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?

Before this thread wraps up should get book recommendations perhaps, a canon on the diff viewpoints and sources?

I couldn't agree more, but in today's world it's an approach that is a luxury people can't afford. I don't just mean the cost of doing a degree, I mean the cost of living.

As I said before, I was fortunate enough to be of age at a time when you could afford rent and even get a mortgage on a low wage without government support. It's going to matter more and more what you study, in order to get a foot on the ladder of an ever-shrinking job market.

It might be a terribly sad fact, but it is a fact. And whilst this discussion with the OP might be theoretical, the truth is he is right in that the choices we make are the ultimate determinants, and this very aspect that you and I are discussing now shows how much closer we are to this way of thinking, that value in today's society is fiscal, rather than, for want of a better word, spiritual.

Lovely as it is to study what you love, as I know, it doesn't pay the bills. And if we want fewer of the 'drains' as OP so eloquently put it, teaching Shakespeare to children whose best shot of employment which pays enough to have a roof over their head will be in STEM fields is hard to justify, when there's so much other stuff they need to know about that we didn't have to learn just to get the most basic employment.

I did. In depth. Read my post.

I know it’s from Hamlet.

You know it’s from Hamlet.

Op didn’t say it was the Hamlet speech used in Withnail & I, he just said it was from Withnail & I.

So until he clarified later, it was possible that he didn’t know the play it came from. And given the dodgy use of AI throughout this thread I’m not being very generous with my assumptions

As I understood it, the argument went like this:

A child born into privilege is more likely to end up in a position to pay more tax and therefore earn the vote than a child who is born into poverty. It is unfair that an accident of birth should be a determining factor in a person’s ability to have a say in society.

The counter argument to this was about the meaning of the word “luck,” at one point saying that children are not LEGO blocks and can’t be swapped around.

My argument is that theoretically they can be swapped, and the accident of birth/fortune/chance/luck of the draw can therefore be proven to be a determining factor in whether they have the right to vote. And that is unfair.

The argument is not about whether that privilege has been worked for by previous generations, it’s about whether or not it should play a part in determining whether someone has the capacity later in life to earn the vote.

Haven’t rtft.

I’d be interested to know how on earth the notion of net contribution could be fairly measured. You can’t really measure it until the day you die can you?

I don’t know what you’d make of me. Pay hardly any tax at the moment but for 17 years worked my arse off helping to prop up a crumbling underfunded criminal justice system by working for peanuts? Is that contributing enough? What about others who don’t pay much tax because they’re low paid but that’s because they do a very worthwhile job in an underfunded sector? Or unpaid carers, saving the state a fortune.

So many questions. Such a stupid idea. Nigel, is that you?

Probably not, but I have a funny feeling the OP will be voting Reform at the next election.

The problem is OP is that whilst some may agree with you, your points are simple answers to complex and moral issues.
You say that dependents should still be cared for receive treatment etc. However would there even be safeguards to ensure this wouldn't be possible to change, or would those who could vote be able to vote against it? Thereby driving people into poverty and with no health care it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to envisage what sort of society we would live in.

Anyway to keep things light, and to make my point nothing is clearer than this comedy sketch by rik mayall as the new statesman.

...hmm just thought bstard and farage actually rhyme!

The real crime is turning education into a luxury only accessible to those with deep pockets.

Re swapping/adopting children into new situations. This one chimes. My DH was born mid-50s. His parents wanted two children, but failed to carry another pregnancy to term, so after five miscarriages, they adopted a baby girl in 1963. She was given up for adoption by a very young woman who fell pregnant with a married man. Eventually they got together, were married and stayed together to death, but they never managed to have another child. It was a very sad situation for everyone, but arguably saddest of all for the adopted child who is clearly (as an adult with a very MC background and private education) not on the same level intellectually.

Once again, I totally agree, but the further we go down the technological rabbit hole, the more education will be geared towards life in that world.

