[smudgie]

18.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Why should money be redistributed, instead of finding ways for people to earn their own money?

As Vicky said; because unfortunately we live in the real world, not in fairytale land where there is ample full time employment at decent wages available for every citizen.

[RichardG]

18

at 16 i almost certainly would have voted the monster raving looney party in an election and leave in the eu ref just for the lols. you do grow up quite a lot between 16-18, and even more so between 18-20.

[waterhog]

Originally Posted by RichardG

18

at 16 i almost certainly would have voted the monster raving looney party in an election and leave in the eu ref just for the lols. you do grow up quite a lot between 16-18, and even more so between 18-20.

so you are old enough to go out and get a job at 16 but not be able to vote ?


I don't think so sunny jim

[Northern Monkey]

21.Everyone’s a communist before then

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by RichardG

18

at 16 i almost certainly would have voted the monster raving looney party in an election and leave in the eu ref just for the lols. you do grow up quite a lot between 16-18, and even more so between 18-20.

Had to smile at this as it is generally so true. At sixteen people want to try to be different and rebel. Hopefully they have grown out of that by eighteen.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As Vicky said; because unfortunately we live in the real world, not in fairytale land where there is ample full time employment at decent wages available for every citizen.

Decent wages requires decent effort - something many can’t be Bothered with. Why should those that can’t be bothered get the same as those that can? Takes away the motivation for those that DO.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Decent wages requires decent effort - something many can’t be Bothered with. Why should those that can’t be bothered get the same as those that can? Takes away the motivation for those that DO.

Brillo are we really going to go over this again? Not all hard work leads to good wages, and not all good wages come from hard work. On top of that, there are not enough jobs for full employment to start with, and even the lowest skilled of fulltime jobs should provide enough income for basic sustenance. Noone who works fulltime should have to claim any benefits. Either wages need to go up or cost of living goes down. I really don't understand where this idea that the only people out of work or in lower paying jobs are people who simply aren't motivated to be rich comes from...

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Brillo are we really going to go over this again? Not all hard work leads to good wages, and not all good wages come from hard work. On top of that, there are not enough jobs for full employment to start with, and even the lowest skilled of fulltime jobs should provide enough income for basic sustenance. Noone who works fulltime should have to claim any benefits. Either wages need to go up or cost of living goes down. I really don't understand where this idea that the only people out of work or in lower paying jobs are people who simply aren't motivated to be rich comes from...

I’m certainly not saying that all unemployed or low earners are lazy, but a lot are. The times I have heard people say why should they work in a low paid job if they can get the same in benefits - eh! What about for the self respect of paying their way until they can find something better.

It is also a well accepted fact that it is easier to get a job if you already have one. It’s called Thinking ahead and doing all you can to help yourself.

‘Nothing worth having comes easy’. There is a reason why such expressions exist - because they are so true!

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I’m certainly not saying that all unemployed or low earners are lazy, but a lot are. The times I have heard people say why should they work in a low paid job if they can get the same in benefits - eh! What about for the self respect of paying their way until they can find something better.

It is also a well accepted fact that it is easier to get a job if you already have one. It’s called Thinking ahead and doing all you can to help yourself.

‘Nothing worth having comes easy’. There is a reason why such expressions exist - because they are so true!

Well yes, those people are just lazy, and also wrong. I don't really understand how anyone could think this when a quick check online on one of the benefit checker things shows that noone is better off on benefits than in work. Unless they have severe disabilities, where the amounts are about the same, but tbh I wouldn't expect anyone with severe disabilities to work anyway unless they wanted to.

I wouldn't say its a lot that are like this either tbh. More a minority who are paraded around in the press on a regular basis to make out that loads are like that I think. And a loud minority in real life too...as those genuinely seeking work won't be going about 'bragging' about benefits and such...as most people are ashamed to claim so wouldn't talk about it(because of the stigma attached) so you will only hear from people who are just pisstakers really. But yes, that attitude is pretty **** I obviously agree with that.

Though honestly...I think there must be something very wrong with people who think having 70 quid a week to pay bills and feed yourself is a way they WANT to live

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well yes, those people are just lazy, and also wrong. I don't really understand how anyone could think this when a quick check online on one of the benefit checker things shows that noone is better off on benefits than in work. Unless they have severe disabilities, where the amounts are about the same, but tbh I wouldn't expect anyone with severe disabilities to work anyway unless they wanted to.

I wouldn't say its a lot that are like this either tbh. More a minority who are paraded around in the press on a regular basis to make out that loads are like that I think. And a loud minority in real life too...as those genuinely seeking work won't be going about 'bragging' about benefits and such...as most people are ashamed to claim so wouldn't talk about it(because of the stigma attached) so you will only hear from people who are just pisstakers really. But yes, that attitude is pretty **** I obviously agree with that.

Though honestly...I think there must be something very wrong with people who think having 70 quid a week to pay bills and feed yourself is a way they WANT to live

I think things have changed considerably since the introduction of universal credit, the aim of which was clearly to stop such attitudes but seems to have gone too far the other way. At the very least people should have their rent and council tax paid as well as the benefit rate for everything else. You hear about so many losing their homes because it is impossible to pay anything towards their rent out of the amount they receive in benefits.

