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?

I was just about to mention rotten boroughs myself, before I saw it at the end of your post! 😆

With warmth and respect, these answers have already been shared in the thread. Read through and you will be enlightened.

Patronising, much? Perhaps if you are so concerned about the tone of posts on MN, you should follow your own advice?

As for the OP's post, it wasn't the use of abstract language that I found wanting. You might be impressed with pointless word salad if you think it sounds good, but I tend to focus more on substance and depth of thought, which was sorely lacking.

Mrs Bennett, I really wasn't meaning to be patronising, and it's good to know you're fine with abstract language.

So, it's a shame that you find the post 'drivel' and 'a badly written word salad.'

Long ago though it was, I can remember enough of my education to realise that OP is referring to Aristotle's final or efficient cause ie the reason things are created or done.

I think the argument could be put more clearly for the purposes of social media, since we're not all philosophers; but it did grate to see such an important idea dismissed in those terms.

You misunderstand. I was not "dismissing Aristotle". I was dismissing the rather poor attempt to co-opt Aristotle in order to try to justify a deeply flawed political argument.

Perhaps if you had remembered a little more of your philosophical education, you would not only have recognised the reference to Aristotle but you would have also recognised that the OP's argument was inconsistent with Aristotelian logic.

Personally, I'm notterribly impressed by people who use what they think is clever-sounding rhetoric in order to hide a fundamental lack of substance. It's what a former teacher of mine might have referred to as "all fur coat and no knickers".

As you say, we're not all philosophers.

Well, the plot thickens! I would genuinely be fascinated to learn more about this inconsistency, but perhaps this isn’t quite the place….
However, my point remains that your style of posting isn’t really helpful.
Perhaps you could have suggested the inconsistency in Mumsnet-appropriate language?
On second thought thoughts, perhaps you did use Mumsnet-appropriate language; in that case, perhaps you could try to raise the tone a little for the general good?

Thanks, but I don't need you to to police the tone of my posts. If I feel that someone is talking shit - and offensive shit at that - then I reserve the right to say so as bluntly as I wish.

If you feel that I've broken Talk Guidelines, then by all means, report my posts to MN and let them decide. It is not your job to decide what kind of language is "Mumsnet appropriate".

I think rewarding work (& I make it clear that I regard unpaid caring as the hardest of work), with social privileges is the way forward. Carrot is always more effective than the stick. Make work pay in more ways than just money. E.g. free unrestricted travel passes for under 25s in work. A week of authorised absence allowed in term time for working families. Lots of little things that would motivate & also make working life a bit easier.

Noth about policing, @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack . If I did misunderstand your post , that was perhaps because you didn’t express it sufficiently clearly. An erstwhile teacher of mine used to say that one of the remarkable things about the English language was its huge vocabulary with subtle variations of meaning.
I think it would be better to use our language positively to express your meaning without resorting to that level of expression, which, so far as I can see, adds nothing to the discussion and fails to bring persuasion to the debate.

Just saying...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

No, voting should be for everyone
You are being very unreasonable

I agree completely, @survivingoutofspite.

For a start, there are many ways to contribute to society - raising children, volunteering, unpaid caring, to name but three - and these are equally valuable.

Secondly, we are all affected by the decisions made in Parliament, and therefore we all deserve a say in who is representing our interests there. If only tax payers could vote, you could very easily end up with a government that focussed only on policies that benefitted the tax payers, to win/buy their votes, and the vulnerable in society would be thrown under the bus.

Absolutely agree, motivate and engage

A vote is a fundamental right of being in a democracy and cannot be linked to paying tax. Not so long ago that women were thought not deserving of a vote and thankfully we have moved forward from that.

Contribution to society can be measured in much more than pounds and pence, those who volunteer either officially or unofficially to help others, those who take on unpaid responsibilities, such as school governors etc.

There could be a discussion that those who don't respect our laws and right by committing criminal offences could potentially lose their right to vote, but even that is tenuous.

But the issue you face with your suggestion is it does not guarantee competent people would be in power and it most certainly does not guarantee people with good morals or those who are thinking about the best outcomes for everyone would be in power.

The average human puts themselves first or at least their direct family. Even more so when those who suffer as a result are not people that they know personally.

By limiting votes to net positive cost to the state you will almost certainly guarantee in the long term a slave class is formed.

It wont happen overnight but there will be a slow creep towards more and more exploitation for those who do not have the vote ultimately culminating in some form of slave class.

Agreed about the slave class, bearing in mind the human propensity to enslave(in various ways).

A slave class has already been formed. The state has been creating and importing dependants. Over 53% are net recipients .And increasing the tax on the minority who are earners while freezing bands for decades. And coming for inheritance tax which will target those who don’t know they need advice and to give it away to family before the state takes 40%.

Your teacher was right. The English language does indeed have a huge vocabulary with subtle variations of meaning. And amongst those variations of meaning, we can sometimes opt for expressions of disgust or disdain. Such responses won't always be appropriate, of course, but sometimes there is a place for them.

You might think it would be "better" to always use language "positively", however you choose to define that. You are perfectly entitled to hold that view, and you can word your own posts in whatever way you like. Others might find your tone rather condescending and patronising, but that's not really your problem. Just as it isn't my problem if you find my posts too blunt.

Personally, I wouldn't ever want to see Mumsnet sanitised to the extent that honest and unvarnished opinions are edged out in favour of polite euphemism and the pretence that all views are equally valid. I welcome the directness and robust exchange of opinions on these boards. Back in the real world, women are constantly socialised to "be kind" and to avoid saying what they really think - MN is one of the very few places where we can just tell it as it is, and I value having an honest space where we aren't expected to treat obnoxious and offensive views as worthy of respect.

