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 feel rather sorry for you @SBGM247

No-one who is happy with their lot could post such hateful drivel and get a kick out of it. I really hope things improve for you soon💐

I hope that everyone who is appalled at the idea of losing their vote because their salary isn't high enough, actually remembers to USE their vote every election

I posted a trigger warning.

Trigger warnings are not an excuse to post offensive crap like this.

Trigger warning my arse.

I despise them as a matter of course, but your whiny disclaimer is worse.

So you want people to work and then when they get too old, have no say? We see you.

Parasitic class?
So a low paid care worker who is looking after your elderly relative is a parasite because they are not a net contributor?
Fucking stroll on.

Yes, like I want them to drive but to stop when they don't know what they're doing anymore

Ah. Welcome to Mumsnet. I don't think you will be here long given the posts I have just seen from you.

And you think that your "trigger warning" gets you off the hook?

Like @PandoraSocks, I feel sorry for you. It must be soul destroying to have to go through life with so little empathy or compassion for others, to feel like your own value as a human being lies in how much revenue you can generate, and to find your "fun" in upsetting strangers on the Internet. What a miserable little life you must lead.

I am not saying that it does. But there isn't a lot of point in generating the work if nobody is up for doing it because they are all too busy 'bettering themselves' to get, for example, another vote.

Yes, people like me need people like you. But YOU also need us. I don't expect CEO money, obviously, but I absolutely, strongly, object to the idea that my contribution to society is not worthy enough for me to take a full, unlimited role in its democratic processes. I cannot see why your relative position makes you more worthy of that than I, simply because you run a company and I do not.

I am as much a part of this society as you. I am as necessary a cog as you, just in a different way. I have provided as valid points as you to this debate. Why does my employment level render me less 'deserving' of more votes than one, than you? I'd argue I am no more nor less informed than you to decide who runs this country, because the responsibilities of running a country go far beyond mere domestic affairs. I doubt your position qualifies you any more than me to judge the efficacy of a government's foreign policy, for example.

I doubt my marital status has much to do with my ability to consider whether I should vote for a government with a more, or less, aggressive approach to foreign policy.

The vast majority of government decisions will affect me just as much as they affect you. Some will affect me more than you. Some will affect you more than me. But none of us, regardless of our abilities, disabilities, what we do for a living, or even if we don't work at all, whether because we can't or we won't, are wholly unaffected by how we are governed. Therefore, we all should have a vote. Because it matters to ALL of us.

People fought and died for me to have the vote. Ordinary people. People like me. Not just CEOs of big companies, or very wealthy women, but factory workers, mill workers, etc. And they fought for women to have the vote, and before that, for men who previously hadn't met the property requirements to have the vote. And they did that not because they thought we'd always make the 'right' decisions, or even because they thought we would do 'better' than those who already had the vote, but because we ALL live here and we are ALL affected, on some level, by government decisions. From those at the very top to those at the very bottom.

Right, you've spent all day on here. Either while you should have been contributing via work (not very 'net positive' of you) or, even worse, you've spent a days leave on baiting people you consider less valuable than yourself. Time for a cocoa and bed I would say? You've earned it, you must be tuckered out. And we don't want you overtired tomorrow, we need your tax payments to fund our irresponsible choices!

In OP's view of the world, can any public sector worker possibly be classed as a net contributor seeing as their entire income comes from tax paid by others?

The most recent figures I could find say that just over 53% of people live in households that are net recipients - a figure that has been increasing slowly over the years. Perhaps this actually means that government spending is being spread more equitably over a greater proportion of the population.

The gpt chat makes you sound like a prat !

You could stop getting upset over discussions nobody is forcing you to participate in.

I raised that point in another thread, and was told that public sector staff are still net contributors as they "earned" it.

I very much doubt you're wealthy enough not to need the votes of those poorer than you to protect you from yourself.

I’ve got 3 things to say here which will probably get me banned😂 but judging by the arrogance and supremacy of the op they are:

Small of brain
Small of stature
Small of cock.

😊

@ObelixtheGaul you are absolutely nailing it throughout this thread.

I think ticking all three boxes should mean they are denied the chance to vote.

Thank you, @PerkingFaintly, that's very nice of you to say.