Posted by Ben @ October 28th, 2009 2:49 am. Filed under: I Pay Taxes So You Have To Do Anything I Say,Maybe... but not for THAT reason,Young, Dumb, And Online — Tags: Anna Billson-Page of Liberal Party —
by Anna Billson-Page of Liberal PartyThe voting age should be reduced to 16 – not just to widen democracy but because it is an anomaly that young people who are old enough to pay tax to the government have no influence in electing that government.
Any ten year-old who’s walked to the local corner shop with a couple of quid in hand planning to buy sweets is technically a tax payer. Your logic is flawed.
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URL
At 16 you can get a job and pay taxes and it is undemocratic that you have no say in who sets those taxes. 10 year olds obviously are legally prevented from gaining employment via which they pay tax.
Also, despite talk about taxing sweets in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7938282.stm) currently sweets are tax-free. So your own logic is not just flawed, but badly researched.
I think probably 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, but “No taxation without representation” isn’t the reason (although it’s a good reason to get cross if you’re 16). There are lots of things 16 year olds can’t do that it would be wrong to ban adults from doing but it’s because legally they’re not adults. The question is not ‘is it fair to tax without representing’, but ‘is a 16 year old mature enough to make this decision’.
I hate to step all over your snark, Mr Serpent, but you might want to read that link a bit more carefully, specifically the line about VAT.
Quote:”Any ten year-old who’s walked to the local corner shop with a couple of quid in hand planning to buy sweets is technically a tax payer. Your logic is flawed.”
Any 10 year old who buys sweets at a corner shop could, by your logic, also technically be supporting any number of illegal activities or organisations including terrorist cells by giving money over to someone else. I mean, how rediculous shall we get lads? LOL.
PS: Is “Hard Time” a closed issue now or are you thinking about your next reply?
Oh, sorry. Yes, response times have been increased by massive apathy regarding anything you might have to say. Unfortunately the things you have to say market has been somewhat flooded of late and the currency therefore devalued.
Oooops…should read the whole thing next time!!!!! It’s just that I remember a short while ago dentists were campaigning to have a tax imposed on sweets but were unsuccessful.
Still, I don’t see anything in this petition that is ridiculous. And I don’t think the logic is flawed. You don’t have to agree with it to accept it’s logical. Also, 16 year olds who work have no choice whether or not to pay tax; presumably 10 year olds do have a choice about what they spend their money on.
As Des Harcus says, accepting the “10 year old in a sweet shop” logic opens up a whole number of wider questions. I think the petitioner’s arguments are vastly more logic than yours, although (admittedly) they are hardly very original.
Well, no, I think Des’ point is ridiculous, and the correct response is “and?”. (Except that a response ending in a question mark is perhaps harsh given that he got himself banned.)
That said, I have seen a few petitions Ben’s posted here that I don’t think totally deserved it. Whether the reverse is true I don’t know. Possibly something should be done.
We could discuss it or maybe just petition the PM to sort it out for us since he is clearly in charge of the Internet. (Or is that Lord Mandelson?)
I do kind of understand this petition. A 16 year old does pay tax from their wages and some may then say they should be able to say what it’s spent on but do they really care? At 16 I was more interested in what I was going to spend my money on then what the government were going to spend it on.
Yes, Teri…you’re right. I’m sure the average 16 year old is more interested in voting for the X-factor than for parliament. But giving them the right, the choice to vote or NOT to vote, is in itself widening democracy.
Of course, the argument that there should be no taxation without representation was historically significant, not least in extending the franchise to certain groups of society in the past. All the peitioner is doing is extending the argument to include 16 year olds. Hardly revolutionary – or worthy of including on this site!
Can I just remind you all that my gripe was not with the reduction in voting age, but with the logic employed to reason for the change. That is more or less what the “Maybe… but not for THAT reason” tag is for.
So presumably the Suffragettes were also wrong to argue that women should receive the vote on the basis that they paid tax and should therefore have equal democratic rights with men?
(And in fact at one point stopped paying tax as a protest).
They were if women are mentally inferior to men, yes.
Is that your point or are you just being stubborn?
Harry reckons:
So the maxim “No taxation without representation” means nothing to you?
October 29, 2009 at 9:33 am