Jump to content

Lowering Voting Age to 16


Voting Age in Federal Elections  

20 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

In general, about 30% of people who file a federal income tax form pay no federal income tax at all.

I fear that if we reduce the voting age to 16, even more potential voters will pay no tax.

IMHO, it is dangerous (in a democracy, majority decides) when many voters pay no tax:

1) such voters have no skin in the game

2) such voters only want increased government services

3) such voters ignore any discussion of reducing taxes 

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the number of people who pay no tax changing ?  If so, why might that be ?  Imagine how you might want to describe a situation where, over time, a portion of the population sees their wages dwindle to the point where they can't pay taxes... and then the government decides they shouldn't vote.  And then they start losing legal protections and losing services.  It almost sounds like a slow descent into slavery to me.

The problem with your framework is that you assume every individual is 100% control of their material success or failure.  Government policy has nothing to do with it, nor do macro economic forces such as automation or global trade.  Such an attitude towards economics, strikes me as similar to pre-reformation attitudes towards religion: rules and compliance is a problem for the little people.  The aristocracy is above it, and can buy indulgences from the church.  The modern equivalent is that the little person has to deal with automation, job outsourcing, and having their store replaced by a big box in the next town while the aristocracy buys favourable policy indulgences from the government in the form of laws that protect the wealth.

You speak like someone who knows a lot about history but you have a giant blind spot

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Voting requires a level of life experience and maturity that teenagers have not had the opportunity to acquire. I'm not certain people under 25 have either. Once you grant the vote, it is very difficult to go back if it is a mistake.

How would you know if it's a mistake?  At any given time, somewhere between 30% and 50% think the current government (whoever it is) got voted in by mistake.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Voting requires a level of life experience and maturity that teenagers have not had the opportunity to acquire. I'm not certain people under 25 have either. Once you grant the vote, it is very difficult to go back if it is a mistake.

I agree. Me more most of my friends had no use for politics in high school. Lowering the voting age means you are going to get even a bigger portion of voters that have no clue what is going on.  I did not really start paying attention until I was 30 or so.

 

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How would you know if it's a mistake?  At any given time, somewhere between 30% and 50% think the current government (whoever it is) got voted in by mistake.  

Ideologies and views change over time. What I would have voted when I was 16 and what I would vote now (late 40s) are very very different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Ideologies and views change over time. What I would have voted when I was 16 and what I would vote now (late 40s) are very very different.

How does that translate into a mistake, though?   Should people never change their ideology, or vote differently then they have in the past?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How does that translate into a mistake, though?   Should people never change their ideology, or vote differently then they have in the past?   

I would look at it as a mistake because my view of what was going on was based on what was fed to me via media when I was a teenager. I did not take the time to inform myself to the extent I do now.  Mind you with the Internet it can make things easier and more problematic at the same time.  The mistake was not being informed to make a proper decision. The mistake was also believing everything put in front of me as fact and not having the ability to scrutinize things better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I became politically active when I was 15. My views then and for years afterward were way out there. It was only after about 20 years of active participation in politics that I began to understand it. I had the opportunity to learn from seasoned politicians. I do not believe a 16-18 year old understands the nuances of governing. Every action of government has unintended consequences. 

Horgan is proposing to lower the voting age to 16 simply because he believes they will vote NDP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I became politically active when I was 15. My views then and for years afterward were way out there. It was only after about 20 years of active participation in politics that I began to understand it. I had the opportunity to learn from seasoned politicians. I do not believe a 16-18 year old understands the nuances of governing. Every action of government has unintended consequences. 

Horgan is proposing to lower the voting age to 16 simply because he believes they will vote NDP. 

Plenty of adults also vote NDP.   I think someone voting as you "wouldn't because you are older now and know better" doesn't equal a mistake, only a difference of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If you lower the voting age, then lower everything else.  Let's lower the driving age, how would that work out? Lower legal drinking age to 16, if you can vote you should be able to legally drink.

These are not at all like voting.  There is no danger to life and limb, even if you don't think NDP should be allowed to govern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Plenty of adults also vote NDP.   I think someone voting as you "wouldn't because you are older now and know better" doesn't equal a mistake, only a difference of opinion.

Sorry, I did not mean there was anything wrong with voting NDP. A person's vote is their own business, be it Social Credit, Grit, NDP, Tory or even Marxist -Leninist. What I meant was it looks like an attempt to enlarge his base. However, Lloyd-George gave the vote to women and he discovered they did not all vote for him in gratitude. Premier Horgan's move may not give him the results that he might be looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

These are not at all like voting.  There is no danger to life and limb, even if you don't think NDP should be allowed to govern. 

