• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Discrimination on the basis of age; why is it constitutional?

maquiscat said:
Ok I can see that interpertation. That said usually a poll tax is one imposed at the polling place or in place specifically for voting. This is not what he is proposing, unless he worded poorly. The same taxes are in place regardless of what the net results are. Additionally, he is also balancing them against benefits derived from the government, which are not a tax. So there is no specific tax to vote and the amount of benefits received affect the ability to vote. I really would not call that a poll tax.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Unless I misread his post......that was my understanding; if you dont pay taxes, you dont vote.

The number of people that was disenfranchise would be mind boggling.

So in essence, I do consider it a "poll tax", if not specifically called one....no taxes, no vote.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That super simple system ignores things like the sales tax - if someone (an 8 year old) buys a pack of gum then they paid tax. Although my Social Security (SS) income is said to be tax free (because I pay no federal income tax on it) I do spend that money on items subject to sales and excise taxation as well as use it to pay rent which, in turn, is used to pay property and school district taxes.

The idea of of using net tax to limit voting rights seems much like a return to the (good old?) days where only real estate owners could vote.
Click to expand...


No, not sales tax or any taxes you choose to pay.

I'm talking state and federal taxes - the ones you have to file every year.

Everyone who pays tax should be allowed to vote. Regardless of whether or not they're a citizen.

No-one who doesn't pay tax, should be allowed to vote. It would give people an incentive to both file their taxes and work.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why would it be a poll tax ?

Income tax is quite sufficient.
Click to expand...

Any tax required as a prerequisite for voting is still a poll tax however you choose to name it.
 
Rich2018 said:
But not an EXTRA tax.


Your words about implementing a new (poll) tax.
Click to expand...

To-MAY-to.....To-MAH-to.

Call it whatever you like.
 
Rich2018 said:
You're the one who's not particular about incorrectly labeling things.

See post# 31.
Click to expand...

Argue semantics and play word games if you like.

Carry on.
 
Bum said:
Argue semantics and play word games if you like.

Carry on.
Click to expand...


...or just read what the term ""poll Tax" actually means.

You've been given the link, seemingly you're reluctant to accept you're wrong.
 
Rich2018 said:
Specifically income tax rather than taxes you choose to pay.
Click to expand...
There are many other taxes that one does not choose to pay, albeit some might be passed on to you, such as property taxes when you rent.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Bum said:
Unless I misread his post......that was my understanding; if you dont pay taxes, you dont vote.

The number of people that was disenfranchise would be mind boggling.

So in essence, I do consider it a "poll tax", if not specifically called one....no taxes, no vote.
Click to expand...
He did specifically state that is was the amount paid compared to benefits received.

The question is, is there really a right to vote? SCOTUS has several times ruled that there is not on a federal level. You cannot be barred based on certain conditions, such as skin color, gender/sex, and others. However, per the rulings, it is still technically legal to limit voting to property owners.

Me personally, I like the idea as done in Starship Troopers (the book not the film). You have to serve in the military in order to be a voting citizen. Now with that, you should then be allowed some choices. You can serve in support positions, such as clerks, and payroll and even in child care for other service members. Physical fitness should only go so far in determining if you can serve, but instead be the limiting factor for certain roles within the military.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
He did specifically state that is was the amount paid compared to benefits received.

The question is, is there really a right to vote? SCOTUS has several times ruled that there is not on a federal level. You cannot be barred based on certain conditions, such as skin color, gender/sex, and others. However, per the rulings, it is still technically legal to limit voting to property owners.

Me personally, I like the idea as done in Starship Troopers (the book not the film). You have to serve in the military in order to be a voting citizen. Now with that, you should then be allowed some choices. You can serve in support positions, such as clerks, and payroll and even in child care for other service members. Physical fitness should only go so far in determining if you can serve, but instead be the limiting factor for certain roles within the military.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I live in Georgia


I am not a US citizen...so I pay my income tax and all the other taxes yet I am not permitted a say as to who spends my tax dollars.


I served in the military too.


Just not the US military.
 
Rich2018 said:
I live in Georgia


I am not a US citizen...so I pay my income tax and all the other taxes yet I am not permitted a say as to who spends my tax dollars.


