumably be your own, not someone else’s (ie not your child’s as they aren’t you). So those who go to a state school would start off in deficit, whereas those who went private wouldn’t - the opposite of what any sensible govt wants to achieve!

You are obviously perfectly happy with disabled people not having a voice and disenfranchising them under your twisted methodology.

You clearly want to guarantee the election of far-right governments in perpetuity who will cut support for the low paid and sick/disabled people as it will result in only people that think like you being eligible to vote. A government and electorate of total cunts basically.