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?

Weird to keep flexing the ‘women with more than two kids won’t pay tax’ thing when that will obviously not make them net contributors. So you’re really a man saying ‘women with more than two kids won’t be able to vote.’ Nice trap!

Not usually when proposing an entire overhaul of democracy, no 😁

Team means together for a common goal.

A couple doesn’t mean they will vote the same, it’s just two people voting

so cannot ‘ achieve the results as a team ‘

Isn't talking to computers hilarious 🤣🤣🤣

They achieved the result of being net positive together. What they each do with their votes is a separate issue and up to them.

Yep, I need to think on that one more.

Not a team then
As I said

We understand each other. That's enough.

How about this one?

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?

Correct. I think they deserve to be looked after, to pursue happiness and everything else, but as they're taking out more than they're putting in they haven't earned the right to vote.

Valuing fit and healthy citizens. And ignoring the rest.

Do yes, you are cherry picking the healthiest and most able.

We could thwart this entire scheme by asking the OP if he would mind going upstairs.
I seem to recall robotic world- dominating- hopefuls having trouble with stairs?

The most able for the right to vote. A bit like Plato's republic.

I am currently sitting in a chair on the first floor.

I’m sure they’ll represent the needs of the Betas and Epsilons very well…..

Can't get downstairs though.

Surely the problem isn’t who gets to vote, but more that there is no person or party to vote for who has any credible policies to get us out of this mess?

I think that the OP has made it pretty clear that they don't believe that individuals have any intrinsic right to have a say in how their society is run.

In their dystopian world, peopleonly get to vote if they are able to generate sufficient tax revenue from private sector employment and/or self employment and/or investment income to cover what they take from the state. In other words, their value to society is measured entirely in monetary terms.

Women appear to have some value if they manage to pop out at least three children, and they will apparently be released from taxation for life as a reward. It is not yet clear from the OP's rather confused ramblings as to whether this "reward" could unintentionally relieve them of their right to vote if their male partners were not earning enough to cover their share of tax contributions.

Someone who was disabled from birth would be entirely at the mercy of the taxpayers who were eligible to vote. So if those taxpayers decided to prioritise their own self interest, then the disabled people - and anyone else who happened to be vulnerable - would be completely fucked without any right to do anything about it.

It's frightening to think that people like the OP exist.

More dystopian that the few extremely wealthy can vote themselves and their pals tax breaks become even richer and more powerful.

Say this idea was put into reality, who would stop the riots and unrest? The military certainly wouldn't.

I know what you mean by tax-negative, but I do not accept it as a criterion for the right to vote. Everyone must vote and take part in the political life of the country, irrespective of being on benefits, wealthy, out of work, disabled. Your proposition is not just something I disagree with profoundly but one I find offensive for its lack of understanding of citizenship (which is not affected by tax status - and we gave up property qualifications for voting over a century ago).
In a social democracy the welfare safety net is provided for all. It must not cost you your vote to receive needed help - at that point it ceases to be a safety net.
As an aside, how much money you put into a system is not the only criterion of wothy contribution. Many women stay at home (and some men) and are probably tax negative or at least not paying income tax, but their contribution is what holds up society:without the unpaid work many do the entire system would fall apart.
Now if you supported wages for all the caring and unpaid work mostly women do, often on top of a paid outside the home work, then I would cheer you on and join the fray.

Hmmm yeah I see your point, poor choice of word 😂 Self confidence or entitlement maybe

@SBGM247 - a person’s worth is not calculated only on their earning potential, and the size of a person’s tax bill does not equate to their political acumen.

The decisions of our politicians affect everyone - so, in my opinion, it is entirely unacceptable to exclude people based on their income/net negative tax.

I honestly thought we had left behind the antiquated notion that the lower economic echelons of society have nothing to contribute to the political life of our society, and deserve no say in the governments that will directly affect them, their families, and their entire lives.

They need to go and read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

If a bot can get what that’s about🙄

I very much doubt that , thank goodness for me anyway

Have you read "On The Beach"? @SBGM247 .

It's a variant of your idea, but a more sophisticated version in that it posits a society in which everyone over the age of majority has one vote, with the possibility of earning additional votes, up to a maximum of seven. The seventh vote is akin to an honour, like a Victoria Cross. I vaguely remember that completing a degree got an extra vote, a professional qualification a third, family formation was another, military service was an additional qualifying route, and I can't remember the rest. I was about 17 when I read it, so almost 50 years ago now. It's probably out of print.