House passes sweeping bill on election, government reforms

[JustAFella]

Because by law a 16 year old is considered a minor and their parents are responsible for them. The parent(s) are responsible for the well being of the minor for his/her basic needs but it doesn't just stop there. The parent/guardian of that sixteen year old minor who willfully causes destruction of someone's property and/or willfully harms another person physically, the parents/guardians are responsible for damages. If your teenager still lives at home for more than half the year and is dependent upon your income for more than half of his or her financial support, then you claim them as a dependent on your taxes. In doing so the 16 year old minor can not claim his/herself as a dependent on his tax return that he/she is required by law to file. However, if the 16 year old teen that exceeds the 12,400 threshold the current rate, then that income becomes part of the household unit of the adjusted income of the parents/guardian. If this 16 year old teen earn less than than 12,400, he owes no federal income taxes.

You made the claim that if a 16 year old who has a job and is paying taxes he/she should have a right to vote. I would like you to think about 16 year old teens still living with their parents dependent for all their needs, have not even graduated from high school, who are living under their parent/guardian's rules like curfew times somehow has the right to vote. A voter should be old enough to be recognized as an adult by law.

So, you should be able to profit off them, but you also don't think they should vote?

Killer argument.

 

[Anthony60]

Hmm... let's see... this law provides for same day and online voter registration. No voter ID. So, you know, whoever can vote. The online stuff, well, what could possibly go wrong? Fill out a captcha, that's all the security we need! Is there a traffic light in the box? Yep, you can now vote, Mrs. Nussbaum! We found your credit card!

As proof of how super duper secure our election will be, even after the most super duper secure election ever, I predict Joe Biden will receive 350 -400 million votes, whether he runs or not, or just fill in the blank of whatever Democrat takes his place. It will be so secure, that the Democrats will have the results ready a week before the election. Actually, they'll have the result the day after this bill passes, but they don't want to brag.

 

[vesper]

So, you should be able to profit off them, but you also don't think they should vote?

Killer argument.

I presented a logical argument. The law does not look at a 16 year old as an adult. You on the other hand do not recognize that simple fact and how idiotic it is to lower the voting age to 16 when they are still dependent on their parents and still in high school. The only thing a 16 year old comes of age for is passing his/her driver's test to get a license. And even then he/she can't legally drive unless they have insurance which once again often falls to the parents. And because the parents are responsible for everything, they get to claim them on their taxes as a dependent getting a break on their taxes.

 

[Nickyjo]

I see some legal issues with that bill and I suspect the Supremes might not be kind to the overreaching federal interference with state power

You may be right about the Supremes. But it is undeniable that the right wing of the GOP doesn't want people to vote. Something has to be done.

 

[TurtleDude]

You may be right about the Supremes. But it is undeniable that the right wing of the GOP doesn't want people to vote. Something has to be done.

I don't want people who are not citizens to vote. I don't want people who once were citizens but are now dead to vote. I don't want people who contribute nothing to the tax coiffures voting up the taxes of others.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I presented a logical argument. The law does not look at a 16 year old as an adult. You on the other hand do not recognize that simple fact and how idiotic it is to lower the voting age to 16 when they are still dependent on their parents and still in high school. The only thing a 16 year old comes of age for is passing his/her driver's test to get a license. And even then he/she can't legally drive unless they have insurance which once again often falls to the parents. And because the parents are responsible for everything, they get to claim them on their taxes as a dependent getting a break on their taxes.

Not so. I paid for my own car insurance when I was 16.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not so. I paid for my own car insurance when I was 16.

How usual is that do you think?

 

[Atomic Kid]

I don't want people who are not citizens to vote. I don't want people who once were citizens but are now dead to vote. I don't want people who contribute nothing to the tax coiffures voting up the taxes of others.

And none of those things happened in any even remotely significant numbers whatsoever. Most secure election in our nation's history!

 

[Atomic Kid]

How usual is that do you think?

Didn't seem unusual to me. Seemed rather expected.

 

[TurtleDude]

And none of those things happened in any even remotely significant numbers whatsoever. Most secure election in our nation's history!

you are repeating what others have said. You are taking them at their word. I am not saying their are wrong-or right-its not something you can state with certainty.

 

[Nickyjo]

I don't want people who are not citizens to vote. I don't want people who once were citizens but are now dead to vote. I don't want people who contribute nothing to the tax coiffures voting up the taxes of others.

And yet, there is little proof of any of this. What is clear by their own statements, however, is that republicans fear the changing demographics of US society, and like their ideological predecessors from post-Reconstruction til the present day, their strategy is to prevent people from voting. It's not as if they have disguised their intentions.

 

[TurtleDude]

And yet, there is little proof of any of this. What is clear by their own statements, however, is that republicans fear the changing demographics of US society, and like their ideological predecessors from post-Reconstruction til the present day, their strategy is to prevent people from voting. It's not as if they have disguised their intentions.

well those sucking on the public teats tend to reproduce faster than those who are net tax producers. I talked to a dozen friends who all are well established attorneys, doctors or business leaders after I had returned from my 25th reunion (I was 47 at the time) They all noted that many of their friends had young children. Why? because successful people tend to wait to have children-wait until they are done with their residency or until they are partners in a law firm or equity holders in firms. That means less children. Delayed Gratification-a quality that successful people have in excess.

 

[Atomic Kid]

you are repeating what others have said. You are taking them at their word. I am not saying their are wrong-or right-its not something you can state with certainty.

I'm taking the word of the man who was specifically assigned by President Trump to over see it, the DOJ, FBI, multiple recounts in every contested state that reverified the previous results, the respective statements of those state's Secretary of State overseeing those elections, and the 60 plus cases that Trump election lawyers failed to win in courtrooms all across the nation. That's whom I am repeating. How about you? Whom are you repeating?

 

[Nickyjo]

well those sucking on the public teats tend to reproduce faster than those who are net tax producers. I talked to a dozen friends who all are well established attorneys, doctors or business leaders after I had returned from my 25th reunion (I was 47 at the time) They all noted that many of their friends had young children. Why? because successful people tend to wait to have children-wait until they are done with their residency or until they are partners in a law firm or equity holders in firms. That means less children. Delayed Gratification-a quality that successful people have in excess.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[JustAFella]

I presented a logical argument. The law does not look at a 16 year old as an adult. You on the other hand do not recognize that simple fact and how idiotic it is to lower the voting age to 16 when they are still dependent on their parents and still in high school. The only thing a 16 year old comes of age for is passing his/her driver's test to get a license. And even then he/she can't legally drive unless they have insurance which once again often falls to the parents. And because the parents are responsible for everything, they get to claim them on their taxes as a dependent getting a break on their taxes.

Taxation without representation. Got it.

Also, if you are arguing whether or not a law needs to be changed, you shouldn't start your point with "Well, the law says..."

 

[vesper]

Taxation without representation. Got it.

Also, if you are arguing whether or not a law needs to be changed, you shouldn't start your point with "Well, the law says..."

No you don't get it because you fail to accompany common sense with your political argument.

 

[Anthony60]

And none of those things happened in any even remotely significant numbers whatsoever. Most secure election in our nation's history!

How could you make a statement like that when you know people are allowed to vote without showing who they are? Let alone the acceptance of mail ins without post marks, no matching signatures, etc... The exact opposite of what you said is more likely from what we know. I've never been asked to show any ID whatsoever when voting.

 

[JustAFella]

No you don't get it because you fail to accompany common sense with your political argument.

Your argument is other people can claim them on taxes and they rely on their parents therefore they can have their labor taxed without being represented. News flash: that goes for a lot of people over the age of 18, so that argument goes right out the window.

What is your next excuse for not letting people who contribute to the labor force not being allowed to have a voice in the government they fund?

 

[vesper]

Your argument is other people can claim them on taxes and they rely on their parents therefore they can have their labor taxed without being represented. News flash: that goes for a lot of people over the age of 18, so that argument goes right out the window.

What is your next excuse for not letting people who contribute to the labor force not being allowed to have a voice in the government they fund?

What is your excuse in raising the age over 18 when the discussion is about lowering the voting age to 16?

 

[JustAFella]

What is your excuse in raising the age over 18 when the discussion is about lowering the voting age to 16?

Don't post dumb things. Your argument is faulty unless you want to disenfranchise those over 18 who rely on their parents. What about people who rely on foodstamps? Or unemployment? Anyone who takes money or assistance from parents or friends or relatives?

My vote is that if your labor is taxed, you should get to vote. You gave a few totally bullcrap reasons why that shouldn't be the case.

Again, if your taxes from your labor funds the government, why shouldn't you get a voice? Just answer that directly without talking about the people they know.

 

[vesper]

Don't post dumb things. Your argument is faulty unless you want to disenfranchise those over 18 who rely on their parents. What about people who rely on foodstamps? Or unemployment? Anyone who takes money or assistance from parents or friends or relatives?

My vote is that if your labor is taxed, you should get to vote. You gave a few totally bullcrap reasons why that shouldn't be the case.

Again, if your taxes from your labor funds the government, why shouldn't you get a voice? Just answer that directly without talking about the people they know.

Again another post lacking common sense. To think a 16 year old teen should have the right to vote because they may work a few hours a week at a part time job after school and on weekends where taxes are deducted is ridiculous. A teen is not even required to file a tax return if his/her earned income is less than 12,400 but most likely would because they are entitled to a refund.

Furthermore, an average 16 year old in this country has not even completed a course on Civics 101 resulting in his/her political opinions too crude and erroneous to merit an influence on public measures.

 

[Anthony60]

Don't post dumb things. Your argument is faulty unless you want to disenfranchise those over 18 who rely on their parents. What about people who rely on foodstamps? Or unemployment? Anyone who takes money or assistance from parents or friends or relatives?

My vote is that if your labor is taxed, you should get to vote. You gave a few totally bullcrap reasons why that shouldn't be the case.

Again, if your taxes from your labor funds the government, why shouldn't you get a voice? Just answer that directly without talking about the people they know.

Wait, this is about voting? You want children to vote now? LOL!!! Yeah, let's just do it in the classroom and have their teachers tell them who to vote for.

 

[JustAFella]

Wait, this is about voting? You want children to vote now? LOL!!! Yeah, let's just do it in the classroom and have their teachers tell them who to vote for.

You're deflecting.

 

[Anthony60]

You're deflecting.

Seems like you don't want to answer, right?

 

[JustAFella]

Wait, this is about voting?

What is your excuse in raising the age over 18 when the discussion is about lowering the voting age to 16?

Please try and keep up. Please stop being disingenuous. You're not doing it well.