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?

It's quite sickening that 20% agree with the op - ignorant and selfish cunts! Tax isn't the only way to contribute meaningfully to society (remember the low paid 'key workers' forced to work during lockdowns!)

Yep, it's a good thing. No votes though!

Or how about no one who works in the public sector votes!

Don't we all pay a shitload of VAT? Where do you think that goes?

Op, have you posted on here before under a different username? You sound very similar to someone who posted quite a few deranged rants last year, around the time of the general election 🤔

Yes, exactly. You are the smartest person in the thread so far. Most people seem unable to consider it properly.

Lots of Mumsnetters talk about being politically homeless.

I'm up for giving up my vote if I can have more money from the state, just to ensure that I am net negative.

The NHS would improve as would state schools as those who want to vote will need to be watching every penny to ensure they don't slip up and end up net negative due to surgery or a life changing illness.

Who do you think would be in power in this new dawn?

Nope. But Mums with more than x2 kids don't get taxed. There's a cherry on top if it makes you feel better.

Perhaps right to vote should be linked to knowledge of English grammar? 😆
you are immediately disenfranchised if you are unable to use your and you’re correctly..

So doing a good thing means you should be disenfranchised? Well that sounds rational...

Don't forget that among the men, only land owners will be able to vote.

Well, that would be Reform's core voter base disenfranchised, I suppose. Tempting, but no.

Competent people who demonstrably make good decisions about finances.

Only the people who agree with you are smart? That's a remarkably childish viewpoint

No, it doesn't make me feel better.

Yes, agreed. But let's give Mums with more than x2 kids the benefit of not being taxed.

So, an ex public service worker who is disabled in the course of duty (fireman, soldier, policeman) should not be allowed to vote?
Sorry, but I don't think OP has thought very hard about this one. Why would anyone write a post like this, especially someone clever enough to earn over £100,000?
Something isn't right!

Sometimes our more right wing friends wonder why Marx exists. But they shouldn’t really given this

Is that what I said? Reading comprehension skills can impact earning potential.

It's an idea and we definitely need more of those. How would it work with young people starting out in a career, do you count their health and education costs contribution against them or their parents? Or do you write off education costs and only look at things like benefits. Would that mean an 18 year old at university wouldn't be able to vote but an 18 year old working minimum wage would? Would university students be barred from voting until they had paid off their student loans. The net contributor over a lifetime makes it more interesting as a thought experiment. Also the blockchain keeping ledger of in/out is pretty cool. It'll never happen but I love it as a concept for a manga.

Ooh. I remember them.

I'll compromise and give them a clean slate from 18 if you like? We should allow young people to debt free and have a positive future that they can determine.

What an utterly abhorrent attitude you have, OP.

Do you genuinely believe that disabled people, unpaid carers, older people on lower incomes, and people in essential but low paid employment should have no voice in how our society is run?

Do you just assume that people who aren't net contributors in tax terms make no contribution to our society in other ways?

And yes, I am a net contributor in terms of my taxes - not that it should matter.

I would hate to live in a society where decision-making is led by people like you.

People on benefits voting doesn't bother me. People like you being allowed to vote does bother me

so if you don't earn much until you're 40 you don't get to vote then you do?

or if you are net negative until you're 75 then you win 20 million on the lottery you can vote?

you really haven't thought this fatuous proposal through at all.