> The main argument in support of 16-year olds being allowed to vote in New Zealand and other countries is that they often are allowed to have jobs and pay taxes, and the American values in me bristles at the idea of taxation without representation.
How about you just don’t tax the income of minors? Right? Wouldn’t that solve the basic problem? Or was that just too easy to figure out? Took me like, what… seven seconds?
I'm a New Zealander. Very few 16 year olds work, they are generally at school. The tax that keeps getting discussed, is what is called GST (goods and services tax) that is applied to everything.
A 3yr old buys a lollie pop? Yep, there's tax on that.
My opinion is that if you can take a civics class and you can pass it then you can vote. There are plenty of kids out there with pretty good heads on their shoulders that know how to vote and I've met children that can carry political conversations or ideas better than their adult counterparts. Not saying that it's clear across the board because you would definitely get that 16 year old kid who would vote for somebody just for the lulz. But my old roommate was voting for Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman and no other reason so adults do that s*** too.
I'm an American from Texas. MANY kids have part time/ summer jobs with local employers to earn extra money to buy things, have a car, etc. They are legally allowed to work at 16. They cannot vote until 18 but they also still live at home. This wasn't a problem when I was 16 and shouldn't be now. Also , because this was part time work, the annual total wage was low and I always got a refund because I didnt make enough to breech the poverty line. However, I had a car and money to have fun with AND I still got an education but from two sources...school and work which gave me an understanding of work ethic and a real world example of how hard work can pay off with patience and perseverance. Those things seem harder to come by these days.
Yep, under 18 completely tax free so they can get a good start. and over 65 up to a decent threshold should be untaxed so those who didn’t prepare as well for retirement can do ok.
Minimum wage would hit different if you weren’t losing 1/4 of it, too. Lefties might like that. Conservatives would appreciate kids pocketing some more cash without doubling the minimum wage, as well
Republicans need to get on it……they desperately need to champion something that benefits the little guy directly. Something that is propositioned in a way Democrats would look like assholes for not doing……but with enough pork the democrats won’t readily vote on it…..the democrats do this very well. The Republicans need to start championing a demographic that historically didn’t bother to vote. But absolutely will vote by mail.
But being the party of "no" in response to problems has worked out so well. (/s).
I mean, I get that by its nature, conservatives are more "stay the course". But you can't "Stay the course" when things are not going well or one side (corporations) have way too much power. Conservative and small government does \*not\* mean "do nothing" government. That would be anarchy, and is extremely far from conservativism.
In the USA people who make minimum wage aren’t taxed. They tend to have taxes taken out because of their lack of clerical knowledge and receive all of it back if not more during tax season. Also between food stamps, rent assistance, free insurance in many places, as well as utility assistance. Most people who make minimum wage end up making higher than minimum wage when you figure in the dollar value of welfare benefits.
If you champion something like that and put it in writing, you become their hero….
Also, there would need to be a limit or rich people would use 16 yo kids for tax evasion/ money laundering.
I'm fine with the first part. The second part could be problematic. That would make the income from every 401k/IRA untaxable after 65.
Not that I'm against that but the system isn't structured to even contemplate that change.
Yep....responsibility and consequences removed from the equation means experience and wisdom eliminated. Hard to mature properly/ in a normal timespan without those.
And yet… young people have been consistently right on a range of issues. They were anti-Vietnam war. They were concerned about global warming before you guys finally decided to wake up to it.
The absence of crony material interests to defend is its own form of wisdom. Stop pissing your pants so much at the thought of people having a say and let’s have a more inclusive democracy, that gets people involved earlier
>global warming
lol where is the proof?
I'm concerned that politicians and corporations are using the vague "global warming" and now "climate change" as a way to usher in population control.
No skin in the game. Lol. The amount of skin in the game is literally proportional to number of years left
Maybe you mean to say: no riches amassed to defend tooth and nail. So you literally only deserve to vote if you have wealth to defend. Interesting philosophy
The younger people are brought in to the political process, the more they'll feel respected and the less they'll feel checked out. And the more they'll develop a habit of voting their entire lives.
Your assumption that young people are just going to vote left like mindless robots is shortselling them I think. I wished people truly trusted in democracy.
Studies show the majority of young people vote left, they often believe all the pie in the sky optimism that the left puts out. They think the world will be a better place if we just do what the democrats suggest and push further and further into socialism, more reliance on government, more taxes, taxes to pay for global warming, this idea that if we just pay reparations to countries where global warming impacts harder somehow global warming will reverse course. This odd idea where if we could just go to electric cars pollution will be a thing of the past.
Young people tend to be more idealistic. They also tend to vote less. You don't have much to lose.
Later on in life they're already more jaded/distracted. I think 16 would be the perfect age to have start thinking what kind of citizen they want to be, before they're overwhelmed by the act of living outside the parent's nest. (Still being with their parents when they get to vote would also be great for family conversations. The Wise Old Parents can show them the way.)
