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?

Ultimately the people who use tax funded services and work in tax funded professions have a huge interest in how those services are run and should have a vote.

The worth of a human being shouldn't be determined by their financial worth, unpaid/low paid labour is and had always been vital to society and their voices are important. You must know this though. There are huge numbers of people who don't use the vote they have because they see it as pointless so not entirely sure why you'd have such a bee in your bonnet about people who do want to use theirs.

Kinder, kirche, kuche

An example of one basic way you contribute that isn't money.

Let's work out a way to ensure Women are in the franchise. We're brainstorming here! So far I'm thinking more than x2 kids and they don't get taxed for life.

Mmm

Raising my kids, providing and provisioning, moved location to ensure their environment is the best it can be. Ending generational trauma. Looking after my DW's family member with dementia. That good?

So it's not really about the tax money or pressure on public services at all, got it. Why didn't you just write an op saying immigrants shouldn't get to vote, say what you really mean...

I agree OP.

Another suggestion would be anyone who claims benefits for over a year is denied a vote. Once they are back in work or contributing tax they reclaim their vote.

Because of the incentives at play in government.

But this is very strongly incentivising the family to be set up so that the woman (who gave birth) is the one out earning money - seems the opposite to what biology dictates to me.

And in the OP's utopia, who owns the housing stock?

Whose income goes to a property owner each month as rent?

And who sits there receiving that rent each month, merely for owning the property?

Because we know all about this system.

Those at the top of the system can work less or not at all. Their income is the rent they receive from the workers. Currently a lot of that rent is provided via benefits via taxes, topping up the workers to pay to the property owners.

Under the OP's system, the property owners receive a good income from the rents and can therefore pay for many of their needs and they also pay some tax. So they get to be net tax contributors and vote for a government which serves only them.

The lower-paid working people's wages are insufficient to pay the rent and cover all their other needs, and they pay less income tax. So they never get to vote. They will be under a government which serves the property owners; and not only has no interest in trying to serve the working people but is motivated to keep them disenfranchised forever (to keep its constituents happy). Low wages and no employment rights are just fine for the property owners.

The OP's system does not give the working people "enough land, work, or security [or] the essence of liberty and justice."
Instead it locks into place "wages so low and conditions so insecure that he cannot do it, there is the essence of tyranny and shame."

But wouldn't that mean they haven't paid enough tax to vote.... And why women, not the dads?

Everything in life can't be boiled down to one issue. Here we're talking about voting.

Elon is that you?

It's a maths question. It'll depend on the maths.

Ah, OP, you're the man who, on another thread, declared you are only here "for the lols", and didn't mind if you got banned.
Trying hard!

The reality is that if you couldn’t work this out for yourself or didn’t see fit to post this obvious consequence then you have no business in telling women what they must do with their bodies to have rights.

You are a depraved person

Not allowed to talk about governance systems even with a trigger warning? Seems rather restrictive.

I've already responded to your "argument", such as it is, in my previous post on this thread. It doesn't warrant a detailed rebuttal because it is so obviously flawed.

As for attacking your character - well, yes. If you suggest a morally abhorrent policy, then people will inevitably draw conclusions about your character and moral compass.

I'm not 'telling' anyone anything. I'm running a poll and having a discussion. Cheer up.

So how do you figure this will work if you only become net positive as you get older (promotions, no longer have dependent children), ending your working life as net positive overall? How would you compensate me for the votes I should have been able to use earlier in my life because you didn't have a working crystal ball?

If there’s a MrsSBG hiding under the stairs we can point you to some good divorce threads

🦆🦆🦆🦆🦆.

But why is money your only metric for earning a vote?

What about all the corruption in certain industries, which just ends with a fine or suspended sentence. Those people remain net contributions, but have often stolen or embezzled from innocent people, stolen taxpayer money in government contracts they never fulfilled, just trails of corruption. But they can keep voting because they’re still paying tax?

Carers and volunteer workers who keep a significant percentage of the population of this country alive, safe and well aren’t earning a vote purely because you only measure their worth in money?

I would consider you to be making a greater contribution to society if you wrote your own posts instead of using ChatGPT. Who's to say you should be allowed to vote when you're outsourcing your brain for something as low-stakes as a rant on an internet forum?

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.