Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Xmara]

If anyone should be able to vote, then the vote should at least be restricted to legal adults who are net taxpayers, or who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits or income.

This way the people who vote for measures are the ones who have to pay for them, while anyone with a personal interest would be barred from voting.

Put you money where your mouth is.

So, bar poor people from voting?

[Xuloqoia]

Why not have a system of "one man, one vote"? There's one guy who votes, and everyone else must obey them or else.

[Jolthig]

No. While some old folks may vote to the displeasure of the younger generations, this isn't a good reason for them to be banned from voting, OP.

If you have a sound mind, and made up your mind for who to vote for, there is nothing objectionable about them voting. Who they vote for is a different story, and topic.

[Farnhamia]

If anyone should be able to vote, then the vote should at least be restricted to legal adults who are net taxpayers, or who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits or income.

This way the people who vote for measures are the ones who have to pay for them, while anyone with a personal interest would be barred from voting.

Put you money where your mouth is.

So, bar poor people from voting?

That was the system in the beginning of the American republic, you know, in some states, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_ri ... ted_States

[Deacarsia]

If anyone should be able to vote, then the vote should at least be restricted to legal adults who are net taxpayers, or who pay more in taxes than they receive from the government in benefits or income.

This way the people who vote for measures are the ones who have to pay for them, while anyone with a personal interest would be barred from voting.

Put you money where your mouth is.

So, bar poor people from voting?

No! This would not bar poor people, so long as they are net taxpayers.

For example, say I run a business that gets part of its income from the government, such as arms manufacturing. The part of my income that comes from government would be counted as a negative tax payment for accounting purposes. If my net taxes payed are negative, or if I receive more from the government than I pay in taxes, then I would be barred from voting.

On the other hand, say I was a poor person, but little of my income came from the government. Since I would be a net taxpayer, or pay more to the government than I receive, then I would be permitted to vote.

In this scenario, the poor person can vote, but the rich person cannot since he benefits from corporate welfare. Democracies fail when the voters discover that they can vote for themselves money from the public treasury.

This plan would save democracy from collapse, since the voters would not have pecuniary interest in the government, just as some countries prohibit legislators from voting on measures that personally benefit them.

[Deacarsia]

So, bar poor people from voting?

That was the system in the beginning of the American republic, you know, in some states, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_ri ... ted_States

Yes, exactly. This is far more important to me than any other restriction beyond legal adulthood.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Any assault on universal suffrage should be opposed, by force if neccessary. We didn't come all the way in expanding democracy just to disenfranchise an entire section of the populace based on their age, and I am saying this as a Gen Z-er.

[Necroghastia]

Nah. What would even be the cutoff age? "Old people" is vague as hell.

Yeah, no one should be able to vote.

Nobody should be able to vote.

Don't hurt yourselves playing with sharp edges~

[Totenborg]

So, bar poor people from voting?

No! This would not bar poor people, so long as they are net taxpayers.

For example, say I run a business that gets part of its income from the government, such as arms manufacturing. The part of my income that comes from government would be counted as a negative tax payment for accounting purposes. If my net taxes payed are negative, or if I receive more from the government than I pay in taxes, then I would be barred from voting.

On the other hand, say I was a poor person, but little of my income came from the government. Since I would be a net taxpayer, or pay more to the government than I receive, then I would be permitted to vote.

In this scenario, the poor person can vote, but the rich person cannot since he benefits from corporate welfare. Democracies fail when the voters discover that they can vote for themselves money from the public treasury.

This plan would save democracy from collapse, since the voters would not have pecuniary interest in the government, just as some countries prohibit legislators from voting on measures that personally benefit them.

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

[Totenborg]

Any assault on universal suffrage should be opposed, by force if neccessary. We didn't come all the way in expanding democracy just to disenfranchise an entire section of the populace based on their age, and I am saying this as a Gen Z-er.

Word.

[Caescadia]

Any assault on universal suffrage should be opposed, by force if neccessary. We didn't come all the way in expanding democracy just to disenfranchise an entire section of the populace based on their age, and I am saying this as a Gen Z-er.