I served in the military too.


Just not the US military.
Click to expand...

First off, my suggestion holds the premise that to be a citizen of a country, you serve in that country's military.

Secondly, per the OP, the idea is that if you do pay income taxes it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, you get to vote.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
First off, my suggestion holds the premise that to be a citizen of a country, you serve in that country's military....
Click to expand...

Does that hold for all citizens...women included?
The disabled?
What if you're rejected by the military on medical grounds (or any other grounds) ? It seems unfair.

And why the military, why wouldn't service in a fire or police department count ?

Why wouldn't a hospital nurse or doctor count ?


Why is service in the military deemed as more worthy ?


Of course in ancient Rome, military service was deemed essential in order to climb the political ladder. So maybe just have it that people elected to the highest political office must have served in the REGULAR armed forces (and the Air National Guard wouldn't count)


...the idea is that if you do pay income taxes it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not, you get to vote....
Click to expand...


I think that's only fair
 
Rich2018 said:
Does that hold for all citizens...women included?
The disabled?
What if you're rejected by the military on medical grounds (or any other grounds) ? It seems unfair.
Click to expand...

The thing is, under the concept, you wouldn't be rejected straight out for most physical issues. We are not talking about running the military as we currently are. After all, Look at all that Hawkings managed to do. People with disabilities, disorders and other currently disqualifying issues, can still do so much. Why can't a paraplegic serve by being a clerk or other bureaucratic type position in the military? Even if you just serve by providing the support services that the combat members need, you are still serving. The support structure is just as vital as the combatants.

And why the military, why wouldn't service in a fire or police department count ?

Why wouldn't a hospital nurse or doctor count ?

Why is service in the military deemed as more worthy ?
Click to expand...

Those are skills that can be learned in the military. And maybe having a more common source of these professionals will result in better service from them in the public sector as well.


I think that's only fair
Click to expand...

So then you think that it is a good system that any foreign national can come in, get a job or start a business, just so they can pay taxes and thus vote, and then vote contrary to the interests of this country? Can't think of a single country in the world that allows that. Why do you think that is?
 
I litigated (District court, 6th Circuit court of appeals) a case where a federal law enforcement officer argued that the mandatory 57 years of age of retirement violated age discrimination laws. IN his arguments before the District and Appellate courts, he noted he was very fit and that his physical condition as a federal law enforcement officer was better than many 45 year old agents. The argument that the federal government countered with was that 57 years of age was a reasonable limit given the physical demands of federal law enforcement officials-be they FBI special agents, Deputy US Marshals, or in this case, another agency. The court noted that legitimate employment requirements would not violate laws prohibiting age discrimination just as a Title VII does not prevent a studio only hiring a black actor to portray say Martin Luther King, Jr or a Chinese Actor to play Chairman Mao. The court also noted that individual exceptions would create a massive hardship to the government.

it is the same argument for limiting voting or contracting to individuals 18+ years in age. We all know 17 year old kids who are far more mature than say 23 year olds. but taking each person on a case by case basis would result in huge inefficiencies
 
TurtleDude said:
I litigated (District court, 6th Circuit court of appeals) a case where a federal law enforcement officer argued that the mandatory 57 years of age of retirement violated age discrimination laws. IN his arguments before the District and Appellate courts, he noted he was very fit and that his physical condition as a federal law enforcement officer was better than many 45 year old agents. The argument that the federal government countered with was that 57 years of age was a reasonable limit given the physical demands of federal law enforcement officials-be they FBI special agents, Deputy US Marshals, or in this case, another agency. The court noted that legitimate employment requirements would not violate laws prohibiting age discrimination just as a Title VII does not prevent a studio only hiring a black actor to portray say Martin Luther King, Jr or a Chinese Actor to play Chairman Mao. The court also noted that individual exceptions would create a massive hardship to the government.

it is the same argument for limiting voting or contracting to individuals 18+ years in age. We all know 17 year old kids who are far more mature than say 23 year olds. but taking each person on a case by case basis would result in huge inefficiencies
Click to expand...
Such exceptions should.not be on a case by case basis by the strictest sense, but on a case by case basis of those who challenge the "rule of thumb" as I noted in post 4. I do agree that we should not be looking at each and every individual, especially since we know the super majority will fir that bell curve. However, there would be no hardship since very few seek to buck that mandated age.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
...those are skills that can be learned in the military....
Click to expand...

