The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No, it's not an experiment involving David Cameron's face. But something interesting (if you like that sort of thing) just occured to me.
I used to see the Tories as selfish rat-munchers whose politics were all about protecting them and theirs, and sticking two fingers up to those worse off than themselves.
Then I managed to wise up a little, and appreciate the economic benefits of capitalism and competition.
There are also credible philosophical arguments for people standing on their own feet, and not being responsible for everyone else, or expecting everyone else to be responsible for them. Such policies can be based on true philosophy, not just greed and self-preservation.
Finally, doing things that intuitively look 'nice' isn't always in peoples' best interests. Sometimes people need tough love. Thatcher may have been a cold-hearted witch, or she might have been the crowned queen of tough love. (Maybe we'd have to ask the husband about that).
I eventually resolved on what is probably close to the truth - the Tories contain a mix of vile greedy 'haves' who are happy to protect their lot and watch the 'have-nots' suffer, and people who actually believed in the principles of the party as a matter of philosophy.
There's probably even a bit of a blend of the two approaches in many of the party supporters. (Here I exclude the greedies who believe what they want to believe, and look for people with genuine, sincere philosophical toryism).
So, how do you split the noble philosophers from the greedy society-deniers?
I was thinking about inheritance tax. Not just because I'm that exciting, but because I'm studying tax as part of my accountancy qualification at moment.
My personal feeling is that if someone would resolve the problem of people being forced to sell their family homes (and even in existing law, there's precident to be able to do that - spouses (and to a limited extent, other family members) get an equitable interest in the family home on divorce. If they could claim that interest from a deceased person's estate before it was transferred to them through the will, inheritance tax would get a lesser cut, and a person's moral interest in the home would be preserved.)
Aanyway, if someone would sort that out, inheritence tax becomes the best tax ever - the only person who actually had rights of ownership over the property doesn't lose out, they're dead. The beneficiaries of the will, while obviously hoping for all they can get, don't have any 'right' to their slice of anything. If the deceased wanted, he could cut them out entirely. Essentially, these people are independent and expected to stand on their own feet. If they get paid off in the will, that's a bonus for them.
Now this gives us an interesting opportunity - here we get to splice apart peoples' self interest (to receive 'daddy's' estate or pass everything on to the kids) from their philosophical view that people should stand on their own feet, and others are not responsible for them - their fundamental conservatism.
In fact, inheritance tax sets these two values head to head, it diametrically opposes them.
If you really believe in a society where everyone is responsible for themselves, inheritance tax is wonderful - it takes from nobody (living) who has any right over the money, and thus reduces the tax burden society places on everyone else. Thus everyone else is less responsible for society at large.
If the reason you're a Tory is because you want to protect you and yours, you oppose inheritance tax - it hurts your payoff from the rich parents and it hurts your kids' payoff when you shuffle off.
So, what's the overwhelming position of the Tory party on this issue?
Yeah, greedy ***tards.
I used to see the Tories as selfish rat-munchers whose politics were all about protecting them and theirs, and sticking two fingers up to those worse off than themselves.
Then I managed to wise up a little, and appreciate the economic benefits of capitalism and competition.
There are also credible philosophical arguments for people standing on their own feet, and not being responsible for everyone else, or expecting everyone else to be responsible for them. Such policies can be based on true philosophy, not just greed and self-preservation.
Finally, doing things that intuitively look 'nice' isn't always in peoples' best interests. Sometimes people need tough love. Thatcher may have been a cold-hearted witch, or she might have been the crowned queen of tough love. (Maybe we'd have to ask the husband about that).
I eventually resolved on what is probably close to the truth - the Tories contain a mix of vile greedy 'haves' who are happy to protect their lot and watch the 'have-nots' suffer, and people who actually believed in the principles of the party as a matter of philosophy.
There's probably even a bit of a blend of the two approaches in many of the party supporters. (Here I exclude the greedies who believe what they want to believe, and look for people with genuine, sincere philosophical toryism).
So, how do you split the noble philosophers from the greedy society-deniers?
I was thinking about inheritance tax. Not just because I'm that exciting, but because I'm studying tax as part of my accountancy qualification at moment.
My personal feeling is that if someone would resolve the problem of people being forced to sell their family homes (and even in existing law, there's precident to be able to do that - spouses (and to a limited extent, other family members) get an equitable interest in the family home on divorce. If they could claim that interest from a deceased person's estate before it was transferred to them through the will, inheritance tax would get a lesser cut, and a person's moral interest in the home would be preserved.)
Aanyway, if someone would sort that out, inheritence tax becomes the best tax ever - the only person who actually had rights of ownership over the property doesn't lose out, they're dead. The beneficiaries of the will, while obviously hoping for all they can get, don't have any 'right' to their slice of anything. If the deceased wanted, he could cut them out entirely. Essentially, these people are independent and expected to stand on their own feet. If they get paid off in the will, that's a bonus for them.
Now this gives us an interesting opportunity - here we get to splice apart peoples' self interest (to receive 'daddy's' estate or pass everything on to the kids) from their philosophical view that people should stand on their own feet, and others are not responsible for them - their fundamental conservatism.
In fact, inheritance tax sets these two values head to head, it diametrically opposes them.
If you really believe in a society where everyone is responsible for themselves, inheritance tax is wonderful - it takes from nobody (living) who has any right over the money, and thus reduces the tax burden society places on everyone else. Thus everyone else is less responsible for society at large.
If the reason you're a Tory is because you want to protect you and yours, you oppose inheritance tax - it hurts your payoff from the rich parents and it hurts your kids' payoff when you shuffle off.
So, what's the overwhelming position of the Tory party on this issue?
Yeah, greedy ***tards.
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Well, in any election, the best way to gain votes is by going for the swing voters, as of course it's much easier to change their minds - and by going towards the centre, the major parties will both be trying to get votes on issues a lot of people can relate to, instead of more ideologically-based ones. Or so at least is the theory.
I've now seen that the Conservatives have decided to support the City academy scheme, in favour of a larger promotion of Grammar Schools; yet another move to get votes, seemingly, yet I guess that it's at least a move to improve education in such areas. I'll say this, though; yes, grammar schooling is selective. But it produces some damn intelligent people.
I've now seen that the Conservatives have decided to support the City academy scheme, in favour of a larger promotion of Grammar Schools; yet another move to get votes, seemingly, yet I guess that it's at least a move to improve education in such areas. I'll say this, though; yes, grammar schooling is selective. But it produces some damn intelligent people.
Page: