To me at least, the argument that young people face great restrictions (even if many of those restrictions might be intended for their benefit) doesn't justify not giving them a voice, or a seat at the table.

"So if democracy is so great, and voting rights are so important, why don't you let us vote on anything that matters to us?"

"So taxation without representation... that's like me, right?"

"So if universal suffrage is important, are people like me included in the universe?"

"So we can (in the UK) potentially join the army or navy at 16, and possibly die in dangerous training or even fighting in a war, but we don't get to vote?"

> Let's see... 16 year olds in the UK can potentially join the army or navy (and perhaps die fighting in a war)

No combat until 18.

s/fighting in a war/in an attack by militants/

Under-18s in the UK military, while able to enlist with parental consent from age 16, are not legally permitted to be deployed to combat operations outside the UK or where there is a risk of exposure to hostilities.

In most jurisdictions (especially at a national level) the changes that elected officials enact usually don't affect the population for at least another 12-16 months after voters cast their ballots.

pensioners are legally adults but , they don't work thus don't pay taxes, they dont drive some of them, and getting tattoos is kinda weird for them. why do they get to vote

UK pensions are subject to income tax, if you're receiving more than the annual tax free allowance.

That's half the story - there was tax relief paying in, and many view paying tax on your pension as deferred tax

If they have jobs, they pay taxes, right?

That is irrelevant. If a 5-year old wins some competition, they will pay taxes on that money. That doesn't mean we should give 5-year olds the vote, does it? Also, plenty of non-tax related laws apply to children - why should they not get to vote on Education or Healthcare, for example?

Also, while some 16-year olds work and pay taxes, the majority do not. So a blanket right to vote is not justified even by this strange criterion.

Depends on how much income they get.

Under 16s also pay income taxes in they have income. They also pay various other taxes such as VAT. Non-citizens pay taxes but do not get to vote.

The general expectation is that they should be in full time education or training until they are 18.

All that makes "a minority of people in this age group pay taxes" a very weak argument for giving all of them the vote.

There's no rule that says that, in fact the rules in the UK are that you can pay people below minimum wage if they're under a certain age.

I think there are also some tax incentives that are designed to make employers more friendly to the idea of hiring a young workforce - all to offset the "cost" of training people, but of course this is just used by mega-corps to have a perpetual stream of extremely cheap labour for frontline staff. (Argos, McDonalds).

So it's possible that not only do they not pay tax, that also their employment is partially subsidised by tax.

Even if below the income tax threshold, they might still be above the Class 1 NICs threshold (which is £250 or thereabouts).

But no matter how low their earnings, all employees must be registered for PAYE from age 16 onwards and will receive an annual P60, as well as a P45 when they leave.