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?

You might find it interesting. Opinions may vary.

It’s an old idea
Its how voting was in the 1800s
Then it was based on property ownership and men only
Thats why there were riots

We have evolved thankfully

If political parties did that then they would always remain political candidates rather than elected politicians.

Sadly the majority voters primarily vote out of their own self interest- this is human nature.

So if you have two candidates :

A) promises increase spending funded by nebulous assurances such as "efficiency savings" "economic growth", "closing tax loopholes " etc etc or
B) promises increased spending funded by tax increases.

Then A would always be elected. A will then say in the first 6 months that their promises are no longer possible normally blaming the previous Government for this.

The same would apply to promises of tax cuts without any cuts in services provided by "efficiency measures", "economic growth " etc etc.

Due to gradual shifting of the tax burden to indirect taxation, almost half the money going into a poorer household is going straight back out as taxation anyway

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/

• 'The poorest 10% of households paid on average 48% of their income in tax in 2022/23
• The richest 10% of households, however, paid on average just 39% of their income in tax'

So maybe the useless eaters are less useless than you thought.

I don't understand why MN has allowed this thread to run?
It's so full of contempt for some of the lowest paid and least regarded members of society, who do such a valuable job. I'm thinking of personal care assistants, teaching assistants and many others, I'm sure, who keep our society going, and are almost always female; not to mention the unpaid carers.
It's clear from the posts that many others, like me, have found this ham-fisted attempt to goad us truly offensive.

It's all about clicks I suppose?
But what about MN's commitment to kindness?

I guess we're pleased for OP that he's enjoyed himself so hugely. 🤔

A very interesting idea, OP. I understand your initial point (I've not RTFT) but how on earth would it be implemented?

Some lower paid professions like teachers could be a net negative, but overall give back to society.

Interesting.

No it is most certainly not, it is simplified junk written by an intellectually dishonest far-right anarcho-capitalist. I’d advise you to read something that does not appeal to people’s fear and ignorance in an attempt to make a quick buck.

Because it's a theoretical discussion and no one is actually suggesting taking the vote away from say the lower paid or female or non land owners in real life.

I'm confused as to why posters can't understand this.

Ad hominem

You’d better hope chronic illness or disability never affects you, hadn’t you. I don’t think I’ve ever come across as nastier post on Mumsnet. Hang your head in shame, OP.

No personal insult to you, just a fact about this book.

FFS - it's a theoretical discussion.

It's full on cancel culture that we can't have a theoretical discussion in case someone gets offended or triggered.

No one is being cancelled, just called out for their callous and uninformed opinion.

I don't know what you mean by 'theoretical discussion'. This is not an academic conference nor a scientific journal.
MN is not the place for theoretical discussions.
Life is very hard indeed for some people; some people are very unfortunate in the cards that fate gives them.
MN exists, I thought, to give support and advice.
Many reading this thread , especially in its early stages, may be amongst the lowest paid and hardest-working members of society, potentially saving the state a fortune by supporting the sick and disabled either on a low wage or for free as a family member.
How are they to know that this spirited proposal to withdraw the vote from them because of their 'dependency' was simply theoretical?
In fact, I disagree that it was in fact theoretical in a forum like this - it's just too pointed.
The chattering classes should chatter in private , where they can't hurt the vulnerable.

I don't think you'd have to go very far to find people who do advocate exactly that. I can think of at least one British male who has argued that women shouldn't vote and who is listened to by a significant number of young men. And the OP has literally suggested it so you assertion that "no one is actually suggesting taking the vote away from say the lower paid or female or non land owners in real life" is nonsense because he literally just has. Whether he meant it in jest or not is irrelevant.

Perhaps it seems like a theoretical discussion to you but this is how ideas gain a foothold. And the "Haha, silly you, it's not really going to happen" is simply a way of encouraging people to let their guard down.

Besides, how do you think any policy change starts life if not as a theoretical discussion?

Only "here for the lolz" - in his own words.

Honestly if you find theoretical academic discussions too hurtful then my advice is to stay away from them. It's a good thing that people have the freedom of speech to discuss such topics.

To repeat, aside from a few irrelevant oddballs, no one in real life is going to take away the vote from the poor or female or non land owners etc.

It's just not going to happen and we are not going to go back to the 1700s.

Stupidest idea I've read on here in a long time and you can't argue with stupid, so I'm not going to even bother.

So your solution then is to cancel any discussion (theoretical or otherwise) in case someone is offended.

The basis of any debate is that one or both side risks being offended. If you don't allow that then we are stuck with only discussing beautiful sunsets, warm hugs and cute puppies.

It is impractical to implement and as history has shown when it has been implemented in the 1700s and 1800s it would never work for long before the disenfranchised rebel and start a revolution.

When voting started in this country, only “respectable” well established men were allowed to vote.

That didn’t work too well. 🙄

We all, regardless of personal circumstances, have to live in this country, so everyone is entitled to a vote. 👍

I see this is a big thread already but this is an absolutely ludicrous idea. It spells the end of democracy and an outright, open return to slave ownership in the name of democracy. It’s been a threat for a while: it shows just how far the Overton window has shifted, this would have been an unthinkable idea 20 years ago and in fact when I suggested we were on a path to this kind of thinking, under other usernames, I was laughed at.

It might be different if the economy was not totally shafted and people’s work was actually valued according to their true value to society. If anyone was paid according to the cost of living. But that’s a total laugh in this joke of a country.

Recent values of the amount required before one escapes being a ‘net drain’ and becomes a ‘net positive’ mean that very very few working people would be included - the last time I saw this ridiculous concept brought forward the figure was lower than median wage ffs. Nurses, who already pay to work while training, would be considered a net drain, as would teachers, firefighters, police officers and, ffs at this time, even the bloody common soldiers in the army!!! You want an army without a vote do you? FOTTFSOFAWYGTFOSM

Ditch this rapidly op. No we will not be slaves.

I didn’t read the whole waffle because I got the disgusting drift from from the first few paragraphs. So what you’d like to see is the uber rich making all the political decisions? What a novel idea! Eyeroll. You’re punching down when you should be punching up.

Aside from being intrinsically unjust, many posters have correctly pointed out that such a proposal would never work in reality and result in societal instability (a revolution).

What interests me is that no one is commenting on the current democratic structure where the majority will always vote for whichever party promises the most in services or benefits, which will then result in financial instability - an economic crash and poverty.

No taxation without representation!