New Zealand’s beautiful egalitarian history of universal suffrage was given a boost this week when the Supreme Court gloriously ruled it against our human rights to discriminate against 16 and 17 year olds from voting and yet the swathe of criticism this has generated has been incredibly revealing.
NZ Society endlessly shits on young people when they ram raid, and yet here we have young NZers engaging and demanding their rights as citizens and they still aren’t good enough for the National Party!
We hate young people in this country don’t we?
COP27 was an absolute joke failure highlighting how captured the adult political class have become to the polluters causing catastrophic climate change. Why shouldn’t the generations inheriting our failures vote and force politicians to listen to their environmental concerns?
Those who claim extending voting rights means we also extend commercial sex, nicotine and booze are arseholes.
Because we want to welcome young people into the universal franchise of democracy doesn’t mean we also want to expose them to commercial sex and addictive substances!
ACT want 16 year olds to be able to have the right to guns but not the right to vote?
This is how bastardised our definition of ‘freedom’ has become!
This howl that lowering the voting age makes it easier for the Left must also acknowledge that not capping the voting age at 75 makes it easier for the Right!
For every 16 year old deemed not. nature enough to vote, I can find you 3 over 75s who have far more fucked up views on voting!
This country loves to hate on young people.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice going into this pandemic and 2020 election – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.
Surely children age and become responsible at different ages.
What about a formal ceremony for the young to become adults at 16 yrs to 21 yrs. Automatic at 21. Our ancestors did something like this.
After a formal move into adulthood, then they would be able to make contracts, be responsible for their debts, crimes etc. Pay income tax.
Able to get pvt plots license, car license, skipper a power boat.
Drink, gamble (marry ???) see any movie.
Enter the military.
Vote
Make own informed medical decisions.
Be un-escorted to …. Think of more.
We have to stop going back to the past we are living in different times now. National want young people to get an education but they don’t want them to vote. I’d prefer them to wait till they are 18yrs as what’s the hurry to grow up they should enjoy life and wait but oh well they are our future.
There is a assumption that because it’s the 16 year old who will bear the consequences of today’s decision, they should be allowed to vote. I didn’t realise that by age 18, these old man would not be suffering from any decisions made today (sarc).
Voting aged should be based on an average age a person becomes self sufficient, make enough income to pay for themselves and not dependent on bank of mum, dad or state. My best guess is age 21. Some people may become independent earlier, but rules are not made based on exceptions.
If you can pay your way, then you can consider yourself mature enough to take on the civic duties and vote in democracy.
Ergo, if one receives a pension from the state, time’s up, no more voting for you? It’s hardly democratic to disallow voting rights to the young or the old however. I am a strong supporter of make it 16. Pensioners have had their time and do more damage than good to our democracy. Time has moved on but they are stuck in the past paradigm with their collective thinking. Not all granted, but they are a large group and largely old school. Time for new ideas. Jmo
Sinic. Pensioners do more damage? Let’s stop bashing the elderly, they don’t deserve it and most have lead good and diligent lives and have accumulated wisdom, experience and skills. Funny how we hear more about the young and the foolish than we do about the old and the foolish.
The avaricious pharmaceutical industry is more responsible than many for some old folk living beyond what they may have wanted, bereft of passed-on kith and kin, and too often, in western culture, alone, or in the care of paid strangers.
‘Time for new ideas. Jmo’ But will they be any better than the old ones – could be just as unwise or dangerous, just different. There’s the rub with that reasoning.
Verse 11. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. — 1 Corinthians 13:11, King James Version.
1 Corinthians 13 – Wikipedia
The verse was referenced by author C. S. Lewis in his famous quote “When I became a man I put away childish things,
including the fear of childishness and the desire to appear very grown up.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13
We need to approach our problems with humility and reason not just throw out the old and on with the new. Cliches come in handy – ‘We’ll end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater’. So what do we want? Which of those ideas seem most reasonable? How can we make an adaptation of each idea being examined to fit the exact requirement? Then there is likelihood of the right impetus and balance with reasoned audit to get the best outcome for all.
I don’t allude to throwing out the bathwater with the baby at all, GW. I said that pensioners have had their day and its time for new ideas. As in, we have that knowledge already but things aren’t turning out so great, what are we missing – who’s got new ideas, sort of thing. We’re in a new humanity life-cycle now (imo) and I want to hear the opinions from our young adults. I want them to participate in our democracy. They seem to have a different perspective and I want to hear about it. I know the various pensioner perspectives because I’ve been hearing those all my life (I am middle aged).
In signs of maturity I prefer the poem IF by Rudyard Kipling, rather than the Christian Bible: https://poets.org/poem/if
I’m quite sure your patriarchal Christian Bible also mentions something along the lines of “be more like children” which I understand to mean ask a lot of questions, be inquisitive and don’t remain ignorant. I think it is ignorant to not ask young people what they think and listen to their perspectives. The rub is in denying them a voice – that’s not a democracy I want to be part of. That’s more like the CCP and North Korea power tripping imo.
As for Hollyhock insinuating I was elderly bashing, which I clearly was not, I can only assume his/her ego was bruised. Strikes me as wokie woke anyway, so hardly worth mentioning other than STFU Hollyhock, you’re a bit ridiculous. Pensioners are just old wrinkly slow versions of young adults but with more lived experience. Many are as thick as pigshit just as they were when they were young. Many are immature and entitled (especially regarding their pension benefits). And frankly, some of them are outright nasty selfish arseholes, just like their younger counterparts. These are facts, no bashing required.
The tone of your last paragraph says a lot about your personality Sinic.
You are quite nasty.
Bite me Bobblehead
Sinic I’m not putting your ideas down, I was just sifting through my thoughts about what could happen when a lot of young keen people have a go at politics. They are likely to scoff at old ideas. Your ideas are really good and among the worthy for adding something to the discourse.
So that cuts out all the university students, all those training to be doctors and nurses.
So you want a new bureaucracy to work out who’s mature enough to vote?
So are you saying they wouldn’t need to pay taxes until 21. I am sure they will flock to that. The whole thing for me is that I know too many 70+ year olds who don’t vote because they are ‘both the same’. Then there are those who vote but shouldn’t…. they don’t follow politics at all.
Then there are those who vote for me, me, me…
I support make it 16, they are our future, and we have stuffed it up big time.
No more ifs or buts.
Coming of age has got to change in our society. Youth has to be treated differently in these awful times, allowed to grow up earlier. Our efforts to get an advanced civilised society resulted in us keeping youngsters dependent while they gained higher education. Now neolib has destroyed our domestic economy, and sly methods of human resource replacement from overseas people have taken local labour employment. There is no use in putting youngsters through extended education into secondary. learning complex things, with few full-time jobs. If everyone is going to be data punching, there is a lot of time wasted in school teaching things that can be accessed when needed or the student ready to learn, on the internet. Machines are replacing people too, so say 5% only required in jobs once looking for employees.
Give the youngsters the life education they need while they are in their late primary, then while at intermediate level, (don’t use the bloody USA grades as measurements, stick to what we know FGS), start teaching them philosophy and basic psychology so they can understand themselves, and what they need to do to handle their lives and what gets thrown up. Let them think individually and also work in group projects that they can design to fit a budget and the parameters of the problem. And adulthood age is not to be confused with the sexual age of consent. That is something to consider, but adulthood age means the youngster ceases to be looked at as a child, and is able to take on life planning, and legal responsibilities which will require education in these matters immediately if not before.
It is not satisfactory to just give right to the vote to young people with little experience of adult problems, having had no real responsibilities, going through puberty and full of fancies probably fed by television. Before the vote must come a formal diploma course to get the right to youth-vote. And that would not be an in-depth study of a particular subject but give an overview of life beyond the narrow domain of the home, and probably of their parents.
Our way of life has been changed whether we like it or not, and the conditions will revert to those of earlier times. So let’s meet this head on, and not just have life crumble around us as at present.
What about doing what the Jews do? They accept their children as responsible adults at about age 13 years. They have had to put up with attacks down through the ages and must have good systems to have survived mentally and physically. Why attack them? It is often said that they have been blamed for Jesus’ death, but I think it is likely they have suffered envy; probably have been better at everything than the historic inhabitants of the country where they have settled.
A Bar or Bat Mitzvah is a coming of age ceremony for Jewish boys and girls when they reach the age of 12 or 13. This ceremony marks the time when a boy or girl becomes a Jewish adult. This means that they are now responsible for their own actions and can decide for themselves how they would like to practice Judaism.
Jewish
Life Cycle: Coming of Age – The Jewish Museum London
The Jewish Museum London ·
https://jewishmuseum.org.uk › …
Medieval, Middle Ages which lasted 1000 years 500-1500AD approx.
