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?

I read in the Times on Saturday that working people are now paying £12k each to support welfare claimants and pensioners. So DH are together paying £24 k pa for this. It’s unsustainable.

This is the fucking stupidest idea I have read on here in a long time.

Nope ofc not, equal opps! If your partner and you have kids and collectively are a net positive, then you can vote.

How about making it only men and they have to own property?

Why?

Wouldn’t this also rule out working parents with children in state schools, who used the NHS for their births and their medical care? And all pensioners? And probably all standard rate taxpayers? So you’re advocating for the rich and very rich to be in charge of the country. There’s a word for that, and it’s not democracy.

I’m currently re-reading a Ken Follet book set in the late 1700’s to early 1800’s.
People who made less than a certain amount per year were unable to vote. This meant the mill owners held all the power and the workers or those laid off/injured (probably at work)/ widowed etc could be imprisoned, hung or starved to death for as little as speaking out of turn. Oh and women had even fewer rights ie none whatsoever.
It would be immoral and absolutely wrong to remove the right to vote from one or more sections of society.
Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge.

on all your income? or do you also have a tax free allowance like everyone else and tax is graduated up to 55%?

anyway, you are talking bollocks and i'm glad you aren't a decision maker. 😃

Ah, just realised this is probably Reform floating their manifesto on here again, by the back door. As you were, folks.

Im economically inactive because I planned my life to do so, retiring early. I still pay quite a bit if tax every month abd when I reach NPA I will a lot more.
So shod I be allowed to vote?

Goady thread is goady.

Tomorrow if you get hit by a bus and your medical bills skyrocket, do you deserve to lose your voting rights?

what if you have to spend a year doing painful rehabilitation? Do you not get to vote that year?

what if you are able to go back to work, but you need help with transportation costs because you are in a wheelchair? Your employer also needs to make some modifications and gets help to make those. You are still working an earning, but the government spent more on you this year so your collected taxes don’t offset the expense. Do you lose your vote this year too?

If that's true, the 10% poorest recipients would then be paying around 48% of that back in taxation.

Yeah, this would deprive a lot more women than men of the vote. SAHMs, carers, women who work but earn very little.

Of course it is.

Complete drivel.

No. I hate all of this equivocating about who should be allowed to vote and who shouldn't. I've seen threads in which people have advocated for those who are too old not to vote, those who voted Brexit, those who they consider too dim and,now, those who aren't contributing to the Treasury during working years.

I consider you all anti-democratic and idiotic.

What about people like me who work part time due to having a disability and get a UC top up? Should I lose my right to vote?

It's net positive over your lifetime. So, you get to keep voting as long as that's true. Ofc things happen to people where they need help with health or education or w/e so yes you can have it. Just in exchange for your vote if you're going to be a net negative.

Is someone doing a GCSE in Marxist theory?

😵a burden😡

Where do students come in this utopia? They don’t pay tax.

Another random letter/number username again🙄

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."

Re-read your OP.

Nah, they've ChatGPTd 'how to argue for a return to medieval feudalism and the removal of universal suffrage'.

No instead we will choose to go bankrupt as a country and like the 1970’s be forced into a bailout from the IMF that will impose draconian austerity, like what has happened to Greece.
Actually we owe so much that the IMF can not possibly lend us enough if it came to it and so we will have to borrow money from China and give them whatever terms they ask for.

In their lifetime, you say... So when would the voting age start then? Because children receive a lot of benefits in the form of subsidised childcare (such as it is), schooling, healthcare etc. At what age do you think they may recoup this investment to begin voting?
How would "a lifetime" net positive tax be assessed in each election cycle?
More importantly, who is going to do that and how much would it cost to set up?

And what else do you think those positive contributors will be voting for? No doubt to cut taxation burden. Which, of course will be perfectly feasible after all the "undesirables" die out reducing pressure on public services.