This means that 43% of people earn less than £13,000 per year? That’s the story.

But to take the question at face value: no. Because they still pay VAT, road tax, council tax, you name in. And even if they didn’t: still no. https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1159030771530657792

The problem is the target of these conversations is always NHS or benefits. It’s never framed: “I am on the breadline, with three kids, so why is my income tax funding nuclear-armed submarines we don’t need, or a billionaire old lady with a selection of nice hats?”

Also, does this mean working-age adults? Because saying the over-65s should have no say in how government money should be spent is quite a proposal.

Here’s why it’s a silly question: people’s contribution to society is more than financial. Think about the Tesco workers who aren’t paying income tax but who are risking infection so you can buy your cheesecakes. Why would you even debate if their views are worth less?

If you’ve had cancer and haven’t worked for 18 months, you shouldn’t have a say in the NHS? Makes no sense.

You work part-time due to childcare but your husband works full time. Should he get more say than you do, because he happens to pay income tax?

I’m also intrigued by what “more of a say means”. Extra votes per tax bracket? New constituencies tied to tax bracket, so high-rate taxpayers get more MPs than low-rate ones?

Richer people already have more influence, as anyone who lives in Whitechapel can tell you.

Not only is it an inherently sexist stance, but it also says disabled people matter less. Old people matter less.

Which I think is true in terms of how society actually makes policies that affect those people. But it’s disturbing how many might want to advocate it out loud.