Drawing in part from the Roman legal tradition, people in medieval times believed that early childhood lasted to age 7, and adolescence lasted to age 12 for girls and age 14 for boys…
At age seven, most children began their education. Girls were usually taught in the home, learning spinning, weaving, and household management. Boys were sent to local parish schools or grammar schools, where they learned the alphabet and some reading, writing, and arithmetic. They learned to read in their native language, with only a small number also learning Latin language and grammar. The school year lasted from mid-autumn until late spring, and the school day began at dawn.
In adolescence, children were apprenticed in the family business or sent as apprentices to other people’s homes. Children served as servants or learned a skilled craft from a master; contracts survive that clearly regulate the relationship between apprentice and master and outline the hours of labor and related matters. Some noble boys were sent to monasteries or into the clergy. Others were sent to castles to serve as pages to learn courtly ritual and how to be a knight.
https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Middle-Ages/275833
12 years old seems to be the time where expectations that adult behaviour should be adopted, and girls could often marry at this time, boys 14 years, both could be judged to be ‘capable and competent.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_in_medieval_England
Here’s a thought either:
a). have a referendum on the issue
b), Campaign for the issue next year
They won’t because they already know the result already.
Frank – We would then have to fight and argue about whether 16-yr-olds should be allowed to vote in that referendum…
Congratulations you’re now 16 and can vote. Unfortunately there is a war, so here’s your uniform and rifle, the Somme is that way, we have a big push next week. Just go over the top and walk towards the machine guns.
Doubtful they would get away with directing young people to go and fight (kill other innocent people) in some war thousands of Ks away these days.
Michal. It was John Key who screeched in Parliament like a drunken fishwife for Andrew Little to get some guts and send other people’s offspring off to fight in other people’s wars. It was our SAS who touted themselves to Washington like mercenaries, to get part of the action in Afghanistan. Soldiers gotta go where the politicians send than, their’s not to question why.
There are good arguments for and against, but shouldn’t we try and increase voting levels first.
What’s the age of consent in the area you live in?
Also, is it really wrong to hang out with someone younger if you don’t do sexual stuff?
I say keep the nominal age 18, keep compulsory enrolment at 18, fix election dates (e.g. first Saturday of November), but bring forward the right to enrol and vote to “if you’ll turn 18 before the election after this one” (from “if you’ll turn 18 on or before the day”). Or “within the next 2 years” – or floor age at 16 – if we really think 15yr olds voting is a problem.
That way we’re targeting representation at 18 year olds, but you’ll be able to vote for those who will represent you once you are 18 – vs possibly being without representation until ~21 (which is probably in part why we have the rules we do now, 21 being the old standard age of adulthood.)
I think this would be more palatable to the electorate, it’s not saying you’re an adult at 16 just that you shouldn’t be delayed representation.
The only reason Labour/Greens want this is they know it will disproportionately grow their voter base, since they will be heavily influenced by unionist school teachers who overwhelmingly vote left. Of course it does open up a conundrum of what an “adult” is. Should 16’s also be part of a potential war draft? Should they face adult prison sentences after committing a crime? Should the drinking age be lowered to 16? All of these are things currently capped at 18 for good reason – 16 year olds are not legally considered adults by society/law (and thus should they be allowed to make “adult”decisions… like voting?).
Given all that, imo only folks with “skin in the game” should arguably be allowed to vote (given that the economy should be a major issue in every election), so personally 16 is potentially actually fine with me as long as they are holding a full-time job (or at the very least have left school and/or are independent).
So let’s stop all those voters over 60, they’re senile and it disproportionately favours National and the massive business vote National get by way of “skin in the game” donations.
Jebus, the mental gymnastics you people use. The average 60+ year old obviously has massive skin in the game since a lot of them are on government pensions/superannuation – i.e. they are wards of the state. Not to mention their ever growing health care concerns. This is not true for 16 year olds who are by and large wards of their parents (who can vote) and are generally not filling hospitals (which are publically run in NZ). Try again.
Well put Nitrium and no mental gymnastics required just sensible reasoned argument.
What a stupid comment Bob.
Perhaps you should listen to the research that has been done, part of it around the shift to a lower voting age in Scotland. It increased teenagers voting overall, not just those that had been given the right. The result were more to the left but that evened out over time.
year olds are not legally considered adults by society/law
Not quite true, they can marry, work and pay taxes and a few other things.
Makeit45! Keep the woke fascistneoliberal muddle class out out of it completely. And their braindead kids too.
Gosh this debate has become humorous.
We should start with local body election and see how it works out
I would argue New Zealand’s beautiful egalitarian history of universal suffrage is being crapped all over by co governance power grab
I think non Maori shouldn’t have the vote.
