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's not how biology works.

I didn’t say biology.

I said eugenics.

Why bother? Lets just euthanize them

So averaged out between the ages of 18 and 68 I'm a net contributor. But between the ages of 18 and 30 I was a net receiver. The question was how are you compensating me for the votes you wrongfully denied me between the ages of 18 and 30? It's not a maths question at all.

No. All kids get that. I’ve earned excess voting credit, I would not want that to die with me (or I might as well stop using private healthcare and burn some benefits by using the NHS) so I would like it to be something that can be inherited so she can get off to a better start in adult life with full enfranchisement. It would be akin to funding a gap year or whatever, she can use my inherited excess while she bums around for a few years before getting a proper job. I’ve been lucky and am wealthy so my heirs should be able to benefit from my superior voting position as well as all my other assets.

Alternatively, on my death bed perhaps I can be matched up with someone on benefits whose politics I agree with, and can allocate my remaining excess to paying off their deficit so they can vote after my passing.

Please design your amazing system accordingly.

Look forward to your ideas on how, when I’m out for dinner with friends, we get the restaurant to report to the government which one of us had the gin & tonic so that person (and no other) gets the alcohol duty on their account.

Thanks OP for that 👍 to putting you on your island for dodgy men.
You're welcome

So only the rich get to participate in democracy ?

Um no. That’s oligarchy.

Oligarchy is disgusting. Look at Russia. As for Reform UK - Farage, Tice et al are oligarchs, they are preparing to benefit the wealthy at everyone else’s expense.

But you said that women with 2+ children would be exempt from paying tax for life. Which means they can never pay in and therefore never “earn” their vote. So it is a trap.

Incidentally there was another group of people who had the policy of financially rewarding women for having large families.

At age 25 you're a net negative. You ask me at age 25, can I vote? No.

At age 35 you're a net positive. You ask me at age 35 if you can vote? Yes.

At age 45, you have a health issue and you're a net negative. You cannot vote.

Understand?

Oh yes, you're right. My bad. I'll have a think about it.

OP just now.

If we're going to have conditional voting, could we perhaps take away the right to vote from anyone who has demonstrably proven themselves to be a twat?

No, because you said it was over a working lifetime. Now you're saying it's worked out at lifetime to date.

Which is it? Make up your mind.

It's binary. Negative or positive. Not a system of account.

Yeah, same ones who believed in eugenics and master race.

This is just about valuing alpha citizens. Similar.

It's as I just described. Unless I change my mind. We're navigating complexity and the situation is evolving. Thank you for your patience.

Can I give you the award

Valuing productive citizens who contribute and support those that need it. Rewarding them with a vote. Is that alpha?

“Vote together”?

By together do you mean that a wife in that position can only vote for the same party as her husband?

Yes, but you may be putting yourself at risk.

No, they both get a vote. They achieved the results as a team.

Hahaha! AI will always fall foul of itself. Have a nice day.

And you think you won't be at risk yourself?

I refer you back to the poll. 81% of posters think you're unreasonable.

Does ChatGPT not have a more sophisticated “I’m making this shit up as I go along” phrase? 😁

Aren't we all?