Should 16 year olds have the right to vote?

Most do not know how the economy works at any age.

I'd go as far as to say, nobody knows how the economy works.

I think you missed my point. I know lots of people on benefits work, I was asking about the ones that don't and have no drive to find a job either. The ones who live off benefits because it's easier than getting a job and providing for themselves/their family.

Just because undergraduates often haven't worked, that doesn't mean that the governments decisions magically don't affect them. Undergraduates should have the right to vote (and 16 year olds - as long as they have the presence of mind to make a rational and informed decision) because they want someone in power who will not screw up the economy, so when they go out into the job market, they can get a job, and then start contributing to society/paying taxes/paying off their student loans etc for the rest of their working life.

So, provided a child's parents can afford to set up a savings account or investment account such that the child pays taxes, then the child can vote.

So, effectively, wealthy people will be more able to gain votes than poor people.

Is that OK?

No, I completely got your point.

Those that do scrounge like you described = shouldn't be allowed to vote either. And I don't see how the majority of students are any different to those who aren't able to fund themselves.

Your point about "decisions magically don't affect them" is mad, where's the limit? Free school meals affect 5 year olds should they be allowed to vote?

The majority of undergrads shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are not much different to those that do scrounge of the state. Student finance & tuition fees make this so. Those that have actually worked have contributed to creating wealth in the country, stimulating the economy and in the majority of cases paid taxes to the government to give to social causes. While the majority of uni grads will earn more than those who don't go to uni the point is they still haven't contributed anything to society. They are (at the time) net receivers.






Posted from TSR Mobile

What would that help, I know that at my school at least teachers absolutely had now qualms with what can only be described as indoctrinating their classes, and in many ways forcing political opinions on classes who were (in fairness) too naive to realise what was happening.

Not necessarily a tenner. A fixed amount of taxes would have to be paid + (I should add) a fixed age (of maturity).


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'd also like to reaffirm what I should have said previously (which I admit I should have) - you should be allowed to vote if you have worked (in a job) or paid taxes from a job.

If sixteen year olds could vote, Scotland could be its own country right now. That's where the problems lie. Scotland is better of in the UK, but youths probably would of voted Yes because we are rebellious and angry.

this is just my own opinion and is definitely not right. I can think of many good counter arguments to what I just wrote, which would blow my post out of the water...

The difference between 5 yr olds and undergraduates is responsibility. Undergraduates are responsible for themselves, and can vote accordingly. Parents are responsible for the 5 year old, and the parent will vote for who they feel will give them/their family the best opportunities.

While they may be net receivers, they will have to pay their loans back - with interest. Therefore, they will be paying back to society, and over may years, and they will be paying taxes on top of this.

And if you paid the fixed amount in 1974 and nothing since you'd still have the vote?

So if you just take dividends from your companies - rather than being an employee paying income tax, you wouldn't be able to vote...?

If you have created wealth in the country/stimulated the economy through work over a set period of time then yes.



You know what I mean, stop being picky. I'm not going to draft my whole thoughts on tsr for god's sake.


Posted from TSR Mobile

How long a set?

It just sounds like it'd be a (overly) complicated set of rules...

Perhaps 10 years? It's subjective and wouldn't be for me just to decide. It's the principle that truly matters .


Posted from TSR Mobile

You know what I mean

So if you go to uni for three years, you'd be first eligible to vote when you're 31?

This. I don't know about you though but the thing I've found looking back is that I did, said, and thought things that were incredibly naive and at the same time I was convinced that I was incredibly intelligent and incredibly wise (I mean the same is probably true for my stage of life now, I'll look back and wonder how I could have done the things I did), and in this I found I was by no means unique.