Bob the first. Quite right. And no heterosexuals either, or people without coloured hair and multiply pierced ears. Plus non-strutters.
Me too Bob after all they created the problems we have.
I was attacked by a swarm of rabid ‘mansplainers’ when I, a self confessed ‘Leftie’ and supporter of Ms Ardern, dared to suggest there was no need to lower the voting age to 16, on Twitter. I have some experience with adolescents over many decades and many of them will have gone out into the world better equipped to be thoughtful voters – I still don’t believe its necessary. On the other hand I don’t much care for a headline which suggests that I may not be able to vote for Labour and Jacinda next year. At least my contemporaries who have always opted for that ‘other’ party, won’t get to vote for the Eggshell Blond. But no doubt the ‘Mansplainer in Chief of the TBD will suggest my rationale is based on my great age!
My dear Prunella
‘self confessed ‘Leftie’ and supporter of Ms Ardern’
that is an oxymoron.
If you are seriously on the left you would never ever support that woman:
Got into politics because of child poverty
Became the PM
Became the Minister of child poverty
Announced child poverty would be halved in 10 years.
OMG clearly not her child.
So little has never been done by a Labour PM on child poverty.
We had the most independent foreign policy in the early 1980s. And not since then has any PM shifted us so close to the Yankee Doodles.
I have joined the Maori party who have the best policy on climate change of any political party by a country mile.
Surely that is the defining issue right now not just in Aotearoa but in te Ao.
Nga mihi
Michal
Ardern was so hypocritical bout child poverty it blew my mind. Her and Grant, slimey for the freemrket, which is the rule of the rich.
I’m always looking for somewhere Left of them and the Greens. I’m sure God will let me into Heaven on the basis of never voting for labour since my first election in nineteen eighty seven.
Good points Michal and because they are true they won’t be accepted by the majority of the TDB followers.
It will be John Key’s fault.
I am also blessed with the wherewithal to lean slightly to the right on some issues when my diligence tells me there could be a better way – I am no blind follower – so assume nothing!! I know what I know and what I like and what I want. My mother was a staunch National supporter as are many of my contemporaries. I dance to my own tune – my career path and studies have had a significant influence on my politics as well.
It’s ironic that nearly everyone on this blog attacked Heather du Plessis-Allan for laughing at Izzys hypocrisy because she was a child. But now they want Izzy to vote.
So is she a child or not?
To be fair, Izzy was aged 16 and lived with her parents, who all went on a family holiday over seas (Fiji?). I personally as a parent wouldn’t leave my 16 year old home alone and go overseas, and it appears her parents didn’t either. HDPA’s behaviour was a planned attack on a 16 year old school kid, for her own sick pleasure. If Izzy had seen it coming, or was a bit quicker on her feet, she might have pointed this out to HDPA. It doesn’t however negate that she shared her opinion on air travel in relation to climate change or whatever it was, and good for her. If she had been more duplicitous, like HDPA is, she could have just lied. The fact she was honest is to her credit. The fact she flew to Fiji was to her parents credit. There was no hypocrisy on Izzy’s part. Just a pawn in that little power trip. A pawn with a voice, nonetheless.
Pleased to see use of HDPA which puts her in celebrated territory.
FDR,JFK etc.
“Celebrated” along with HIV, VD, STD, STI and HPV.
Your examples are not people therefore irrelevant.
The Natz are against 16 y.o’s voting…
Their first exhibit is Sam Uffindell…he was 16 when he bashed a student with a bed leg…..they say he was a young,irresponsible bully still learning about…right….and…wrong.
Correct.
And yet he still chooses “wrong”.
Will he ever mature?
We’ve already covered that Blazer. Uffindel was definitely old enough and privileged enough to know better, as do most16 year Olds I’d wager – particularly the young women, who mature earlier. Make it 16. One can fuck and fight (army stuff) at 16, have babies, be parents… long list of stuff… so voting goes hand in hand with other young adult activities for those that choose to vote imo. I didn’t know f.all about civics when I started voting, but we all started somewhere. It should be taught in school, along with financial literacy, but that’s another topic. Lots of 16-17 y.o are quite well informed by their families, which is great because politics is boring to many, but for our young people who want to participate, then it is their human right and it should be made law. Prisoners should also be given back the vote (yet another topic). Jmo
Seems plain to me, the commie labour/greens will benefit for the reduced voting age. I dont think anyone is arguing and different.
