No representation without taxation
citizenx103
Posts: 1,452 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Its interesting to note from discussions in here about benefits, taxes and responsibilities that a reasonably large proportion think they have an absolute right to claim as much as they "are entitled to".
As soon as there is discussion about cuts to benefits, they're quick to throw in mindless emotional rhetoric or insulting questions in an attempt to make the poster look like they're saying something else.
Case in point, i support the cap on child benefit payments and have said so, quite clearly. My reasoning is simple - if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have them. I was asked by someone, if i supported "forced sterilisation" - that is a ridiculous avenue to go down and is not worthy of a response.
But it got me thinking, people seem keen to take but not so keen to appreciate the source or any obligation that places upon them.
So...
Is it time that those who are paying for society, i.e. those who are net contributors to society (that is to say - those who pay more money to the state than they receive from it) are the only ones with a right to vote?
Its all well and good giving the permanently benefit dependent a say but what does the rest of society get in return?
Would you let a stranger dictate how the money in your bank account is spent?
It is perhaps time to say that if you do not contribute to society, you shouldn't have that right to a say. It would undoubtedly change the agenda of politicians across the country.
The only exception i can think of that would be valid would be pensioners, people who have paid their share and retired, they would of course retain the right to vote - unless they've spent more time claiming than working.
OK, this is never going to happen but lets open this up to discussion - do you support the proposal? Why should people who contribute nothing have a say about how our money is spent?
As soon as there is discussion about cuts to benefits, they're quick to throw in mindless emotional rhetoric or insulting questions in an attempt to make the poster look like they're saying something else.
Case in point, i support the cap on child benefit payments and have said so, quite clearly. My reasoning is simple - if you can't afford to have kids you shouldn't have them. I was asked by someone, if i supported "forced sterilisation" - that is a ridiculous avenue to go down and is not worthy of a response.
But it got me thinking, people seem keen to take but not so keen to appreciate the source or any obligation that places upon them.
So...
Is it time that those who are paying for society, i.e. those who are net contributors to society (that is to say - those who pay more money to the state than they receive from it) are the only ones with a right to vote?
Its all well and good giving the permanently benefit dependent a say but what does the rest of society get in return?
Would you let a stranger dictate how the money in your bank account is spent?
It is perhaps time to say that if you do not contribute to society, you shouldn't have that right to a say. It would undoubtedly change the agenda of politicians across the country.
The only exception i can think of that would be valid would be pensioners, people who have paid their share and retired, they would of course retain the right to vote - unless they've spent more time claiming than working.
OK, this is never going to happen but lets open this up to discussion - do you support the proposal? Why should people who contribute nothing have a say about how our money is spent?
0
Comments
Society needs kids (to replace the people who get old and die for one thing).
The supply shouldn't depend on a couple's short-term finances. In any case, how can anyone guarantee anything over the almost 19 years between making the decision, and the child becoming an adult?
What about disabled people or people who have terrible debilitating illnesses? Are they no longer worthwhile members of society?
I think my criteria are fairly clear - have they paid in more than they've taken out?
You have a point about the population but we're not really talking about the child benefit situation in here. We do have an ageing population but i don't consider people having kids to be a public service!
Not at all. One voter, one vote each of equal weight whether they contribue £1 more than they've "taken" or tens of billions.
Ever heard of VAT?
OK, for starters, lets forget this "worthwhile members of society" malarkey, that is emotional rhetoric and not relevant.
My criteria were quite explicity - do they take more than they contribute. If they do then no, they wouldn't get a vote.
Indeed i have, but VAT is mandatory, levied at the point of purchase and is not benfitted by taking taxation from one pot and being moved to another.
This calculator does give a rough estimate but makes too many assumptions to say whether any one individual would be eligible to vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
I do think net contributors are under appreciated though, by both government and the wider population.
Well that's a yes to disabled people then. Basically what you're saying is that if people are not fit to work, through no fault of their own, then they don't get a say on what happens in society.
Of course for that reason politicians would have no reason to look after those people, along with the other, weakest members of society. What would happen then?
That assumption is a bit simplistic, i suspect most people would actively want to help those in need of help but may be less inclined to direct their money to unnecessary wars and badly thought out schemes.
My view is that if the people making the decisions are those paying for them then more sensible decisions may be made.
Its not about defining people as "worthless" but having decisions made by those who are having to pay for them.
A fair question, interesting link, thank you. I particularly like the way it assumes service usage, totally useless
Its about time the government linked all our records across departments so theoretically, the calculation would be fairly straightforward.
Again, i think my proposal may never happen, this is more a hypothetical discussion than anything.
Maybe its time something was done to acknowledge those who pay more than they receive because it is they who are holding this country together.
Again, i think my criteria is quite clear. Its all to do with if you can create a sufficiently detailed assessment of the cost to the state of an individual on an annual basis.
But why not, that's not fair! Why should Joe Bloggs who contributes £1 more than they've taken get the same say as Mr King who contributes £4m to the country's coffers each year? He should get more of a say as the money being spent is more his than Joe Bloggs'!
It is not simply moving one pot from another because whilst VAT is mandatory, purchasing goods is not. Therefore the purchase of the goods is a benefit, therefore a controbution.
Should he? Why?
If someone is a net contributer, they're a positive effect on the economy irrespective of the amount.
It depends on the source of the money. If its from benefits it is simply moving it from one pot to another, at a reduced rate given the cost of obtaining the original taxation, processing the benefit and VAT systems.
If it is from a private income (i.e. pay from a company/company pension) then that is an entirely different situation.
Because it's more his money than Joe Bloggs'! Mr King's money can be used for useful projects, whereas what can you do with Joe Bloggs' £1? Relative to Mr King, Joe Blogg's really isn't contributing to the system. He doesn't deserve the same say as Mr King.
Edit/addition:
That's a good point. NHS nurses and doctors, state school teachers, anyone in the armed forces, etc. should all have their right to vote removed. They're not really contributing to the system as they're being paid by it. They don't deserve to have a say on how it's spent.
So people who dont happen to have a good income have no say in how the country is ran? No thanks. The idea is ridiculous to me, even though Im not sure if I would be classed as a 'net contributor' or not in your world. I pay a lot of tax now, but I'm unsure if I have paid off my school costs etc yet.
Utter nonsense - have you not heard of the multiplier effect?
The same argument is used to claim that public sector workers are less useful to an economy than private sector workers. Forgetting of course, that it doesn't matter where the money came from in the first place, what matters is that people have money in their pocket and use it to spend.
People who pay VAT *are* contributing to the nation's economy.
Maybe you are right. If that is your view then i'm glad you got an opportunity to express it
What if Mr. King has made his millions thanks to his employee Mr Bloggs hard work in the factory?