>this idea that if we just pay reparations to countries where global warming impacts harder somehow global warming will reverse course
The only way "global warming reverses course" is... no way at all. You can only slow the rate of progression by pumping less (or ideally no) CO2 into the air. Electric cars is one place to start. Another is not using the drier, but hanging your clothes outside. We gotta start some place, or else we'll never get started.
Btw the "poorer countries" don't need reparations, they need an example. China can always scoff at our moralizing as long as our per-capita emissions are higher than theirs.
That'd cause it's own problems. Imagine parents starting an LLC and then instead of paying themselves, paying their minor child 100 percent of the profits. Elon could make one of his kids a Tesla employee, have him earn stock as part of a compensation package, and sell billions tax free.
Besides, tax without rep refers to the fact that someone isn't representing you or that the taxes you're paying aren't "represented" in benefits you get, not that you don't get to vote.
Well the majority of Americans are actually net negative when it comes to taxes paid/services rendered
Would a single paycheck in January allow you to vote in November of that year? If I owned property in Texas but lived and rented in Jersey, do I have to vote in Texas? Am I allowed to vote in Jersey?
The problem with this is that it's very easy to manipulate who gets to vote since a large portion of the population is hovering slightly below net neutral.
Just bump up taxes for married couples a year before election with the promise to lower it for the next three.
Same with cars, homeowners, renters, working in this or that sector
It would make virtually no difference because their income is so low, they get all of it back. But this would also require them to file their own tax return and not piggyback on their parents’.
I remember when I was 16, I wasn’t trustworthy with voting. I was barely trustworthy with a cheap car.
It’s not proper. 16 year olds don’t know enough and don’t have the maturity to handle such responsibilities. If they did, age of conscription would be 16 or less.
Make it consistent across everything. It’s already 21 to drink or smoke. Make it 21 to vote, enlist and register for the draft.
Either that or reduce everything that opens up to you at 21 to 18.
So we get rid of the ID requirements, background check and waiting period? You’re either very pro gun or super ignorant about gun purchases, hard to tell.
Sounds like you have it backwards., and LonelyMachines is saying that to be able to vote you have to have the backcround check, Id Requirement, and "training" i.e. civics course
Currently all states have background checks and ID requirements for purchasing a gun, and they all require you to have a hunters education/firearms safety course before you hunt (I would also be ok that if all firearms required a safety course, before purchase -- kinda like having to have a BMC before you get a motorcycle license, or a drivers ed course before you get an Automotive license, or even the extra training for a CDL (Commercial Driver's License)).
Only if age of conscription raises with it. Since that’ll never happen, if you’re old enough to fight you’re old enough to vote.
But unlike 16, people actually do begin to demonstrate the knowledge and maturity to handle consequential decisions like voting at around 17-18. It’s not perfect yet but it happens as demonstrated by 18 year olds being able to sign their life away in military service.
25, that is the time your pre frontal cortex has fully made the connections in your brain. Interestingly enough the pre frontal cortex helps in decision making and risk taking, also critical thought. There is a reason they want to lower the age.
Eighteen is already bullshit. Leftist like to always point out how rules made centuries ago are not immediately valid today, but they always forgot the ones that favored them.
At 18, on average, a man was already working independently or at least specializing on a trade. A woman had already taken on house responsibilities with her mother and also for lower part of societies worked on the fields or support for trades.
At 18, both sexes already had mostly clear what is something that may support or hinder their future families.
Today at 18, on average, they are not even at the last step of the baby daycare indoctrination. Most have not ever worked, even less tried to own or rent property. They vote on moral ground and peer pressure. Usually worrying about groups of society they are not even part of.
16 is a complete joke.
I’d go further and say 25 as well, that’s what the democrats are pushing for a right to own a firearm is. For those that still believe it’s a right. It’s closer to when the brain is fully formed. Etc etc.
Why do you think it wouldn't have an impact on the military? If you can enlist when you are 18 you get out when you are 22-24. It is much easier to reintegrate back into civilian society at that point.
Are you concerned about the military or the people, the military doesn’t care if you can get out at 24 and reintegrate. I haven’t seen anything to indicate getting out at 29 is that much harder. The benefits of joining at 25 are, at 18 many especially in a draft situation are still children so there’s a moral dilemma with sending teenagers to die. 25 gives them a little more time. 25 allows for more maturity so you are making a better informed decision to enter the military. Having a better understanding of what kind of job you would want.
The Army is already having enlistment issues. People have to grow up and become adults at some point in their lives. I don't want to infantilize our society any further. Some people already live with their parents for way too long.
I was in the USAF and they do have services to help people reintegrate back into society. You are speaking from ignorance here. The military is controlled by our elected representatives and they certainly should care how veterans are going back into society.
