Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ultralaser, Nov 4, 2017.
I think it should be lowered to 16, especially with the disaster that is university tuition fees.
16 year olds should not be allowed to vote.
from my own experience i knew very little to nothing about the complexities of politics and government at this age.
i was just to busy being a kid. no doubt there are some 16 year olds into politics but i'd have no trouble saying most aren't.
let them be teens a little longer and enjoy life without worrying about voting
It's not a great argument though for denying the vote to people who are 16. A lot of people, of any age, know little about the complexities of politics and government. The turnout at the last GE was just over 60%, so that suggests of the legal voting age there are 40% of eligible voters who can't be bothered to turn up, eg aren't "into" politics either. Lets face it, there are pros and cons to it.
If a dirty old scumbag can dip his wick in a 16 year old legally, said 16 year old should be able to vote.
Nope, at 16 most are too easily influenced.
As opposed to the easily influenced Newspaper readers?
Le sigh, Austria gets on fine with it's 16 year olds.
You don't think hundreds of thousands of people were influenced by Vote Leave? Even with absolute lies.
Not sure you can discredit age under those circumstances.
My take. Old enough to work is old enough to pay tax. Old enough to pay tax is old enough to vote.
Yeah 16 year olds are not known for their intellectual prowess, but neither are a huge number of fully grown adults. Either way, if you're old enough to pay income tax, you deserve a say on how it's spent.
Ultimately, it matters very little who someone votes for. What really matters is that they might vote for someone else next time.
Edit: 16 is also old enough to serve in the military. At the very least, I would say those people have enough of a stake in society to deserve a vote.
dont you have to be in education till 18 now?
And...? Your own source mentions apprenticeships, traineeships, and straight-up working. At least two of these things (maybe all three?) involve earning a wage potentially high enough to pay tax. This doesn't contradict anything I said.
Technically anyone earning over the tax free threshold would need to pay tax on their income, it isn't age dependant. Also most kids will pay some tax be it VAT or even the sugar tax so taxation may not be the best indicator of voting.
Hilarious. The older generation have been influenced by the MSM for decades!
Other taxes like VAT, you could be spending anyone's money. Income tax explicitly takes a portion of what you've earned. It's not the same.
Technically you can 12 and pay income tax if you earn enough. Rare? Most definitely, but possible. So “old enough to pay income tax’ isn’t really a good cut off. I’m sure you don’t want to go down the “pays income tax” route as that would disenfranchise millions.
Young people are on average more susceptible than adults, hence they are more restricted.
I'm not convinced. I could just as easily point to stories of older people being taken in by scammers and the like. I don't think age is a deciding factor in susceptibility. Unless of course you can prove that.
Yes you are.
I can point to a woman that's taller than a man, but that doesn't change group averages.
Why do you think children have their right to smoke cigarettes restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to drink alcohol restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to drive cars restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to get tattoos restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to have sex restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to do most jobs restricted?
Why do you think children have their right to remain home alone restricted?
Authoritarian Skunk to the rescue... Please show evidence please for your assertions please, tired of listening to *****.
If you want evidence for children being less able to make informed decisions than adults you're clearly just playing dumb to waste time. It's like asking for evidence that water is wet.
I didn't say anywhere that children are less able to make informed decisions or not.
If you're going to make up the question then answer it however the hell you want, just don't involve me and quote me in trying to prove me wrong.
No I'm not - don't put words into my mouth unless you're willing to prove your assertions. That just makes you an ass.
I'll assume at this point that you're conflating susceptibility with being informed because to do so helps prove what you want it to. The two things are not necessarily the same. Whilst the former can affect the latter, that is no guarantee.
Separate names with a comma.