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

Last edited by boris_the_bear on Mar-03-2017 at 08:08

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

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