Lowering Voting Age to 16

[-TSS-]

How many 16-year olds live on their own and are in command of their own financial affairs?

I can understand where initiatives such as this proposal to lower the voting-age come from as there is clearly apathy within politics but this is clearly wrong, not the right way to address the wider issue.

[xul]

On 24/03/2018 at 10:03 AM, 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.

It's very true.....and if a person haven't certain level of life experience，he or she will be easily mind-manipulated and mind-controlled by an experienced one whom he or she occupationally trusts, like...a teacher of students or superior officer of soldiers, then the result of vote will be greatly distorted by a small group of people who have access to exert great influence on teenager voters.

I think this is why in some democratic countries soldiers are not allowed to vote even if the soldiers are adults.

Edited March 26, 2018 by xul

[xul]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

How many 16-year olds live on their own and are in command of their own financial affairs?

I can understand where initiatives such as this proposal to lower the voting-age come from as there is clearly apathy within politics but this is clearly wrong, not the right way to address the wider issue.

A country isn't a board of directors, so financial status or tax isn't the problem. For example:

Slaves neither pay tax nor financial independent, but we can not justify slavery for that.

I guess in old time, a king didn't need to pay tax because his people paid tax to him, but which doesn't mean he wasn't qualified as a king---the most politically powerful person in a nation.

Edited March 25, 2018 by xul

[PIK]

It is all about keeping the liberals in power. I have a friend who was talking to his 8 yr old about the day at school and the kid went on that you have to vote liberal in provincial election or there won't be any schools left. I would have loved to be there when he showed up at his kids school. And that is not the 1st time it has happened. Ont teachers are all about themselves now, it is pathetic listening to them whine.

Edited March 26, 2018 by PIK

[-TSS-]

If you are old enough to die for your country or you are old enough to pay taxes to your country then you are old enough to vote for the leaders of your country. However, I don't think any civilised country accepts 16-year old soldiers and I doubt any 16-year old has to pay tax on some pocket money-income they earn in some summer-jobs.

[August1991]

On 3/24/2018 at 12:27 PM, Argus said:

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.

....

Argus, this is my fear too.

I fear governments will make taxes more "progressive" or simply want to reduce the cost of tax collection, in the future, and so fewer people will have to pay taxes. And yet, everyone can vote, even those who are only 16.

Imagine a society where 35% of voters pay no tax but collective decisions are decided by majority vote.

Heck, we have that now in Canada, like Norway. (We fortunately have a cold climate, like Norway. But unlike Norway, we have an open border.)

Gawdknows what California will do.

====

In such a society, when a politician talks of "cutting taxes", 35% of voters don't listen because it does not affect them. Such voters have no skin in the game.

But every voter loves to hear about "infrastructure spending".  

Edited March 27, 2018 by August1991

[Bonam]

On 3/24/2018 at 7:58 AM, 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. 

Hardly anyone understands the nuances of governing, regardless of age. Hardly anyone thinks about unintended consequences, regardless of age. People are idiots and vote idiotically. I can't think of any evidence that would suggest to me that teens would vote any more or less idiotically than anyone else. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Bonam

[August1991]

23 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Hardly anyone understands the nuances of governing, regardless of age. Hardly anyone thinks about unintended consequences, regardless of age. People are idiots and votes idiotically. I can't think of any evidence that would suggest to me that teens would vote any more or less idiotically than anyone else. 

Bonam, strongly, strongly disagree.

The first time that a person writes a cheque to pay the "property tax", the person understands, uh, "the nuances of governing" - as you describe it.

And Bonam, when they write that cheque, they are not idiots. But you are an idiot to describe them as such.

=====

I object to payroll deduction - Milton Friedman's greatest error in thinking of efficiency. I believe that we should receive all our money every payday and then we should pay our taxes, in a single cheque, on voting day.

IOW, you write a single cheque, pay your taxes - then you vote. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by August1991

[Bonam]

11 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The first time that a person writes a cheque to pay the "property tax", the person understands, uh, "the nuances of governing" - as you describe it.

Hardly. And only ~10% of people pay property taxes, anyway. 

[August1991]

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Hardly. And only ~10% of people pay property taxes, anyway. 

As if renters don't pay property tax - Bonam, do landlords not pass off property taxes to tenants?

Bonam, have you heard of tax incidence?

=======

But regardless, I reckon that an income/property/wealth tax, however determined, should be paid on a single day, the day a citizen votes.

IMHO, it is wrong that Americans pay tax in April but vote in November,

In a true democracy, citizens would pay their taxes and vote in the same month.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by August1991

[Bonam]

16 minutes ago, August1991 said:

As if renters don't pay property tax - Bonam, do landlords not pass off property taxes to tenants?

