Of course! But looking at the reality of the policy, don't you think that barring a person who turns 18 tomorrow from voting but allowing some other person to vote who is 12 hours older is kind of silly?
We do have to draw a line somewhere in order to get things done, but we should be honest and aware of how arbitrary such a line is. We shouldn't just grab some random number out of our ass and say "we have to start somewhere." My point above is that argument can be used to justify anything no matter how draconian. We need a better standard than just "we have to start somewhere"
Also there is a practical difference between voting and drinking (your examples) and taxation levels (the subject matter). Most reasonable people acknowledge that somewhere around 18 to early 20s people become "adults." Everyone develops at different levels, but the main idea there is not to have children voting in horrible politicians (clearly we adults are good enough at that already, sadlol). Same with drinking. We know that young people are often irresponsible and dangerous with it, and it can damage their brains. They also aren't able to make informed rational decisions as their frontal lobes aren't complete. Compare that to "how much money is too much" and you're going to get a huge and inconsistent range of answers, compared to "at what age should people be able to vote or drink."
I think everyone on this thread is aware that it's an arbitrary line.
That's where the "how rich is too rich?" comment comes from.
That's where the "Let’s start somewhere. We can adjust if we need."
The "start somewhere" is meant to be read in good faith as something achievable.
The history of US taxation shows us that 94% on taxable income over about $2.5 million is achievable, while you have no evidence that 100% taxation above $100 per month is doable.
You can nitpick my examples, but there's plenty more I can do. Why is a 29 year old adult prohibited from being Senator? Why is 65 mph a legal speed limit but 65.1 mph illegal? Why is the reporting limit for cash payments at $10,000 and not $15,000 or $8,000?
When road speed limits for machines were first put into place, the idea wasn't to start and 1 mph and work up from there. They already had vehicles that could do 10mph, and the 4 mph limit was a good walking speed for the flag bearer.
And the recent feedback from Wales is that lowering the urban speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph reduced the number of people who were killed or seriously injured, by 28 per cent, suggesting the limit was too high, if human lives are important.
We do have to draw a line somewhere in order to get things done, but we should be honest and aware of how arbitrary such a line is. We shouldn't just grab some random number out of our ass and say "we have to start somewhere." My point above is that argument can be used to justify anything no matter how draconian. We need a better standard than just "we have to start somewhere"
Also there is a practical difference between voting and drinking (your examples) and taxation levels (the subject matter). Most reasonable people acknowledge that somewhere around 18 to early 20s people become "adults." Everyone develops at different levels, but the main idea there is not to have children voting in horrible politicians (clearly we adults are good enough at that already, sadlol). Same with drinking. We know that young people are often irresponsible and dangerous with it, and it can damage their brains. They also aren't able to make informed rational decisions as their frontal lobes aren't complete. Compare that to "how much money is too much" and you're going to get a huge and inconsistent range of answers, compared to "at what age should people be able to vote or drink."