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?

You forget wealth isn’t enough
men must have given their sperm to produce a daughter and women their eggs a son. Or it’s a big no from chat

It's absolutely who gets to vote because the incentives for gov is to create an ever-growing dependent class?

Yes, not all opinions are equal. Your ability to vote should be based on your commitment and ability to contribute.

Thinking of another thread I see a link here.
Is it you that ate all of that chocolate cake last night OP ?

IMO you should be able to buy extra votes. A million pounds for one extra vote and 10 million pounds for two extra votes. It would raise a lot of money for the exchequer.

Very interesting. Will look it up and get it on Kindle or something. Thanks!

I watched this years ago, the one with Gregory Peck, good film. Also read Starship Troopers which was different from the film in that you could do military service or public service to earn citizenship and be a part in the decision making process. Slightly different from the OP's proposal of determining it based on net money contribution. The idea of earning citizenship or a vote isn't that controversial or new, it's something we have become used to relatively recently and now feel entitled to.

There would be a lot of younger people - not working, rent help, top ups etc who would also be disenfranchised as well. As a pensioner paying more in tax than my state pension, due to savings, do I get a vote? 🙄

Maybe we can decide our own point of reckoning, to reflect the sort of career we are likely to have. Mine gets better paid the more experience you have. So given OP says it’s worked out over a lifetime, I want my votes given to me while I work towards my peak earnings, regardless of my tax paid at the time, and the reckoning to come after I die, like death duties. I promise the state can disregard any of the votes I made in previous elections throughout my life if I’m found not to have been eligible after all.

I’m reminded of American comedian Rita Rudner, who was asked by a homeless person, “Do you have any spare change?”. To which she replied, “How do I know? I haven’t finished living my life yet”.

I do wonder about these goady, baity sorts of posts...

@Papyrophile @ohdelay looking for the book. Was it this www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/products/on-the-beach-book-nevil-shute-9781842322765?sku=GOR001367771?

I'm really liking this idea from @Papyrophile of a plural-voting franchise idea rather than simple service-based suffrage where you can earn more votes based on various criteria.

But contributions to society aren't limited to how much tax you pay. Or indeed how many children you pop out.

Yes, I think that was it....

ok, thanks for showing us who you are.

YABU because it would be heavily weighted in favour of the rich. Part of the reason any rich person is rich is lucky, be that inheritance, an amazing skill like a footballer, or just being in the right place at the right time like Bill Gates. See the Malcolm Gladwell theory that Gates hit a very specific point in time when his obsession and hard work aligned with a specific market gap. Obligatory throat clearing that the Beckhams and Gateses of this world work hard for their money too.

Or rich people are rich because they are happy to exploit others.

So all in all that makes for an unbalanced electorate. It also values people accordingly to their wealth which is an unpleasant idea.

I agree OP. I can't imagine not paying in but having a say in how it is spent!

Also what about children. If I have lots of kids do their costs count against me? You'll take the vast majority of parents out of the electorate if so. It'll be OAPs, nepo babies and the childless.

What's also interesting is that the OP appears to recognise "looking after my DW's family member with dementia" as a contribution to society and the country.

Presumably he is not waged to do this care? And therefore not taxed on doing this care?

So he does recognise (in some recess of his mind) that it is possible to be contributing to society – sometimes extremely heavily – without that contribution appearing in the tax record.

And of course there's a correlation between the people who are doing lots of unwaged work and the people who do not earn enough to pay much tax. As women we understand this very well.

This one-dimensional "only taxable income is a metric of human contribution" is the sort of nonsense I thought we'd seen the back of with the move from a male-centric world view. But no, apparently still alive and well and dominating the OP's thinking.

And only the rich, healthy OAPs at that!

It's like the machismo-filled Cabinet Office which made so many mistakes during covid. See the evidence of then Deputy Cabinet Secretary Helen McNamara:

Just a day after Cummings’ appearance she told the Inquiry women became invisible overnight and “the exclusion of a female perspective led to significant negative consequences, including the lack of thought given to childcare in the context of school closures.”
[...]
MacNamara’s witness statement added: “There was a serious lack of thinking about domestic abuse and the vulnerable, about carers and informal networks for how people look after each other in families and communities. There was not enough thinking about the impact on single parents of some of the restrictions. There was a disproportionate amount of attention given to more male pursuits in terms of the impact of restrictions and then the lessening of the same (football, hunting, shooting and fishing). There was a lack of guidance for women who might be pregnant or were pregnant and what those who were key workers should do.”
[...]
Yesterday, the inquiry was read messages in which MacNamara was described as a “c**t” by Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Boris Johnson – something she said was “horrible to read” but was “both surprising and not surprising”.

“Macho” overconfidence was pointed to as an issue in government decision making, and this was echoed later by David Halpern, former chief executive at Whitehall’s Behavioural Insights Team.

• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/covid-inquiry-ppe-domestic-violence-helen-mcnamara-boris-johnson/

I am just about a net contributor as a teacher but I think I contribute an awful amount to society. Are my colleagues on mainscale not allowed to cite be user they have chosen to work in public services rather than go into a high paying career post graduation?

Not really, as that requires these philosopher kings to own no property and receive no salary. Which pretty much renders your entire system of conferring authority only upon those who have wealth defunct.

You'll also knock out a disproportionate amount of women due to caring responsibilities.
The more I think about it the worse an idea it is!
An electorate should represent it's society as far as is practical.

I can take or leave voting. Voting has never done anything to help my own lifestyle though it may have helped others.

We have cost the govt very little. Haven't used the state school system. Only used the NHS for one birth out of 3.
We're lucky to have three healthy children and no disabilities.
How would you factor in people that don't do paid work but do volunteer. Or family carers who save the state on the coast of care?

Anyone is only a freak accident or serious illness away from not being a new contributor. What happens then?