Most renters have no idea, they just see a single number rent bill, not a breakdown of how much of it goes to pay what kind of expenses. Here in Seattle, renters overwhelmingly supported a massive property tax increase, and then endlessly complain about rising rents.

Not paying something directly and visibly means that most people are not aware of it, since, as I explained before, people are idiots. 

Another obvious example here in Seattle: people overwhelmingly support the new $15/hour minimum wage, and endlessly complain about increased costs at grocery stores and restaurants, again not realizing the two are linked. If you do point out that the two are linked, you are considered rude. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Bonam

[August1991]

6 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Most renters have no idea, they just see a single number rent bill...

And as a gasoline buyer in Montreal, I also have no idea. I just see a single number.... 131.9

======

Bonam, do sellers/owners have a better idea? 

[Bonam]

20 minutes ago, August1991 said:

But regardless, I reckon that an income/property/wealth tax, however determined, should be paid on a single day, the day a citizen votes.

IMHO, it is wrong that Americans pay tax in April but vote in November,

In a true democracy, citizens would pay their taxes and vote in the same month.

 

Most people pay their taxes spread out throughout the year as it gets taken out of each pay check. When taxes are filed in April, they usually only either get a small refund or pay a small extra amount to compensate for the discrepancy between how much tax they owed and how much they paid throughout the year. You'd know this, if you paid taxes. 

[GostHacked]

6 hours ago, Bonam said:

Hardly. And only ~10% of people pay property taxes, anyway. 

Because the rest are renting. And the rents cover the property taxes. ON paper it may look like only 10% are paying taxes.

[cannuck]

I can easily get on  board with taxation determining voting count, but first one would have to radically overhaul how we do taxation.  Stop the free ride for speculative gain - in fact tax the crap out of it - and give a flat rate to wealth that is created from productive activity.   THEN you could apply tax contribution to value of a vote.

regarding the quesiton of age:  instead of giving a fixed age as the point of transition, simply give custodial parents the vote when a child is borne.  Transfer it to them when their tax status is no longer dependant.

Edited March 27, 2018 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. I fear governments will make taxes more "progressive" or simply want to reduce the cost of tax collection, in the future, and so fewer people will have to pay taxes. And yet, everyone can vote, even those who are only 16.

====

2. In such a society, when a politician talks of "cutting taxes", 35% of voters don't listen because it does not affect them. Such voters have no skin in the game.

1. This could only be stated by someone with limited understanding of how politics worked in the 1st half of the 20th century.  "Stick it to the rich" was the mantra, approximately, and so we have an answer of what such a society looks like.  We also have foreign examples like Venezuela to compare to.  

2. You must be terrified that once 1% of the people have ALL the money the poor will have more power than ever !  Do you not see the paradox you are cementing yourself into ?

[Argus]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 7:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

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.

The problem is both are true. The poor are paying nothing, and the definition of the term 'poor' continues to expand each new election by liberal politicians seeking to buy votes. And since the 'robber barons' have bribed government the heavy burden of taxation falls more and more on the middle class. The people Trudeau attacked as 'the rich" and Kathleen Wynne calls "the wealthy" are not the robber barons in their limousines and mansions but doctors, farmers and engineers. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

 The poor are paying nothing, and the definition of the term 'poor' continues to expand each new election by liberal politicians seeking to buy votes.  

You're conflating two things.  The definition of poor is different from the definition of 'low income' as defined by who pays tax or doesn't.  The devil is in the details, anyway, so let's look at numbers instead of talking past each other.

[GostHacked]

On 3/27/2018 at 1:46 AM, Bonam said:

Most renters have no idea, they just see a single number rent bill, not a breakdown of how much of it goes to pay what kind of expenses. Here in Seattle, renters overwhelmingly supported a massive property tax increase, and then endlessly complain about rising rents.

Not paying something directly and visibly means that most people are not aware of it, since, as I explained before, people are idiots. 

Another obvious example here in Seattle: people overwhelmingly support the new $15/hour minimum wage, and endlessly complain about increased costs at grocery stores and restaurants, again not realizing the two are linked. If you do point out that the two are linked, you are considered rude. 

As a renter I have a good idea of the breakdown of the rent bill. Maybe those living in large multiplex types and apartments, will have less of an idea, but anyone renting a house/condo have a decent idea of what the break down is of the rent bill. 

 

On 3/27/2018 at 10:26 AM, cannuck said:

I can easily get on  board with taxation determining voting count, but first one would have to radically overhaul how we do taxation.  Stop the free ride for speculative gain - in fact tax the crap out of it - and give a flat rate to wealth that is created from productive activity.   THEN you could apply tax contribution to value of a vote.

regarding the quesiton of age:  instead of giving a fixed age as the point of transition, simply give custodial parents the vote when a child is borne.  Transfer it to them when their tax status is no longer dependant.