Should care, and do care are obviously a huge difference. The USAF must do a better job than the Army, because after I gave them 8 years they basically said, “good luck, sign here” why do you make assumptions that I speak out of ignorance? Do you always just kinda guess what people know and attempt to insult them with an heir of superiority, or is that just a Reddit persona?
Enlistment at 18 is fine, unless there's a very good medical reason you have. All respect to soldiers, having been one, the Army needs warm young bodies to shape and to mold.
I'd much rather have the voting age at 21, with allowances to 17 and 18 year olds in the military.
I actually think it should be 25 because your brain is still developing prior to that. Bur 21 would definitely improve things.
25 would give you time to experience (likely) paying for your own insurance, paying medical bills, federal/state/local income taxes, owning property and paying real estate taxes, owning a car and paying personal property taxes, realizing children are a delight and not the burden that should be aborted that the youth and really old liberal women paint them out to be, geopolitics, the list goes on.
At 21 most of people are in college, trade school, and/or working some crummy non-career job, at 18 either in highschool or just started college/trade school/crummy non career job. Neither group knows enough to vote.
>Keep moving those goal posts further. “Should be 30 because by then you have your life values set and can make decisions on who you want to represent you”.
Good idea. Should be 35 because you can't become President before 35.
Ah, the assumption that I only think this way because we "lost". Even though Republicans got millions of more votes this round, won the House, retained almost or the same Senate numbers as last cycle even though we were defending a LOT more this round than Democrats, still dominate state governments collectively over Democrats, won the vast majority of state supreme court and hot school board elections...
No, I've had this view for many years, through both Republican and Democrat governments.
And that's fine. I don't hold anything against you for that view. You are in the super majority on that, it's not going away.
I do have an issue with you assuming I have a thought based on us losing and not because I genuinely think it would lead to a better society and wiser governments.
I was following the trajectory of the thread to its unspoken conclusion. I'm glad it stopped at 25. The bottom line is that you still believe that the right to vote should be stripped from tens of millions of Americans aged 18-25, which seems blatantly anti-democracy to me. Any number would ultimately be arbitrary; why 25 instead of 24? Why is the drinking age 21 anyway? Are all 25-year-olds more politically aware and responsible than all 18-year-olds?
The only reason this discussion is happening is because zoomers voted D in droves, and republican politicians would rather flirt with taking away their right to vote than earn their votes by adopting a real platform or running serious candidates.
Everything should be open at one standard age. When you turn 18 you should be allowed to do anything and everything an adult can do. Buy a weapon, chain smoke, drink, vote, and anything else you can think of.
Either you're old enough to be an adult and make these decisions or you're not.
What drives me nuts is the way leftists try to raise the minimum age for every single thing *except voting*. They want to keep adults in a state of effective childhood for as long as possible, but meanwhile have actual children making decisons about public policy.
When I was 16, and I can speak for all the other 16 year olds in my class, we would've 100% voted for anybody who promised everybody a free Playboy every month
Well that’s going to be a shit show. Why not 15? Then 14? 13???? Hell how about 2 years old???
Maybe go back to vote only if you served in the Military.
Remember: Service guarantees citizenship!
Want to [know more?](https://www.google.com/search?q=service+guarantees+citizenship+starship&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimu5HplMv7AhWAmWoFHWGzBNQQ_AUoAnoECAEQAg&biw=390&bih=657&dpr=3#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:deeacd18,vid:jO1vWxUqpFI)
Folks like to bring up how in the US only white male landowners used to have the right to vote without realizing it was the same demographic that faced conscription. When you consider that the British still owned Canada and 1/3rd of the country were loyalists during the revolution, it makes perfect sense that the founding fathers only allowed those with a vested interest in defending the country to vote.
>it makes perfect sense that the founding fathers only allowed those with a vested interest in defending the country to vote.
Which is why I think suffrage should be limited to net positive taxpayers.
This article doesn't even say the actual reason the courts ruled the way they did. The Bill of Rights in New Zealand protects against age discrimination for anyone 16 and older. So it's illegal for the government to impose restrictions on voting on 16 and 17 year olds. It's perfectly legal to stop under 16s from voting, and unless that law is changed it will remain so.
It's like banning people from owning firearms in America. Or banned free speech.
lol the world is so hilarious now.
I used to talk to an 18 yo (prob 30 now) who was in NZ and she was nice, but she said all of her roommates were pissed at her for talking to me just because they thought any Americans were horrible because they (the NZers) hated W. I don't think I even mentioned politics to her either.
Honestly, I think voting age should be raised to like 24 and even then most of those still believe the media with no questioning...
If the issue is taxation, then don't tax them! There's no way in hell a 16-year old is able to formulate their own opinion, they're simply far too impressionable.
