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?

Unpaid carers especially are invaluable, yes they do it out of love but it is hard work and the amount they save the NHS and the country is astronomical

The NHS would crumble without them, as would the countrys finances

35% in some local elections (though in my ward it actually reached 50%) - !'m happy to say it's not that bad in general elections. 60% last time, and I thought that was shockingly low!

Anyone in prison does lose the right to vote during their sentence @Bushmillsbabe.

Yes, but not every criminal goes to prison.

Well if you're in the top tax bracket you're paying something like 55% on what you earn, then paying tax if you spend it or invest, and when you die they'll take 40% from your family. So how isn't it that we're just renting and don't own anything in practice even if not in theory?

That amounts to outright discrimination against sick or disabled people. Who's next? Pensioners? Women? Unpaid carers who can't work?

Why would it be women??!

Because women are another category of people that has often been denied the vote. Women and non-property-owners got the vote in the UK at the same time: in 1918. Even then, it was another ten years before women had completely equal voting rights with men.