Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I would but it presents a massive problem.

    Taxed without representation as you have no say in who's elected.

    You could say the same about a 16 year old but it's highly unlikely they are paying much tax if any at all


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Same applies to 18 year olds, the vast majority pay no tax, and the ones that do pay a very small amount.

    And to those that would pay tax for a or 3 years with out being able to vote, tough. It would give them chance to get annoyed about how their tax is spent on pointless and wasteful things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    In the U.K the gender pay back for full
    time work is 15% and for part time work
    it is 35%.

    Only 22% of seats in parliament are female

    Both of these points are very silly points to make. They do not consider women's choices / biological differences e.g. having children. It is hard to take anybody seriously who makes such comments.
    Please can you explain to me how a biological difference (having kids) explains a gender pay gap?
    And the seats in parliament....well Ruanda are higher than us. We are the 3rd worse in Europe
    So you are saying that Britain is the country with the most moms? Please not also having a child does not prevent you from working. That's being a stay at home mum.
    It's not a biological difference it's a life choice
    Just like being a stay at home dad is a life choice
    And you can make a point without being so rude
    I hope you can take people seriously who state facts you disagree...if you can't it's going to make future life very difficult for you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I would but it presents a massive problem.

    Taxed without representation as you have no say in who's elected.

    You could say the same about a 16 year old but it's highly unlikely they are paying much tax if any at all


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Fair and true point



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by issy.roberts)
    Please can you explain to me how a biological difference (having kids) explains a gender pay gap?
    And the seats in parliament....well Ruanda are higher than us. We are the 3rd worse in Europe
    So you are saying that Britain is the country with the most moms? Please not also having a child does not prevent you from working. That's being a stay at home mum.
    It's not a biological difference it's a life choice
    Just like being a stay at home dad is a life choice
    And you can make a point without being so rude
    I hope you can take people seriously who state facts you disagree...if you can't it's going to make future life very difficult for you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is called common sense.

    1st, Women often have children, perhaps you don't know this. Men don't have children, perhaps you also don't know this. When a woman has a child, she usually stops working for a while, sometimes several years. The man does not have children, so generally will not stop working. He will then go on to have a good career, getting promoted and gaining a higher salary. This is not hard to understand.

    2nd, the ratio of men and women as MP's doesn't actually matter, and again, you are forgetting key issues, men and women are not the exact same, they have different interests, hobbies and skills, all of which effect which jobs they are most likely to apply for and perform successfully.

    There are more female primary school teachers than male, do I claim that it is a problem? No, I don't, it is the result of women applying more for those positions, not the sign of some conspiracy.

    You need to increase your general knowledge and rationality skills.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm 26 and was originally dreading being an older Conservative/Libertarian minded capitalist at University come September.

    This thread has made me feel a little bit more at ease.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by issy.roberts)
    No they're not completely different
    All these right people have combine to whether they can have other rights
    for example if you can't buy a house then you can't claim housing benefits
    And how can you judge people for getting married at 16? Sure I wouldn't do it...but that doesn't mean that anyone else who does it is dumb or an idiot



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I havnt read all of this thread but you've done enough to win the argument imao.

    It's not an issue I particularly care about but there is one reason over and above anything I saw on this thread that I think demands that 16 year old should be given the vote.

    Our political system is hugely swayed towards those who own property.
    And not enough people in government really give a damn.
    And the reason they don't,apart from the fact that most MPs benefit from the housing crisis ,is because there are too many property owning voters compared to non property owning voters.

    One way to alleviate this gross unfairness in our system is to allow 16 year olds to vote.

    The only thing is though it really won't make much difference at all to the status quo.

    Not under our fptp system.

    As for people saying there are too many idiotic 16 year olds or already too many idiots voting ,there's a lot I could say about that but suffice it to say that if 'idiots' manage to vote in a government that does really badly would they not also vote them out again?
    Or do people think idiots like having less money etc?

    Anyway, if this country turns out to be significantly worse off by voting leave in the referendum who will be the bigger idiot- Oxford educated Cameron who chose to put a referendum in the Tory manifesto or an ordinary leave voter whose vote made not one iota of difference to the outcome?

    I can certainly say that when I observe modern (mainly British) society Im never entirely sure who the smart people are.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by issy.roberts)
    I'm not saying it is wrong.
    What I'm saying however is that lets say that it is wrong that 16+ do not get more rights that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get a vote.
    Do you see what I mean?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That line of argument must follow a sound justification that 16+17 should have the extra rights. As long as the restriction of non voting rights is seen as just the argument fails to work.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    It is called common sense.

    1st, Women often have children, perhaps you don't know this. Men don't have children, perhaps you also don't know this. When a woman has a child, she usually stops working for a while, sometimes several years. The man does not have children, so generally will not stop working. He will then go on to have a good career, getting promoted and gaining a higher salary. This is not hard to understand.

