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?

What about student loan, will it be wiped from the ledger once an equivalent amount of net tax has been paid or does it specifically need to be paid off before the vote? What transactions is the ledger tracking, just payments to/from the government or also debts/assets to 3rd parties?

Well now you've said that I've decided that people who call other adults children don't get to vote.

The key problem there is so few people have direct experience so children’s care is always politically unimportant. That said excluding many care leavers from voting isn’t going to help bring about change.

No but I think there should be a little test on political knowledge during your vote that you have to pass for your vote to be counted 😁

Education would be free for under 18, and free for over education within reasonable constraints. You can have a welfare stats but you can't vote if you take welfare until you're net positive. You need to EARN it. I know the idea of earning something rather than it being a right is unusual... but consider it.

Perhaps, if you're served in the army you'll be exempt.

That's fine instead of your taxes paying me to look after disabled family members (plural so your getting a bargain in you £86 taxable income a week) you can pay that and then some a day for carers to come in

I would love the break a 40 hour working week would give me

At a minimum. Yes.

If we managed the country better we'd improve your circumstances.

I tell you what, once AI properly takes off we're going to have a lot less of these high earners (but shallow thinkers) smugly looking down on the unemployed. It could be you on benefits in a couple of years time mate.

I'm kind of assuming OP is joking - his proposal would also mean the end of the NHS as anyone who needed it in any meaningful way would be unable to vote to keep it

@SBGM247 why have you 'thumbs up/agreed' with my post? You agree you're being goady?

So you think people who have the state pension should not be able to vote? That is included as a benefit. People who have paid taxes all their lives, earned that pension by paying for it through taxes and who have worked all their lives?
The vote cannot depend on whether you are economically active, rich or poor, clever, intelligent, educated or ignorant. It is the mark of being a citizen and all citizens have the right to exercise it (or not, in the UK - I think I might approve of making voting a legal requirement, with, of course, an abstention box on the ballot paper). Being poor, disabled, out of work etc cannot be a disqualification - and all those people will be paying tax.
What is your contribution to the common weal btw?

Perhaps, if you're served in the army you'll be exempt.

assuming you mean "military" I'm alright then. Phew! But. Judging by some of the people i served with, the country will be right in the shit.

Where do you stand with local government employees, councillors, MPs and the like, and civil servants?

Their income comes from taxes, so do they forego the right to vote should their tax bill be lower than their earnings from the public purse?

That's your subjective opinion, however, whether you've a net positive or negative on the rest of society is an objective fact. If we want to encourage positive outcomes let's reward people with the right to vote. Same with people wanting to be a citizen of this country.

You're exempt if you've served in the army. Everyone else has to be a net positive. You could persuade me teachers and NHS should qualify but people in this thread may feel I'm being a bit wishy washy. Def NOT civil servants and 100% not politicians.

Yes, military. Thank you for your services (or your family member).

A birth in an nhs hospital costs between 7-14 thousand depending on complexity.

state education is between 3-5 thousand a year.

so everyone (except private school kids, private births are more unusual) would owe a minimum of 46k in tax before they could vote.

and that’s assuming no nhs use at all as a child.

private school kids could vote quicker than state school kids?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/10/two-thirds-of-uk-voters-wrongly-think-immigration-is-rising-poll-finds

Just saying...

What??

You know how to do maths right? If you're net positive you get to vote... at the point you've taken more than you've paid in then you're exchanging your vote for that help.

I actually think the idea has some merit, in that it would be a fairly good job creation scheme. The amount of admin it would take to calculate every individuals net tax position would be pretty onerous. It would mean taxes would need to be higher to pay for this new department though.

But where's the incentive to manage the country better with regards to the poorer part of the population of they can't vote to change anything anyway? You may as well leave them to fester!

Yep.

I can't imagine how much it would actually cost for carers etc to look after my son.

That paper is a rag. Just saying.

A lack of imagination may impact your earning potential.