Why Do We Give Parasites The Vote?

[ToraToraTora]

In a TTTocracy you'd only get the vote if you have contributed to society. Use the NI number to look up the total, they can already, if that is greater than zero you can vote. What's wrong with that? discuss.

[Atheist]

And perhaps people who can't contribute due to physical or mental disability? Should they have a vote?

[bednobs]

In the tttocracy, would one need to be a net contributor or just a contributor?

[barry1010]

So a woman wouldn't have the vote and she and her husband had chosen a 'traditional' marriage where she stays at home to raise the kids, keep house and volunteer for charity work?

[naomi24]

No thanks.  TTTland is a dystopian nightmare.  

[Old_Geezer]

Don't all legitimate citizens have an NI number, even if they only have credits ? If so, that's an ideal check on entitlement to vote. But democracy demands all valid citizens get a vote (accepted there are controversial exceptions at present) so the ability to do work or to find employment, ought not automatically bar anyone.

[sandyRoe]

And the children of rich people who live on family money?

Drones infesting posh areas.  Should they be allowed to vote?

[Untitled]

the poorest in society should have as equal a say as the richest. among the most important principles of democracy is that the governed must consent to how they are ruled. 

[DDIL]

Are stay at home mothers parasites?

Why stop at taking the vote, if you can't work due to disabilities are you allowed to take free air?

[sandyRoe]

I've a suspicion that TTT is actually a lecturer in social studies at some red brick uni who comes here to give the dark side of his character an airing.

[douglas9401]

Never been the same since his 'Shadowmod' wheeze was kyboshed.

More to be pitied than scorned.

[ToraToraTora]

for the nitpickers above clearly this title is just the headline. The actual policy would need to be worked out.

So for example there would be allowances for those unable to work. husbands/wives of those in work etc.

This is merely to discuss the basic principle of only allowing a vote if there is a contribution. Eg career work shy scum wont have a vote, those that occassionally fall out of work will because their total will be above zero

15:17 a net contributor of course but I suppose you have some sort of "what if" in mind.

[ToraToraTora]

15:25 so you are happy with career work shy scum affecting our society? Right oh!

[ToraToraTora]

15:35 They would get a vote if they paid tax so their runnning total was over zero. You would also get a vote if you employed someone through the books properly.

[ToraToraTora]

15:42 why should work shy scum have a say?

[naomi24]

TTT, There are two 15.25s.  Names would work.

[ToraToraTora]

15:53 I don't do mickey mouse "subjects".

[ToraToraTora]

18:04 my answer was obviously to you.

[naomi24]

TTT, if it had been obvious I wouldn't have suggested you use names -obviously.  TWAU.  😂

[ToraToraTora]

18:07 I already answered barry at 17:59. There is a new TWAU for you to pretend to not know.

But anyway you don't mind work shy scum voting then??

[THECORBYLOON]

Pointing out the holes in your original post is hardly "nitpicking" is it?

What about those who work but don't pay income tax and earn under the NI threshold?

Are they, "parasites"?