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?

Using the premise of the poll which is a simple heuristic, yes.

OP, you didn’t answer my earlier question - do you actively want to live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Because, by only giving the wealthy the vote that is inevitably what will happen, as the well off vote in their own interests and not in the interests of those struggling with poverty, disability, etc.

Of course you do.

Agreed. No taxation without representation is a good concept.

An interesting point. Is childcare, healthcare, social care worth paying for? If it is not and will not, in your society, earn the right to vote what happens if everyone decides not to do these things?

If you did nothing to earn or deserve it, then it's pure luck.

You were no more deserving at birth than any other child.

Both are working if one is doing the childcare. Caring responsibilities are WORK. And not optional, either. Unless you think having children is optional for a society? Clue: it isn't if the society wants to survive.

Contributions to society aren't just financial, would those who have much needed voluntary roles either instead of or as well as their employment get extra 'points' in your system?
Net givers and net takers should be much broader than just money. Some are takers through anti social behaviour, criminal acts, violence etc. Some are givers through formal or informal volunteering, caring for others etc.

There is also a strong element of luck in this - if someone gets cancer for example, it's unlikely that they would ever pay the system back for the cost of their care unless a high earner, they would always be a 'taker' under your system. Or does it reset every year?

Right. So can you just go back to your original post, quote that underneath it, and we can all get on with our lives 😁

It isn't really that, either. The truth is, some professions generate more income than others, regardless of their intrinsic social value.

A top level footballer may not be as valuable on a societal level as a care worker/nurse etc, but what they do generates more money through sponsorship, TV rights, ticket sales, etc.

Those that command high salaries are more likely to work in fields which are high financial generators. In short, if you work for a company that makes a lot of money, you'll be more likely to earn a lot of money.

To pay more to, for example, a carer in a nursing home, more money needs to be generated in the home, which means either charging more to those who use the facilities or cutting corners.

In the 90s there were a lot of private owners of care homes who treated it like a racket. Some made a lot of money out of it as owners but only by paying the lowest wage possible, charging a lot and cutting corners (I worked in one such home, it was a horrendous experience).

Properly run nursing homes don't make anyone rich. It costs a lot to properly care for people and unless you only cater for billionaires, you'll never be able to charge enough to pay everybody concerned substantive wages.

Contributions to society aren't just financial,

Is your view. The OP seems to have an opposite one.

Clearly a compromise is needed.

I want to live in a society where people are sovereign and not forced to fund a bloated state. Where no one is entitled to the property or labour of others simply because it is politically fashionable or delivers short term gains for parties in power. Where support for those in need exists, but is voluntary, local, and accountable, rather than compulsory.

The OP could be onto something.

Maybe we could tax children as well ?

Well articulated. I'd have to agree.

I want to live in a society where people are sovereign

But you are sovereign ! You are a sovereign citizen, surely ?

Surprised you pay any tax at all, really.

Oh I understand the meaning(s) of the word perfectly well. Whilst in some circumstances it could be used as a synonym for a random occurrence, in this case it is used to mean something that happened to you which was not the result of your own efforts.

You don't get to choose a singular meaning of a word just because other meanings are inconvenient to your argument.

It's luck, whether your ego wishes to admit it or not.

Next thing we'll know, you'll be saying that women can't vote. Yes,let's revert to Victorian times when only the rich and upper class (men) could vote. Splendid idea.

I think having endless amounts of children and expecting others to pay for it is outrageous. And you know what I mean.

You love creating strawwomen. You're very good at it. Well done. I'm praying for your inevitable splendour.

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.

OK, well, according to your rules, once an 18yo has paid for the healthcare and education they've received (amongst other things) then they get to vote?
Say around 40ish?

That's a ridiculous thing to even suggest. Of course women should be entitled to a vote.

However maybe their husbands could cast if for them ?

Really? Because earlier you were suggesting that women who had tons of kids should be exempt from paying tax

If your pet poodle gives birth do you think it's luck that a poodle puppy is born? Are you anxious it may have been kittens? Perhaps you were worried it'll give birth to a bear?

Yet in your ideal world women with more than two kids wouldn’t have to pay any tax? Make it make sense!

Oh,not another one. Our constitution is uncodified. It consists in acts such as the Act of Settlement and Bill of Right, the various enfranchisement acts, those clauses of Magna Carta still standing (4), and other constitutional acts as well as precedent. It is written. Honestly, this does really need teaching.
And it is useful to have it uncodified as though constitutional acts cannot be repealed they can amended and extended which makes a flexible constitution. Being lumbered with a document that has to have amendments added all the time and which fits the time it was written but not the present would be a real burden.
I agree that T. Blair took a coach and horses through it, and tried to wreck it. I am unsure why making the head of the judiciary a minister in the Commons and no longer a lawyer made the judiciary more independent, too. It very obviously makes the Lord Chancellor aka Minister for Justice less independent. T. Blair was a creep who wanted to destroy the Common Law.