OP and PPS have pointed out the problems with the few financially supporting the many. I don't think this can be totally explained away by the idleness of the 'many', who could 'just' get better jobs. The higher up the ladder you climb, the fewer jobs there are, and whilst that has always been the case, it's getting worse.

So, what are we to do? We've, frankly, enough graduates working in coffee shops because there simply aren't the positions for thousands of social/media studies majors, who, in the past, would have been your builders/factory workers etc. And, frankly, I think a lot of the push towards degrees for all has more to do with massaging unemployment figures than anything else. Universities have become businesses, rather than seats of learning.

Education in and of itself is never a waste. But state education, as funded by the taxpayer, unfortunately does have a duty to turn out productive members of society who can, in their turn, pay in.

There's too much to unpack in this post, but here is clumsy abbreviated attempt. Whilst I believe we agree on most of your points, helping disadvantaged children escape cycles of low aspiration is how you create future contributors. Narrowly training kids for today’s jobs may look efficient, but it bakes in inequality and ignores the behaviour of corporates and the government. You also need to have people prepared to do the jobs being trained for - the shortage of care workers is a case in point.

Broad education builds confidence, adaptability and social mobility, important skills that turn children into independent, resilient adults who will eventually become contributors/ net contributors. The real problem isn’t Shakespeare versus skills but a government and society fixated on immediate fiscal returns, at the expense of the long game. You can see evidence of this everywhere, in our infrastructure, education, the benefits system, healthcare etc. There is a preference short-term vote winning sticky plasters rather than wholescale reform, retraining, and / or other strategies that might actually reduce dependency.

I don’t think seeing an English graduate working in a coffee shop automatically means the degree was a waste. What’s changed is the system around graduates, from government polices, housing costs, the financial cost of pursuing a degree to the number of graduate opportunities and the level of financial security those jobs now offer. In the 1990s, an ordinary job alongside a degree could still lead to stability and the realistic prospect of buying a home. These days I suspect for many grads and non grads Work + Pay ≠ security (long term and/or short term).

If university is no longer accessible/affordable/ available then we need something that replicates the benefits it provides, especially the chance to be taken out of a narrow environment. That experience matters almost as much for those from privileged but sheltered backgrounds as it does for those from disadvantaged ones. Without some form of disruption, horizons remain narrow and opportunities disappear.

I do see what you are saying. But I also think university still needs to be a meritocracy. I don't want to see bright kids denied an opportunity due to financial constraints, but the current system of most children expecting to go into higher education simply isn't working. We've got young people doing degrees that they need a lot of help and support with because they just aren't up to it academically. Not everybody is.

But there's a lot less opportunity now to work your way up through a company without a higher education qualification. Why? We had perfectly capable middle and senior management who'd learned 'on the job' as it were, in the days when as little as 5% of the population went. Obviously it's important that that 5% is the brightest and best, not just the richest, which used to be the problem, but access for all shouldn't equate to 'pushing everybody through the system at the cost of the value of the system', which I think is what is happening now.

And it's costing the country a lot, as fewer and fewer graduates are earning enough to pay back their student loans in full or even at all, and employers aren't overly impressed with graduates who still need their hands holding because that's how they've managed to get a degree. These aren't incapable people, these are people who might have done far better working their way up through the ranks, but instead were obliged to force themselves into the'round hole' of study, which is only going to give them all those skills you mentioned if the environment fits their mental aptitude and approach.

When everyone not only could get a degree, but has to get a degree because there are so few other options to move forward, the whole process is then forced to fit the students, including simplifying and offering extra support. It ceases to become the very thing that gave it value and it becomes just an extension of school. Basically, we are keeping kids in school until their 20s. And some of them would do so much better if they'd been at work from the age of 18, or even 16, because the working environment/learning on the job would have suited their aptitude better.

Slightly off track, again, there, sorry.

We pretty much agree on most things, just not on where the system is actually broken. I agree, university should remain a meritocracy. Access should be based on aptitude, with contextual offers where appropriate, rather than pushing everyone through by default. Otherwise degrees do lose value. And you are right about the struggle for some students. Keeping people in environments that don’t suit them helps no one, not the individual, not employers, not the taxpayer.