We can agree to differ.

This is all very well and of course we can agree to differ.

Firstly, my teacher was talking about the subtlety of the English language. I'm sure she wouldn't have included your comments as fine examples of English usage.

Secondly, I don't agree with Op's suggestion, not at all. In fact, I assumed from the outset that it was actually a joke. I'm now starting to think perhaps he was serious.

You comment was on the Aristotelian bit, which I personally thought was interesting. and merited consideration, rather than your dismissal.

Having thought it over, I think there is a flaw in it, but I don't think that was probably what you meant when you dismissed it as you did.

Yes, your manner does offend me, quite reasonably , I think, as it makes productive discussion difficult - nothing to do with sanitisation, euphemisms etcetera..

Anyone can see in ten seconds that it's a ridiculous idea that only 'net contibutors' should vote. That doesn't mean we can't have a constructive discussion around it, if that's what people want to do.

@Sixtysomething

Firstly, I don't require any validation from you or your former English teacher. I have not made any claim that my post was one of the finest examples of the English language, nor indeed that it was intended to be. This is Mumsnet and not a work of literature. I was merely agreeing with the fact that the English language can indeed be used to convey specific nuances and meanings, and pointing out that some of those nuances and meanings might not always align with your personal version of what constitutes "Mumsnet-appropriate" language. I do not post here to please you.

With regard to my manner offending you...well, I would apologise but I don't really feel the need. I found the OP's posts offensive, illogical and poorly written. I am perfectly entitled to express this view on an open Internet forum, and indeed, perhaps if you had chosen to engage with me as to why I thought that the OP's post was drivel, we could have had a productive discussion. Instead, you appointed yourself to scold me in an incredibly patronising manner because you didn't approve of my tone. Arguably, that intervention was far more likely to derail the discussion than my original comment, and yet you chose to do it anyway.

Of course, it's entirely your prerogative to lecture other people about what they should or shouldn't post on Mumsnet, as this isn't against Talk Guidelines, but equally, it is my prerogative to choose to ignore your recommendations if I don't find them be of any value or interest.

As for having a constructive conversation around the OP's nonsensical arguments, i don't think I'm stopping you from engaging with the discussion. However, it seems that you're more interested in trying to teach me how to behave than you are in engaging with the debate.

I really don’t think I’m scolding you, being patronising nor any of the other things you mention.

My point remains that expressing oneself as you did gets in the way of constructive conversation.

Well, you don't think you're scolding me or being patronising.

I don't think that my post in any way got in the way of constructive conversation.

We are each entitled to our own perspectives.

However, if you were really interested in engaging in a constructive debate about the views expressed by the OP, then you could have simply ignored my comment, or reported it to MNHQ if you believed that it broke Talk Guidelines, and then carried on with your deep and meaningful conversation. Instead, you chose to go off on a virtue-signalling tangent about "Mumsnet-appropriate language" which totally distracted from the subject of the thread.

Again, that's your prerogative. Going off on irrelevant and unnecessary tangents isn't against Talk Guidelines, and from my perspective, the OP's musings were not particularly interesting or worthy of debate in the first place so it's no great loss. But I do think it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of getting in the way of constructive conversation when you're the one that has chosen to go off in this particular direction. I am perfectly happy to agree to differ and to leave it at that, as expressed in a previous post, but for some reason, you seem more eager to continue the conversation with me than to engage with the rest of the thread.

It's getting a little boring now, I'm afraid, as it seems that we are just repeating ourselves. I would therefore be grateful if we could just agree to disagree, and you can perhaps then get back to making a constructive contribution to the OP's scintillating conversation.

I wouldn't describe the current net recipient's as a slave class, I think your whole argument rests around the fact that they aren't in fact. There are net recipients who receive state funds and then choose to avoid work, they are able to spend on luxuries if they so choose.

In your model I can foresee a situation where the net recipients are forced into work with no choice (I am not against this in some form, I do feel that if someone is physically able to work and has been receiving benefits for over 12 months they should be doing volunteer work for the benefit of the nation/community. Such as litter picking, maintaining local parks or similar. There needs to be far more thought and regulation around who gets exemptions but a general policy framework) I can also see a situation where the net recipients are not given a choice on spending, they are given food stamps and that is it, no excess spending allowed. It would be full on feudal surf levels.

Yes , quite. Thank you for your thoughts.

1. @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack there is a little irony here. You were originally scolding and policing my post. Now, only a few replies later, you seem to have developed some big feelings because you feel you are on the receiving end of some of the same, while lecturing us that we shouldn't encourage a civil conversation through direct feedback. Oh, what a tangled web!

2. Yes, @SixtySomething you are right. Not everything I say need be taken literally. Sometimes we are having a meta conversation with layers of meaning because directness is not the same as effectiveness. Sometimes encouraging people to think, to think at all, is the point. If people respond emotionally, I think it is often because some cognitive dissonance is making them uncomfortable. I only wish they would ask themselves why. The state is captured and people are asleep. If we have any hope for humanity, it lies in stopping ourselves from letting other people do our thinking for us.

At a minimum, a civil chat and a cup of tea is a good start. Listen to ideas and discuss them, rather than closing our minds and insulting people. It's all just a wonderful projection in our minds anyway isn't it? The mirror will never smile before you do.

P.S. let's not forget 22% of people agreed with me in this thread which is almost 200 votes. It's about 35% turnout in elections so let's hope the right people turn out.