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?

Guessing OP is a man.
This undemocratic attitude shows a reduced level of empathy.

apologies to all the other guys on here but it’s been proved men have less empathy than women

Do you have to earn the right to vote? Once you're 18, you will be net negative for how much public money have been used towards you so once you've paid back the first 18 yesrs do you then get a vote?

I've decided that only people who receive benefits from the government are allowed to vote. Everyone else gets to vote with their money in the free market by purchasing goods and services.

Edit: I see your goad, I raise you two goads

Like the Roman Republic, you mean?

You haven't thought this through. Everyone pays tax in one way or another. That your income comes from benefits (e.g. state pension, universal credit etc) is irrelevant. You will pay tax whenever you buy something, pay a bill and bear in mind that almost all benefits are based on having paid into the system (children uner 18 excepted), they are not 'free',

Your plan would also cause the NHS to be privatised, along with most of the remaining infrastructure of the country, because the people allowed to vote would vote to do so - because they don't anymore want to pay for those who need these services and they can afford to insure themselves and their families.

Blank slate at 18. You get everything free before 18.

You're right.

Nothing at all to do with having a disabled child.

I've got questions about this proposition.

How do we work out who is giving and who is taking? So, for example. My husband earns in the middle six figures and is absolutely a contributor. But I don't work, does half of our children's schooling and our NHS usage count against my "account"? Does that make me ineligible to vote? Or do we count as a unit?

Also, our children are healthy and have no additional needs, so there aren't huge costs associated with their medical care and schooling. If there were, regardless of the over 100k he's paying in tax a year do we count as "drains on society" and therefore lose our vote?

Do we get "credits" if we use private school or healthcare? Are we gonna work out how far everyone drives in a year so we can work out precisely how much pothole damage they are responsible for?

Do parents need to earn more in order to be able to vote as kids take up more state resources?

Obviously I think this is all a terrible idea. I appreciate that our economy is screwed, I really do, but no, I don't think conditional democracy is the answer.

Are you assuming my gender?

What about the navy or the raf?

How is someone this stupid earning so much?

So if your income comes from working in the civil service, say you earn £30,000. And your taxes are £5,000, and your non salary 'costs' paid from taxes are £4,000. Can you vote or not?

A Mum/Dad, Husband/Wife can be counted as one unit for the purposes of this discussion to encourage the family unit. Mums with x2 kids or more don't get taxed. Military are exempt.

No.

I am a net contributor. I think supporting people who cannot contribute more, such as the sick or disabled, carers, the young and the old is part of the price we pay for civilisation rather than barbarism.

I would not like the see nurses or bin collectors or retail workers disenfranchised because they can’t earn more. Everyone contributes to society in different ways it is not just financial.

Of course people should not be able to make living on benefits a lifestyle choice, but that’s a miserable existence frankly.

Everyone should be paid fairly and the state should not have to top up wages or pay inflated prices for poor housing to private landlords.

Civil service is net drain no matter what you get paid.

This is the most insane thing I've read on here in a long time.

This would be a return to the 19th century, this disenfranchisement of the majority of people when you consider it over the whole of someone's lifetime, some of which are the most vulnerable in our society. This is not something we should be wanting. Wages have stagnated over a number of years, for those that are working, the prospect of considering themselves wealthy without inheritance are reasonably low.
For the 20% who have said YANBU I wonder if they know how much health care, education etc would cost. How much of a buffer do you have in case an illness or accident causes you to become disabled and not able to work. Lucky for you if you have that, most people don't have this though.

We also live in a society where our taxation systems are complicated and people plan to avoid any income and corporation tax they are able to. What about these people? Are you suggesting this would incentivise paying tax? 😂
Seems an odd way of doing that when you could just overhaul taxation.

We're supporting them ofc! That's why they're 'dependents'. If you're not dependent you get to vote! Gz, you earned it.

So basically you want a system that leads to greater inequality, where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?

How are you working out net positive? I am actually interested in knowing whether I am or not.

I think you are also assuming that most people want to vote. Lots of people don't even bother.

Would support making people have to pass some kind of questionnaire before their vote is counted to make sure they do in fact understand both the reality of this country and what they are voting for (practicalities aside and could be simple, eg 'Has immigration a) risen, b) dropped c) remainined the same in the last 6 months)), and would also fully support politicians remaining unpaid until they can demonstrate objectively that they have in fact made a good effort while in role to achieve something useful for the country and its people. Proven liars - Boris, I'm looking at you - should also be held accountable and penalised according to the severity of their BS which might make them think twice about peddling lies and half-truths to manipulate the public.

Those soldiers are going to be screwed without the civil servants. And your entire system, what with it needing to be continually assessed, monitored and implemented.

Just means when you become old and less competent, and become dependent on the state, you stop making decisions. Similar thinking to not letting old people have a driving license unless they're competent.

OK, so your latest posts make it clear that you are actually just taking the piss. You aren't serious, you're just trying to wind people up.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

And you are being unnecessarily goady, and if I didnt know better would suspect a possible troll. However its against the rules to troll hunt, so i will just report.

This also feels quite incelly as well.
Do you believe in Free Man on the Land?

You're scary.