Topic: It should be illegal to tax minors, and yet they (unconstitutionally) do it anyway.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,751
Taxation without representation. Either give youth tax exemption, or the vote.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #84,324
@OP
If you sell a baby there is no tax.
If you sell a baby there is no tax.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,327
@OP
> Taxation without representation. Either give youth tax exemption, or the vote.
Do not believe everything you read.
To add that USA Citizens who live in WDC are taxed, nor do they have representation.
> Taxation without representation. Either give youth tax exemption, or the vote.
Do not believe everything you read.
To add that USA Citizens who live in WDC are taxed, nor do they have representation.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,342
@previous (Syntax)
> To add that USA Citizens who live in WDC are taxed, nor do they have representation.
And the people are so pissed off about this that their licence plates say "taxation without representation".
> To add that USA Citizens who live in WDC are taxed, nor do they have representation.
And the people are so pissed off about this that their licence plates say "taxation without representation".
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #84,381
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,415
It's not like their votes would ever make a difference, plus I'd rather not have 15-year-old voting. Hell, I know 30-year-olds who I wish didn't vote. Voting age is 18 for a reason.
I do agree, however, that minors should not have to pay taxes. Just let them keep what little money they can earn at that age in exchange for their voting rights. They should change the drinking age to 18 also.
Also, I think it makes sense that people in DC can't vote. Most of the people living in DC work for the government and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government. If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
I do agree, however, that minors should not have to pay taxes. Just let them keep what little money they can earn at that age in exchange for their voting rights. They should change the drinking age to 18 also.
Also, I think it makes sense that people in DC can't vote. Most of the people living in DC work for the government and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government. If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,449
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,485
@84,415 (D)
See: http://www.youthrights.org/vote10.php they make a lot of good points.
> It's not like their votes would ever make a difference
A large number of new voters would make a difference in close elections.
> plus I'd rather not have 15-year-old voting. Hell, I know 30-year-olds who I wish didn't vote.
The site I linked to had a great point:
> If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?
> The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens."9 But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting." 10
> Even beyond senile, neurotic, and psychotic adults, regular adults often do not meet the unrealistic standard opponents to youth voting propose. Turn on the Tonight Show one night and see the collection of adult buffoons who can't tell Jay Leno who the vice-president is, or who have forgotten how many states are in this country. Yet these adults are happily given the right to vote. The fact is, intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting. Though "…under voting rights jurisprudence, literacy tests are highly suspect (and indeed are banned under federal law), and lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for withholding the franchise."11 Youth shouldn't be held to a stricter standard than adults; lower the voting age.
> Furthermore, even the federal government agrees that most youth have the necessary knowledge to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1971((c)) states that: "any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in [. . .] any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election." If a Sixth grade education is deemed adequate knowledge to vote, how can older youth be denied the right to vote?
> Most of the people living in DC work for the government
Wrong, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia#Economy
> and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government.
Why not just prohibit any government employees then? Only a fraction are in DC.
> If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
You would be pissed if your city was singled out, and so would everyone else in the city.
Telling people "if you want to vote, you have to leave your home, and life (which is not easy)" is ridiculous.
See: http://www.youthrights.org/vote10.php they make a lot of good points.
> It's not like their votes would ever make a difference
A large number of new voters would make a difference in close elections.
> plus I'd rather not have 15-year-old voting. Hell, I know 30-year-olds who I wish didn't vote.
The site I linked to had a great point:
> If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?
> The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens."9 But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting." 10
> Even beyond senile, neurotic, and psychotic adults, regular adults often do not meet the unrealistic standard opponents to youth voting propose. Turn on the Tonight Show one night and see the collection of adult buffoons who can't tell Jay Leno who the vice-president is, or who have forgotten how many states are in this country. Yet these adults are happily given the right to vote. The fact is, intelligence or maturity is not the basis upon which the right to vote is granted, if that were the case all voters would need to pass a test before voting. Though "…under voting rights jurisprudence, literacy tests are highly suspect (and indeed are banned under federal law), and lack of education or information about election issues is not a basis for withholding the franchise."11 Youth shouldn't be held to a stricter standard than adults; lower the voting age.
