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?

Exactly. Sounds about 16

This must be a wind up.

Thanks. For what it's worth I think highly of everyone in this thread and wish them every success. My understanding of empathy is it's theory of mind, the ability to model another's mind. It doesn't mean I must agree. And as I lived in a very deprived area and nothing was given to me, I feel like it's a little unfair for others to suggest I don't care. My intent really is to have a bit of a rant about the state and the fact it is building a dependancy class that's reliant on it. If people are genuinely offended by this discussion then the problem they have is that they're easily offended over nothing.

Good morning @Hmmtheplant . Great book "Democracy, the God that failed' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a great read.

Putting aside personal circumstances surely most recognise there is an issue with the ballooning welfare state. Most reasonable people want to ensure the vulnerable and temporarily unemployed are supported. But now whole swathes of the population are on UC and a smaller and smaller group of taxpayers supporting them are buckling under the strain.

Don’t agree with ops drastic solution but this is an issue. The low wage economy meaning those in work need top ups from the state is surely not right. I am not a clever economist so hope someone (hopefully Keir Starmer) has a solution.

Presumably in order to check if someone is “net positive”, you’d need to see how much they’ve “taken out” of the system too - so how many doctors appointments, hospital procedures, have they ever needed to use the police, fire service, education etc, how often they use roads, infrastructure etc.
Apart from it being a totally monstrous idea, it would be incredibly complicated to work out

Ah, OK. I thought this was real discussion. Now I see it's just a piss take.

Are you stupid or just a really nasty piece of work? Maybe you're a journalist, given the press Mumsnet has received recently for being in the majority in favour of Reform? Whatever the reason for this post, you need to get out and do some voluntary work.

I'm not easily offended by the way. I do think you are trying to intellectualise hate speech. You sound like you think you are above everyone in the room. A nazi with a high IQ.

To be fair, with the poll he has shown that around 20% of people will vote for quasi-Nazi policies without thinking through the implications, the practicalities, or whether the leopards will actually eat their faces. Which is interesting info

Er, wasn't that around the percentage Reform vote in that MN poll recently?

Anyway, it goes to show the importance of using your vote.

And yes OP, it is a horrible thread because you're trying to sell us the idea that people on low salaries or with high medical needs are second class citizens - an idea that has plenty of purchase out there as it is. Not funny when it hurts real people - hate crimes against the disabled are all too common already.

Yes, everyone who doesn't think like you is a bad person. The 150 people who voted Yes are bad people too? There's no value in having a discussion. And I'm the problem. Got it.

The state is not 'building a dependency class'. We have had a welfare state for a long time and the general direction of travel since the 80s has been to make it progressively more difficult to claim.
People are typically claiming benefits because they are too old to work, too sick to work, or their wages are too low to live on. None of those things are a reason to disenfranchise them. Nor would taking their vote mean they were suddenly young, healthy and got a pay rise.
There is no data for the number of people who choose benefits as a lifestyle. However, should this group exist in a significant number, I'd very much doubt preventing them from voting would change their attitude.
So your idea would achieve nothing of value while destroying the democratic process. An idea with a significant cost and no benefit is invariably a stupid one.

And I'm the problem. Got it.

What a sad little troll you are.

Petulant.

And as I lived in a very deprived area and nothing was given to me, I feel like it's a little unfair for others to suggest I don't care

Oh dear, dragging out the hard up childhood. Low, very low. More to the point, in your example the one doesn't follow from the other. Critical Thinking 101.

Your lack of caring is evident in the very premise of this thread.

It must be hard when one's clever thread devolves into nothing but people laughing at you.

I’m writing this for the third time OP: the laugh is on you.

You’re claiming to be playing around but it’s a dangerous area to play in.

“Don’t play with matches.”

You’ve been saying hateful things; now you’re trying to day it’s just a game. You can’t have it both ways.

Two hundred people have pushed the agree button but it doesn’t mean they’ve thought it through.

i think you need to straighten out your thinking too.

Defeated by a landslide majority then! Oh well, never mind. Perhaps a few tweaks to your manifesto and you may get a better result next time.

Is this bollocks still ongoing?😂

The poster who pays high tax to sit on MN all day. Yeah right

I'm not a dependent. I don't claim anything. What this government does affects me because I live here. So why does the fact that I don't earn what you earn equate to me forfeiting my right to vote in your utopia?

You haven't really explained that, to be honest. You have said you'd like me to be paid more, and in the next breath, you've said you don't think you should pay the taxes that would be necessary for me, a state employee, to be paid more.

You oddly think we'd be better off if only people who were 'net contributors' could vote, but haven't answered any of the valid reasons given by myself and others as to why that is the case.

I can't help wondering if this is a little bit like the team that wins the election never complains it is rigged. You are unhappy because the wrong lot got in. You're fine and dandy with who votes when everybody votes your way.

Which would be funny if that's the case, because it's actually been a long time since voting lines have been divided along the lines of, 'rich - labour poor - Tory'.

Voting is a responsibility I take very seriously, because people died in order for me to have it. I don't think it's a light-hearted 'joke' to discuss taking something away from me that someone once thought was valuable and important enough to starve themselves in protest to get it.

If you are offended that I am offended it might be because you don't value your right highly enough, which hardly gives me confidence that you are the best person to be in possession of it.

Link in my original post to the data

158 people are agreeing with me. Interesting. Really gets the noggin joggin.

Read my original post.

This absolutely.

There is no data to suggest people choose benefits as a lifestyle. How could there be? One of the options for reasons for claiming isn't 'choose not to work', so where would it come from? How can any researchers draw conclusions that people who have convinced decision makers they are unable to work are really simply unwilling?

The country should be run by a group of 15 sensible mums who dont actually want to do it. The world should be managed on this basis actually. No men. They have made enough of a mess already.