Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[Heartofice]

I’m all for inheritance tax but there has to be a balance. At some point you are working so that you can give things to your children. It would be interesting to see what would happen to a society with 100% inheritance tax, personally I would see it as a serious disincentive to ever own anything 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1.  @Tywin et al. I mean, with as much respect as your point deserves, no.  Super high rates encourage evasion, disincentivise investment/significantly distort investment behavior.  Again, I think the magic number on the marginal dollar is in the 60s. That still means that more than half of the marginal dollar is not retained by the investor (and candidly, there would still be a ton of evasion).  As long as we are on an income-based, annual accounting period, realization based system, it's not sustainable.

2.  @mormont I'm a big proponent of "you can't take it with you."  Our system is complete shambles given the large exemption, many planning techniques, and the step up in basis at death.  I'd just subject any estate over $1 million (indexed) to a 50% tax (no exemptions).  I'm not super familiar with the UK system, but it can't be as bad as ours.  Sort of separately, I'd also probably say that margin loans are taxed on any net balance outstanding after 2 years, with anti-abuse rules for functional rollovers.

3.  @Heartofice A true confiscatory inheritance tax is probably not tenable for lots and lots of reasons, including that I don't think it is consistent with democratic norms.  That said, I think lots of people don't have and never plan to have children, but work pretty heard nonetheless, and so I don't buy that as a reason.    

[JGP]

I dunno, guess I'm weird lol 

  

[DireWolfSpirit]

23 hours ago, Zorral said:

while you no longer already haven't got health care. For one example.

Could you explain what this means?

[Zorral]

 

15 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Could you explain what this means?

It means what it says -- health care not available -- for o so many reasons, including there are no doctors or hospitals where you live (or dentists either for that matter), that you can't afford Affordable Health Care, for Reasons you don't qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid, that you are poor and homeless, the health care providers are overwhelmed with whatever so they can't see YOU, o the reasons for having no health care are endless.

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

And you're hung up on the need for a ceremonial head of state.

I'm really not.

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Remind me, who is yours again...? 

The fuck does that matter?  How many times do I have to emphasize that I'm just talking theoretically?  Really weird you seem to think this is some type of burn or something.

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Anyway, why the fuck does anyone even need a purely ceremonial head of state? Elected or otherwise. Tell me what function they perform that cannot be fulfilled by our elected politicians. 

Dunno why you feel the need to be a dick about it instead of just politely asking, but sure, be happy to tell you the commonly identified and rather obvious benefits of a ceremonial head of state. 

First and foremost, they allow the head of government to actually focus their time doing the substantive aspects of the job.  Hence the term ceremonial.  They're also a unifying figure that's generally above the partisan fray that can provide reassurance and stability, particularly in times of crisis.  Ideally the head of government should be this too, but we know that's often not the case.  Finally, the depoliticized nature of the role can often be a check on extremism within a country.  For instance, with the current state of the GOP, I'd feel much more comfortable if the US military also swore their allegiance to a ceremonial head of state.

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

But there is. Even ceremonial hereditary monarchy means then, hereditary aristocracy, which means hereditary lands linked to hereditary titles and lordships, etc. etc., with privileges and immunities that nobody else has, which is hardly democratic.  These are the reasons that aristocracy depends from / on monarchy. 

Both in theory and in practice, it's quite easy to retain a heredity monarchy as the ceremonial head of state without retaining any aristocracy.

[DireWolfSpirit]

One of the laughable aspects of the royals is when they refer to their travel, wining, dining, feasting, styling outfits and lavishing gifts as "WORK" and how they do it so very "hard."

Give me a frikn break already, the majority of their behavior would be considered vacation for any hourly employee around the globe.

When youve been bequested such a station in life without dainting a finger to have the status or priviledge to be so soft that you consider the above activities work, activities that real workers would consider a break from their toils, then im just going to discount any of the blather out of your mouth after you possess the vanity to mention what a toll it all is for you.

