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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    More importantly, should 16 year olds be allowed to go on jury service?

    The answer is obviously yes. Children have a sense of humanity that adults just lack.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    Oh, and five year olds don't pay tax. I feel this is going to become a well-worn line: no taxation without representation.
    Five year-olds that earn enough money (or have unearned income from investments) do pay income tax, just like anyone else. Are you advocating that well-off five year olds should be given the vote? Doesn't this merely give an earlier vote to the rich? Where might you draw the line? Five months old, perhaps? Five days?

    Anybody that spends money in a shop pays tax.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    I completely agree with Grape- the distinction between being able to vote at 16 and 18 is minimal and the comments about 'unsuitability', 'radical voting just because they can' and 'not bothering' are as true for older voters as they are for younger ones. The apathetic 16 year olds will do exactly the same as the apathetic 18, 33, and 65 year olds- they won't vote. Whereas, those that do have an interest and a desire to exercise the privelege can do so to improve the electoral system. In my eyes, there is no negative result that can come out of extending the vote to people of 16.
    High 5! Well expressed! x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=wootwootwoot]5 year olds are affected by schooling legislation controlled by the government, so why not give them the vote? QUOTE]


    Aside from the ridiculous nature of this point...because they don't work or pay tax which 16-year olds do. Also, dismissing the amounts people can earn at 16 is naive- often an 18 year old working full time in retail will be paid the same as a 16 year old working full time in retail thanks to European directives etc.

    Literally, what harm does everyone seem to perceive extending the vote would result in- perhaps a few more votes for the BNP across 646 constituencies. However the 'cost' (which I don't actually consider to be a cost as the BNP have a right to participate in democracy even if I don't agree with them) is surely far outweighed by legitimate voters of a younger persuasion who simply want to be represented fairly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    Precisely.

    I do think 16/17 year olds should be allowed to vote.
    Ah I see, I was under the impression you didnt think so (not reading the thread).

    Well, the reason I think 16 year olds should take a test is that - yes most 18 year olds may not have gained much knowledge of politics (not enough to know properly who to vote for etc) however, a lot can happen in 2 years and so most 18 year old who DO vote, have some inkling of awareness. A lot of people this age probably don't vote anyway, unless they know a bit about politics.
    Thats the difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds. Lots of knowledge can be gained in 2 years. Because of this (most) 18 year olds do have more maturity than 1when they were 16 so you would find less voting for MRL and BNP just for kicks.
    Now, it wouldn't be much of a problem for those 16 year olds who actually do want to vote to take a small test and prove they are mature enough (yes, not all 18 year olds are but they are less likely to vote for stupid reasons) just to show they know a little bit about politics.

    (Im very tired - sorry if it doesnt make much sense - normally I am much more coherent and better at arguing :p:)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grape:))
    High 5! Well expressed! x
    Thankyou! Your high five is returned!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JustCallMeKate)
    You can leave school and work full-time at sixteen; theoretically earning as much as any other similarly qualified adult. I'd say that was indeed a significant amount of money.

    Oh, and five year olds don't pay tax. I feel this is going to become a well-worn line: no taxation without representation.
    but its the same principles, the government is affecting you, so you should get to vote for them, well this applies to all ages. 18 has been set at the age where you are seen capable of handling everything, and as such voting comes as part of this, when you have grown up. Yes there are always people over the age who are not politically aware, but most are, and I would argue that most people at 16 aren't. Some might be, but it has to be a sensible medium, and I believe this lies at 18.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by -WhySoSerious?)
    No, because the majority of people at 16 are immature little *****
    this
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, you use the 'they're too immature' argument but there are a heck of a lot of people over 16 who aren't particularly mature either. I know at 16 I was far more politically aware than many people who were older... Age doesn't equal exercising your vote in a mature and well-informed manner (if only!).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Five year-olds that earn enough money (or have unearned income from investments) do pay income tax, just like anyone else. Are you advocating that well-off five year olds should be given the vote? Doesn't this merely give an earlier vote to the rich? Where might you draw the line? Five months old, perhaps? Five days?

    Anybody that spends money in a shop pays tax.

    Touche

    My argument was perhaps a little generalised and non-specific. Still, I wasn't addressing individual cases. I am aware it is entirely possible for a well-off five year old to pay income tax, but I'd argue it was an incredibly small percentage. Most people would begin to pay income tax when entering into full-time employment, something which is only legal at the minimum age of sixteen. Therefore, if we're looking for a fair 'cut-off' point for a voting age, I'd argue it would be practical to impose it at a time where the majority would be in a position to pay such taxes and so a much larger number wouldn't be paying taxes without the vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by itszednotzee)
    Ah I see, I was under the impression you didnt think so (not reading the thread).

    Well, the reason I think 16 year olds should take a test is that - yes most 18 year olds may not have gained much knowledge of politics (not enough to know properly who to vote for etc) however, a lot can happen in 2 years and so most 18 year old who DO vote, have some inkling of awareness. A lot of people this age probably don't vote anyway, unless they know a bit about politics.
    Thats the difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds. Lots of knowledge can be gained in 2 years. Because of this (most) 18 year olds do have more maturity than 1when they were 16 so you would find less voting for MRL and BNP just for kicks.
    Now, it wouldn't be much of a problem for those 16 year olds who actually do want to vote to take a small test and prove they are mature enough (yes, not all 18 year olds are but they are less likely to vote for stupid reasons) just to show they know a little bit about politics.

    (Im very tired - sorry if it doesnt make much sense - normally I am much more coherent and better at arguing :p:)
    Maybe the reason eighteen year olds do have an inkling about politics is because they are aware they have the ability to vote and so want to look into it. I certianly didn't care about local MPs and issues until I had the power to actually vote in these matters, so maybe its not about maturity, but instead about motivation.

    I really don't think they are more likely to vote for stupid reasons, for arguments already presented in this thread. Its far less effort to just not vote if you aren't that bothered about politics and just because a few idiots could take the mick, is it right to deny the others of the chance to vote seriously?

    Also, if it is just a small test, why not make everyone take it before voting? Out of interest, what questions would you suggest be on this test?

    Wow, re-reading that I sounded a little *****y. I'm mainly just curious :P:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grape:))
    All of the immature ones wont bother, and those who have political interest can then rightfully express their opinion through a vote that they have earned as citizens effected by many many british policies and laws.

    x
    what she said^

    tbh, alot of idiot vote, if 16 yo's were allowed to vote, at least only the ones with an interest would. others wouldnt bother
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wootwootwoot)
    but its the same principles, the government is affecting you, so you should get to vote for them, well this applies to all ages. 18 has been set at the age where you are seen capable of handling everything, and as such voting comes as part of this, when you have grown up. Yes there are always people over the age who are not politically aware, but most are, and I would argue that most people at 16 aren't. Some might be, but it has to be a sensible medium, and I believe this lies at 18.
    There is a limit to how much you can contribute to society before the age of sixteen. You aren't able to work full-time, you aren't able to join the army or get married. The legal age of consent is sixteen so you arguably shouldn't have a child either (although yes, I'm aware it does happen). I'd say if you are legally able to do all of these things, not being able to vote seems a little ridiculous. Is joining the army somehow a less important decision than marking a cross on a ballot paper?

    I agree there should be a sensible medium. The question is why this medium isn't sixteen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i'm sixteen and if we were given the vote i wouldn't vote anyway.. cos i wouldn't know who to vote for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elynnor1811)
    i'm sixteen and if we were given the vote i wouldn't vote anyway.. cos i wouldn't know who to vote for.
    And what harm has been done by giving you the opportunity to vote? None. Meanwhile, why shouldn't your friends of the same age be allowed to vote if they have a handle on politics/support a particular party etc. Why should they be denied the right to vote just because you wouldn't care to exercise the right if it were granted to you?

    Realised the tone of this is rather angry/accusatory- apologies in advance haha...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    And what harm has been done by giving you the opportunity to vote? None. Meanwhile, why shouldn't your friends of the same age be allowed to vote if they have a handle on politics/support a particular party etc. Why should they be denied the right to vote just because you wouldn't care to exercise the right if it were granted to you?

    Realised the tone of this is rather angry/accusatory- apologies in advance haha...
    lol.. when did i say we shouldn't get the vote?. i just said i wouldn't vote, not that we shouldn't have the opportunity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I believe they should have the right to vote. At 16 people are beginning to make huge decisions in their lives. They decide whether to carry on with education or enter the working population. While they may be young, we can not generalise a whole generation into one category of being unworthy or uninterested in voting. In the same way we can not assume that any older generations are.


    (Original post by pinkspiders)
    No. Just no.

    Plus I went to a Politics seminar a while ago and the lecturer was talking about something quite fascinating. If somebody is given the vote at 16, there is a large chance they won't actually vote. About 92% he said. He also said that the very first time you vote also predicts if you shall vote in the future. If someone missed the chance to vote at 18 - then there was a 88% chance they'd never vote again. So I suppose lowering the age would lower the electorate somewhat (if you believed his research...)
    That is very interesting. That would be something to seriously take into consideration.

    (Original post by caroline147)
    I'm 17. In my experience, I know far more about politics than 99% of the adult population.
    Very naive statement. I don't mean to just pick on you here, this has been said a number of times already but needed a quote.

    Just to clarify, this week I will be 22 and I don't claim to be a strong follower of politics. Politics effects people in all walks of life on many different levels, don't assume you know more than people because they don't have a more vocal or outward opinion than yourself or because they don't seem interested in the day to day runnings of the system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -WhySoSerious?)
    No, because the majority of people at 16 are immature little *****
    this x 10000

    I remember being 16 and I was in no state to vote
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DammitBauer)
    Very naive statement. I don't mean to just pick on you here, this has been said a number of times already but needed a quote.

    Just to clarify, this week I will be 22 and I don't claim to be a strong follower of politics. Politics effects people in all walks of life on many different levels, don't assume you know more than people because they don't have a more vocal or outward opinion than yourself or because they don't seem interested in the day to day runnings of the system.
    :eyebrow:

    That's exactly why I explicitly stated 'in my experience'. I was simply using myself as an example to show that not all 16/17 year olds are apathetic about politics. Additionally, you have never met me and, therefore, have no reason to believe I'm incorrect except for your condescending prejudice

    Moreover, politics certainly affects everyone but that has little to do with knowledge of the subject. To state otherwise is, in itself, extremely naive.

    24 is awesome though
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    What 16 year old pays tax?
 
 
 
  • 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 rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.