    2nd, the ratio of men and women as MP's doesn't actually matter, and again, you are forgetting key issues, men and women are not the exact same, they have different interests, hobbies and skills, all of which effect which jobs they are most likely to apply for and perform successfully.

    There are more female primary school teachers than male, do I claim that it is a problem? No, I don't, it is the result of women applying more for those positions, not the sign of some conspiracy.

    You need to increase your general knowledge and rationality skills.
    What was missed out is simply a greater willingness of men to do the more important parts of jobs, they tend to be more willing to do the bad hours and the dangerous roles; the engineer that will go out in a storm in the middle of the night is far more valuable than the one that will only work during the day when the sun is out.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Where's the campaign to continue ensuring children do not get to decide such important decisions?

    When did TSR decide this would be their official standpoint on the issue? *
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    I havnt read all of this thread but you've done enough to win the argument imao.

    It's not an issue I particularly care about but there is one reason over and above anything I saw on this thread that I think demands that 16 year old should be given the vote.

    Our political system is hugely swayed towards those who own property.
    And not enough people in government really give a damn.
    And the reason they don't,apart from the fact that most MPs benefit from the housing crisis ,is because there are too many property owning voters compared to non property owning voters.

    One way to alleviate this gross unfairness in our system is to allow 16 year olds to vote.

    The only thing is though it really won't make much difference at all to the status quo.

    Not under our fptp system.

    As for people saying there are too many idiotic 16 year olds or already too many idiots voting ,there's a lot I could say about that but suffice it to say that if 'idiots' manage to vote in a government that does really badly would they not also vote them out again?
    Or do people think idiots like having less money etc?

    Anyway, if this country turns out to be significantly worse off by voting leave in the referendum who will be the bigger idiot- Oxford educated Cameron who chose to put a referendum in the Tory manifesto or an ordinary leave voter whose vote made not one iota of difference to the outcome?

    I can certainly say that when I observe modern (mainly British) society Im never entirely sure who the smart people are.
    Very true
    People will learn from their mistakes
    And thank you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What was missed out is simply a greater willingness of men to do the more important parts of jobs, they tend to be more willing to do the bad hours and the dangerous roles; the engineer that will go out in a storm in the middle of the night is far more valuable than the one that will only work during the day when the sun is out.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    All true, just couldn't be bothered to type it all out. Unfortunately people who type the rubbish that was typed originally don't care about facts and logic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Where's the campaign to continue ensuring children do not get to decide such important decisions?

    When did TSR decide this would be their official standpoint on the issue? *
    Age will always be contingent to perspective. If it changed to 16, 16+ will be viewed as adults. Same if it changed to 21+ etc
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I feel myself)
    Age will always be contingent to perspective. If it changed to 16, 16+ will be viewed as adults. Same if it changed to 21+ etc
    Agreed, so keep the age at 18.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elastichedgehog)
    If this was even a viable option there'd have to be some kind of mandatory political class in school. Seriously, I knew nothing about politics when I was 16.

    Edit: I think there should be anyway. I'm 18 and I'm still incredibly ill informed. Just a little less so because I've decided to read up on things.
    I knew sod all until well into my twenties. It's a biased idea put forward by a remainer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I knew sod all until well into my twenties. It's a biased idea put forward by a remainer.
    The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You want ten-year-olds to be given the vote?
    yes....yes i do
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    With mandatory political education, I don't think this is a bad idea. With everything that 16 year olds are allowed to do, I think they should be able to vote. Hell, they can have a child. Should they not be voting to benefit their child's future? There are many uninformed people that still go out and vote almost randomly. It's not just young people. You could even say that only 16 year olds who have finished school would be eligible to vote. People can make their own decisions about whether they believe this is a good idea or not, but that's my opinion. This is a very interesting idea and if possible, I'd like to get involved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Another subject to add to the over packed listed of subjects that need to be taught.

    Yea of course there will be no bias in its teaching.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elastichedgehog)
    The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.
    The 16yr old vote. But I'm not sure about education, it can be heavily politicized, teach people what to think not how to think. Surely it's peoples level of general education, everything from philosophy to logic to intellectual curiosity, plus their interest in politics. I don't think it's a matter of politics courses, so much as that real world experience touches people in a much more direct and potent way, and makes them viscerally involved in politics, and hence they get more informed and preferences and ideas evolve. It's only ever put that the older vote is regressive or stale, not that their understanding could have matured like wine or cheese.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Elastichedgehog)
    The idea of mandatory political education is the biased idea? or the 16 year old vote? The fact that you didn't know anything about politics into your twenties shows that the nation would benefit from some sort of political education.
    The problem with mandatory political education is the government of the day will try to push it in favour of their stance, and the teachers will try to teach it with a pro left bias, in other words it becomes a massive cluster**** of political bias and nobody learns anything.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.