The disabled are a different category because they can’t work and are entitled to a higher, liveable rate of benefit.

[Vicky.]

UC is just utterly terrible. The basic idea behind it was decent, but as usual it was bungled and not thought through properly at all...its clear its not working, yet the Tories are pushing ahead with it anyway despite numerous warnings from charities and even their own members :S

[Toy Soldier]

It has never been possible to have the same or more money on benefits than in work. Ever. It is a tabloid myth. I don't know huge amounts about Universal Credit but I do know the OLD system (separate tax credits, JSA/Income Support, housing and council tax benefits) inside out. Full time minimum wage is significantly more than JSA / income support (which you would lose in work). Tax credits scaled with income and are available even at semi-decent wages. Housing benefit also scaled with income at a 65% taper rate (every £1 earned = 65p less benefit) so, again, always 35% better off in work.

The ONLY ways that it has ever been possible to be worse off in work than out of work, is if there would be large childcare or travel expenses involved in working (e.g. someone being £40 a week better off in work sounds great, until you realize that their commute to work is costing £50 a week).

The latter is why I personally believe there should be free public transport for people on low incomes, and that this would solve a LOT of problems, but that's a different discussion.

|The basics here are... you can't get more on benefits than in work. Cannot. Never have been able to. It is impossible, unless the forms have been filled in incorrectly.

[joeysteele]

I agree people's opinions change as they get older and some form of being a rebel as to voting is likely too.

However speaking for myself,I was fascinated by politics from much younger than 16.

At 16 I'd have for sure voted Conservative, by the time I was 18 analysing the 2010 manifesto,I felt I could not for the NHS.
So voted Lib Dem.

Now massively disillusioned and shocked at what the Cons and Lib Dems did in govt.
From 2013 onwards I'd say I have progressed to the more left side of politics and now solidly backed Labour in 2015 and this year's election.

Voting here there or anywhere however is not the issue for me,things that are done by govts.affect people's futures.
At 16 a fair bit as much as for others in the UK.
It is then the right to have a choice at 16,to vote or not to use a vote,or vote for an individual or any party you may feel you wish to.

That's no different to me whether you are 16 or 96.
A right to vote as to those who can make laws and rules as to 'your' lives,is the issue.
I therefore see no reason to now continue to deny 16 year olds that right.

[Jamie89]

16. I don't actually think that many 16 year olds would vote if they weren't interested in politics anyway so I don't think the 'they won't understand what they're voting for' argument would be much of an issue, but for the ones that are interested why not allow them? By law they're old enough to be parents and work in full time jobs so they should also have a say in the politics that affects them, and they're also considered to be educated to high enough degree that they can leave school so if it's something that they are interested in they should be considered capable of being knowledgeable enough. If it's true that their politics are likely to change when they get older then they can vote for a different party when they're older so I don't really see the validity in that argument either tbh.

[Jack_]

16. There's a multitude of reasons why, but if you want the most important of them all just skip to the TLDR bit at the bottom.

For starters, up until the recent general election we've had a serious problem in this country with trying to encourage young people to participate in politics. There aren't many people (except a few on here ) who think we shouldn't try and do something to alleviate that, and decreasing the voting age would be a good start. You only have to look at the successful turnout rates in the Scottish independence referendum among 16 and 17 year olds to see how it could be replicated elsewhere. It's quite simple - you introduce compulsory social science/political subjects to the curriculum from Y7 onwards, and voila, you have a politically minded cohort of young people ready to participate in democracy. The only reason this continues not to be implemented through successive governments is because a politically educated population is a threat to the establishment.

I also fundamentally disagree with the 'they wouldn't know what they're voting for/would vote stupidly' sentiment. How do I put this nicely? There's many, many people over the age 18...28...38...48, and so on, who are...let's say...not best equipped to be making an informed and rational vote themselves. The point is that there are people of all ages who know very little about politics, but still participate in elections. That is democracy. Unless people propose introducing some sort of exam before you're entitled to vote, then I don't see why extending the privilege to 16 and 17 year olds - who I'd say are about 80% more likely to be engaged in and studying politics than Brenda from Bristol - is such a problem. I was fully engrossed in politics by about 16 and a half, and so were many of my peers. If people don't care about politics and don't want to vote...they're not going to. This applies to 16 year olds just as much as it does 40 year olds.

Finally, and to the TLDR part: it's that old adage, no taxation without representation. No ifs, no buts, no rebuttals or disputes - that's literally the single most important reason. And an indefensible one as far as I'm concerned.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

16. There's a multitude of reasons why, but if you want the most important of them all just skip to the TLDR bit at the bottom.

For starters, up until the recent general election we've had a serious problem in this country with trying to encourage young people to participate in politics. There aren't many people (except a few on here ) who think we shouldn't try and do something to alleviate that, and decreasing the voting age would be a good start. You only have to look at the successful turnout rates in the Scottish independence referendum among 16 and 17 year olds to see how it could be replicated elsewhere. It's quite simple - you introduce compulsory social science/political subjects to the curriculum from Y7 onwards, and voila, you have a politically minded cohort of young people ready to participate in democracy. The only reason this continues not to be implemented through successive governments is because a politically educated population is a threat to the establishment.