Its really, really pathetic and petty. It makes me think they should come and do some ship building with me for a few weeks or trying some field work with a migrant mother that provides the food they consume. Lets have them clean some of the rooms with the maids for a few months or wait tables and do dishes for 80 hours a week to afford their next utility bill.

Thats work, people that labor no the difference and we arent interested in lazy royals trying to sell vacation lifestyle as some sort of equivalence.

[Cas Stark]

Public speaking is work. Making polite small talk for 70 years is work. Reading briefings so you know what your event is for is work. Maintaining strict self control to never let your real beliefs slip is work.  And yes, getting up, dressing up, and smiling for the cameras is also work.  It's a politicians work without any of the power.

[polishgenius]

Well maybe they should give it up then. 

[Zorral]

They don't do any of the details of this 'work', and it's the details that are exhausting, not 'it.'  They don't even dress themselves. They don't navigate the traffic, they don't drive, they don't book the flights, they don't have to go through customs, they don't have find transport to a hotel, they don't book the hotel, they don't pack the luggage, they don't have to figure out where their breakfast tea will be (it's brought to them in bed, everything they like want/for breakfast, they don't even have to ask or find out there's nowhere around them that has the kind of food their diets require) -- they don't DO a frackin' thing.

I spent several years doing all that and giving the speeches, the presentations and all the rest; that's fun and feels worthwhile and energizes on.  It's everything else that makes it happen that is hard, difficult -- particularly when one's flight is delayed or canceled, or the rental car isn't there -- and you know what?  Doing all that IS hard WORK.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  @Tywin et al. I mean, with as much respect as your point deserves, no.  Super high rates encourage evasion, disincentivise investment/significantly distort investment behavior.  Again, I think the magic number on the marginal dollar is in the 60s. That still means that more than half of the marginal dollar is not retained by the investor (and candidly, there would still be a ton of evasion).  As long as we are on an income-based, annual accounting period, realization based system, it's not sustainable.

2.  @mormont I'm a big proponent of "you can't take it with you."  Our system is complete shambles given the large exemption, many planning techniques, and the step up in basis at death.  I'd just subject any estate over $1 million (indexed) to a 50% tax (no exemptions).  I'm not super familiar with the UK system, but it can't be as bad as ours.  Sort of separately, I'd also probably say that margin loans are taxed on any net balance outstanding after 2 years, with anti-abuse rules for functional rollovers.

3.  @Heartofice A true confiscatory inheritance tax is probably not tenable for lots and lots of reasons, including that I don't think it is consistent with democratic norms.  That said, I think lots of people don't have and never plan to have children, but work pretty heard nonetheless, and so I don't buy that as a reason.    

I expect the UK system is probably worse than yours.  It's riddled with exemptions and reliefs which are designed to ensure that the truly rich pay virtually nothing, in terms of inheritance tax, while the main burden falls on people with quite valuable houses, but no direct descendants.

It was actually, a Labour chancellor, Roy Jenkins, who first exempted country houses and artworks from Death Duties (as they were then called) so long as they were made visible to the public for a few weeks a year.

IMHO, capital should be taxed more, and income less, to incentivise hard work and entrepreneurship.  Everything in an estate should be taxed but at 25%, rather than the current system which taxes a few things at 40%, while leaving plenty of other items untaxed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  @Tywin et al. I mean, with as much respect as your point deserves, no.  Super high rates encourage evasion, disincentivise investment/significantly distort investment behavior.  Again, I think the magic number on the marginal dollar is in the 60s. That still means that more than half of the marginal dollar is not retained by the investor (and candidly, there would still be a ton of evasion).  As long as we are on an income-based, annual accounting period, realization based system, it's not sustainable.

