TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Upper limit on the voting age
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Upper limit on the voting age

Seriously, why is there none in civilized countries?

Here https://www.quora.com/Should-there-...limit-to-voting the most upvoted reply says:

quote:

The older generations have more experience and their influence can help prevent younger generations from repeating mistakes from the past.

Wut? I don't know how it is in other countries, but in post-Soviet countries on every fucking election it's precisely the old farts who are trying to drag the country back into the past (when they didn't fart that much and suffer from hemorrhoids). It's them who vote for the candidate that gives them a free pack of buckwheat and sunflower oil (not kidding).

it's always about reducing legal ages with you.

Re: Upper limit on the voting age

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear Wut? I don't know how it is in other countries, but in post-Soviet countries on every fucking election it's precisely the old farts who are trying to drag the country back into the past (when they didn't fart that much and suffer from hemorrhoids). It's them who vote for the candidate that gives them a free pack of buckwheat and sunflower oil (not kidding).

That's why you should still be a part of Russia - it doesn't matter who you vote for there.

But all these jokes about underage girls, the Crimea and Russia are kind of repetitive. Why don't you tell me what you think on the subject?

Probably because you admitted to being attracted to underage girls, so anything you say afterwards means literally nothing.

This thread makes as much sense as...

"These people don't vote the way I want them to. Let's change the law to prevent that!"

You lowlife waste bags, you have been hacking my trash bin and ruining my google! you can't even work out! Don't question my intelligence. See you at the gym, your waste bags completely full of 100% waste

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery "These people don't vote the way I want them to. Let's change the law to prevent that!"

In fairness, if this were about black people in red states, your line isn't actually a joke.

@Boris - Dude, you gotta see the irony; that someone who is hounded on here for age of consent issues would post a thread about, limiting the age of certain rights. I mean talk about setting yourself up.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN In fairness, if this were about black people in red states, your line isn't actually a joke. @Boris - Dude, you gotta see the irony; that someone who is hounded on here for age of consent issues would post a thread about, limiting the age of certain rights. I mean talk about setting yourself up.

I don't have any proof one way or the other but I honestly believe it's just a way to troll. I think he stumbled upon it as a hot button issue he could use. Just look at his threads, posts, even his avatar with that idea in mind. It pretty clear it can't be coincidental.

Could well be and the avatar wasn't ever exactly subtle but I've also seen him get genuinely frustrated with it when he's tried to post "normally" and all people do is bring it up.

Even though, it seems extremely weird to build this entire online profile just to get mocked as a paedo, when you're not, and just trolling.

There have and continue to be people who crave attention even if it's negative. Once you go down that path there's no walking it back. Nou is the obvious example more recently Amber. Actually there's a long list I don't care to remember. At the end of the day, who really knows or cares about the motivations behind these people.

In South American countries that have compulsory voting (and I live in one), you're allowed to skip voting after a certain age.

That's the closest you'll have to an upper limit in civilised countries, I guess.

Cumpolsory twats that?

Like james25, I come back to TA regularly despite all the negativity. Unlike james25, I have a life and come back once every couple of months (or half a year, you can check) when I'm bored and can't find anything else to waste an hour on. Sometimes for a bit of the good old peado- bullshit (remember, I'm also a homeophobephobe) sometimes just to see what's up at the c0r. It's fun. It reminds me of good old days when I was into DJing. Plus for you it's sometimes entertaining. Even if it's not and I annoy you or you don't care at all, it's not like I'm asking anyone's opinion. So don't strain yourself too much asking me to go away or telling me how nobody cares. If "nobody cares", then don't run in herds (mr.mystery, sushipunk, johnson etc. etc.) to respond under every thread I make and every message I post, which is what I see everytime. I've heard it 67453 times before. Don't repeat yourself. Otherwise you're just as consistent as james25. You're just a string of text on my screen, ffs

The reason there is no upper limit on the voting age is because there is zero evidence that, as a rule, people lose their ability to reason and make sound decisions at any particular age (if at all). This means that whatever age one put the upper limit would be an arbitrary decision, which flies in the face of universal suffrage. If the ability for people to make sound decisions as they age is a problem it is on an individual level, not a general level. There is already a mechanism to deal with the individual's loss of reason and that mechanism is incompetence. If one's ability to reason is lost then they can be declared incompetent which would, amongst other things, remove their eligibility to vote (in most countries). So, to answer your question; there is no upper age limit because it is unsupportable as a general rule and there is already a mechanism to remove the vote from individuals that cannot properly exercise that right.

I could argue about there being no evidence that a person's ability to reason degrades with old age. And what about this:

1) average life expectancy is around 80. A 20-y.o. person has ~60 years to live. A 80-y.o. has ~5 years. Both votes effect a period of time which is the entire life of the 20-y.o. but only the last 5 years of the 80-y.o. During this period the 20-y.o. will have to graduate, work, take loans, raise kids, face healthcare and age, while not much will change for the 80-y.o. during his last 5 years.

2) 20-y.o. will pay taxes all his life to fund whatever is being voted on. 80-y.o. does not work, receives a pension from the taxes payed by the 20-y.o. If you take a corporate analogy, the 80-y.o. is no longer a shareholder, but gets to vote on all meetings.

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear I could argue about there being no evidence that a person's ability to reason degrades with old age. And what about this: 1) average life expectancy is around 80. A 20-y.o. person has ~60 years to live. A 80-y.o. has ~5 years. Both votes effect a period of time which is the entire life of the 20-y.o. but only the last 5 years of the 80-y.o. During this period the 20-y.o. will have to graduate, work, take loans, raise kids, face healthcare and age, while not much will change for the 80-y.o. during his last 5 years. 2) 20-y.o. will pay taxes all his life to fund whatever is being voted on. 80-y.o. does not work, receives a pension from the taxes payed by the 20-y.o. If you take a corporate analogy, the 80-y.o. is no longer a shareholder, but gets to vote on all meetings.