What kind of taxation? If you are working you sure are paying taxes. Even at 16 with a part time job at the local burger joint is paying taxes. Not as much as the parents are, but they are paying taxes if they are working at all.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

What kind of taxation? If you are working you sure are paying taxes. Even at 16 with a part time job at the local burger joint is paying taxes. Not as much as the parents are, but they are paying taxes if they are working at all.

Untrue. Once you factor in the basic personal amounts, both federal and provincial, you have to be making over $20,000 to pay any income tax at all. Thus whatever comes off your cheque through the year will be refunded in April.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Argus

[TTM]

On 2018-03-23 at 9:52 PM, August1991 said:

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 

Ridiculous, but an interesting thought experiment.  In a perfect world where the weathy couldn't just buy (sorry "lobby") politicians directly, I wonder where the tax brackets would end up, if votes were proportional to taxes. 

The rich couldn't completely abdicate responsibility, or they'd lose all political power. And the poor couldn't stick it to the rich, as that would lose them political power. My guess is a reverse progressive tax rate from "middle class" to "wealthy" so that your political influence still went up as you got more wealthy, but you paid a lower overall tax rate, and then progressive or flat from "middle class" to "poor",  depending on the acceptable level of social unrest, with most or all poor paying at least a nominal rate.

Level of services would be likely be significantly reduced with the tax burden shifting even more to the middle class, as that would mean a either a reduction in overall tax dollars available for services or a significant drop in after tax income and standard of living for the middle class.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by TTM

[August1991]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

As a renter I have a good idea of the breakdown of the rent bill. Maybe those living in large multiplex types and apartments, will have less of an idea, but anyone renting a house/condo have a decent idea of what the break down is of the rent bill. 

====

What kind of taxation? If you are working you sure are paying taxes. Even at 16 with a part time job at the local burger joint is paying taxes. Not as much as the parents are, but they are paying taxes if they are working at all.

About 35% of people in Canada filing a federal tax form, pay no federal income tax at all. Since GST does not apply to food or rent, many filers pay no tax - yet receive a GST refund.

 =====

Gosthacked,

For Americans in the 18th century, it was "no taxation without representation".

For progressive people in the 21st century, it should be "no representation without taxation".

==

Heck, why have a "carbon tax"?

(BTW, it should be called a "carbon dioxide tax" - it's not a tax or price on "carbon". Governments want to tax/price CO2, "carbon dioxide", and reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon is not the problem.)

Edited March 29, 2018 by August1991

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

What kind of taxation? If you are working you sure are paying taxes. Even at 16 with a part time job at the local burger joint is paying taxes. Not as much as the parents are, but they are paying taxes if they are working at all.

Income tax - that kids flipping  burgers do not pay.   As I said: when they are no longer dependents - THAT is when they should be able to vote their own number of votes (based on tax paid).

[Argus]

15 hours ago, TTM said:

Ridiculous, but an interesting thought experiment.  In a perfect world where the weathy couldn't just buy (sorry "lobby") politicians directly, I wonder where the tax brackets would end up, if votes were proportional to taxes. 

You fail to differentiate between 'the rich' and 'the rich'. They are two different groups. The first 'the rich' are made up of multi-millionaires like Trudeau, Morneau, the Bronfmans, the McCains and Desmarais. These are people with servants who have rarely ever ridden in a car that wasn't driven by a chauffeur. They enjoy great influence but not due to wealth. Their influence depends on family connections. They pay taxes, but a smaller proportion of their income than others. Still, it does amount to a lot of money because they have so much.

Then there's 'the rich'. This is the target group of most liberal politicians who want to show their creds as progressives. This group consists of doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, software designers, entrepreneurs and small businessmen. Most likely they've never even ridden in a limousine except at funerals or weddings, and have no servants. They are doing reasonably well, but aren't what a normal person would think of as wealthy. But they are visible. So they have become the targets of every increased 'tax the rich' plan people like Trudeau and Wynne come up with.

As I've already pointed out, someone with $300k income makes 7.5 X more than someone with a $40k income, but pays FIFTY times more in tax. And their tax load is much higher, proportionately, than the first group of 'rich' people, the ones with tens of millions in income.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Argus

[GostHacked]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Untrue. Once you factor in the basic personal amounts, both federal and provincial, you have to be making over $20,000 to pay any income tax at all. Thus whatever comes off your cheque through the year will be refunded in April.

Even if they get refunded, they are being taxed. And the first tax bracket for Canada is up to about 45,000/year.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/frequently-asked-questions-individuals/canadian-income-tax-rates-individuals-current-previous-years.html