But like you said, there would still be evasion. You could set the top marginal rate at 10% and there would still be an industry built around legally  getting that number as close to zero as possible. It's not a good excuse to not tax the shit out of the super rich. What's more important, and you've argued for this to your credit, is building an IRS infrastructure that doesn't allow it to happen like it does today while simultaneously changing how tax law works. And as far as higher rates hurting investment, I seem to recall the US economy functioning just fine when the rates were insanely high for the top earners. Now obviously post-WW2 had some unique factors and today isn't the same, but it doesn't mean it can work. If anything you'd want to build a system where middleclass individuals could invest more and be protected. As it stands today that is not the case. Half the country doesn't invest much of anything and the over, over, overwhelming share comes from the super rich whose pie just keeps growing while most people can't even keep up with normal inflation, let alone the spike we're experience and will feel for the foreseeable future.

TL:DR, the apple is rotten. Peeling off a little bit of the skin won't fix it. We need a new tree with much better stewards.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

First and foremost, they allow the head of government to actually focus their time doing the substantive aspects of the job.  Hence the term ceremonial.  They're also a unifying figure that's generally above the partisan fray that can provide reassurance and stability, particularly in times of crisis.  Ideally the head of government should be this too, but we know that's often not the case.  Finally, the depoliticized nature of the role can often be a check on extremism within a country.  For instance, with the current state of the GOP, I'd feel much more comfortable if the US military also swore their allegiance to a ceremonial head of state.

Conversely: ceremonial heads of state are in practice very rarely unifying figures. There's almost always groups of people who dislike them personally, are opposed to the existence of their position, or take against them for other reasons. Any discussion of them on this board, including this one, stands as an example.

The existence of a ceremonial head of state usually allows the head of government to de facto assume the political powers of the head of state in addition to their own, creating an over-powerful head of government. An elected head of state is an important political check on the power of the head of government.

Ceremonial heads of state are never in fact 'depoliticised', as there's no such thing. They represent the conservative (small-c) political status quo. That's not a neutral position, as numerous real life examples across the world attest.

All systems have advantages and disadvantages, of course. But the professed advantages of ceremonial heads of state are often more theoretical than actual.

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Public speaking is work. Making polite small talk for 70 years is work. Reading briefings so you know what your event is for is work. Maintaining strict self control to never let your real beliefs slip is work.  And yes, getting up, dressing up, and smiling for the cameras is also work.  It's a politicians work without any of the power.

Or the ability for the population to remove them if they do the work badly, or not at all.

[James Arryn]

To be fair, for the sake of argument, and this coming from some who would have trouble identifying any of the current RF aside from Charles and Meghan (because I saw a few episodes of Suits back when she was just an actress) and even that is a step up from before all this stuff. I still don’t know anything about this James guy who is being talked about in here as maybe Harry’s father? Anyways, even that much, Harry being the younger brother, before this great schism I’d not have bet money on knowing which name belonged to the older brother. Never saw that Oprah, have seen thumbnail links to it. 
 

Also, on royalty itself, as a Canadian we kinda get the juice without the squeeze. I think we pay on average about a dollar fifty a year towards the GG and all that jazz, otherwise it literally costs us nothing. We get the residual benefits of commonwealth, ceremonial crap, etc. pretty much no fuss no muss. Polls show that Americans are a lot more interested in the RF than Canadians, for whatever reason…to us it’s just ~, doesn’t really affect our lives one iota. 
 

So, all that said, and clarifying that inherited wealth is dubious, inherited power noxious, etc. and acknowledging that the royals live it up in style, on other folks bill, I can also say that it’s unfair to say they do nothing, pay no cost, etc. For one thing, they don’t have the complete freedom to marry whom and where they choose…which is imo a pretty big deal. If and when they try to do that anyways, well, we can all see the result. Plus if you’re a bloke you almost have to enlist in the military, and serve in w/e conflict is ongoing. Etc. These are real, tangible costs, and I doubt they are raised to believe they have real choices in these matters. So I’m not crying for them, they are doing very well, and I’d be totally fine if they were devolved into a cheaper version of the ceremonial role, but I don’t think we need to pretend there’s no cost whatsoever to them. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Public speaking is work.

It can be but a monarch doesn’t have to even be competent at it to keep their position.

9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Making polite small talk for 70 years is work.

Can be but let’s not pretend it’s a Herculean task a the lowest shop keeper wouldn’t immediately do for the rest of their lives for a million pounds.

