Wasn’t there this whole defining thing for America? Something about taxation without representation, right? So the 18 year olds have to pay taxes on the wages they earn by working and therefore should be able to vote. The retired, however…
Students - all non-wage-earners - shouldn’t be able to vote by your logic?
I don’t know how you could possibly derive that conclusion from what they said, unless you lack a very basic understanding of how to interpret logical statements.
The idea that the right to vote is tied to your tax contributions is very flawed.
Paying taxes without the right to vote is absolutely ridiculous (so either link the right to vote to the age you’re allowed to work, or tax exempt any work done under the voting age), but the inverse is ridiculous as well. People, above the voting age, that don’t pay any taxes for whatever reason, should not have their voting rights stripped. This reasoning gets dangerously close to a plural voting system, where you get multiple votes if you’re rich enough.
If you want to disenfranchise retired people, use some other reasoning (like decline in cognitive abilities), not because they are no longer actively paying taxes.
Note that I am not in favour of disenfranchising anyone. Keep the lower limit for voting age, or even reduce it, and no upper limit. Also make voting as accessible as possible.
Alas, I’ll have to learn to indicate the right level of cynicism more explicitly on here.
As cynical but slightly more in earnest: if voting rights were only given to those who can prove basic reasoning abilities, it might actually make a difference. Since there is no reliable way to prevent authorities from abusing such a criterium, I see no other option than to have no restrictions on any generic criterium. Perhapa a voting obligation would be more effective.
Wasn’t there this whole defining thing for America? Something about taxation without representation, right? So the 18 year olds have to pay taxes on the wages they earn by working and therefore should be able to vote. The retired, however…
deleted by creator
Plenty of high schoolers and college students have jobs. Many before the age of 18.
I don’t know how you could possibly derive that conclusion from what they said, unless you lack a very basic understanding of how to interpret logical statements.
The idea that the right to vote is tied to your tax contributions is very flawed.
Paying taxes without the right to vote is absolutely ridiculous (so either link the right to vote to the age you’re allowed to work, or tax exempt any work done under the voting age), but the inverse is ridiculous as well. People, above the voting age, that don’t pay any taxes for whatever reason, should not have their voting rights stripped. This reasoning gets dangerously close to a plural voting system, where you get multiple votes if you’re rich enough.
If you want to disenfranchise retired people, use some other reasoning (like decline in cognitive abilities), not because they are no longer actively paying taxes.
Note that I am not in favour of disenfranchising anyone. Keep the lower limit for voting age, or even reduce it, and no upper limit. Also make voting as accessible as possible.
Alas, I’ll have to learn to indicate the right level of cynicism more explicitly on here.
As cynical but slightly more in earnest: if voting rights were only given to those who can prove basic reasoning abilities, it might actually make a difference. Since there is no reliable way to prevent authorities from abusing such a criterium, I see no other option than to have no restrictions on any generic criterium. Perhapa a voting obligation would be more effective.