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?

But if we don't educate people well, the country will suffer

So this sounds like a Chinese style social credit system?
Start with voting and then add in other punitive measures?

The current system is working against the people it's meant to represent and is a bloated mess, creating a dependency class. Yes, ofc I realise not everything that is 'good' or has 'value' comes down to money, however, I also recognise the amount of people engaged in activity therapy or only take from the system. It's the shoulders of a few that are carrying the burden for the many. So the purpose of this thread was to discuss that which we're doing pretty well with.

Have we helped enough with putting together your argument for your school debating team?

What a stupid thing to think, write and post on the internet.

We don't educate people well. The country is suffering.

This old "net contributor" fallacy again.

Firstly, someone's contribution to society should not be measured solely in terms of money or tax paid. Millions of people in low-income jobs contribute to society in non-financial ways, and without them society would collapse. Whether they are performed by people who are unskilled or even well educated, there are countless vital jobs that are so poorly paid that people have to claim benefits in order to survive. There are people such as carers who "earn" virtually nothing but whose contribution saves the State thousands of pounds as the people they are caring for can stay in their own homes and not require the services of paid carers 24 hours a day. There are low-paid workers such as transport workers and construction workers, without whom there would be no trains or roads for the supposed "high earners" to travel on. There are cleaners in hospitals, refuse collectors, technicians and so on whose contribution is only noticed when they're not there. Doctors and surgeons might be well-paid, but no operations can take place if the hospital and operating theatres are not clean and equipped with fully functioning devices, and no patients are going to be treated unless the admin team has managed the schedules, ensured that the patients and staff know who is coming, when they are coming and why they are coming.

Secondly, "net contributor" only measures someone's status at any given moment in time. For the first 21 or so years of their lives, most people are paying very little, if anything, in income tax. They are receiving education and healthcare, are travelling on public transport and on public roads, their lives protected by police officers and so on. Likewise for the last 21 years or so of their lives, most people will not be "contributing" in the sense that they might be receiving more in benefits and state pension than they are paying in income tax.

Thirdly, "net contributor" usually only refers to income tax, but people pay plenty of other taxes. 20% of the price of many purchases goes towards VAT. People pay fuel duty, and alcohol and tobacco duty. They ultimately pay any duty imposed on imported products.

Forthly, the Government does not only raise taxes through income tax, and it is not only individuals who pay tax. Companies and corporations pay tax (and NI contributions, which are just another form of tax).

Pensioners, students, carers, low paid workers…

While wholly disagreeing with the OP’s premise, I do think there is an issue with voters thinking that those on £100k etc are ‘totally loaded’ and therefore should shoulder any tax increases single handedly, despite the many threads on here showing that if you’re a single parent with 2 kids in nursery and on £101k then someone on the minimum wage with housing benefit, child benefit, UC top up etc can easily have much more disposable income. People cannot comprehend other people’s finances.

Last year the Scottish government raised the income tax on those earning from £75k-£125k from 42% to 43%, conveniently forgetting that the marginal rate of tax for those earning £100-125k was already 65%. Did the finance minister understand this? I’d bet my bottom dollar she’s utterly clueless.

There’s a case for only those who pay tax having a say in who raises tax, but it’s still not morally right.

So SAHMs (or dads), those with disabilities that prevent them from working, the retired, carers, volunteers... In fact anybody who doesn't meet your narrow definition of contributing to society (i.e. based on the amount of tax they pay).... All disenfranchised.
Wow.
Why not go that extra tiny step and say they should be euthenised?

I think that’s the point.

An uneducated population will enable pyschotic inhumane zealots to rise to the top

Meanwhile, I can't imagine thinking that someone should be disenfranchised simply because they're not fortunate enough to be able to earn as much as I do.

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

Poverty is the default starting state.

Oh it would massively disenfranchise women compared to men.

Maybe that’s why OP supports it.

It's not just about luck though is it.

Exactly.

Well not at the moment in this society. In yours it would be for all the worker bees.

But the likes of you and the nobs would be fine.

Silly strawman.

What's your point though? That being poor is the default so having no vote should be the default?

This is approximately the same level of daftness as JD Vance suggesting people with kids should have more votes than those without.

I don’t think you know what a strawman is.

I guess in a way I have a certain amount of respect (probably the wrong word) for someone at least admitting they believe something cruel, unfair and discriminatory rather than tying themselves in knots pretending they didn’t mean what I thought they meant.

I hope you don’t ever share this opinion with any disabled people in your lives. Having said that, it would be quite good for them to know how you see them so they can remove you from their lives.

That people who work had to give their kids more and do better for themselves should be rewarded instead of having a system which thinks all wealth must be redistributed, that the state somewhere is our parent and has a right to do that. That the incentives are perverse and we're in a situation where the benefits system in this country is broken.

”financially” is the last word of that sentence.

No other contribution to society is worthy of representation in this thought exercise.

Can I ask why?

Nothing stopping someone who is 'disabled' from being productive is there? Unless you mean they're not cognitively capable? In which case they shouldn't be voting.