The trope is youth being uninformed, and it's not the trope being dismissed, but their viewpoints as if they're less valid, but rarely discussed on merit.
And as for specific ideas, the root level parent simply stated
> The kids are idiots.
which I feel captures the trope perfectly. You then half refuted it, but later restated it not as an intelligence issue but an experience one, which is where I was curious what the basis for the assertion was.
1) I never claimed that the youth are more informed than (tax paying?) adults.
2) A trope is a trope regardless if it happens to be true or false.
What I was trying to convey is that you shouldn't dismiss a group on any basis other than the merit of a claim (usually by a member of a group and not representative of the entire group), which both assertions failed.
3) What should I rebut? One claim that the youth are idiots and one claim that they are uninformed because they have paid less tax yet? Ok, neither are logical conclusions to any premise.
4) You may be representative or you may be an outlier.
> I am yet to meet someone who would admit they were smarter as a teenager than they are
This is not a good basis to draw any conclusions from. Also it contradicts your initial assertion of your OP?
>The trope is youth being uninformed
OK but what evidence is there of the youth being more informed than tax paying adults?
You called it a trope but you haven't rebuted it.
Personally, I am now smarter than I was 10 years ago, and 10 years ago I was smarter than20 years ago. I am yet to meet someone who would admit they were smarter as a teenager than they are now.