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 more honest.

…this sounds awfully like you’re arguing there’s some sort of inherent genetic superiority in some people. But of course you couldn’t mean that, could you?

It sounds exactly like the OP believes that some people are inherently more deserving simply by virtue of their birth.

Yes so family unit would cover that. One can be the childcare and the other the earner. Or both can work.

By virtue of work and effort

Do you think people are equally good at everything? Does everybody get the same marks in maths?

But if we are talking about the family that you're born into, it isn't your work and effort that has made the difference. So why would you think that you're more deserving than anyone else?

No taxation without representation. So I’m going to give up my job, pay no tax, and claim benefits. I will never pay enough tax to earn the vote (and even if I do it’s not a permanent right) so what’s the point in working at all?

.

I think everyone should have the right to vote, but I don’t think the vote should be equal and should based on a points system. Those who are currently working (any amount) get 3 points. Those who are out of work but have previously contributed to the system get 2 points per vote. Those who don’t work and have never worked get 1 point per vote. Obviously factoring in disabled people into the above as well as they will all fall into one of the 3 categories above.

That way everyone has a vote and can have their say as it were, but if you aren’t contributing to the productivity of the country and have never done so, you don’t get as much as a say on how the money is spent.

Disabled people who manage to be net positive should get two votes then since they've clearly had to work harder and put in more effort than the next person without a disability.

No, it should be based on being a citizen of the polity in which you are exercising the vote. That is how our constitution works. Having parties who were not technocratic managerealist neo-liberals with not a clue how to make the country work would help, though.
Have you read Plato's Republic?

Of course YOUR DNA is 100% luck. YOU did absolutely fuck all to receive it. Your parents might have put some thought into who they procreated with but that is their effort, not yours. It doesn't matter how much planning and thought they put into it, for you it is pure luck.

The only valid argument against it being luck on your behalf would be for you to prove how you chose your own DNA. Please do go ahead and explain how you used your skills and effort to influence your parents prior to your conception.

Of course, asking AI to draft this system, it came back and said it would just be easier to tax votes - £1,000 per vote. It noted that would also keep the riff raff out and at the same time stroke the ego of people who are obsessed about how much tax they pay.

I am so pleased we now have tools that can think better than I can.

I see people as connected ofc and want to give me kids better than I got. It's then up to them to make the most of it. But certainly if you looked at families across generations you'd see some have different behaviours than others. I believe in free will and also common sense, to pretend that people are lego bricks entirely independent of each other is nonsense. I'm a product of my parents and my children are a product of me and my DW. And they're also also able to exercise their own choices and have their own impact.

I don't think you understand what the word 'luck' means. It wasn't a random occurrence. Do I you see what I mean now?

I think that's what @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack said, I think. We are not swappable and the circumstances into which we are born are luck.

Keen for your thoughts on this OP.

What about people who volunteer for the good of society?

How many points would you get for say being in a mountain rescue team, an RNLI volunteer, or even giving blood?

Our constitution is unwritten and based on precedent which Tony Blair and his ilk did their best to sabotage.

Of course people are connected and of course we are the products of our parents. So what?

That doesn't address the point that you didn't do anything to deserve being born into a particular family with particular advantages or indeed disadvantages. That was pure luck on your part, regardless of any good decision-making on the part of your parents or grandparents etc. You will no doubt enjoy the benefits of their hard work and wise choices, but you can't take the credit for what they did - you did nothing to make that happen.

I like the idea of earning more votes. We could go down that route certainly.

Maybe if you aren't earning, you just aren't contributing to society ?

You don't have to deserve it. You're given it out of love. It's your birthright.

Remind us all when Tony Blair illegally prorogued parliament - it's a banger !