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?

Yes, agreed. I did allude to middle class being hollowed out in my original post, however, you've well articulated some of the issues we're facing just trying to bring our kids up well.

That's totally illogical given your other arguments. Surely people who choose to have more children are putting more strain on public services in your dystopian views?

Just because you're not net positive doesn't mean you're a waste. It means you've not earned the right to vote. You are a dependent

Certainly nobody seems to give a damn about the sex disparity of those who feel so burdenous that they seek out assisted suicide in countries in which it's legal.

i can’t believe what I’m reading!

I worked for 30 years, from age 16 (no university for me, my parents couldn’t afford to send me) till I couldn’t work any longer due to disability. Do you, OP, think I should have been stripped of my right to vote? I’m waiting……

Not really, I'd rather get the birth rate up than import people into the country.

So in this system where women with 2 or more kids don't pay tax (which is daft) would mean they'd also automatically lose their vote anyway? So it's a trap?

Not straight away, only at the point you've taken more than you've given.

You've already moved the goalposts away from net contributors being able to vote to net contributors you don't approve of being disenfranchised.

Shame, those soldiers probably could have done with some weapons, food and clothing at some point (the first riots, most likely). But now there's nobody wanting to do the job that gets those things to them.

Why mums with 2 kids rather than families though? Are you trying to get fewer dads in the workplace?

No it’s great. The bloke you had would look after you. You could be paid to make children.

Is this Farage’s bots posting again?

Yeah. A male bot.

How low is your intelligence that you can’t see the gymnastics you need to do to make that work.

Viral jobs which the country would fall apart without, but happen to be low paid, but we absolutely need people doing them… so remove the vote from them as they haven’t earned it?

You’re just on a wind up or are very very stupid.

Moving money totally aside, what do you contribute to society?

For example, nurses don't earn loads. But every day, they make the country a better place to be. Teachers are helping to raise the next generation. Social workers help to protect the most vulnerable. Bin men keep our streets clean and sanitary. Builders provide the homes we live in.

Some of that group do not earn or therefore contribute that much in tax, but their social contribution is worth far more than money. Would you disenfranchise them if you regarded them as not giving enough monetarily? I know which I prefer and it isn't based on finances.

I'm listening @NeverDropYourMooncup. What you thinking?

Obviously something very quickly would happen which is women would be disenfranchised from their vote, and we know women have their own needs away from men. Property or tax is therefore really about a proxy for masculinity, as this updated collection of Nazi/Roman society ideas shows.

People producing value. If people were incentivised to pay for healthcare but had the fall back position of free if they couldn't, then you'd see nurses getting paid more if they were good.

I contribute a lot across a number of metrics. What do you need?

If you want to bring up your kids well, maybe start by teaching them some basic values. Or perhaps find someone else who can teach them, seeing as you seem to be distinctly lacking in this area yourself.

It doesn't matter in the slightest how much tax your children grow up to contribute. They will never be able to function as even halfway decent citizens if they have no concept of treating other people with a basic level of respect and dignity.

Correct. 10/10 for reading comprehension. That's right. If you're cutting grass but you're a net positive you get to vote. If you're a Doctor but have taken more than you've given then no! You need to earn it.

Ad hominems are a poor, fallacious way to argue because they attack the person's character or traits instead of the actual argument, diverting from the substance, logic, or evidence, which is generally counterproductive and avoids genuine debate, though rarely relevant if the argument relies solely on the person's (unproven) authority.

I think maybe you need to move to the US, OP. Sounds right up your alley.

Contrary to what some people say, Men can't give birth to children. So I'm just going with what biology dictates here.

I always see fascism when I see a push to deny certain people the vote.