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?

If you're total contributions are less up to w/e point in your lifetime we're talking about - than total of what you have taken from the state. If you need 'free stuff' that's OK but you exchange it for your right to vote once you become net negative.

So you want to completely disenfranchise the profoundly disabled and their parents? This permanent underclass should have no say in government policy?

I guess you won't be allowed to vote then.

You are being incredibly unreasonable to link voting rights to economic status. That's not been true in England for over 100 years. I find it hard to believe anybody would serious suggest this.

The government should be serving everybody, not just the rich. In fact, if anything, they should be putting more weight on serving those with less income/wealth. The rich can look after themselves!

Just real people not companies etc... and if you become net positive you earn your right to vote.

Right, so what you do is take that information, query the source and then find other corroborating sources. Is this information backed up by multiple credible sources?

Do you suggest those who are burden be put down as well? They tried that in Nazi Germany. One would hope it will never be tried again.

I am a committed Conservative and have voted Conservative since 1979.

It would be helpful if you went away please.

We are significant contributors, likely never to be a burden. However, I believe every man and every woman should have the vote. That is the only way democracy can be sustained and governments can be representative

I’ll play for a minute before I go back to work (net positive, I’m sure). How would you fund the necessary individual assessments every year to ensure continued eligibility before any election? We vote in local, district, county and national elections. Would you use the tax take to make those assessments every time?

That would be sexist. But the property idea isn't a bad idea. 🤓

Yet here you are with time to post shite on Mumsnet.

I struggle to believe that anyone is awful enough to genuinely believe this would be a good idea.

But, just in case you're serious- no I don't want to stop people who are out of work due to disability, long term health conditions, who are raising children (or can they vote based on their partner's contributions?), or those who have retired from voting.

I'm very much part of the squeezed middle. That doesn't mean I don't care about other people's wellbeing, or that I'd want to take any of their rights away.

So - I don’t agree with you.

But - it is an issue that the majority of the population are taking out more than they put in, and that due to the ever-growing number of these people the government find themselves at the behest of them to stay in power.

Case in point being that lower earners in the UK pay very little tax and can access a variety of benefits - while those earning fractionally above average seem to be hammered again and again (frozen thresholds, removal of benefits, student loans etc).

I don’t really know what the solution is - like it or not, the size and cost of the ageing and non-working population is unsustainable. Our demographics don’t support it - and the expectations of what is delivered vs the tax people actually pay are misaligned.

We'll do it on a public ledger, blockchain with DIDs.

It doesn't mean I don't care either. It means if you're a dependent then you've not yet earned the right to vote.

FFS

Blockchain and DIDs could do it.

I contribute tons and yet have time to post on MNet. Some MNetters say i post Shite too.

So at each election we have to present a total of all taxes paid and all services used in our kifetime and if it is plus £1 we can vote.

How are we qualntufying services like armed forces, police, the judiciary, prisons, firing office and so on. How do you want to quantify education. Is it my debt, my child's, who benefits? Do you have a debt from benefiting indirectly from a well educated workforce, or is it only direct benefits.

Can we also do the opposite then? Those who don't have the right to vote also don't have to pay tax. I'll be up for that!

OP gets more ridiculous with every post.

You're a doofus, OP.

If you think simply being a net positive is 'rich' then you're proving my point of view for me. Thanks.

So should someone like my husband, who started work at the age of 15 and paid tax from then, and who worked until he was 67 without ever having had so much as a break in full time employment, now not be allowed to vote because he’s finally retired? Having left school at 15, he had probably paid income tax (at the higher rate for a number of years) and national insurance for longer than most people will be working nowadays. I’ve also been working since I was 16, and am still working at 68 and paying income tax - would the OP immediately withdraw my right to vote when I finally retire?

Sure. You got it.

Total lifetime contributions... as long as he's net positive he can vote. Once he becomes a dependent then he can't.