As a millennial I agree with this. It has been a constant fight over many years to get democracy where it is now, there is no point in going backwards as we still have a lot to work on going forward if we want to achieve the perfect democracy.

[Deacarsia]

Any assault on universal suffrage should be opposed, by force if neccessary. We didn't come all the way in expanding democracy just to disenfranchise an entire section of the populace based on their age, and I am saying this as a Gen Z-er.

Voting to me is mainly a means to pick competent leaders. If something interferes this, then it should be addressed in the voting laws.

This being said, I would be in favor of removing pretty much all restrictions on voting beyond legal adulthood, so long as the requirement to be a net taxpayer was imposed.

See my reasoning above.

[Deacarsia]

No! This would not bar poor people, so long as they are net taxpayers.

For example, say I run a business that gets part of its income from the government, such as arms manufacturing. The part of my income that comes from government would be counted as a negative tax payment for accounting purposes. If my net taxes payed are negative, or if I receive more from the government than I pay in taxes, then I would be barred from voting.

On the other hand, say I was a poor person, but little of my income came from the government. Since I would be a net taxpayer, or pay more to the government than I receive, then I would be permitted to vote.

In this scenario, the poor person can vote, but the rich person cannot since he benefits from corporate welfare. Democracies fail when the voters discover that they can vote for themselves money from the public treasury.

This plan would save democracy from collapse, since the voters would not have pecuniary interest in the government, just as some countries prohibit legislators from voting on measures that personally benefit them.

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

[Greed and Death]

No. This is ridiculous lol. Elderly people have significantly more life experience than the younger generation and will make far better decisions. This is crazier than "voters should be 16", because at least that one isn't completely dumb

That's a hot take. I find that the elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I am not saying young people aren't, just living longer does not mean it makes you wiser.

Sounds more like you can't acccept the older wiser people are mor elikely than not right.

Great news though because the Boomers and their children had few kids the Boomers are set to be in control for longer than any other generation in history. So the smart money is on Tax cuts, Social security increases and deep cuts to all other social programs for the foreseeable future.

[Kowani]

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

Your intention is irrelevant as to the end result of your proposal.

Furthermore, they’re based on bad logic.

[Deacarsia]

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

Your intention is irrelevant as to the end result of your proposal.

Furthermore, they’re based on bad logic.

Of course my intention is irrelevant to the end result, but that does not refute my reasoning. Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw?

[Kowani]

Your intention is irrelevant as to the end result of your proposal.

Furthermore, they’re based on bad logic.

Of course my intention is irrelevant to the end result, but that does not refute my reasoning. Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw?

The first problem is your claim that this won’t prevent the poor from voting. It absolutely will.
Your second problem is the idea that people that aren’t net taxpayers don’t have an interest in good governance.
Your third problem is the idea that disenfranchising people will automatically lead to better selection of leaders or “preservation of democracy.”
Your final flaw is misunderstanding how politicians, corporate leaders, and the like influence the democratic system.

[Deacarsia]

Of course my intention is irrelevant to the end result, but that does not refute my reasoning. Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw?

The first problem is your claim that this won’t prevent the poor from voting. It absolutely will.
Your second problem is the idea that people that aren’t net taxpayers don’t have an interest in good governance.
Your third problem is the idea that disenfranchising people will automatically lead to better selection of leaders or “preservation of democracy.”
Your final flaw is misunderstanding how politicians, corporate leaders, and the like influence the democratic system.

Your first point does not prove that this would prevent the poor from voting. Merely asserting something does not make it true.
Your second point does not affect my argument. People that are not net taxpayers do have an interest in good government, but the incentive is for them to vote for more benefits. If the vote were restricted to net taxpayers, then only those with skin in the game would have a say, which would promote good governance.
Your third point does not refute my argument. What is wrong with the idea? Again, merely asserting its falsehood does not refute it.
Your final point does not explain how I misunderstand how the democratic system works, but once again merely asserts that I do.

You have not refuted any of my reasoning, so again I ask: Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw in my argument?

[Kubra]

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

You don't support barring poor people from suffrage, you merely want policy that *incidentally* prevents poor people from voting.
Me, I want property requirements on voting. It's not like I *want* those without property to vote, it's merely an unfortunate byproduct, no?

[Lat-Errier]

Nah. What would even be the cutoff age? "Old people" is vague as hell.

Yeah, no one should be able to vote.

Nobody should be able to vote.

Don't hurt yourselves playing with sharp edges~

"Everyone I disagree with is being edgy"
Not being edgy. I legit think voting is a dumb system.

[Kubra]

Nah. What would even be the cutoff age? "Old people" is vague as hell.


Don't hurt yourselves playing with sharp edges~

"Everyone I disagree with is being edgy"
Not being edgy. I legit think voting is a dumb system.

What shall we do instead, herr professor?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

That's a hot take. I find that the elderly are far more prone to be swayed by propaganda and while I am not saying young people aren't, just living longer does not mean it makes you wiser.

Sounds more like you can't acccept the older wiser people are mor elikely than not right.

Great news though because the Boomers and their children had few kids the Boomers are set to be in control for longer than any other generation in history. So the smart money is on Tax cuts, Social security increases and deep cuts to all other social programs for the foreseeable future.

You really think conservative Boomers are fit to manage the country after their deregulation and implementation of trickledown economics (Also known as neoliberalism) led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

"Everyone I disagree with is being edgy"
Not being edgy. I legit think voting is a dumb system.

What shall we do instead, herr professor?

He is an absolute monarchist, hence he likely wants you to be forever chained to a landowner and be forced to work in dirty rags and without pay while prostrating thyself to "le Roi" who gets off to seeing you exploited.

[Xmara]

No! This would not bar poor people, so long as they are net taxpayers.

For example, say I run a business that gets part of its income from the government, such as arms manufacturing. The part of my income that comes from government would be counted as a negative tax payment for accounting purposes. If my net taxes payed are negative, or if I receive more from the government than I pay in taxes, then I would be barred from voting.

On the other hand, say I was a poor person, but little of my income came from the government. Since I would be a net taxpayer, or pay more to the government than I receive, then I would be permitted to vote.

In this scenario, the poor person can vote, but the rich person cannot since he benefits from corporate welfare. Democracies fail when the voters discover that they can vote for themselves money from the public treasury.

This plan would save democracy from collapse, since the voters would not have pecuniary interest in the government, just as some countries prohibit legislators from voting on measures that personally benefit them.

Sounds like barring poor folk from voting to me. It also sounds like a great way to keep the poor poor. I should know, I'm from Louisiana. Such restrictions only bring detriment to society.

Glad to know that I'm not the only one who thinks they are suggesting that. I wasn't sure if I was reading it right or not.

[Deacarsia]

I absolutely do not want to bar poor people from voting! I want the government to have competent and responsible leaders, and allowing anyone to vote who has a pecuniary interest in the government causes issues. My goal is to preserve democracy.

If someone has a personal interest in the government, then this will affect their judgment. If anything, my proposal would bar politicians, bureaucrats, and many corporate leaders from voting.

Additionally, Louisiana does not restrict the vote in this manner, nor does any other state or country. If other restrictions are causing issues, then they should be repealed.

You don't support barring poor people from suffrage, you merely want policy that *incidentally* prevents poor people from voting.
Me, I want property requirements on voting. It's not like I *want* those without property to vote, it's merely an unfortunate byproduct, no?

You have not demonstrated that my proposal bars poor people from suffrage, but merely have asserted it without evidence. Asserting something does not make it true.

Also, property requirements on voting by its nature would mean that you did not want those with property to vote, just as a net taxpaying requirement by its nature means that I would not want those who are not net taxpayers to vote.

Neither proposal necessarily has anything to do with the poor, and I demonstrated in my argument that poor people still would be able to vote if they were net taxpayers, just as rich people would be barred if they were not.

You have not refuted or even addressed my argument, but only made bald assertions. Once more, I ask: Why is my logic bad? Where is the flaw in my argument?