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?

That it's a lousy idea that hasn't been thought through.

You're describing a form of Novus homo.

Your modern day nobilis wouldn't be happy with that. Or your newly created mancipium.

If someone was born with a disability that meant they were unable to safely work in an employed role but (for example) they are a law abiding citizen, perhaps do some volunteering if able… you don’t think they should have the right to vote in elections that will hugely impact their quality of life?

He's done it to me too.
Strange MO.

What would the timestamps prove exactly?

Most people working within the public sector are not doing this and not making any decisions on policy.

Benefits for working people remain essential as employers continuously fail to provide a decent living wage. Every time the minimum wage goes up there is back lash and for those sat above it, the rises are often below inflation. Including for those working in the public sector.

It's really great for you that you no longer live in the environment you grew up in, it's clearly something you are pleased about. But this is often through luck, personality, intelligence being in the right place at the right time for an opportunity etc. There are lots of people who don't get those chances, so it isn't just a case of anyone can do this if they just try harder

Last time I checked, 81% of the 390 people responding to the poll thought you were unreasonable.

So if you're letting the poll decide, will you now accept that your idea is a shit one?

Thought not.

You sound like an expert on Rome. Very cool.

Finally OP says something that makes sense. You get my vote. Just make sure the island is televised ok?

Not sure we could include intelligence here though…..

I consider this thread to be a great success and an adventure so far. A little debate and discussion is good for the soul. I was thoughtful enough to put a trigger warning at the start so I assume we're all here because we want to be.

This entire thread of yours is based on wealth / earnings based discrimination
You are definitely in no position to dictate on that front.

Brilliant idea! Like Big Brother but they get no prizes.

How do you measure "success" exactly?

Is it a function of how many people you've managed to wind up with your trolling?

Creepy and belittling

You said net positive over a lifetime. Now you're saying net positive at a specific point in that lifetime. Which is it?

Don't allow yourself to feel belittled. He isn't worth it.

You start from 18.

You could have kids early in your 20s then a blossoming career later if you so chose.

Blank slate from 18.

That doesn't answer the question though does it.

Over a working lifetime or only at specific points in that working lifetime? Which is it?

Honestly I’m finding this thread a blast.

It does go to show we need more women in positions of power though
and maybe a bigger island for men like OP

Conditional democracy is the answer. Demonstrate you're competent and can make good decisions to vote. It's a good enough heuristic when compared to our current system which is woeful. To answer your other question, DW and DH are a unit so you can vote together if you're net positive.

At any point you can do the maths on whether a person has put in more than they've taken out. It's a maths question.

I have a suggestion for that too. Men won't be allowed to vote unless they've had a daughter. I think the world would look very different if we selected the ability to vote by that... to make it fair we can apply the same logic to Women too / having had a son but less needed IMO.

Sounds more like eugenics to me.
Disabled won’t be able to vote. So they’ll disappear eventually.