Should the US lower the voting age to 16?

[The Real McCoy]

16 year olds are obviously not old enough to vote but since they can't vote they shouldn't be taxed!

If minors were exempt from taxes, our social security/medicare/medicaid problems would be even worse.

 

[Caine]

If minors were exempt from taxes, our social security/medicare/medicaid problems would be even worse.

Then grant them voting rights.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Government Taxation without representation is morally wrong. Plain and simple.

Here in Australia they tax teenagers at the age of 15, but you don't get the vote till 18. It is bad enough that governments screw us silly with tax, but it is outright theft, if governments tax your hard earned money without representation.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes, it does make sense to me.
Its a double standard to tax minors and try them as adults, but turn around and not give them the same rights and privileges as the adults that they mimic.

Let see, they can.....Drive,Work,Pay Taxes,Be Tried as Adults, etc. Yet they cannot vote.

Doesn't make sense to me.

At least if we can't give them the right to vote, we should stop taxing them and stop trying them as adults. (Most of the time people under 18 get every dime they paid in taxes back as a tax return in April anyways).

How about that we expect sixteen year olds to know that they shouldn't be shooting their playmates with shotguns and blowing them up with pipe bombs, but we don't trust them to understand the implications of Ponzi Schemes and foreign aid?

(Than again, it's clear most americans don't understand Ponzi Schemes, all those damn fools support Socialist Security. Not a one should be allowed outside without a keeper)

 

[Caine]

How about that we expect sixteen year olds to know that they shouldn't be shooting their playmates with shotguns and blowing them up with pipe bombs, but we don't trust them to understand the implications of Ponzi Schemes and foreign aid?

(Than again, it's clear most americans don't understand Ponzi Schemes, all those damn fools support Socialist Security. Not a one should be allowed outside without a keeper)

lol... If "Socialist Security" as you call it were being PROPOSED now, then I would understand your concern.
As it stands, getting rid of social security only hurts the poor man in the end.

But, hey, the GOP doesn't give a **** about the poor man huh?
The poor man doesn't contribute to thier Election Campaigns does he?

 

[RightinNYC]

If minors were exempt from taxes, our social security/medicare/medicaid problems would be even worse.

The effect that those under 16 have on those 3 is absolutely infinitismal.

SS is running a 4,000,000,000,000 unfunded liability right now.

The payroll tax collected on those under 18 and above 16 is worth maybe a few dozen million each year.

 

[RightinNYC]

Now, now....not all SC schools are terrible. I attended their schools for 7 years, until we moved to MN, where I found I was actually ahead of my new classmates...

And imagine, one of my stepfather's co-workers had told him I would need a tutor to catch up. *scoff*

hahahaha, I actually meant stupid Supreme Court for outlawing literacy tests.

 

[RightinNYC]

Oh, so you're comparing teenagers to criminals who forfeited their right by offending against soicety?

No, I was simply explaining that there can be, and is, taxation w/o representation, and nobody complains about that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why doesn't DC (as in the city, right?) have representation?

DC has no senators or congressmen. They have no representation in the federal government, yet pay fed taxes.

 

[RightinNYC]

Also, the legal purchase ages are 18 and 21. A 16 year old can still drink at any age.

Huh? That's not true.

 

[Stace]

hahahaha, I actually meant stupid Supreme Court for outlawing literacy tests.

Whoops, my bad.....I'm so used to seeing everyone on here abbreviate it as SCOTUS that it didn't even cross my mind.....

 

[Stace]

Huh? That's not true.

I think Caine meant that physically, they can still drink at any age....but not legally. Or something.....

 

[DeeJayH]

i am not in favor of lowering the age to vote. raising it is a possibility
I am in favor of tests for voting eligibility, Absolutely
too many stupid people voting party line
I think those living off the government, i.e. welfare, should not be allowed to vote
felons, incarcerated or released, should not be able to vote

 

[vergiss]

I think those living off the government, i.e. welfare, should not be allowed to vote

Pray tell, why?

 

[Mikkel]

i am not in favor of lowering the age to vote. raising it is a possibility
I am in favor of tests for voting eligibility, Absolutely
too many stupid people voting party line
I think those living off the government, i.e. welfare, should not be allowed to vote
felons, incarcerated or released, should not be able to vote

Such as literacy tests? I think the department of justice might have a problem with that:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm

And I know you're going to tell me that I'm saying this because I'm a Democrat and want my party to do well, but if you keep poor people on welfare from voting then they won't have a voice in government and we'll only have an increase in division of classes. You know, rich get richer, poor get poorer, that type of thing. There would be no way to check corruption and cronyism. I understand you don't like the idea of people who don't pay taxes having a say in government, but in all practicality your idea isn't good for the country.

