Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    no taxation without representation
    Wouldn't that only be an argument for suggesting that the 16/17 years old who pay tax should have the vote, rather than one for giving it to any 16/17 year old?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It seems the most often advanced argument for lowering the age of sufferage to 16 is thar 16 year olds can pay tax.

    That may be so. But of course, many (probably most) don't. What does this mean? We have to distinguish those that do from those that don't?

    And what does paying tax have to do with anything anyway? What about the thousands of stay-at-home moms for example? They don't pay tax. Should their right to sufferage be denied?
    Agreed, the paying tax argument is pretty *****y. If dole folk don't have to pay tax and still have the vote then whether one works or doesn't and is sixteen they should still have the vote.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would dread to think what the parties would do to 'attract' these 16 year old voters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Agreed, the paying tax argument is pretty *****y. If dole folk don't have to pay tax and still have the vote then whether one works or doesn't and is sixteen they should still have the vote.
    And of course "no taxation without representation" must surely work the other way round "no representation without taxation" which would leave a lot of folks out in the cold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I would dread to think what the parties would do to 'attract' these 16 year old voters.
    As someone pointed out on here the Liberal Democrats said they would make porn legal to sixteen year olds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I would dread to think what the parties would do to 'attract' these 16 year old voters.
    Free skateboards?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    And of course "no taxation without representation" must surely work the other way round "no representation without taxation" which would leave a lot of folks out in the cold.
    I doubt a lot of dole dossers actually vote though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    And of course "no taxation without representation" must surely work the other way round "no representation without taxation" which would leave a lot of folks out in the cold.
    I'd say that's pretty fair. But if dole folk can have their opinions represented then hard working students should most surely have theirs represented.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Free skateboards?
    Yes, either a skateboard, burberry baseball cap, a years supply of chocolate, or a years supply to 'Sugar' or 'match' magazine for those that stay on at school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I doubt a lot of dole dossers actually vote though.
    You'd be suprised. Some of them are actually intelligent, just lazy. I've met some who don't go to work and are happy to argue about the 'foreign' folk coming to our country.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by sillynarb2)
    no, at 16 you think you know it all but you really don't
    And that differs from 18 yr olds how?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    As someone pointed out on here the Liberal Democrats said they would make porn legal to sixteen year olds.
    I personally think that is fair enough though. You can have sex at 16 but cant watch it, I just find that weird :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I personally think that is fair enough though. You can have sex at 16 but cant watch it, I just find that weird :confused:
    *haha* hmm forget I ever mentioned that point.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    *haha* hmm forget I ever mentioned that point.

    Well just thank your lucky stars Alton Towers dont have a party, you'd be an adult at arounf age 6
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Well just thank your lucky stars Alton Towers dont have a party, you'd be an adult at arounf age 6
    God I wish I was an adult at 6.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    You'd be suprised. Some of them are actually intelligent, just lazy.
    ...and some of them aren't lazy at all - they're looking for a decent job, which is what JSA is there for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    ...and some of them aren't lazy at all - they're looking for a decent job, which is what JSA is there for.
    Exactly, 'decent', if you don't have a job and can't support yourself you should get any job.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Exactly, 'decent', if you don't have a job and can't support yourself you should get any job.
    Well, not any job...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Definitely not for the things you listed, no.

    If the age limit is lowered so people are encouraged to become druggies, pregnant, unemployed and abusive at an even younger age, then that definitely is a mockery of the right of "voting".

    It should be for constructive purposes only - otherwise let the government decide themselves, least it would be more appropriate than 16 year olds wanting to vote in order to shag and take drugs with an excuse.
    I don't think this was the point in the list. The point was that if you're allowed to do all these other adult things at 16, you should be able to vote too as you're an adult for all intents and purposes.

    I don't agree with this though - there has to be a boundary somewhere, and 18 is fine. The reason why the limits for things like age of consent are quite low is because higher limits don't work.

    If the age of consent for sex was 18, you'd still get plenty of 16 year olds doing it anyway and breaking the law. But under the current age restriction for voting, you don't get rebel kids turning up at polling stations. Young people don't vote that much anyway, so what's the point in lowering the age?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Well, not any job...
    I'm sure you would if you had to
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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

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