"Now we have robots to work in factories... Should stupid people be allowed to breed?"

I personally wonder if raising rather than lowering the age at which folks can vote wouldn't be a better idea? I often think that the young are full of ideals but seem to lack an understanding of the practicalities of national or as we move closer and closer to Europe, international affairs.

Maybe there should be a way to only allow informed, aware and rational folks vote, but like Byron implied earlier, maybe having a simple age based cut off point is the only way to be fair.

---

by Incandenza
Because we all dashed out to those politics evening classes when we hit 17? Politics for the most part is driven by Economics and when I was at school, it wasn't a required subject at GCSE, it was an option.

---

One of the changes in education between GCSE and A-Level is that at A-Level there is a much greater emphasis on individual study and research, and at least one starting point for many subjects is that one is encouraged to read (for some people, for the first time) newspapers. General Studies particularly reccommends that. Now, of course not everyone is going to follow such advice, but those who do have two years of at least getting to grips with the major issues before they can vote.

GCSE's are far more structered and with far more emphasis on lessons. That's the difference - not a interest acquired overnight.

Of course A-Levels being more specific there are also people taking subjects such as Government and Politics, Economics etc. which weren't available at lower levels (you mentioned a GCSE in Economics, but I've never come across one, so certainly all schools do not offer it).

Firstly, Demona, not everyone goes on to study A-levels, most will go on to full time employment, vocational studies, or unemployment.

Anyway, boringly, I'm going to agree with Byron. No taxation without representation.

All this generalising about ages doesn't really pan. Yes, some 16-18s are naive, so are most 18+s. All the arguments about not understanding the arguments, being turned by flashy presentation rather than content, or simply being uneducated applies to all age groups. Besides, if we are to make these issues the criteria then we should test all adults to see if they are 'qualified' to vote. And has already been said, this would be open to abuse.

Basically, if you pay tax (income tax, council tax or high levels of VAT due to increased personal income) then you should have a say in who sets the level of tax and how it is spent. So yes, 16-18 year olds should have the vote. They should also be covered by the minimum wage and have access to benefits. The way we currently treat 16-18 year olds I personally consider disgraceful.

---

by Jayjay
Anyway, boringly, I'm going to agree with Byron. No taxation without representation.

---

So if you are on wellfare and therefor pay taxes on money you got didn't "work" for than you should certainly not be allowed to vote as you are paying taxes from other taxpayers money which you didn't work for to get. (that is different from people working in the public sector as they work to get taxpayers money)

So in that sense it would mean that people on wellfare etc shouldn't have the right to vote. Would that also mean that people that pay large amounts of taxes should be representated more? Bit stupid if you put it that way aint it?

There is a reason why they used an age limit. It's easy to check, gives a clear line which everyone can understand. As you are either 18+ (adult) or you're not, and nobody is more adult (for the law) than others (except if you have some medical condition) so they all have an equal say.

Can't speak for the UK but under Dutch law if you are married at the age of 16 / 17 with concent of the Queen you are allowed to vote and are seen as an adult except for stuff as buying alcohol, driving cars (only allowed 18+ here in NL) etc. So there are exceptions to the rule.

If we now say ok 16 year olds can vote..... does that mean that in two years or so 14 year olds can drive cars? I certainly hope not. It all has to do with sense of responsibility. Sure some people might have that at age 12 and others might never get it even if they get to be 112 years old. But for the law you are an adult when you hit 18. And adulthood comes with more freedom but also with more responsibilities. They can be held accountable for their actions as it's very easy to do stuff if you can't be held accountable for it now is it?

---

by Chambler
So if you are on wellfare and therefor pay taxes on money you got didn't "work" for than you should certainly not be allowed to vote as you are paying taxes from other taxpayers money which you didn't work for to get. (that is different from people working in the public sector as they work to get taxpayers money)

---

No, no no no (no!) The argument here is not that whether or not you pay taxes should determine if you get to vote. The argument is that if you are old enough that you could be legally required to pay taxes (personally I'd stick to revenue taxes and ignore sales tax) then you are also old enough to vote for the government which imposes those taxes and spends the proceeds.

To the best of my knowledge, 'welfare' payments in this country are not taxable.

---

There is a reason why they used an age limit. It's easy to check, gives a clear line which everyone can understand. As you are either 18+ (adult) or you're not

---

16 is as easy to check and as clear a line as 18.

---

If we now say ok 16 year olds can vote..... does that mean that in two years or so 14 year olds can drive cars?

---

Struggling to see the causal link...

---

by Demona
you mentioned a GCSE in Economics, but I've never come across one, so certainly all schools do not offer it

---

I did indeed, whereas I didn't do General Studies and don't know anyone who did (all regarding it as something of a Mickey Mouse A Level) which just goes to show that we all come at this with a different perspective and life experience.

As Jayjay pointed out, not everyone goes into the Sixth Form (38% of sixteen year olds were studying A and AS levels at the end of 2001). It is impossible to quantify a sensible cut off point based on a supposed level of life experience, political understanding, maturity or other nebulous criteria.

That brings us back to Byron's position... if you are old enough to pay taxes, you are old enough to vote for the people who impose and spend them.

---

by The Mad Dutchman
If we now say ok 16 year olds can vote..... does that mean that in two years or so 14 year olds can drive cars?

---

Of course, in certain places in the world you can legally drive at the age of 16 and younger, so that doesn't really mean anything

Pretty much agreeing with the hordes, if you're old enough to be taxed, then you should have the right to say how it's spent. Also agreeing with Jayjay about the lack of support for younger workers, they essentially have virtually no employment rights whatsoever, if you're working and contributing to society I believe you should benefit from the same protective rights as the rest of the working population.

Although, it's not like there's any real choice between the main parties anyway..

---

by Incandenza

To the best of my knowledge, 'welfare' payments in this country are not taxable.

---

Nope they are not taxable, but they do count towards taxable income in a given tax year. ie if you earn't in a year the exact amount you could earn before tax but had recieved benefit in that year also you would be eligable to pay tax on your wages. Thats why even those unemployed recieve a P60 each year.

---

by Chambler
So if you are on wellfare and therefor pay taxes on money you got didn't "work" for than you should certainly not be allowed to vote as you are paying taxes from other taxpayers money which you didn't work for to get. (that is different from people working in the public sector as they work to get taxpayers money)

---

As said, my point was no taxation without representation. It was not, as Alan B'Stard once suggested 'no representation without taxation'.

I would also like to point out that recipients of the dole only get this in return for their National Insurance payments. If they have not paid sufficient NI they are not eligible to receive the dole. They have worked for that money, even if they are at that time out of work. That is the basis of National Insurance and the Welfare State.

Anyone from the age of 16 upwards is able to work full-time and pay taxes. Unless we are going to raise school leaving age to 18 I still maintain it is immoral to refuse 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote.

---

by Jayjay


I would also like to point out that recipients of the dole only get this in return for their National Insurance payments. If they have not paid sufficient NI they are not eligible to receive the dole. They have worked for that money, even if they are at that time out of work. That is the basis of National Insurance and the Welfare State.

---

On a side note thats not strictly true, if you have worked and paid enough national insurance in the previous two tax years you get contribution based jobseekers allowence, if you haven't paid enough but have a partner who works or have savings then you get nothing, on the other hand even if you have never worked a day in your life, your partner doesn't work or you dont have one and have no savings you still get jobseekers allowence, although this time it is classed as income based. So nope you don't have to have worked or paid national insurance contributions to get welfare in this country.

I know you probably knew that JJ but for are Dutch friends I thought I would just poke me nose in lol

---

by Incandenza
Assuming you lack the skills to earn more than minimum wage (and given the fact that legally you fall outside the scope of the legislation anyway), you would have to be making a pretty spectacular effort to legally earn enough money to pay taxes before you were 16.

---

Well, you could be a successful actor or sportsperson.

My point however was not how easy it is or isn't for someone under 16 to earn above the personal allowance, but that it is possible, and if they do, then they pay income tax just like everyone else.

'No taxation without representation' is not a principle that can be easily applied in our society, because as it stands, there will always be people who pay taxes but can't vote, granted that reducing the voting age would go a long way towards fixing that. In any case, I don't actually agree with the notion that there should be any link between payment of tax and eligibility to vote.

The problem with the American colony, as was, was not that they paid taxes but weren't represented in Parliament, it was that they were a colony at all. Or, as one of the first links Google comes up with puts it:

---

"No taxation without representation" really meant, "No taxation. No representation. Let us run our own affairs."

---

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
Well, you could be a successful actor or sportsperson.

My point however was not how easy it is or isn't for someone under 16 to earn above the personal allowance, but that it is possible, and if they do, then they pay income tax just like everyone else.

---

The recent fuss about Rooney (17) signing a new contract with Everton illustrates that minors do not get paid much if any salary as sportsmen in the UK. I believe that prize money is tax exempt so young golfers, tennis players etc wouldn't be taxed.

As for young actors... those are exceptional circumstances, each one almost certainly requiring license from the relevant local authority.

More to the point, we get NI numbers when we are 16 and the tax system is modeled on the presumption that minors do not pay tax. I studied Tax for two years and never once covered taxation of children, and having searched the Inland Revenue website cannot find a single mention or guideline for assessing tax paying minors.

Generally speaking, it is difficult and inadvisable to legislate for the minority. In any case, being hard to apply in practice does not invalidate the logic of a principle. A tiny minority of children may be in a tax paying position but the state presupposes that anyone over the age of 16 could be liable to pay tax.