I also fundamentally disagree with the 'they wouldn't know what they're voting for/would vote stupidly' sentiment. How do I put this nicely? There's many, many people over the age 18...28...38...48, and so on, who are...let's say...not best equipped to be making an informed and rational vote themselves. The point is that there are people of all ages who know very little about politics, but still participate in elections. That is democracy. Unless people propose introducing some sort of exam before you're entitled to vote, then I don't see why extending the privilege to 16 and 17 year olds - who I'd say are about 80% more likely to be engaged in and studying politics than Brenda from Bristol - is such a problem. I was fully engrossed in politics by about 16 and a half, and so were many of my peers. If people don't care about politics and don't want to vote...they're not going to. This applies to 16 year olds just as much as it does 40 year olds.

Finally, and to the TLDR part: it's that old adage, no taxation without representation. No ifs, no buts, no rebuttals or disputes - that's literally the single most important reason. And an indefensible one as far as I'm concerned.

hhhmmm I think if they did it in conjunction with the schools through a politics class like you suggested it could be a very good idea alright. It is important to get younger people voting and having an interest in how the country is being run

[Littlegreen]

Definitely not 16, they may complain about the older generations determining their apparent futures (makes you laugh they literally assume a fruitful future should be given to them on a plate) but the truth is that that age group would inevitably not bother voting. As was proven when the 18-24 age group was the lowest turnout in the Brexit vote.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

16. There's a multitude of reasons why, but if you want the most important of them all just skip to the TLDR bit at the bottom.

For starters, up until the recent general election we've had a serious problem in this country with trying to encourage young people to participate in politics. There aren't many people (except a few on here ) who think we shouldn't try and do something to alleviate that, and decreasing the voting age would be a good start. You only have to look at the successful turnout rates in the Scottish independence referendum among 16 and 17 year olds to see how it could be replicated elsewhere. It's quite simple - you introduce compulsory social science/political subjects to the curriculum from Y7 onwards, and voila, you have a politically minded cohort of young people ready to participate in democracy. The only reason this continues not to be implemented through successive governments is because a politically educated population is a threat to the establishment.

I also fundamentally disagree with the 'they wouldn't know what they're voting for/would vote stupidly' sentiment. How do I put this nicely? There's many, many people over the age 18...28...38...48, and so on, who are...let's say...not best equipped to be making an informed and rational vote themselves. The point is that there are people of all ages who know very little about politics, but still participate in elections. That is democracy. Unless people propose introducing some sort of exam before you're entitled to vote, then I don't see why extending the privilege to 16 and 17 year olds - who I'd say are about 80% more likely to be engaged in and studying politics than Brenda from Bristol - is such a problem. I was fully engrossed in politics by about 16 and a half, and so were many of my peers. If people don't care about politics and don't want to vote...they're not going to. This applies to 16 year olds just as much as it does 40 year olds.

Finally, and to the TLDR part: it's that old adage, no taxation without representation. No ifs, no buts, no rebuttals or disputes - that's literally the single most important reason. And an indefensible one as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly,a superb post again Jack_

I don't disagree with a single point made.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Littlegreen

Definitely not 16, they may complain about the older generations determining their apparent futures (makes you laugh they literally assume a fruitful future should be given to them on a plate) but the truth is that that age group would inevitably not bother voting. As was proven when the 18-24 age group was the lowest turnout in the Brexit vote.

This is an odd reason...don't lower to 16, as 16 year olds wouldn't vote. So...why not give them the option to, if you reckon they wouldn't anyway? Really can't understand that unless I am reading it totally wrong which is entirely possible

[Tom4784]

16 is the logical age to allow voting. As you'll either start working or go into further education at that point. Either way they should have their say.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Littlegreen

Definitely not 16, they may complain about the older generations determining their apparent futures (makes you laugh they literally assume a fruitful future should be given to them on a plate) but the truth is that that age group would inevitably not bother voting. As was proven when the 18-24 age group was the lowest turnout in the Brexit vote.

So demographics with low voting stats shouldn't be allowed a say?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Finally, and to the TLDR part: it's that old adage, no taxation without representation. No ifs, no buts, no rebuttals or disputes - that's literally the single most important reason. And an indefensible one as far as I'm concerned.

That is an important point and one that I agree with. No matter what the voting age is set at... if you can't vote, then you shouldn't pay direct tax, full stop. 17 year old with their own business making £2k a week? Tough **** Mr Taxman, 0% tax until voting age.

I mean I know it's rare for under-18's to be earning much anyway, especially with the new rules about being in training or education until 18 (whereas before, many 16 year olds were in full time min wage employment and paying a little tax) but I'm sure it does happen. Kid YouTubers, young app developers, etc.

Definitely shouldn't be paying a single penny in tax until their vote is valid .

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

16 is the logical age to allow voting. As you'll either start working or go into further education at that point. Either way they should have their say.

Yes to this absolutely.

[Denver]

Seeing as 80% of under 18s only wanted to stay in the EU for free travel that says it all