As someone who would be disenfranchised under your proposal I must respond.
The “selfish” older folks who voted for Brexit would have probably also done so when they were 55 or 60: your views don’t suddenly change when you turn 70! Those older Brits who voted for Brexit had prejudices and outlooks produced by their life experiences that the next generation won’t have. Denying the vote to the next generation of over 70’s may not be as productive as you think!
I have seen no evidence that very selfish or unselfish people change this aspect of their personality as they age. There may be some trend towards more conservatism with age but I wouldn’t try to draw a line at age 70 as to when that happens.
There is an undertone in this proposal of viewing people within a certain age group as a homogenous group. There are selfish and unselfish people in all age groups and there is no way to deny the vote from only the selfish people.
I’d like to start by putting in a maximum age for serving in Congress, President or judge in a federal court. We have justices that are 90+ years old (the oldest is 98), Grassley is 88 and semi-senile but running again, and Feinstein is 88 and fairly senile and would likely run again given the opportunity. [After Susan Collins turns 70 in December, 37 of the 100 senators will be at least 70 years old.) At some point, pat them on the back for a great life and a great career in politics, and let the auld-timers enjoy their final years in the auld-timers home.
Bringing it back to the topic of this thread: I don’t know how people 80+ years old make informed decisions on gun violence or controlling it, since they’re practically foot-in-the-grave themselves and can (do) easily pass the buck and let the next generation of age 80+ lawmakers do the same.
I would like to see your statistics supporting this claim.
Everyone I know in my generation cares strongly about the world we leave to future generations. I have had a lifelong frustration with the progress my own generation made with respect to environmentalism but there are folks in every generation that resist meaningful action on this front.
It’s not a surprise that old people and young people care about different things - the difference is older people aren’t going to be alive for long, while young people have their whole lives ahead still.
It’s only logical that young people’s vote should have a higher weight.
If you’re voting on something in a particular way because you’ll be dead when it needs paying for then I don’t really feel bad that you’re disenfranchised. Old British people voted the UK out of the EU out of a romanticized view of the British Empire and their grandchildren pay the price with reduced career prospects.
Since you asked, I would like to comment on your second assertion:
“Older people tend to care more about lowering taxes.”
I was under the impression that, in the US, this was a fairly common sentiment regardless of age? Are there surveys that show that lowering taxes is a particular fixation of US seniors?
It is certainly not a fixation for Canadian seniors. I see my taxes going to provide my healthcare benefits, my old age security pension, and other programs I indirectly benefit from, like subsidized daycare for my grandchildren. I do not view my taxes primarily as an income distribution device but something I also get value from. Maybe because US social security pensions are solely funded through employee/employer contributions and Medicare requires premiums, US seniors do not see much value to them personally from the income taxes they pay? And they may feel these taxes are not being spent wisely or efficiently on others?
I think people in the US definitely see taxes as a burden and not something that they benefit from. As you know, we don’t have universal healthcare and social security severely punishes the rich and is a sinking ship.
I don’t think the current situation with guns in the US is fixable in our lifetimes given the sheer number of firearms owned by the public. I’d rather we direct more funds toward mental health to try to reduce the carnage.
Given the disproportionate amount of males 18-20 involved in mass shootings perhaps a 21 and up age restriction might stem the tide of shootings slightly. Would probably need some culpability attached to parents that let unhinged teenagers have access to their firearms.
Shooter reportedly legally, under Texas law passed last year, purchased 2 assault rifles the day he turned 18. Oh, and shot his grandmother before going to the school.
And, predictably, Republicans start with the hypocrisy:
[quote]It’s horrible. And you know what we need to avoid is the reflexive reaction we have to say this could all be solved by not having guns in anyone’s hands. We can always talk about reasonable measures, but we also have to talk about better situational awareness. I’m almost certain that in the coming days or weeks, we’re going to find out that there were signs that this person was at risk, and we need to have an equal or greater attention on prevention and that’s a key part of it,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told CNN.
[/quote]
Even if “there were signs that this person was at risk” under Texas law there wasn’t a goddamn thing anyone could do about it because … muh guns.
Going to be really honest here: this (still) isn’t changing anything. Sandy Hook (20+6) didn’t change anything. Sutherland Springs (26 + one unborn child) didn’t change anything. Orlando (49) didn’t change anything. I think we could have a mass shooting where someone tops 100 and it won’t change anything, because (currently) 50 people in the Senate will go to their grave fighting against change.