Where things have genuinely changed is that the career ladder you are describing has largely gone. In the past, people didn’t just skip university, they entered stable organisations that invested for the long term. You could start junior, learn on the job, and expect progression, security, and a decent standard of living. That world has been hollowed out by offshoring, outsourcing, shareholder pressure, and consolidation. Fewer ladders. Fewer rungs. Less patience. Less security. And this is before we’ve even seen the full impact of AI.
That’s why simply saying people should work their way up no longer works. In many sectors there is no longer a way up, just churn. For a growing number of young people, 'going straight into work' now means the gig economy or influencing. The work offers flexibility in theory, but in practice it offers no training, no progression, and no stability. It isn’t a substitute for university and it certainly isn’t a pathway.

So I don’t think the answer is university or nothing. We need credible, respected alternatives that replicate the benefits of university without pretending everyone should be academic - a very narrow view of intelligence. Semi residential apprenticeships are one option. PwC’s Flying Start programme is a good example. Hybrid models that combine work with technical or vocational study, supported by properly funded institutions, can be genuine alternatives to university rather than second class routes. Not be confused with some big name apprenticeships where participants simply plug resource gaps for three or four years and emerge without a defined skill set.

The goal isn’t to look down on people’s backgrounds or break up communities. It’s to give young people a real chance to step outside narrow environments, because some worldviews do become entrenched and exposure matters. I do believe for many, you cannot be what you cannot see. That applies just as much to sheltered kids of the middle, as to disadvantaged ones.

We also need to stop sending mixed messages. We tell young people to stay in education or training until 18, then offer a handful of gold standard apprenticeships and act surprised when most opt for university instead of what they see, or have been told, are low quality, low paid alternatives. We sneer at 'ordinary' jobs in retail, factories, cleaning, or care, treating them as just for failures rather than essential, respectable, roles that should be decently remunerated. How much contempt is there for hardworking taxpayers who have 'ended up' at McDonald’s?

Many people didn’t really resent/ look down on working in retail, care, or manufacturing when those jobs provided stability, a home, savings, and a future. Much of the frustration crept in when work + pay no longer guaranteed a decent roof over their heads or any real sense of security. But we now have an economic system that no longer supports people who work hard...

If we want fewer people pushed into degrees that don’t suit them, we need to rebuild or create industries that are stable, develop medium and long term skills, and offer clear pathways of excellence, like the reputation associated with Rolls Royce apprenticeships. We need jobs that are respected and paid properly, with progression that doesn’t rely on credentials inflation, whether that is Degree or A Levels.

TLDR I don’t disagree with you about university. I disagree with the idea that removing it as the default solves anything unless we rebuild what used to sit alongside it. Without that, the gap isn’t filled by work or opportunity, but by insecurity, churn, and reliance on the benefits system - calling that progress and planning is a mistake.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. You just expressed it better. The problem of their being so few other options to climbing the ladder is precisely why the education system is stuck in this loop of having to push certain subjects over others. Ones that provide more opportunities to obtain that elusive stable employment.

Given my career history,I'm in no position to look down on anybody, but I was fortunate enough to reach adulthood at a time I could rent a flat on my own on what was not even 'minimum wage' (because it didn't exist) and have money over. Buy a house with my partner in my early 20s even though his earnings weren't that high either.

You are right about where the problem lies, but given the pace at which technology is moving, I can't see how we can really get to where we need to be. More and more industries simply won't need the people at grass roots levels, and those that do don't have enough opportunities higher up. McDonalds needs a lot more servers than managers. Nursing homes need more carers than managers.

And those jobs simply don't pay enough. I don't know what the answer is. Apprenticeships and YT schemes are great, but simply aren't going to fill the mass employment hole.

You seem to assume that everyone taking more out of the system than they pay in is politically disengaged and would be happy to be ruled by their wealthier "betters", as long as the money kept coming.