 

[RightinNYC]

Such as literacy tests? I think the department of justice might have a problem with that:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm

And I know you're going to tell me that I'm saying this because I'm a Democrat and want my party to do well, but if you keep poor people on welfare from voting then they won't have a voice in government and we'll only have an increase in division of classes. You know, rich get richer, poor get poorer, that type of thing. There would be no way to check corruption and cronyism. I understand you don't like the idea of people who don't pay taxes having a say in government, but in all practicality your idea isn't good for the country.

Just to play Devil's advocate...it wouldn't actually play out that way. First off, this is operating under the assumption that the numbers of those on welfare are large enough and that those on welfare vote as a bloc and in high enough numbers to affect policy.

Even assuming that, if you take those on welfare off the tax rolls, then those who had the vote might potentially vote to cut welfare. So welfare gets cut, and those who were previously on welfare lose their welfare, and become eligible to vote again. Then they vote welfare back in, etc etc. Cyclical.

 

[DeeJayH]

Such as literacy tests? I think the department of justice might have a problem with that:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.htm

And I know you're going to tell me that I'm saying this because I'm a Democrat and want my party to do well, but if you keep poor people on welfare from voting then they won't have a voice in government and we'll only have an increase in division of classes. You know, rich get richer, poor get poorer, that type of thing. There would be no way to check corruption and cronyism. I understand you don't like the idea of people who don't pay taxes having a say in government, but in all practicality your idea isn't good for the country.

when was the last time a poor person on welfare broke a story on corruption and cronyism?

career welfare recipients and others on the government dole, are very likely to vote for whoever promises to give them more money for doing nothing.
causing the divide themselves, instead of getting off their asses and making something of their life

 

[vergiss]

when was the last time a poor person on welfare broke a story on corruption and cronyism?

career welfare recipients and others on the government dole, are very likely to vote for whoever promises to give them more money for doing nothing.
causing the divide themselves, instead of getting off their asses and making something of their life

Yes, dear, because every single person who's ever recieved finanical assistance from the Government is an illiterate, 21-year-old black single mother with six kids.

 

[goligoth]

when was the last time a poor person on welfare broke a story on corruption and cronyism?

career welfare recipients and others on the government dole, are very likely to vote for whoever promises to give them more money for doing nothing.
causing the divide themselves, instead of getting off their asses and making something of their life

You can make a career out of welfare...??? I knew that some people on welfare abused the system but man o man a career???

I once was standing in the sea food section of our local wall-mart and two guys were holding up the line trying to figure out what they wanted...lobster or shrimp...one said that lobster was too expensive and they should go with shrimp but the other said that the food stamps would cover both :censored....I am standing there waiting for two lawn-mowing-hillbillies to decide whether or not they should get freakin lobster with their food stamps!!!:censored

I have never known anybody on welfare and that is really my only experience with it but dam did that tick me off...

About the voting....
I am all for having a test you must pass in order to vote. There are some intelligent 10 year olds who could probably vote more rationally than say several older 18 and 19 year olds I know...now that I think about it we would have to take the test every year because a person can get dumber

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

lol... If "Socialist Security" as you call it were being PROPOSED now, then I would understand your concern.
As it stands, getting rid of social security only hurts the poor man in the end.

But, hey, the GOP doesn't give a **** about the poor man huh?
The poor man doesn't contribute to thier Election Campaigns does he?

Okay, if Socialist Security was proposed today, it would be bad, but since it was proposed some time ago by one of our worst presidents, it's okay. Makes sense to me. :roll:

No, I don't give a crap about the poor man. He had no worse opportunities that I did. I'm under no moral obligation to support him. If he makes a mess of his life and winds up dead in the gutter, it's not my fault. Forcing me to do so at gun point is an immoral act.

 

[RightinNYC]

Okay, if Socialist Security was proposed today, it would be bad, but since it was proposed some time ago by one of our worst presidents, it's okay. Makes sense to me. :roll:

No, I don't give a crap about the poor man. I'm under no moral obligation to support him. Forcing me to do so at gun point is an immoral act.

Actually, no, social security is a fantastic idea, except it was allowed to lapse into a paygo system rather than being sustained as a prefunded one. This created an ever increasing legacy debt that will continue to grow until sufficient reforms are passed to return the system to prefunding.

And I really don't care whether you give a crap about the poor man. We live in a republic, and the way it works is that everyone votes, and whatever happens, we all live by. So, if you don't want to support poor people, don't vote for people who do.

