Bradford's would-be young voters

Polls have shown that under-twenties for the most part support the Greens. The Green's Sue Bradford suggests sixteen-year-olds should get the vote. Well, why wouldn't she? It's exactly the same reason Rod Donald promoted MMP, isn't it.

There's a simple reason many youngsters support the Greens. As a Libertarianz colleague says,

You could say adolescents support adolescent policies and adults support adult
policies.
Sue Bradford is stuck in her teenage years; some day she may grow
up, but in the mean time immature policies and politicians seem good at winning
votes.

So are sixteen year-olds mature enough to vote? Crikey, I know plenty of thirty-six year-olds who aren't mature enough to vote. Should sixteen year-olds be given the vote? Well, if they pay taxes, then perhaps they should. Anybody who pays for the whole farce that is government should be entitled to vote.

In fact -- and here's my view in toto -- anybody who pays tax should have the vote, and only those who pay tax should be able to vote. And perhaps anyone who receives taxpayer largesse should be made unable to vote, on the basis that they shouldn't be delivered the opportunity to try and vote themselves rich by making the rest of us poor.

UPDATE: I liked this comment from Don Christie over at David Slack's:

16 year olds voting I don't mind. Governments controlling the education of the majority of them at the time, I do.