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?

Oh, this is excellent bait OP. Reeled everyone right in!

But the overwhelming majority do not so why do you act as if you’re winning the debate?

If, and it's a very big if, your intention was to start a genuine discussion about the state (or what you refer to as the state when it's clear you actually mean the welfare state), then the clumsy and inept way you've gone about it should suggest to you that you aren't quite as well equipped to make decisions as you thought you were. You haven't said anything of substance. You haven't acknowledged any of the flaws in your plans and explained how you think they could be overcome. There is nothing to suggest that you are capable of making competent decisions on behalf of society.

But there's still a couple of hundred posts left before the thread is full. Plenty of time for you to articulate intelligently what policies you would actually want to see implemented by the net contributors, what the consequences might be, and how you would tackle them.

You clearly haven't read my posts then. I acknowledged flaws a number of times. Bit lazy perhaps?

Where do you stand on the fact that universal credit is a subsidy allowing large companies to pay less? Do Tesco shareholders get a vote or does their dependency on UC to remain in profit make them ineligible?

Also apologies if I've missed it but have you clarified your intent behind women with kids not paying taxes? Is that meant to encourage men to stay at home and women to work in a couple or not? What about the fact that this would leave mostly only people without children with a vote?

You know full well that I've read your posts, including the AI generated ones. We've had enough back and forth on this thread for you to know that.

As I said, no substance, no sign of intelligent debate. No intention to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion. Not someone well-equipped to make decisions on behalf of society.

Prove me wrong. How will limiting voting rights to net contributors improve things and for whom?

I did. I have answered it in good faith, taking it at the face value of being a genuine point of discussion. I have given you historical precedent. I have given you a detailed argument as to why you are not better placed than me to have a say, through voting, on the issues facing this country.

I have not called you names, or suggested you are anything other than a genuine poster. In response, you've backtracked down the, 'it was just a bit of a joke', line, you've used the bunch of flowers reaction on my posts (I still don't really understand that reaction button) and at one point you agreed with everything I said, in complete contradiction to your original position.

I'm not really offended, I'm just passionate about voting. I've voted every time since I've been old enough. And I think it's a right I earn by being a law abiding citizen of this country who takes the time and trouble to understand what it is I am voting for. In a true meritocracy, I'm the very person who ought to be top of the list of voters, because I'm someone who thinks it's an important thing to do.

I don't see that my bank balance has any bearing on my ability to make an informed decision. I DO pay taxes, just not as much as net contributors like yourself. So my money is going in the coffers. But even if it wasn't, even if I paid nothing at all (which would mean I'd have to not buy anything or go out anywhere), I'd still have the 'right' because I live here.

The government doesn't just decide who gets what and who pays what. The decisions it makes impact all our lives to a greater or lesser degree depending on the situation. Hyperbolic, I know, but if we get bombed, I'm just as dead as you. If I've voted for a government that causes WW3, and I knew it's actions were going to result in that, I would have to take some responsibility.

That's what voting is about. Taking responsibility for the place you live in and the actions of its government. My right to vote gives me the right to challenge, to question. If you don't want a nation of dependents, why would you entrench the dependency of lesser earners by removing their right to vote.

If course, it's all a bit of a thread for laughs, you don't really want to discuss, but that's a shame. It could have been far more interesting.

Bonkers. This is surely just a goady thread to get people riled up?

You say pensioners would be OK as they had been economically active in their lifetime - how about SAHM? Would they have to somehow prove they’d been overall a net contributor to the pot?

Doesn’t get the “noggin jogging” at all as it’s transparent nonsense.

You are obviously perfectly happy with disabled people not having a voice and disenfranchising them under your twisted methodology.

You clearly want to guarantee the election of far-right governments in perpetuity who will cut support for the low paid and sick/disabled people as it will result in only people that think like you being eligible to vote. A government and electorate of total cunts basically.

Can you imagine? We’d all have to fill in a form to say how often we drive on the roads etc?

And education would presumably be your own, not someone else’s (ie not your child’s as they aren’t you). So those who go to a state school would start off in deficit, whereas those who went private wouldn’t - the opposite of what any sensible govt wants to achieve!

@SBGM247 how do you envisage your idea would actually work practically? It sounds like a complete administrative nightmare to me. Would it be up to individuals to calculate whether they are net positive each year (or maybe just for the period of time in between elections?)

The turnout for the last general election in the UK was low at 59.7%. I really don't think we should be implementing a system to further reduce turnout. If anything, we should be providing more education and openness to politics so the general public are not so put off from voting.

Rant away. The government is growing the dependency class whilst raiding the same tax payers over and over again. I take issue with that.

I wouldn't take hard won rights away from people, other than the perceived right to make lifestyle choices and be funded by tax payers.

Would you exempt the police and armed forces from your twisted proposals about who should be allowed to vote?

If your plan was implemented, there would very likely be mass riots by the majority of people who would be disenfranchised by these proposals and these would probably include the more junior members of the police and armed forces.

I hope you are rich enough to employ your own private militia and to pay them enough for them to fall into your 'rich enough to have a vote' category of citizens.

No totally dystopian that would disinfranchise millions.

However an IQ test and an in person hand written or dictatated essay on current political issues/policy should be mandatory for the majority. Anything less than a C and you don't get to vote that time until you do your homework.

Then I don't have to listen to Brexit regrets by those who didn't bother to do anything other than look at the side of a bus.

It should also stop the vote Farage brigade in their tracks. What are they going to write? Brown people bad stop boats, as they drag their hairy knuckles across the ink?

So by being born into the 'wrong' sort of family which you say was inevitable, were the Jews who were persecuted, tortured and murdered during the Holocaust really to blame for what happened to them?

Instead of thinking that 'bad things happen to good people', you are saying that 'bad things only happen to bad people'.

Firstly before everyone gets het up please remember this is a theoretical discussion- no one in real life is going to be taking away your vote.

So turning to your point, if you disenfranchised the poor or those without land or those below a certain age or income threshold etc then you will surely have instability in society as the disenfranchised who make up the majority will protest or ultimately revolt. There are real life examples of this such as the French and Russian revolutions.

However this worth noting that in the current system then the majority who are "net takers" from the state will always vote for a political party that promises to give them more paid for by taxes on the minority rich and debt. This will ultimately lead to financial instability as there is a limit on how much you can tax the rich or increase debt.

So one model will result in societal instability and the other will result in financial instability.

It’s up to the Political parties to not make promises the country can’t afford
and to maintain financial stability.

Votes would be more valued if earned.

You'd have thought people would have revolted long ago.

It's up to voters to elect a financially prudent party

I agree but not in monetary terms.

Too much structural inequality and far too much complexity for that to ever work.

Being able to demonstrate your understanding of the electoral system, the law and your critical thinking skills is a basic. If you've ever commented on an AI generated image of Farage in front of an imaginary medical CENTER saying he wants to support the NHS, immediate red card and lifetime voting ban.

...

Most people vote for themselves
If parties acted for the country as a whole it wouldn’t be a problem

I wouldn't disenfranchise those who weren’t deemed clever enough no more than I would disenfranchise those that didn’t earn enough, or didn’t own property or were women. All of which we did in the past
It’s not democratic. Everyone has a voice and we don’t get to pick and choose what some consider to be the right sort.

We all know the majority of people that would lose the vote and their voice if it was based on passing some test.

I'll ask again - how do you envisage your idea would actually work practically? Would it be up to individuals to calculate before each election?
You must have thought about this before suggesting such a radical idea for discussion.