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

[SBGM247]

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?

What are YOU contributing to the state at the moment?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

No, that would be horrendous. Dystopian even.

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.

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.

Working age. Pensioners aren't working aged.

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.

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.

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

Oooh, back to feudalism.

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

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.

I think an iq test would better,

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

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

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!

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.

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.

I pay about 55% tax and contribute a lot.