I don't think the specifics of the American situation are relevant here. Their solution to an inequitable situation was independence. A teenager in the UK can hardly declare independence from the tax regime on the grounds of lack of representation, but his or her situation is also inequitable.

Of course, the other solution here would be for the government to grant all 16-18 year olds tax-exempt status ... but somehow, I don't see that one catching on!

As a 16 yr old - NO. I know some pretty immature 18 year old's who don't vote and some even worse 16 year olds who act like they should still be in nappies. Young people don't understand enough about the government and elections to get the vote. Stick to 18 is what I say.

(Edited by lizzieslayer 17/07/2003 18:37)

---

by lizzieslayer
As a 16 yr old - NO. I know some pretty immature 18 year old's who don't vote and some even worse 16 year olds who act like they should still be in nappies. Young people don't understand enough about the government and elections to get the vote. Stick to 18 is what I say.

(Edited by lizzieslayer 17/07/2003 18:37)

---

I agree with the comments about paying tax and voting but have you seen the the MPs in the house of commmons, 16 year olds should be able to vote because they are more mature than the jeering bunch of one upmanship prats there.

---

by lizzieslayer
As a 16 yr old - NO. I know some pretty immature 18 year old's who don't vote and some even worse 16 year olds who act like they should still be in nappies. Young people don't understand enough about the government and elections to get the vote. Stick to 18 is what I say.

---

I can't help thinking that the more immature, the less likely to ensure their name is on the electoral roll and to make the effort to go and vote on Polling day.

---

by Sange
I know you probably knew that JJ but for are Dutch friends I thought I would just poke me nose in lol

---

Fortunately, it's been a while since I last signed on. I'm sure all the various welfare packages have changed name at least twice in that time. As far as I remember, yes you can claim benefits (I really hate that term - as if money that is barely enough to live on is a luxury) if you do not qualify for the dole through NI payments, but that these are even more shockingly low than the pittance given in unemployment benefit.

Have I got that right, Sweet-Sange?

As for immature 16 year olds, there's plenty of those over 50, never mind over 18. Only the other day I had to listen to a relative (married in, not blood, natch) on how the Roman Empire fell because of spiralling wage costs and we should all know our place in society (ie.- do not aspire to have more than you were born into). Fortunately, I'm pretty sure he's too lazy to vote.

As said, anyone particularly immature isn't going to be interested in voting. This doesn't mean the ignorant don't vote though (see the rise of the BNP), but I don't think we will be proportionally worse off by allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote.

But surely there are more immature 16 year olds than over 50? If the government informed and educated about each party in schools I think this would help.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)

Fortunately, it's been a while since I last signed on. I'm sure all the various welfare packages have changed name at least twice in that time. As far as I remember, yes you can claim benefits (I really hate that term - as if money that is barely enough to live on is a luxury) if you do not qualify for the dole through NI payments, but that these are even more shockingly low than the pittance given in unemployment benefit.

Have I got that right, Sweet-Sange?

---

Nope lol , its the same amount even if it's NI or not , infact a person who has worked hard all their life actually gets it worse, if you get the dole through NI contributions you dont qualify for free prescriptions, free glasses, free school meals. Normally they will have had a mortage that wont get paid via the benefits system whereas Rent does ....

It's always been something that has annoyed me ( having worked in that Dept )

Weird. Like I said, fortunately it's been a while (and a government) since I last signed on. '95 I think was the last time I signed on and got dole, but the first time, in '94, I hadn't made enough contributions and recieved income support instead, which I remembered as being significantly less. Maybe my memories got it wrong, or the systems changed. I certainly hope the latter for both altruistic and thoroughly selfish reasons...

As for more mature over fifties than sixteen and seventy year olds, well in my experience I'd have to say no. The difference is that people get older and somehow think that makes them mature. The only real difference is the amount of life experience, although again I can think of a few teens I've known with more life experience that most over twenties. Still comes down to the same thing for me, though. You cannot tax someone's earnings if you give them no say in how it is used, or the level it is raised at.

---

by Demona... at A-Level there is a much greater emphasis on individual study and research, and at least one starting point for many subjects is that one is encouraged to read (for some people, for the first time) newspapers. General Studies particularly reccommends that.

---

I'm afraid I have to disagree here - I took 5 A levels, none of which required me to read a newspaper. I never attended a single lesson for General Studies and still came out with a B

While part of me agrees that education should start in schools, it seems to me that agreeing a syllabus that actually relates to current political affairs would have to be constantly updated - not too sure how useful that would be. There are schools councils and what not that go on to demonstrate the whole 'process' of voting and electing, but while I do vote I have to admit I happen to think that democracy is an illusion so to speak. Nothing Joe Public says is really going to make a difference in the big picture no matter what they say IMHO.

*goes off muttering about conspiracy theorists*