Would you be in favor of moving the voting age to 35?

Attached: 35_white,_blue_rounded_rectangle.png (2000x1471, 71K)

No, but I think a good case could be made for 25 or only net taxpayers.

only taxpayer is a great idea
but regarding age, I think the average age in which the brain is fully developed is around 26

No. Voting should be abolished

No but I am in favor of taking women's voting rights away.

I'd like to move the right to procreate to the age of 35.

35 is too old. many people are politically aware by their early twenties.
restricting voting to only tax payers would be a good idea though

Age is irrelevant. Vote you should have three requirements:
1) Own some decent acreage of land. If you and other people are on the deed, the area is divided by the number of people (to prevent 20,000 people from all jointly owning one plot of land so they can qualify as voters).
2) Have legitimate children.
3) Be a net tax payer.
Basically you need to have skin in the game (it's your money being spent), you need to own land (you don't want it trashed since you can't just up and leave), and you need to want the country to not go to shit after you're gone (no parent wants to burden their child).

Net tax-payers only
6ft+ only
Frankly, I'd make people pass a simple multiple-choice test to make sure they knew the candidate's platforms, but I'm into informed voting

Age after like 21 is irrelevant. You could have a 35 year old that works at walgreens and live with his mother, and you could have a 26 year old engineer that owns his own house, is married, has a child on the way and is a productive member of society.

Yes, NET taxpayers is the only way to do it.

the goal is net tax payers only.

First step could be from 25 to 55

No. Voting should be at the "household" level with the following criteria:
> Must own land
> Must be a male+female partnership with at least 1 biological child
No one else should be allowed to vote.

The ONLY middle ground I would agree with is to keep voting as it is today EXCEPT make relinquishing voting rights a prerequisite to receive any government aid.

>Age after like 21 is irrelevant.

21 is a good arbitrary age. I also think the age to join the military or get drafted should be 21 as well. If you are not competent to buy a case of beer you are not competent to join the army. I believe one of the arguments for making the voting age 18 was that you could be drafted.

Some sort of intelligence test or proof of academic accomplishments and what the others said about land and taxes. Prevents democracy from turning into tyranny by morons.

I disagree about land
It'd be too easy for (((entrepreneurs))) to buy real estate and block citizen votes

>but I think a good case could be made for 25
Seeing how the state forces parents to pay for their kids insurance to the age of 25, I support this 100%.

The ONLY 18 year olds who should have the right to vote are enlisted men and women. Not college students, not neets, not barista or any other entry level horseshit.

Even me in my skilled trade. 25 is a great age to use as a standard.

>unironically wanting ONLY the boomers to do the voting for you
top heh

yes

>38

>If you are not competent to buy a case of beer you are not competent to join the army.
I disagree with this notion totally. There are plenty of great servicemen that are more mature then most people twice their age.

Why bother, if voting made a difference it'd be a crime

Abolish income tax. Implement federal sales tax. Now tax dodgers and leeches have to contribute. Abolish property tax so I truly own my land. Only landowners can vote.

Then we would no longer have Jow Forums because it would crash with the weight of all the autists that would come here.

Yeah, we have oligarchs here who own a lot of lands. A big chunk is probably owned by foreigners and another by the Orthodox Church.

I’d settle for going back to being a land owner.

Free white landowning men, just like the founders intended.

Roasties, poorfags and muds need not apply.

35+, 100+ IQ and a mandatory test in philosophy, history and law.

If all three are passed, one should be able to vote.

I'd go along with this. Basically the same way it used to be -- white landowning males of good character.

For every $1 of taxes you pay you should get 1 vote.

Attached: deep_thoughts.jpg (219x230, 8K)

No. I don't believe in altering the voting age to include or exclude groups that vote differently.
This is the reason some Jow Forumstards want to take the vote away from women and young people a lot of the time - they vote differently from rich white men.