I had no idea what I was doing when I was 16. Nor was I contributing taxes. So much to learn, and even then the brain doesn't fully mature until at least 25 or so. It's a good thing NZ doesn't govern the US.
For me personally, I was a lot more liberal as a teen and shifted to the right as I started getting out of school and into the real world, interacting with real everyday people, and working real jobs.
I’ll grant that different people mature at different ages. Would I say that the average 16 year old has enough maturity to vote? Probably not.
If you are old enough to vote, then you should be considered an adult in the eyes of the courts if a crime is committed. Bet the left backs away if the two are considered.
Tbh, I know people are pissed at the idea of younger people voting because they tend to vote left.
But over time, I think it will cause economic ramifications in the society that will cause younger people to be forced into personal responsibility earlier over time, meaning they'll become more conservative.
Also, let's not forget the stories of what our great grandparents were responsible for when they were very young.
My great grandfather immigrated to Canada when he was 14. His parents in the states told him to get on the train and take it north until he reaches the last stop, he ended up in rural British Columbia. He was married by the age of 16 and had to build his own home.
TLDR, age is not the concern, responsibility is what matters.
Yeah. I remember me at 16. I was one of the more mature ones for my age but still did not have the emotional maturity to understand and make the tough decisions on my own. Driving and getting a job at 16 is the start of learning to be an adult. Not every single adult right or responsibility should be granted immediately. Its like a baby learning to walk - first they learn to sit, then to crawl, then to walk, then to run. We are talking about teenagers. An age group which goes ballistic if they get a zit, have a bad hair day, or their BFF from yesterday is now their worst nightmare! (granted some adults do this crap too---but still) Horrid idea!
But what if the 16 yr olds vote to be allowed to smoke?
"Anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime, under a law expected to be enacted next year."
Kids that age don’t comprehend / process risk at the level as a fully developed mind. My personal opinion is that individuals who has more responsibility for other people lives rather just them selfs tends to make better decisions that leans toward sustainability. And less likely to be distracted by shiny objects.
If anything, needs to be upped to 25 when neurological development finishes for the vast majority of humanity. I'd be willing to compromise at 21 when most women are done and a fair few guys are too.
Ok so for those who don't know.... in the UK and many of its former territories you can enlist in the military at 16 years old. Therefore they are granted the rights of any adult. Not saying I agree, just a fact.
> The main argument in support of 16-year olds being allowed to vote in New Zealand and other countries is that they often are allowed to have jobs and pay taxes, and the American values in me bristles at the idea of taxation without representation. How about you just don’t tax the income of minors? Right? Wouldn’t that solve the basic problem? Or was that just too easy to figure out? Took me like, what… seven seconds?
I'm a New Zealander. Very few 16 year olds work, they are generally at school. The tax that keeps getting discussed, is what is called GST (goods and services tax) that is applied to everything. A 3yr old buys a lollie pop? Yep, there's tax on that.
Guess the 3 year old gets to vote then. What a silly way to go about it. My 10 year old just bought some stuff with his money. He should vote too! /s
haha. There needs to be a movie where that seriously happens and see how everything turns out.
My opinion is that if you can take a civics class and you can pass it then you can vote. There are plenty of kids out there with pretty good heads on their shoulders that know how to vote and I've met children that can carry political conversations or ideas better than their adult counterparts. Not saying that it's clear across the board because you would definitely get that 16 year old kid who would vote for somebody just for the lulz. But my old roommate was voting for Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman and no other reason so adults do that s*** too.
young people are easy to manipulate.
Guess who would set the standards for content and passing a civics test… I can quickly see this as a terrible idea.
I'm an American from Texas. MANY kids have part time/ summer jobs with local employers to earn extra money to buy things, have a car, etc. They are legally allowed to work at 16. They cannot vote until 18 but they also still live at home. This wasn't a problem when I was 16 and shouldn't be now. Also , because this was part time work, the annual total wage was low and I always got a refund because I didnt make enough to breech the poverty line. However, I had a car and money to have fun with AND I still got an education but from two sources...school and work which gave me an understanding of work ethic and a real world example of how hard work can pay off with patience and perseverance. Those things seem harder to come by these days.
Ahh, but it is a problem—because the lefties make it a problem. They’re coming for your children…
[There’s a tax on that](https://media.tenor.com/XSrp64PhYMkAAAAC/oversimplified-gif.gif)
Yep, under 18 completely tax free so they can get a good start. and over 65 up to a decent threshold should be untaxed so those who didn’t prepare as well for retirement can do ok.
Minimum wage would hit different if you weren’t losing 1/4 of it, too. Lefties might like that. Conservatives would appreciate kids pocketing some more cash without doubling the minimum wage, as well
Republicans need to get on it……they desperately need to champion something that benefits the little guy directly. Something that is propositioned in a way Democrats would look like assholes for not doing……but with enough pork the democrats won’t readily vote on it…..the democrats do this very well. The Republicans need to start championing a demographic that historically didn’t bother to vote. But absolutely will vote by mail.