16 to vote then it should be 16 to be treated as an adult criminal and to be able to join army at 16 and buy piss at 16.
Tedheath
Please do a bit of studying of communism before making such dumb comments. I don’t think there are any commie countries in the world. China has more billionaires than any other country and anyway it is a dictatorship of frankly the worst kind. Russia is pretty much an autocracy and Cuba has one state one party, but no millionaires or billionaires just endless people wanting to join the free in the US.
I highly doubt you understand the philosophy of Communism. Like far too many you are confused by the political spectrum.
I certainly don’t have a problem with the voting age being lowered to 16 years.
Times have changed. Young people these days have the information and technology to make up their minds about things, fast. In fact, we don’t really need to have five years of secondary education available either and in many other countries like the States there is only four years of secondary level schooling, not five.
Granting a freedom such as this to such an age group inspires them to contribute to our democracy and, indeed, encourages these people to keep our democracy going. They are the future. We don’t want a future of dictators, do we?
A general election is held only once every three years so it really is not a big deal to lower the voting age. In addition to this, voters get to elect a representative from their area, so this decision is most certainly applicable to young people of that particular age demographic.
Only a portion of 16 year olds will actually vote. Just like 36 year olds. Or 43 year olds. Or 57 year olds. Some of the reasoning may be down to the motivation to vote. It’s also a personal choice, people have the freedom to vote or to not vote.
I think it will bring teenagers and their parents closer together, actually. In this day and age, that’s probably a good thing!
I was one of the supporters of Sue Bradford’s Bill to lower the voting age to 16 years. This is going back a long time but still it’s pretty exciting that it has come to fruition!
There is a pros and cons to this topic: Sandra Aamodt, neuroscientist and co-author of the book Welcome to Your Child’s Brain. Her statement in 2011 claimed that brain scans show clearly that the brain is not fully finished developing until about age 25. I understand the argument both angles, needless to say we allow 16 year old to legally create a life and licence them to drive a vehicle that can take it. But my concern is about how vulnerable they will become, being swayed towards the left or the right, from family or friends. Sandra Asmodt continues to state; one of the side effects of these changes in the reward system is that adolescents and young adults become much more sensitive to peer pressure. Such vulnerabilities lead to exploits which can lead to an unfair election process, outcome or is that the ultimate point?
If we allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, we risk increasing democracy in the country. This is the reason that the regressive political parties are against it, young people should be having their intelligence beaten out of them on boot camps. It worked for generations of now damaged people. We are finally recognising that societal inequality is what causes health problems, call them mental and physical; or more accurately, group it together and call it well-being. We are not being well as a nation. Allowing democracy, as demonstrated in Brasil in the latest election, is scary, but it is the correct way forward. A sixteen year old understands, far more viscerally, the realities of this world. A 75 year old understands predominately their lived experience. Unfortunately for a long time, perhaps infinite generations, young men have been sent to war, depriving kids of good fathers, and producing people like Paula Bennett, who could know no better politically than to destroy the system that saved her (at the behest of her tough on crime tough on beneficiaries party; a political party which has not evolved). We are all damaged, if we have the chance to help 16 and 17 year old not be as damaged as us, how can we not give them that? MAKE IT SIXTEEN!!!
more cheeep ageist crap from those trying to curry favour with da yoof….personally I’m oppposed to the alleged(and they are only alleged) voting habits of seniors but they paid their taxes all their lives and are entitled to the francise…after all ‘women shouldn’t be allowed the vote because their small female brains can’t cope with politics’ that sound vaguely familiar to anyone? well does it?
answers on a postcard to the usual address.
Wtf! Why cap the vote at 75! Said 75 year old could live another 20 years, with politicians threatening their pension, healthcare etc and no ability to vote them out. Fascist.
Old people have a heaps of wisdom and knowledge of history behind their vote. Even if they didn’t and their choices were irrational, they still have a human right to vote
Whatever happened to one person one vote?
Lobbying for 16 year olds to vote is gerrymandering by the left. End of
+ 1 Anker.
Anker Hey – The Green Party have a young gay Mexican guy to look after the interests of the elderly now under threat. Feel better ? I don’t. Chloe S told VU students that, “ experience doesn’t count “, showing her own abysmal lack of experience and wisdom and knowledge taking a cheap shot at her elders, and being decidedly age-ist, but then the Greens have beavered away pioneering identity politics, tried tinkering with our collective vocabulary, insulted our ancestors, and then crown it all brandishing ethnically correct chocolate. You gotta laugh.