Your trite "forcing me to do so at gunpoint is an immoral act" is a weak argument. What about those who don't support the military? Is making them pay taxes that go to the military immoral? What about those who are anarchists? Should they be exempt from all taxes?

As always, if you don't like the policy, work to change it, put up with it, or leave the country to avoid it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually, no, social security is a fantastic idea, except it was allowed to lapse into a paygo system rather than being sustained as a prefunded one. This created an ever increasing legacy debt that will continue to grow until sufficient reforms are passed to return the system to prefunding.

Social Security started out as a ponzi scheme, and it's still a ponzi scheme. it was never a pay-as-you-go system, the first recipients never paid in a dime.

It was morally wrong to begin with, and it hasn't changed.

Explain what's "fantastic" about forcing a person to pay 15.4% of his income into a scam that yields a rate of return under three percent when that same money could be earning three times that in the equities.



Explain what's moral about taking money from people that are working for it now to buy votes from people that aren't working anymore.

And I really don't care whether you give a crap about the poor man. We live in a republic, and the way it works is that everyone votes, and whatever happens, we all live by.

No, we live in a republic and the way its supposed to work is that people carry their own burdens. Unless you find it acceptable for someone to rob a bank and keep the money, you can't justify the same immorality when a mob of people called 'voters' does the same thing to everyone else. Stealing is stealing is stealing.

So, if you don't want to support poor people, don't vote for people who do.

Oh, so since I don't vote for the thieves, I should be exempt from the theive's taxes? You do realize that this second sentence totally invalidates the first sentence your paragraph, right?

Your trite "forcing me to do so at gunpoint is an immoral act" is a weak argument. What about those who don't support the military? Is making them pay taxes that go to the military immoral? What about those who are anarchists? Should they be exempt from all taxes?

Is it? or are you throwing that out in the presumption that I'll find some point of disagreement?

1) Technically the military is a legitimate function of government, intended to protect all persons equally. It has Constitutional grounding, a logical existence, and a definable purpose. But hey, I know what we can do. Instead of just taking money away from people, we give them a flat tax rate, plus a form listing all the things they want their money spent on. They fill in the percents and those programs get paid that percentage, nothing more.

I'd be willing to bet that the military remains suitably funded, the old codgers and the welfare maggots don't. But that would be a reasonable thing to do, so it won't happen.

2) Since the government shouldn't be providing "services", why should an anarchist or anyone else be paying for them?

As always, if you don't like the policy, work to change it, put up with it, or leave the country to avoid it.

Ah, the boring old "don't like it leave, I'm a blind flag waving fool" argument.

You apparently have some discomfort over my exercise of the First Amendment. I suggest that the First Amendment is even more important than the Sixteenth and that you get over it. Skip my posts if you can't argue better. I see you've failed to justify the morality of taxation, you've merely said "taxes exist, pay them or get out."

 

[DeeJayH]

Just to play Devil's advocate...it wouldn't actually play out that way. First off, this is operating under the assumption that the numbers of those on welfare are large enough and that those on welfare vote as a bloc and in high enough numbers to affect policy.

Even assuming that, if you take those on welfare off the tax rolls, then those who had the vote might potentially vote to cut welfare. So welfare gets cut, and those who were previously on welfare lose their welfare, and become eligible to vote again. Then they vote welfare back in, etc etc. Cyclical.

what does denying the vote to welfare recipients have to do with them being on the tax roll?

 

[DeeJayH]

Okay, if Socialist Security was proposed today, it would be bad, but since it was proposed some time ago by one of our worst presidents, it's okay. Makes sense to me. :roll:

No, I don't give a crap about the poor man. He had no worse opportunities that I did. I'm under no moral obligation to support him. If he makes a mess of his life and winds up dead in the gutter, it's not my fault. Forcing me to do so at gun point is an immoral act.

a large portion of people on welfare are there due to poor life choices, poor life planning and poor attitudes
and i do not believe we need to support them all.
there is plenty of money already out there for the truly needy, who actually fell on hard times
screw the rest

 

[Caine]

the old codgers and the welfare maggots don't.

Okay, I understand where your selfish thought process and not giving a **** about the poor man comes into play with your welfare maggots comment.
But.....

"Old Codger" What the **** did an old person do to you to deserve your hatred remarks? Wait until you get old and see who cares about you.

Yes, I believe those who don't want to pay into the welfare system should give up thier right to police protection, then see how they like getting robbed by the guy who WAS collecting a welfare check in addition to his job. Then, he will really be living off of you.