I disagree. Voting who gets to lead, can lead to great danger to life and limb. All it takes is a couple bad policies and then you have a certain number who are affected. Some may end up dying because of those decisions. Your vote will help determine the outcome of an election and the map going forward for the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason it is being discussed is it will only help the liberals. Get all the dumb little kids to vote trudeau. The age should be raised to 21 so adults that have skin in the game can vote, but not some wet nosed kid that has no idea about real life and can be easily influenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is the number of people who pay no tax changing ?  If so, why might that be ?  Imagine how you might want to describe a situation where, over time, a portion of the population sees their wages dwindle to the point where they can't pay taxes... and then the government decides they shouldn't vote.  And then they start losing legal protections and losing services.  It almost sounds like a slow descent into slavery to me.

The problem with your framework is that you assume every individual is 100% control of their material success or failure.  Government policy has nothing to do with it, nor do macro economic forces such as automation or global trade. 

You raise an interesting point but you neglect to mention how government policy also plays into removing people from the tax role by increasing the progressive nature of taxation. The reason people pay no income tax is not because they have no income but because the government raises the number of personal deductions, which wipes out the taxes they would otherwise have to pay. The basic federal amount is $11, 635. So if you earn that much then your taxable income is zero. Add in the provincial personal amount, which in Ontario is $10,171 and you can now earn $21,806 and pay zero income tax. This is without an other deductions. Now suppose you have a spouse you're supporting who earns very little or no money. Claim another $11,635! Now your income can be $33,441 without paying a cent of income tax. Hey, got any kids? Hey, pay rent?

You see where this is going? 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herples said:

Yes since every policy change is going to affect them as much as their parents. In two years these people will be going into the working world.

More likely they'll be going to college or university to put off working for another three or four or five or six years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally against the idea. One could say that if you pay taxes and are old enough to die for your country then you should be able to vote. That argument applied to 18 years of age. Doesn`t apply to 16 year olds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Argus said:

1) You raise an interesting point but you neglect to mention how government policy also plays into removing people from the tax role by increasing the progressive nature of taxation.

 

2) The reason people pay no income tax is not because they have no income but because the government raises the number of personal deductions, which wipes out the taxes they would otherwise have to pay. The basic federal amount is $11, 635. So if you earn that much then your taxable income is zero. Add in the provincial personal amount, which in Ontario is $10,171 and you can now earn $21,806 and pay zero income tax. This is without an other deductions. Now suppose you have a spouse you're supporting who earns very little or no money. Claim another $11,635! Now your income can be $33,441 without paying a cent of income tax. Hey, got any kids? Hey, pay rent?

3) You see where this is going? 

1) Very good.  I didn't consider that.

2) Should be easy to answer.  Also, to add, people at the highest bracket paid more as well.

3) Sure.  I'm happy enough with the conversation we have had, in that we have identified factors and a framework for discussing who pays, and how much.  Further questions would be to ask how much were the rates in the past, and what did people actually pay, and what did they get for that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Very good.  I didn't consider that.

2) Should be easy to answer.  Also, to add, people at the highest bracket paid more as well.

Not necessarily.

There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Sure.  I'm happy enough with the conversation we have had, in that we have identified factors and a framework for discussing who pays, and how much.  Further questions would be to ask how much were the rates in the past, and what did people actually pay, and what did they get for that ?

This is not specific to Canada, but it does conclude that the tax base is narrowing across many western countries due to progressive policies.

“I LIKE to pay taxes,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes. “With them I buy civilisation.” Most people recognise that taxes pay for public services, but few are as keen to stump up for them as Justice Holmes was. High income taxes tend to discourage effort and entrepreneurship, while encouraging all manner of activity to avoid them. That is why a basic principle of good tax policy has long been to charge a low rate over a broad base.

It is a target which many countries miss, and the gap is growing. Income taxes—one of the main sources of tax revenue across the rich world—are increasingly paid by a small minority of the most affluent. In Britain, employment has risen by 1.3m in the past five years, but the number of taxpayers has fallen by 2.2m. More than 40% of American households pay no income tax. In contrast, the most highly paid 1% of workers in Britain pay 28% of all income tax, while in America it is 46%. In 1979 those shares were 11% and 18% respectively. Corporate income taxes show the same concentration. In Britain just 830 firms pay almost half of all corporation tax. Five American industries account for 81% of the country’s corporate tax revenue, but just a third of its companies.

 

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21618784-taxes-are-best-raised-broad-base-many-countries-it-worryingly-narrow-too-reliant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Argus said:

More likely they'll be going to college or university to put off working for another three or four or five or six years.

Not every person goes full time some actually get part time jobs to have an income. And other avenues such as apprenticeships have only 5 months of course work and 7 months of working in a job. People in University can do co-op which can span many months to a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Argus said:

It is a target which many countries miss, and the gap is growing. Income taxes—one of the main sources of tax revenue across the rich world—are increasingly paid by a small minority of the most affluent

This may be, but I assembled a list of questions in my previous post that could answer this more completely.

Basically, there are two narratives at odds here: "the increasing gap between rich and poor" and "free ride for the poor".  It's really a topic for another thread, but I will reiterate that saying the poorest X% pay nothing is only telling part of the story and can be rebutted with the similarly incomplete narrative that robber barons are buying government to tilt the economic game in their favour, or somesuch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...