 

A 67 year old shop maid is more deserving of awe and reverence for their tenacity to do their work.

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Maintaining strict self control to never let your real beliefs slip is work.

She could have been violent fascist, a milk toast lib, or a commie bastard.

Whatever her political orientation she ultimately would be a parasite just comfortable leeching off.

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

And yes, getting up, dressing up, and smiling for the cameras is also work.  It's a politicians work without any of the power.

It’s the pomp politicians have to do to get power with practically none of the potential fallback for failing(getting removed, being barred from political power), or responsibility of actually governing.

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

Conversely: ceremonial heads of state are in practice very rarely unifying figures. There's almost always groups of people who dislike them personally, are opposed to the existence of their position, or take against them for other reasons. Any discussion of them on this board, including this one, stands as an example.

Citation needed - other than this board.  In terms of constitutional monarchies in Europe outside the UK, last time I checked the monarchies maintained high popularity in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (albeit I know the popularity has recently gone down in the Netherlands).  The Israeli president is usually quite popular -- even though they are almost always former prominent politicians.  The emperor of Japan is very popular.

Now sure, there are always going to be a substantial percentage that don't like them, but for the most part, they are consistently and significantly more popular than active politicians.

22 minutes ago, mormont said:

The existence of a ceremonial head of state usually allows the head of government to de facto assume the political powers of the head of state in addition to their own, creating an over-powerful head of government. An elected head of state is an important political check on the power of the head of government.

There are comparatively few examples of countries where the head of state is non-ceremonial and not also the head of government (see here).  You seem to be comparing elected vs. unelected ceremonial heads of state.

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

Okay a king says I’m a nazi like king Edward VIII, dissolves parliament and appoints a PM sympathetic to his cause to oversee government.

What’s the recourse to remove him? 

The point about the UK is that the King is not sovereign, Parliment is sovereign. The King doesn’t have the power to appoint a PM, that is done by election. 
 

If a King or Queen even attempted to dissolve parliment against its wishes then laws would be brought in pretty much immediately to depose the monarch. 
 

Again, you seem to be under the assumption that the monarch has actual power. They do not. 

[Zorral]

Do those other 'ceremonial monarchies' also have a House of Lords as part of the governing body?

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The point about the UK is that the King is not sovereign, Parliment is sovereign.

First warning in most further contact with you I will remind you of equivocation of Harry supporting his wife with a man raping a child.

Second Legally you’re just wrong.

If parliament is dissolved MPs are no longer MPs they’ve no legal recourse to do anything.

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If a King or Queen even attempted to dissolve parliment against its wishes then laws would be brought in pretty much immediately to depose the monarch. 

Laws have to be approved by the monarch. You’re presenting Royal assent as a absolute formality, but if a monarch doesn’t want to sign something into that thing isn’t law.

 

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

you seem to be under the assumption that the monarch has actual power.

You present gentlemen’s agreements as legally binding constraints or contracts.

 

[horangi]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

They don't do any of the details of this 'work', and it's the details that are exhausting, not 'it.'  They don't even dress themselves. They don't navigate the traffic, they don't drive, they don't book the flights, they don't have to go through customs, they don't have find transport to a hotel, they don't book the hotel, they don't pack the luggage, they don't have to figure out where their breakfast tea will be (it's brought to them in bed, everything they like want/for breakfast, they don't even have to ask or find out there's nowhere around them that has the kind of food their diets require) -- they don't DO a frackin' thing.

I spent several years doing all that and giving the speeches, the presentations and all the rest; that's fun and feels worthwhile and energizes on.  It's everything else that makes it happen that is hard, difficult -- particularly when one's flight is delayed or canceled, or the rental car isn't there -- and you know what?  Doing all that IS hard WORK.

Heh, while acknowledging your point, being an introvert who has had to do more than enough diplomatic social events, I'd much more prefer to have been the driver, cook, waiter, or just about any other person involved that wasnt having to do the small talk and pretend to care about whatever inane nicety the other attendees had to say.  That is truly hazard pay!