This is incredibly naive. If you're from a working-class area where industry was gutted in the Thatcher years and never recovered, and you can't get work, and you already feel dehumanised and hopeless claiming UC . . . well, then voting is one of the only things you can do to say to those in power "we're still here, do something".

If you take that away, you leave people with no legitimate outlet to express their frustration. What do you think happens then, OP? How comfortable are you with violence? Because that's what you'll end up with. Look to communist China and Russia. Look to revolutionary France. It won't end well for you.

Saw this and remembered this thread. It was fun.

So what's the window for calculation? And is that calculation made ahead of an election or after it?

For instance, my daughter is 21. She's in a minimum wage job. She was claiming benefits for a few months this year. Now she's not. Does she get a vote in the next election? What if she gets ill and spends some time in hospital before the next election? Might that reduce the chances of her getting a polling card? What if I tell her to come home and live off me - so she'll actually contribute nothing herself - but I support her so she's also not taking anything and is part of my household? Does she get a vote? Though, actually, she'd still be using the roads, so that would count against her. Or can I cover that on her behalf?

Or, I guess, the system could be that she does vote, and then the system works out whether or not her vote counts, given what she's contributed or taken since the last election.

I mean, there are deprived areas of the country where, in effect, they wouldn't have an MP at all. Or maybe that MP would be elected by, I dunno, ten percent of the population. The ones with the big houses.

We'd need a name for those constituencies. Ooh! Ooh! How about 'rotten boroughs'?

Zombie thread warning from a poster clearly out for trouble.

The value of work itself needs to be remembered, otherwise there is no point in working any more and the rich ‘positives’ are going to find that out by force before too much longer.

Everyone certainly knows that good looks are an inherited trait. Beautiful parents usually produce beautiful children. What many fail to understand is that children are, literally, the cause of their own existence and therefore their own beauty.

They fail to understand it because they only think in terms of efficient and material causes (‘by whom’ and ‘with what’). But your parents had a purpose in making you, that purpose caused them to go through the act of making and raising you, and that purpose is you. And in that more complete sense, you are a necessary (if not sufficient) cause of your own existence and everything that flows from that.

This logic can be extended to other inheritances, like wealth. Perhaps your father earned a lot of money, and never spent much of it, then at the end of his life he wrote down a will that said it was all to go to you. In that will, he states quite clearly that you are the cause of that store of wealth. You are its purpose for existing. Without you, it might have been spent, or never even earned.

The inability to perceive purpose in chains of events, and to see that purposiveness is fundamental to all life, is largely a result of the overly mechanistic vision of life conveyed through Newtonian-Darwinian science. The result is impoverished souls who cannot see the vital forces that animate existence.

We are all driven by an inner purpose that seeks to express itself in the world. In some it is stronger. In some it is weaker. But that drive to express our inner purpose, that need to externalize it, generates all that is new; like material wealth, works of art, and even new life itself through reproduction.

Knowing that you yourself were someone’s purpose, however small or large, obliterates the whole idea of luck, and it frees you from this oppressive notion that you are a ‘product of forces’ with no end or meaning to your existence. You have your own purpose, and by following it and letting it act through you, you bring new causes into being.

What a lot of badly written drivel.

Also not true. You often get beautiful parents with very plain children and vice versa. Genes can skip about.

A heuristic doesn't have to be true all the the time to be useful. But the broader point is purpose > luck.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack ,
I don’t think that’s a kind way to communicate. Let’s just assume you’re right and poor SBGM247 is a bit soft in the head.
Wouldn’t it be kinder to just smile and nod , figuratively speaking, eg., ‘Well done @SBGM247. You given us something to think about here.’

Or, on the other hand, the issue is that you just don’t get on well with abstract language, perhaps it makes you look a tiny bit silly to call a well written and thoughtful contribution drivel?

So far as I can see, you appear either unkind or a bit silly yourself. 🤔

Just saying.