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 hope your wife has enjoyed a bit of respite and quiet time to herself this afternoon while you’ve been doing whatever this is, at least.

‘markist Kool aid’

Who the fuck drinks Kool Aid in the U.K.? And l assume you mean Marxist?

She's been reading this and thinks it's hilarious. But she's told me off for being a troll. A little bit unfair?

Markist & Spencers. That's where you buy the best kool aid.

I imagine her life is much easier if she laughs along and does a lot of ‘yes, dear’. Maybe she’ll have her own thread on here one day! What is ‘hilarious’ though, it’s not really funny material or is her bar just ever so low?

So please explain what effort the puppy put in to obtaining it's own DNA. You'll need to use the same established meaning of 'luck' that I am if you wish your argument to be valid and taken seriously. If you choose to continue to use the 'random chance' meaning in your argument (which is a valid meaning of the word but is not the one I am using) then your response will be invalid and will simply prove my point.

Go ahead...

Approximately 1 million pensioners in the UK are higher tax payers
Overall Taxpayer Population: Pensioners currently account for approximately 22.3% of all UK income taxpayers in the 2025/26 tax year. They hold a significant share of the UK's overall wealth, driven largely by property and private pensions.

You understand me perfectly. I'm happy to leave it here because I'm not interested in trying to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep. It's your argument that rests on 'luck' not mine. I think we're a product of a genetic lineage and countless generations striving to get us here. Apparently you think it's random. Each to their own. God bless you.

We're not boomers. Nobody talks like that 😂

You have said that. You said it in the post I was replying to. You want people to be 'sovereign', and for nobody to benefitting from someone else's labour. So that surely means that only people who pay for it should receive an education. Which means that only net contributors would be receiving an education. Which means, no child from a family of non-net contributors could be educated to a level which gave them a chance of becoming net contributors.

But even if you only truly mean 'the vote', again, we had that system. Not only could women once not vote, not could anyone below a certain level of property to their name. The net result of that was that society was organised for the benefit of those that could vote. And they largely voted to maintain the status quo by means of denying anyone else the means to reach the same lofty heights as themselves.

‘Yes dear’ is a reference to a type of response to a partner saying boring things, one you understood obviously.

I’m about 35 years under boomer age too and I can’t imagine having such a low bar when it comes to humour that I’d find this thread ‘hilarious’ but you do you!

I would much rather take the vote away from people who say could ‘of’. Dyslexic or not. I truly hate it. I guess we all have our intolerances..

You're leaving it here because you know you are incapable of producing a valid and coherent argument to disprove my assertion. It is luck. You know it is. Yes, I understand your argument. It's not a random occurrence - I have acknowledged that so you know full well I don't think that. But a person's DNA is not created through any effort of their own. Ergo it is luck according to the established meaning I am using.

Thanks for explaining.

Over 100 people have agreed with me so far in the poll.

And 5x that have disagreed!

You are faintly amusing, OP.

I'm finding my tribe.

The fact that you believe yourself to be more entitled than others purely on the basis of your "genetic lineage" and "countless generations striving" tells us all we need to know about you.

And your wife is obviously right that you are trolling. How sad that you have nothing better to do with your time.

I would not worry too much about the OP's wife if I were you since, if my hunch is correct and the OP is typing this in their bedroom at their parents' house, It is possible that the wife and children, not to mention their much vaunted 'net contributor' status, are all figments of the OP's fertile imagination!

What a load of goady bollocks.

Would someone not allowed to vote be allowed to contact their MP?

I'm not entitled. I've a torch to pass on to the next generation. To give better than I got. To end generational trauma. I simply don't think I'm an island. I'm connected to those that came before me and to those that may come after me.

Thanks for your reply this time but you actually avoided my question. Do you not agree that the overall effect of your proposal would be to make the rich richer and the poor poorer and if so why does that not bother you?

Because I don't think it's a zero sum game. I don't think it matters if you have more than me. I think it's about improving living standards as a whole. And that's what you get if you lower taxes and stop the state manipulating markets.

You'd get my vote OP 😊

Explain how it would improve living standards for those without the vote.