Voting restrictions are a political tactic no matter how you slice it. No matter what restriction you place (age, wealth, race, no criminal record) you include or exclude a voting demographic that predictably votes one way. This holds true even if you have no restrictions.

The better question is which political position is correct, and then restrict voting based on that. (arguing that no political position is correct and its all subjective is a political position)

When you do that you realize only rich white land owners should vote, because they are most likely to vote libertarian. Most people would rather be parasitical than productive, so the more you loosen voting restrictions the more the gov goes left. Therefore voting itself is a leftist tactic. This battle was already lost.

It actually makes perfect sense when you consider a practical example. As long as there is a wealth disparity, the lesser will outnumber the greater, and thus be predisposed to want to impose voting to get at greater's wealth. Even if its a room full of millionaires and one billionaire, or starving people in a room with a man with food.

>its a good idea to let people who support people stealing from you decide the fate of the country

Get off my Jow Forums bootlicker

only an american would think of something this fucking stupid

Attached: 74F474FA-FD88-4B45-BA65-280666CEF288.jpg (720x720, 44K)

>libertarian
(((libertarian)))
FTFY

>would give control of the entire country to white men again
>is stupid
That confused African face suits you

Male homeowners that are net taxpayers

Net taxpayers is a great idea because its far more fair, and in line with the spirit of the American founding, but it implies you want the government to be used by productive people to do good things. That's not why states exists.

States exist for parasites to live off of the productive. Marshaling the state as a tool for the productive was a battle lost by the founding fathers sometime around the Jackson democrats. You could even make a case it died with the suppression of the whiskey rebellion. A noble experiment, that in its failure, proved the nature of government.

One way I see America that has helped me a lot, is that it was founded on one rational principle: government always tyrannizes, and one irrational: we still need government. The former allowed america to prosper at first, the latter led it to tyrannize eventually. We are approaching the tyrannical endpoint

No. The future belongs to the young.

Yeah go ahead. Turn into a shithole oligarchy.

No! But I strongly believe a person should have to meet certain criteria to vote: pass a test on the function of government, own property, not be on welfare, no outstanding debt or child support, not be a nigger or spic.

More importantly there should be a maximum age.

People above 60 don't give a shit about the future and only vote for short term personal gain.

No. I'm more in favor of making it something that's offered only to white landowners, age can still be less than 35, but if you aren't white and don't own land, you don't deserve a vote.

Fuck You Nigger. Those are the people with the most to lose. They have worked all of their lives and paid into the shit system and probably have been to war or two, have kids and grand kids.

>Give all political power to boomers
No. I would be okay with giving only married property owners the right to vote.

You can only vote when you hit 80 years.

I was going to come in here and call you a retard but then I realized you beat me to the punch leaf.

In my opinion there should be a certain divide between people who can think abstract thoughts and be skeptical about political issues and people who take everything as is.

The masses can vote on community representatives, the educated and intelligent can vote on who enters parliament.

Sure why not. By that age you have lived. You have experience with life. Things happened. You could go from being a degenerate progressive to one of the good guys because you saw you were wrong. You have seen things happen which made you change your mind.

18 year olds have no life experience at all.

>paid into the shit system
No they haven't.
If they had the government wouldn't be this much in debt.
They shoves all taxes onto the younger generations.

They have more money than everybody else combines and still complain.

25 unless you serve in the military or in public service (govt, police, fire, hospital staff which should be moderately socialized).

Also obviously women shouldn't be able to vote unless they serve in the above categories.

Also also if a couple's child dies in war or any type of service to their community, that couple should never pay taxes for the rest of their life. They've already paid the ultimate price for this nation's benefit. This was a common law in Greco-Roman societies, I'm surprised it's just disappeared. I wonder (((who))) erased it from our culture.

We already know that the female brain is fully developed at age 25 and the male brain at 27, so I would prefer a middle point in all western countries at around 26 like this user said.

25
must own and pay taxes on 'real property'