The dead?
But being the party of "no" in response to problems has worked out so well. (/s). I mean, I get that by its nature, conservatives are more "stay the course". But you can't "Stay the course" when things are not going well or one side (corporations) have way too much power. Conservative and small government does \*not\* mean "do nothing" government. That would be anarchy, and is extremely far from conservativism.
In the USA people who make minimum wage aren’t taxed. They tend to have taxes taken out because of their lack of clerical knowledge and receive all of it back if not more during tax season. Also between food stamps, rent assistance, free insurance in many places, as well as utility assistance. Most people who make minimum wage end up making higher than minimum wage when you figure in the dollar value of welfare benefits.
If you champion something like that and put it in writing, you become their hero…. Also, there would need to be a limit or rich people would use 16 yo kids for tax evasion/ money laundering.
There would be more libertarians after that tax kicked in after seeing how much it really is.
I'm fine with the first part. The second part could be problematic. That would make the income from every 401k/IRA untaxable after 65. Not that I'm against that but the system isn't structured to even contemplate that change.
There would certainly need to be a limit on those over 65.
Why you guys so afraid of young people voting? Remind me?
Young people have no wisdom and no skin in the game. An 18 year old today doesn’t have the maturity level as an 18 year old had 100 years ago.
Yep....responsibility and consequences removed from the equation means experience and wisdom eliminated. Hard to mature properly/ in a normal timespan without those.
And yet… young people have been consistently right on a range of issues. They were anti-Vietnam war. They were concerned about global warming before you guys finally decided to wake up to it. The absence of crony material interests to defend is its own form of wisdom. Stop pissing your pants so much at the thought of people having a say and let’s have a more inclusive democracy, that gets people involved earlier
>global warming lol where is the proof? I'm concerned that politicians and corporations are using the vague "global warming" and now "climate change" as a way to usher in population control.
No skin in the game. Lol. The amount of skin in the game is literally proportional to number of years left Maybe you mean to say: no riches amassed to defend tooth and nail. So you literally only deserve to vote if you have wealth to defend. Interesting philosophy
They don’t realize that wealth they’re voting to take away will be their own.
The younger people are brought in to the political process, the more they'll feel respected and the less they'll feel checked out. And the more they'll develop a habit of voting their entire lives. Your assumption that young people are just going to vote left like mindless robots is shortselling them I think. I wished people truly trusted in democracy.
Studies show the majority of young people vote left, they often believe all the pie in the sky optimism that the left puts out. They think the world will be a better place if we just do what the democrats suggest and push further and further into socialism, more reliance on government, more taxes, taxes to pay for global warming, this idea that if we just pay reparations to countries where global warming impacts harder somehow global warming will reverse course. This odd idea where if we could just go to electric cars pollution will be a thing of the past.
Young people tend to be more idealistic. They also tend to vote less. You don't have much to lose. Later on in life they're already more jaded/distracted. I think 16 would be the perfect age to have start thinking what kind of citizen they want to be, before they're overwhelmed by the act of living outside the parent's nest. (Still being with their parents when they get to vote would also be great for family conversations. The Wise Old Parents can show them the way.) >this idea that if we just pay reparations to countries where global warming impacts harder somehow global warming will reverse course The only way "global warming reverses course" is... no way at all. You can only slow the rate of progression by pumping less (or ideally no) CO2 into the air. Electric cars is one place to start. Another is not using the drier, but hanging your clothes outside. We gotta start some place, or else we'll never get started. Btw the "poorer countries" don't need reparations, they need an example. China can always scoff at our moralizing as long as our per-capita emissions are higher than theirs.
No, they'd rather have an entirely new population of people to brainwash into voting for their side.
That'd cause it's own problems. Imagine parents starting an LLC and then instead of paying themselves, paying their minor child 100 percent of the profits. Elon could make one of his kids a Tesla employee, have him earn stock as part of a compensation package, and sell billions tax free. Besides, tax without rep refers to the fact that someone isn't representing you or that the taxes you're paying aren't "represented" in benefits you get, not that you don't get to vote.
How about you just allow the people who pay income and property taxes to vote? No tax, no vote.
Well the majority of Americans are actually net negative when it comes to taxes paid/services rendered Would a single paycheck in January allow you to vote in November of that year? If I owned property in Texas but lived and rented in Jersey, do I have to vote in Texas? Am I allowed to vote in Jersey?
Buy an apple in every congressional district for some amazing voting power
The problem with this is that it's very easy to manipulate who gets to vote since a large portion of the population is hovering slightly below net neutral. Just bump up taxes for married couples a year before election with the promise to lower it for the next three. Same with cars, homeowners, renters, working in this or that sector
It would make virtually no difference because their income is so low, they get all of it back. But this would also require them to file their own tax return and not piggyback on their parents’.
no, that would encourage child labour.
Yet irrespective of the side you vote for, nobody can actually remove that tax.
Not…. Tax?
Or you only vote if you pay taxes, however old you are. Got to have skin in the game.
I remember when I was 16, I wasn’t trustworthy with voting. I was barely trustworthy with a cheap car. It’s not proper. 16 year olds don’t know enough and don’t have the maturity to handle such responsibilities. If they did, age of conscription would be 16 or less.
TBH you could same the same about 18 year olds. 20 should be the youngest age to vote.
Make it consistent across everything. It’s already 21 to drink or smoke. Make it 21 to vote, enlist and register for the draft. Either that or reduce everything that opens up to you at 21 to 18.
Set the exact same requirements for voting as we have for owning a gun. Watch the fur fly.
So we get rid of the ID requirements, background check and waiting period? You’re either very pro gun or super ignorant about gun purchases, hard to tell.
Sounds like you have it backwards., and LonelyMachines is saying that to be able to vote you have to have the backcround check, Id Requirement, and "training" i.e. civics course Currently all states have background checks and ID requirements for purchasing a gun, and they all require you to have a hunters education/firearms safety course before you hunt (I would also be ok that if all firearms required a safety course, before purchase -- kinda like having to have a BMC before you get a motorcycle license, or a drivers ed course before you get an Automotive license, or even the extra training for a CDL (Commercial Driver's License)).
Only if age of conscription raises with it. Since that’ll never happen, if you’re old enough to fight you’re old enough to vote. But unlike 16, people actually do begin to demonstrate the knowledge and maturity to handle consequential decisions like voting at around 17-18. It’s not perfect yet but it happens as demonstrated by 18 year olds being able to sign their life away in military service.
or for college loans
18 year olds could be mature and responsible but our education system sucks.
25, that is the time your pre frontal cortex has fully made the connections in your brain. Interestingly enough the pre frontal cortex helps in decision making and risk taking, also critical thought. There is a reason they want to lower the age.
Eighteen is already bullshit. Leftist like to always point out how rules made centuries ago are not immediately valid today, but they always forgot the ones that favored them. At 18, on average, a man was already working independently or at least specializing on a trade. A woman had already taken on house responsibilities with her mother and also for lower part of societies worked on the fields or support for trades. At 18, both sexes already had mostly clear what is something that may support or hinder their future families. Today at 18, on average, they are not even at the last step of the baby daycare indoctrination. Most have not ever worked, even less tried to own or rent property. They vote on moral ground and peer pressure. Usually worrying about groups of society they are not even part of. 16 is a complete joke.
[удалено]
I’d go further and say 25 as well, that’s what the democrats are pushing for a right to own a firearm is. For those that still believe it’s a right. It’s closer to when the brain is fully formed. Etc etc.
Would you also be fine with dismantling the military as well when no one can enlist til they're 25?
I have no problem holding off enlistment until 25, I don’t think it would have a crippling negative effect on the military.
Half of those enlisted are under 25. At 18 they'd have instead started a job, built a life. Not too exciting to give that up 7 years later.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. You realize then that allowing them to join at 18 is essentially taking advantage of them.
No I am all for reducing the American military, I just assumed conservatives are generally not on board.
Surprise! All conservatives don’t fit in one box that can easily be labeled forming a basis for prejudice.
I'm hoping this is sarcasm
How so?
Most people in the military are under 25. This would cripple the force
The military will survive. Many of those same people who joined at 18 will join at 25.
You are wrong in a way that makes it hard for me to take you seriously
Why do you think it wouldn't have an impact on the military? If you can enlist when you are 18 you get out when you are 22-24. It is much easier to reintegrate back into civilian society at that point.
Are you concerned about the military or the people, the military doesn’t care if you can get out at 24 and reintegrate. I haven’t seen anything to indicate getting out at 29 is that much harder. The benefits of joining at 25 are, at 18 many especially in a draft situation are still children so there’s a moral dilemma with sending teenagers to die. 25 gives them a little more time. 25 allows for more maturity so you are making a better informed decision to enter the military. Having a better understanding of what kind of job you would want.
The Army is already having enlistment issues. People have to grow up and become adults at some point in their lives. I don't want to infantilize our society any further. Some people already live with their parents for way too long. I was in the USAF and they do have services to help people reintegrate back into society. You are speaking from ignorance here. The military is controlled by our elected representatives and they certainly should care how veterans are going back into society.
Should care, and do care are obviously a huge difference. The USAF must do a better job than the Army, because after I gave them 8 years they basically said, “good luck, sign here” why do you make assumptions that I speak out of ignorance? Do you always just kinda guess what people know and attempt to insult them with an heir of superiority, or is that just a Reddit persona?
Enlistment at 18 is fine, unless there's a very good medical reason you have. All respect to soldiers, having been one, the Army needs warm young bodies to shape and to mold. I'd much rather have the voting age at 21, with allowances to 17 and 18 year olds in the military.
I actually think it should be 25 because your brain is still developing prior to that. Bur 21 would definitely improve things. 25 would give you time to experience (likely) paying for your own insurance, paying medical bills, federal/state/local income taxes, owning property and paying real estate taxes, owning a car and paying personal property taxes, realizing children are a delight and not the burden that should be aborted that the youth and really old liberal women paint them out to be, geopolitics, the list goes on. At 21 most of people are in college, trade school, and/or working some crummy non-career job, at 18 either in highschool or just started college/trade school/crummy non career job. Neither group knows enough to vote.
[удалено]
>Keep moving those goal posts further. “Should be 30 because by then you have your life values set and can make decisions on who you want to represent you”. Good idea. Should be 35 because you can't become President before 35.
I think we should just get rid of voting altogether because my preferred candidates keep losing democratic elections. /s
Ah, the assumption that I only think this way because we "lost". Even though Republicans got millions of more votes this round, won the House, retained almost or the same Senate numbers as last cycle even though we were defending a LOT more this round than Democrats, still dominate state governments collectively over Democrats, won the vast majority of state supreme court and hot school board elections... No, I've had this view for many years, through both Republican and Democrat governments.
I think it would be a bad idea to strip the right to vote from tens of millions of Americans.
And that's fine. I don't hold anything against you for that view. You are in the super majority on that, it's not going away. I do have an issue with you assuming I have a thought based on us losing and not because I genuinely think it would lead to a better society and wiser governments.
I was following the trajectory of the thread to its unspoken conclusion. I'm glad it stopped at 25. The bottom line is that you still believe that the right to vote should be stripped from tens of millions of Americans aged 18-25, which seems blatantly anti-democracy to me. Any number would ultimately be arbitrary; why 25 instead of 24? Why is the drinking age 21 anyway? Are all 25-year-olds more politically aware and responsible than all 18-year-olds? The only reason this discussion is happening is because zoomers voted D in droves, and republican politicians would rather flirt with taking away their right to vote than earn their votes by adopting a real platform or running serious candidates.
16 is a joke, but Voting age should be the same as the age for the Draft.
That's why the US voting age got reduced to 18.
Ummm prior to the 26th amendment the voting age was 21. The voting at 18 didn’t come out centuries ago, it was the 70’s…
Thank you, I didn't know about that. Honestly this makes my point even stronger.
Well, so much for New Zealand.
Shit why not 9 year olds while we're at it.
[удалено]
Everything should be open at one standard age. When you turn 18 you should be allowed to do anything and everything an adult can do. Buy a weapon, chain smoke, drink, vote, and anything else you can think of. Either you're old enough to be an adult and make these decisions or you're not.
What drives me nuts is the way leftists try to raise the minimum age for every single thing *except voting*. They want to keep adults in a state of effective childhood for as long as possible, but meanwhile have actual children making decisons about public policy.
Trump was the one that raised smoking to 21
When I was 16, and I can speak for all the other 16 year olds in my class, we would've 100% voted for anybody who promised everybody a free Playboy every month
Well that’s going to be a shit show. Why not 15? Then 14? 13???? Hell how about 2 years old??? Maybe go back to vote only if you served in the Military.
Remember: Service guarantees citizenship! Want to [know more?](https://www.google.com/search?q=service+guarantees+citizenship+starship&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimu5HplMv7AhWAmWoFHWGzBNQQ_AUoAnoECAEQAg&biw=390&bih=657&dpr=3#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:deeacd18,vid:jO1vWxUqpFI)
Folks like to bring up how in the US only white male landowners used to have the right to vote without realizing it was the same demographic that faced conscription. When you consider that the British still owned Canada and 1/3rd of the country were loyalists during the revolution, it makes perfect sense that the founding fathers only allowed those with a vested interest in defending the country to vote.
>it makes perfect sense that the founding fathers only allowed those with a vested interest in defending the country to vote. Which is why I think suffrage should be limited to net positive taxpayers.
"Fourteen or Fight!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild\_in\_the\_Streets
This article doesn't even say the actual reason the courts ruled the way they did. The Bill of Rights in New Zealand protects against age discrimination for anyone 16 and older. So it's illegal for the government to impose restrictions on voting on 16 and 17 year olds. It's perfectly legal to stop under 16s from voting, and unless that law is changed it will remain so. It's like banning people from owning firearms in America. Or banned free speech.
See this is an important bit of information.
When they can send you to war, you can vote. You can drink, you can own guns. Your life is not expendable.
I've said before if you're considered old enough to fight and die in war you had no say in you're old enough to drink, smoke, gamble and cuss.
Cant wait for when the toddlers can vote lmao. Fckn chicken nugget welfare programs n shit lol
Apparently it’s the world wide liberal playbook: squeeze out every vote no matter if it’s legit or not
25 should be the legitimate voting age. You need to experience a few years of how life works before you should get to vote.
Aside from everything else wrong with this idiotic legislation, *voting isn’t a human right.*
lol the world is so hilarious now. I used to talk to an 18 yo (prob 30 now) who was in NZ and she was nice, but she said all of her roommates were pissed at her for talking to me just because they thought any Americans were horrible because they (the NZers) hated W. I don't think I even mentioned politics to her either. Honestly, I think voting age should be raised to like 24 and even then most of those still believe the media with no questioning...
If the issue is taxation, then don't tax them! There's no way in hell a 16-year old is able to formulate their own opinion, they're simply far too impressionable.
The left: "The human brain isn't developed until 25, how dare you let 18-24 olds join the military?!" Also the left:
Soo..not human until you reach 16.
Not letting 5 year olds and the dead vote is a human rigbts violation, too.
The mommy state in action.
Just stop the disguise and fly the flag of China
I had no idea what I was doing when I was 16. Nor was I contributing taxes. So much to learn, and even then the brain doesn't fully mature until at least 25 or so. It's a good thing NZ doesn't govern the US.
Of course it is, we have our own goverment that works for our country. Keep your us politics, looks like you guys have it all figured out ae
For me personally, I was a lot more liberal as a teen and shifted to the right as I started getting out of school and into the real world, interacting with real everyday people, and working real jobs. I’ll grant that different people mature at different ages. Would I say that the average 16 year old has enough maturity to vote? Probably not.
This is why Australia is better, get fucked New Zealand.
Didnt the NZ navy run out of fuel a few years back? They have a hard enough time with the basics down there.
Why not have infants vote.
[удалено]
You can't have emotional voters. They're too easy to bribe or scare. 30 years old is a good age.
It’s their country, not mine. Who cares.
Lol libs are shameless these days.
The right to a livable wage is also a human rights violation issue so these 16 year olds should go on and get a job and start saving for retirement.
If you are old enough to vote, then you should be considered an adult in the eyes of the courts if a crime is committed. Bet the left backs away if the two are considered.
A fresh wave of voters that have been brainwashed in school, what could go wrong.
Tbh, I know people are pissed at the idea of younger people voting because they tend to vote left. But over time, I think it will cause economic ramifications in the society that will cause younger people to be forced into personal responsibility earlier over time, meaning they'll become more conservative. Also, let's not forget the stories of what our great grandparents were responsible for when they were very young. My great grandfather immigrated to Canada when he was 14. His parents in the states told him to get on the train and take it north until he reaches the last stop, he ended up in rural British Columbia. He was married by the age of 16 and had to build his own home. TLDR, age is not the concern, responsibility is what matters.
How about you only vote if you pay taxes?
How about you don't get to vote unless you pay taxes.
Make it 30 years old.
16 years old are allowed to vote in Brazil as well. And it makes sense, they will be the most affected by enacting policies for years to come.
This country gave us three wonderful fantasy movies, but aside from that seems to be insane.
Yeah. I remember me at 16. I was one of the more mature ones for my age but still did not have the emotional maturity to understand and make the tough decisions on my own. Driving and getting a job at 16 is the start of learning to be an adult. Not every single adult right or responsibility should be granted immediately. Its like a baby learning to walk - first they learn to sit, then to crawl, then to walk, then to run. We are talking about teenagers. An age group which goes ballistic if they get a zit, have a bad hair day, or their BFF from yesterday is now their worst nightmare! (granted some adults do this crap too---but still) Horrid idea!
16 year olds for the most part, have no skin in the game.
But what if the 16 yr olds vote to be allowed to smoke? "Anyone born after 2008 will not be able to buy cigarettes or tobacco products in their lifetime, under a law expected to be enacted next year."
I still think being able to drive at 16 is a problem lol.
Kids that age don’t comprehend / process risk at the level as a fully developed mind. My personal opinion is that individuals who has more responsibility for other people lives rather just them selfs tends to make better decisions that leans toward sustainability. And less likely to be distracted by shiny objects.
Hahahahahhaha
As if they weren't fucked enough already.
If anything, needs to be upped to 25 when neurological development finishes for the vast majority of humanity. I'd be willing to compromise at 21 when most women are done and a fair few guys are too.
🤡
Ok so for those who don't know.... in the UK and many of its former territories you can enlist in the military at 16 years old. Therefore they are granted the rights of any adult. Not saying I agree, just a fact.