Here’s a surprisingly cogent article on the topic https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130556891/when-it-comes-to-the-voting-age-16-should-not-be-the-new-18
I was taken aback – I didn’t expect this from Stuff. The author talks about brain maturation processes, and about the impressionability of teens and their susceptibility to peer pressure.
If anything, we should be raising the voting age to 20.
So what? I got drunk before I voted last election and I’m nearly 50. It was my human right and it’s the human right of 16 and 17 year olds too. It was a fun and productive day with nice memories too. It was a win/win in fact.
Voting is a human right? So anyone should be able to vote, no matter what their age?
The problem is that the Supreme Court’s ruling was based on the argument of “age discrimination”. But even a voting age of 16 would involve “age discrimination” – why shouldn’t 14 yr olds vote too?
As for your drinking and voting habits – feel free to abstain from voting next time if you consider yourself too irresponsible to be given the franchise.
Lol!
Yes Pope you are correct.
Unless the vote is extended to everyone irrespective of age then it is age discrimination literally.
So I guess it comes down to what is sensible which then comes down to opinion.
I feel that if you give 16 & 17 yr olds the vote then you also need to give the right to run for the same office. It would be weird to give them the right to vote but not to run for the very office they are voting on.
Agreed
and
and
of course prisoners should be able to vote, how many are in there because the pigs lied anyway.
If anything, cap it at 80. But there really is no need to place a cap on voting. I see it very much as a democratic right to be extended to all as long as it’s appropriate. This includes 16 year olds. And prisoners too. It’s not fair to take a voting right away from an elderly person, really.
Given the economic crisis foisted upon us by an incompetent Labour Government,which will take time to correct,I’m sure the 16 and 17 year olds will know who to vote for.(Should they get the vote.)
And Nact will make it 10x worse so I’m sure the intellectual will know who to vote for.
Most 16 and 17 year olds will vote same as Mum and Dad.
A larger proportion of the children from right leaning families will vote consistent with the current demographic.
In addition the parents will make sure they vote.
So who benefits by lowering the voting age?
I’m not sure.
Bobblehead, had any 16 to 17 year old offspring? It’s really not the age bracket that tends to listen to their parents. In fact, that age bracket tends to be more about figuring out their own opinions and separating themselves from their parents belifs and opinions and being much more strongly aligned with their peer groups. We all benefit by lowering the voting age because it strengthens our democracy by including more opinions from a wider voting population. Strong democracies diversify the power held within a country by being inclusive and that in turn prevents too much power falling into the hands of groups who would use it nefariously and not in best interests of the people. A strong democracy is people power in positive action. Make it 16!
With respect but that’s just a confused jumble of words Sinic.
Just offhandedly voted in a Gisborne Herald poll on this. I’m among seventeen percent for sixteeners.
They’re not worse than the fools at the other end of aging. That the Right is agin just highlights their arrant wrongness and antidemocracy generally. Boot Camps, my arse, and every intelligent person, Right or Left, agrees.
My point is they’re reenacting a campaign from thirteen years ago, appealing to stupid prejudices that won’t wash now. Not, importantly, among the intelligent. We need to burrow into that.
I am also blessed with the wherewithal to lean slightly to the right on some issues when my diligence tells me there could be a better way – I am no blind follower – so assume nothing!! I know what I know and what I like and what I want. My mother was a staunch National supporter as are many of my contemporaries. I dance to my own tune – my career path and studies have had a significant influence on my politics as well.
Terry Boucher, tax specialist: “The Make It 16 group made an Official Information Act request to Inland Revenue about how much tax 16- and 17-year-olds pay. And according to Inland Revenue over 94,600 16 -and 17-year olds paid a total of $82 million in income tax during the year ended 31 March 2022. That’s not an insubstantial amount of money (and doesn’t take into consideration the GST they also paid).”
Full article (towards the end): https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/118637/te-wiki-o-te-t%C4%81ke-inland-revenue-wins-award-loses-case-tax-advisers
So?
Bobblehead – form a thought (good boy). Now, what do you want to convey? Do a whole sentence. I know it’s difficult at first. Practice? Or f. off back to Dullwhich Paedophile School. England was it? You should be good at communication by now, surely? Queens English and all. Full sentences even? No? Bob down a bit and blow me would ya. Good boy. Yeah like that. Bite me Bobblehead…
Voting should not be based on how much, if any, tax you pay. I mean, say a group of 40 year old business people paid no tax for one election year and a total of three million dollars in tax in the next election year. It wouldn’t affect their right to vote.