> Furthermore, even the federal government agrees that most youth have the necessary knowledge to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1971((c)) states that: "any person who has not been adjudged an incompetent and who has completed the sixth grade in [. . .] any State or territory, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where instruction is carried on predominantly in the English language, possesses sufficient literacy, comprehension, and intelligence to vote in any election." If a Sixth grade education is deemed adequate knowledge to vote, how can older youth be denied the right to vote?
> Most of the people living in DC work for the government
Wrong, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia#Economy
> and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government.
Why not just prohibit any government employees then? Only a fraction are in DC.
> If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
You would be pissed if your city was singled out, and so would everyone else in the city.
Telling people "if you want to vote, you have to leave your home, and life (which is not easy)" is ridiculous.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,487
@previous (A)
> If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?
Most smart youth just think they are.
Also, pretty sure "no taxation without representation" is a slogan, not a constitutional right.
> If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?
Most smart youth just think they are.
Also, pretty sure "no taxation without representation" is a slogan, not a constitutional right.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,489
@previous (F)
> Most smart youth just think they are.
Most youth don't care enough to vote, but some interested in politics will vote.
> Also, pretty sure "no taxation without representation" is a slogan, not a constitutional right.
Yes, in America "x is a constitution right" is a figure of speech. Want free beer? It's a constitutional right.
If youth get started caring about politics early then later on they will have more educated opinions of it all.
> Most smart youth just think they are.
Most youth don't care enough to vote, but some interested in politics will vote.
> Also, pretty sure "no taxation without representation" is a slogan, not a constitutional right.
Yes, in America "x is a constitution right" is a figure of speech. Want free beer? It's a constitutional right.
If youth get started caring about politics early then later on they will have more educated opinions of it all.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,494
@previous (A)
> Yes, in America "x is a constitution right" is a figure of speech. Want free beer? It's a constitutional right.
lol.
Pretty sure that's just some bullshit you made up then.
> Yes, in America "x is a constitution right" is a figure of speech. Want free beer? It's a constitutional right.
lol.
Pretty sure that's just some bullshit you made up then.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,502
The added risk of child abuse as extortion for votes for the parent's agenda is enough to make this a bad idea.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,522
@previous (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
Except people will always try to convince others to vote their way. This problem has already been addressed.
"Child, you better vote for the GOP!"
"Okay mom!"
*votes for the Dems, no one ever knows*
It's private for a reason.
Except people will always try to convince others to vote their way. This problem has already been addressed.
"Child, you better vote for the GOP!"
"Okay mom!"
*votes for the Dems, no one ever knows*
It's private for a reason.
drea mworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,982
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #85,257
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
The issue is slightly more complicated than many make it out to be.
The issue is slightly more complicated than many make it out to be.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,447
@previous (I)
The idea is simple enough: if your money is being taken, you should have a say in where it goes, otherwise it resembles theft much more.
But yes, anything can be examined to a great degree.
The idea is simple enough: if your money is being taken, you should have a say in where it goes, otherwise it resembles theft much more.
But yes, anything can be examined to a great degree.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,457
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,481
@previous (I)
The American revolutionaries would not consider today's teens as being represented.
(if your going to make a claim, back it up, otherwise I can just make the opposite claim, and we have achieved nothing)
The American revolutionaries would not consider today's teens as being represented.
(if your going to make a claim, back it up, otherwise I can just make the opposite claim, and we have achieved nothing)
Auschwitz !b.8nkuAfGw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,484
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,492
@85,481 (A)
> The issue is slightly more complicated than many make it out to be.
You clearly have not even done basic research on the phrase. I backed up my claim with a link to the topic on wikipedia. A simple perusal of the article will show what representation was taken to mean.
> The issue is slightly more complicated than many make it out to be.
You clearly have not even done basic research on the phrase. I backed up my claim with a link to the topic on wikipedia. A simple perusal of the article will show what representation was taken to mean.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,503
@previous (K)
I'm not going to read an article and try to make your point for you. If you have a point, make it. If you would like to copy a point from Wikipedia, do it. but giving a source =/= giving an argument
It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
I'm not going to read an article and try to make your point for you. If you have a point, make it. If you would like to copy a point from Wikipedia, do it. but giving a source =/= giving an argument
It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,531
@previous (A)
> It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
LOL. The slogan is "No Taxation Without Representation."
I am not here to teach a class on the subject. If you want to learn, find out for yourself.
> It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
LOL. The slogan is "No Taxation Without Representation."
I am not here to teach a class on the subject. If you want to learn, find out for yourself.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,572
@84,415 (D)
> Also, I think it makes sense that people in DC can't vote. Most of the people living in DC work for the government and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government. If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
...almost everyone who works for the Federal Government lives in the vast suburbs of the surrounding states.
You know who lives in D.C. outside of the Capitol and Georgetown? Ghetto black people. You're racist nigga
> Also, I think it makes sense that people in DC can't vote. Most of the people living in DC work for the government and therefore have way too much of a vested interest in supporting bigger government. If voting is that important to you, don't live within the city limits. Why the hell would anyone want to live in DC anyway?
...almost everyone who works for the Federal Government lives in the vast suburbs of the surrounding states.
You know who lives in D.C. outside of the Capitol and Georgetown? Ghetto black people. You're racist nigga
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,660
@85,531 (L)
> >It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
> LOL. The slogan is "No Taxation Without Representation."
No shit.
> I am not here to teach a class on the subject. If you want to learn, find out for yourself.
*facepalm*
> won't back up argument
> I'm not a teacher
ohlol.
> >It's not that complicated, it can be expressed in a single slogan.
> LOL. The slogan is "No Taxation Without Representation."
No shit.
> I am not here to teach a class on the subject. If you want to learn, find out for yourself.
*facepalm*
> won't back up argument
> I'm not a teacher
ohlol.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,790
@previous (A)
I am not responsible for your intellectual improvement. I will not gain anything by convincing you. I have shown you where you main gain information about this subject and you refuse to read it.
You are either a troll or an American. lol.
I am not responsible for your intellectual improvement. I will not gain anything by convincing you. I have shown you where you main gain information about this subject and you refuse to read it.
You are either a troll or an American. lol.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,804
@previous (N)
> I am a shitty debator
FTFY. If you don't care to convince people, don't bother sharing your opinion. If you can't back up your opinion, don't share it.
> I have shown you where you main gain information about this subject and you refuse to read it.
I've read it, and come to a different conclusion. It is a very simple concept.
> I am a shitty debator
FTFY. If you don't care to convince people, don't bother sharing your opinion. If you can't back up your opinion, don't share it.
> I have shown you where you main gain information about this subject and you refuse to read it.
I've read it, and come to a different conclusion. It is a very simple concept.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,826
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,900
@85,804 (A)
People can share their opinions without trying to convince others of their opinion, start debates, or give an explanation for their opinions. You're trying to force him to have a debate that he clearly doesn't want to have.
People can share their opinions without trying to convince others of their opinion, start debates, or give an explanation for their opinions. You're trying to force him to have a debate that he clearly doesn't want to have.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #85,920
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Giving an opinion and nothing else is pointless. If he doesn't want to have a debate that's fine, but jumping in, saying "I disagree" without any backing argument is stupid.
Giving an opinion and nothing else is pointless. If he doesn't want to have a debate that's fine, but jumping in, saying "I disagree" without any backing argument is stupid.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #86,001
@previous (A)
Well, that's just your opinion. I can go into a poll thread and vote and not make a post justifying my vote. Jumping into a thread and stating an opinion is no different.
Well, that's just your opinion. I can go into a poll thread and vote and not make a post justifying my vote. Jumping into a thread and stating an opinion is no different.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #86,013
I didn't jump in and say I disagree. I claimed the topic was more complex than you were representing it to be. I also showed that your central premise was not strictly true.
If you said the sky is green and I said the sky was blue and linked to an article that said the sky was blue, which one of us is without proof?
If you said the sky is green and I said the sky was blue and linked to an article that said the sky was blue, which one of us is without proof?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #86,423
@86,001 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Well, that's just your opinion.
No, I actually back up my opinions, and have conversations.
> I can go into a poll thread and vote and not make a post justifying my vote.
This is not a poll. If I merely wanted to see how people stand on the issue, I'd make a poll, but I didn't.
> Jumping into a thread and stating an opinion is no different.
Yes, it is. This is a conversation, not a survey.
> Well, that's just your opinion.
No, I actually back up my opinions, and have conversations.
> I can go into a poll thread and vote and not make a post justifying my vote.
This is not a poll. If I merely wanted to see how people stand on the issue, I'd make a poll, but I didn't.
> Jumping into a thread and stating an opinion is no different.
Yes, it is. This is a conversation, not a survey.