Yes, but you seem to be saying that service in the military is held in higher regard than service in a civilian hospital.

I'm actually in favor of all young adults giving up 1 or 2 years to serve their country, however I don't think that the military is necessarily that place (though it certainly would count).
I understand that the USMC when forced to accept conscripts during the Vietnam War, was not very happy.

Having servicemen and women who don't want to be in the army / navy etc is bad for morale.


...so then you think that it is a good system that any foreign national can come in, get a job or start a business, just so they can pay taxes and thus vote, and then vote contrary to the interests of this country? Can't think of a single country in the world that allows that...
Click to expand...


Why would a foreign national come to the USA, invest time and effort into building a business and a life here...then vote for people/policies that work against the country he/she has their life invested in ?

I think it was Napoleon who said "a man will fight for his interests, more than he will fight for his rights".
 
Terryj said:
Studies have shown that the human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 26, maybe we should raise the age of responsibility to 26.
Click to expand...

Nah, young men have become too independent to blindly take orders by that age.
 
Well, the courts in the U.S. now sentence minors to life imprisonment in some areas, so it seems like there's some hypocrisy happening. They can't vote but they can serve life terms now?

Executive function doesn't fully develop until age 25-26. Executive function means.... hey, maybe I should pay this bill instead of using the money to eat pizza. Or hey, maybe I shouldn't stay up until 3am watching movies because I have to work at 8am.

18 year olds can get credit cards and enter into legal contracts. Granted, they need a co-signer and proof of income, but still... you're going to give spending credit to someone who barely has executive function happening?

Our society is utterly two-faced about this and the standards don't make a lot of sense.

maquiscat said:
Me personally, I like the idea as done in Starship Troopers (the book not the film). You have to serve in the military in order to be a voting citizen. Now with that, you should then be allowed some choices. You can serve in support positions, such as clerks, and payroll and even in child care for other service members. Physical fitness should only go so far in determining if you can serve, but instead be the limiting factor for certain roles within the military.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good idea. I see where you're coming from though. Military does create a sense of civic responsibility, but we could achieve that by reframing the fiduciary responsibility of society in general. Right now, under consumer capitalism, the responsibility is toward accumulating material goods: money, property, capital. What good is military service if the end goal still has the same material objective?

If you want a society that cares about itself, you have to raise people who care about each other. That's why the military premise works... because you get trained to submit to a greater unit, you learn cooperation, etc. There's no real incentive to do that in a society that is based on pure competition rather than complex interdependence. The military is an artificial human construct of the interdependence that already exists everywhere else, if we only shifted our perspective to seeing it. Besides which, the military is a killing machine. Why would anyone work for a military that is fighting endless wars against boogey men that don't exist, in order to profit a few?

I would not want to be beholden to a military in order to gain rights that are actually my inherent birth right.
 
Well its like the OP themselves stated. Younger people are much less experienced and arent as wise in decisions as older folks would be and they had to find a certain age of consent somewhere which is why they chose 18. You you do provide a convincing argument that in the sense many young people are overlooked for important positions in our government especially and it kills off some insight from a new generation.
 
If an 18-year-old can have a home and family and join the Marines to defend his country, then he should have the right to buy a gun to defend his family. Most of the loons doing these mass shootings are over 21. The ones who aren't, like Adam Lanza, just obtain the guns illegally. So **** Dick's.
 
maquiscat said:
Actually it is about merit. Through study we have found that the average human is capable or incapable of this or that at various ages, depending upon the activity. Because we can bell curve these ages, we thus use that age as the rule of thumb for the purpose of law. We allow for exception with our emancipation laws, and linked to in post 2. We have even revisited these ages over our history, and changed ages accordingly.
Click to expand...

Red:
I would have said it's about life experience, life and analytical, and legal pragmatism. Society has to use some criterion/criteria for deeming that individuals have reached a point in their lives whereafter, assuming one is "normal," one is solely responsible legally and ethically for all his/her behavior and thoughts, or at least whereafter nobody else, namely one's parents, can be held accountable for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom