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?

The limits of your belief say more about you than me.

Competent people who understand how wealth creation works would vote, and politics of envy around wealth redistribution would be less effective.

And how much would those ‘competent people’ understand about the needs of people who aren’t privileged and wealthy, @SBGM247? The needs of people with disabilities, people who aren’t privileged unpaid carers, stay-at-home parents, people doing low paid - but utterly essential - work?

If you give the very wealthy all the power, they will bring in policies that protect their wealth and increase it, at the expense of the less well off in society.

Yes, agreed. How much do the people voting currently know on average? This is the problem with democracy.

So low paid staff such as cleaners and nurses should get to vote then?

OP

AI will make most middle jobs redundant, there will be a few incredibly wealthy people, more so than now and many more unemployed than now.

Have you not thought ahead? Perhaps your job won’t exist in 5 years and you will lose your vote as well as your income.

You can just say “it wouldn’t” rather than give me a non answer because obviously it wouldn’t.

But it wouldn't happen like that. It DIDN'T happen like that. Not all wealthy people understand wealth creation as a whole. Many only understand it from their specific perspective. As in 'I have acquired it, and I'd prefer fewer people had the opportunity to acquire similar because that means less for ME. It also means fewer people will be willing to work for ME at the low rate I will pay them. It is not in MY interest to vote for policies which enable more people to acquire the wealth I have.'

This is the basis on which societies with restricted voting such as you suggest work. Human will always fight to preserve their own interests. In a democracy, restricting voting only serves to ensure that fewer interests are served. Historically, the net result of these policies has been feudalism and an inescapable class system which has not ended well.

The Soviet Union is a prime example. Lots of us agree that wasn't great. Few people think about the cause of the revolution, the reason that system came about. It came about precisely because of the sort of feudalist system which ensured the peasants had no say in how the country was run and no means of getting a say apart from the one they eventually chose.

Our system may be imperfect. But it's a damn sight better than restricting the democratic right to vote to a handful of self-interested individuals who are unable to think beyond their own wealth retention and their need to retain a class that exists only to serve the business of the 'wealth generators'. Most wealth generators do not, in fact, have much interest in the wealth of the nation as a whole, which is why they are rarely at the forefront of campaigns to increase wages for those they employ.

Honestly, fuck off. People's worth in society isn't measured solely by how much tax they pay. And if you earn less than about £50k you aren't a net contributor. Of course that amount increases if you have health issues or children too.

I'm a net contributor to the pot but have also been a lower earner. My value as a member of society isn't higher now.

So an interesting concept that was indeed practiced in the 1700s and 1800s. The obvious glaring flaw is that the wealthy will always be incentivised to vote for whichever party promises to have the lowest taxes.

The problem then is that is that the poor tend to get a bit upset about living in poverty and dying early. Being the majority they then tend to revolt (as Marie Antoinette and Tsar Nicholas found out the hard way).

On the other hand in our current democracy where 1% of highest earners pay 30% of all income tax, the next 25% pay 75% and 43% pay no income tax at all then voters are incentivised to vote for whichever party promises to pay for the most benefits and services. Or as Alexander Tyler put it:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

So both options have their flaws. In order for democracy to work long term you need voters to vote based not just on their own self interest. Unfortunately that is not in human nature and voters will always prioritise immediate benefits over fiscal responsibility, leading to instability.

Agency is a super power.

You happy for someone to operate on you with no medical knowledge? Would you argue that having medical knowledge would produce better outcomes? Apply w/e your answer is to the argument at hand. Let me know your conclusions.

I think a rebellion about this sort of society started with The Levellers in the 1600’s.

Then the Radicals then the Trade Union movement. Culminating in the formation of the Labour Party.

Yes let’s just wipe out 400 years of history for this bot why not?

Correct, agreed. Voting blocks will protect their own interest. That's why we would want a meritocratic system.

You clearly do feel entitled, though. Hence the reference to "birthright".

It's more likely if there's a strong sense of shared identity, vision and common roots.

You could still have a lot of value without needing to play an active role in governance.

Depends on if they're a net positive or net negative. They should also prob get paid more and would do if we stopped importing cheap labour.

Votes aren't only based on financial issues.

In that case, disabled people should only be able to vote regarding issues involving disabilities.

Oh wait, most of them wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Why should someone be able to vote on issues involving disabilities if they don't know anything about it?

You're right. You'd need credible expert opinions.

Patronising or what?!

I guess that would rule you out, then. What a shame.

This is a low stakes chat on the internet. We're having fun. Nobody is taking away your vote IRL.

The OP does not agree.

Low stakes chat? Yes.

Having fun? You need to get out more, or perhaps find a hobby.

Nobody is taking away my vote? I know, nobody would take your stupid suggestion seriously.