Your argument number 1 presupposes that the only valid concerns are long term concerns, which is not only entirely false it is also contrary to how many people actually vote. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but most people vote based on their immediate concerns, not their long term interests. Now, one could argue that voting based on one's immediate concerns rather than the long term interest of their society is a bad choice; however, democracy can't impose values on people... we cannot tell people on what criteria they must vote.

Your argument number 2 is full of flaws. First, that 80 year old is likely paying taxes. See, in most of the industrialized world a great many people continue to earn an income in retirement due to investments or pensions. Some pensions are paid from taxes, as you point out; however, a great many others are private pensions. Pension income is treated (in most places) the same as any other income and it taxable. My mother is retired but owing to her sizable investment portfolio and private pensions she has sufficient income to put her into the highest tax bracket. Also, you presuppose that all octogenarians are no longer working, which simply isn't the case (Warren Buffet is still working at 86 and I'm willing to go out on limb here and suggest he has probably generated more wealth and paid more tax in the past year then you will your entire life.... but somehow he shouldn't get a vote in how those taxes are spent?). Of course, even if the retired octogenarian in your example isn't paying income tax they are likely paying other taxes (be they sales, property, capital gains, or other hidden taxes worked into the price of goods and services). Additionally, your second argument essentially argues that only tax payers should have a vote; an idea most of the developed world rejected more than a century ago. The government needs to govern for all people, not just those that earn enough income to pay income tax, if you disenfranchise those that don't pay income tax then this is unlikely to happen.

Sorry Boris, but it seems you've either not thought this through or lack the capacity to do so.

I think he's mad that his grandpa voted for The Donald.

There are so many holes in your terrible argument it would be simply gluttonous to tear into them all. I'll limit myself to this sampler from your overflowing buffet of stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear Both votes effect a period of time which is the entire life of the 20-y.o. but only the last 5 years of the 80-y.o.

This could only really be said to apply to referendums on permanent decisions, which are very rare. The vast majority of votes are for politicians to serve fixed periods of office, rarely more than five years.

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear If you take a corporate analogy, the 80-y.o. is no longer a shareholder, but gets to vote on all meetings.

Oh, so, like, a non-executive director?

A non-shareholder, non-managerial executive, who helps with policy making and planning exercises?

Go back to your deer stand.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Your argument number 1 presupposes that the only valid concerns are long term concerns, which is not only entirely false it is also contrary to how many people actually vote

Every vote based on an immediate concern has long-term effects. For instance, a vote on joining or leaving an organization like EU, NATO or CIS can easily be dictated by people's immediate moods and concerns, but has obvious long-term effects.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Your argument number 2 is full of flaws. First, that 80 year old is likely paying taxes. See, in most of the industrialized world a great many people continue to earn an income in retirement due to investments or pensions. Some pensions are paid from taxes, as you point out; however, a great many others are private pensions. Pension income is treated (in most places) the same as any other income and it taxable. My mother is retired but owing to her sizable investment portfolio and private pensions she has sufficient income to put her into the highest tax bracket.

Yes, but that's passive income and is more or less stable and guaranteed. Younger people typically have to earn income by working or running business i.e. active income, which involves dealing with a lot of aspects that a pensioner with passive income doesn't need to think about (employment law, corporate income tax, bilateral trade agreements, banking system etc.). And who exactly generates the money to be paid as passive income to the pensioner? Money doesn't generate itself. Your savings don't go to work or produce iPhones by themselves. It needs labor, production and trade, all run by the younger generations.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Also, you presuppose that all octogenarians are no longer working, which simply isn't the case (Warren Buffet is still working at 86 and I'm willing to go out on limb here and suggest he has probably generated more wealth and paid more tax in the past year then you will your entire life.... but somehow he shouldn't get a vote in how those taxes are spent?).

How many Warren Buffets do you have per 100k people? How statistically significant is Warren Buffet, even with his turnover?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Of course, even if the retired octogenarian in your example isn't paying income tax they are likely paying other taxes (be they sales, property, capital gains, or other hidden taxes worked into the price of goods and services).

Valid, but in this case I can argue that these taxes are paid by everyone equally and are being returned as government services like roads and infrastructure for disabled people, from which the octogenarians benefit too. But then again, we're talking about setting an upper limit for a voting age, not giving voting rights only to tax payers. The fact of paying taxes was just a supplementary argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Additionally, your second argument essentially argues that only tax payers should have a vote; an idea most of the developed world rejected more than a century ago. The government needs to govern for all people, not just those that earn enough income to pay income tax, if you disenfranchise those that don't pay income tax then this is unlikely to happen.

I don't care what was decided a century ago. And I'm not arguing for voting rights only for tax payers. I'm talking about old people who are creating a very small share of added value in the economy, are dependent on the young to afford their pensions, and have 10x less years to be a member of society.

Boris you're not making much sense and it sounds like you've spent way too much time thinking about this topic.


There are only two things old people shouldn't be allowed to do:
1. Drive.
2. Walk around the gym locker room without a towel.

if you can't walk without a towel, you can't vote

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear 2) 20-y.o. will pay taxes all his life to fund whatever is being voted on. 80-y.o. does not work, receives a pension from the taxes payed by the 20-y.o.

Over here a pension is not being payed from taxes. For a pension people pay as long as they work, it's not a tax. People do get money from the government when they retire, but the pension is on top of that.

Wouldn't surprise me if we would better of if only people above 65 were allowed to vote than only people from 18-30.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.