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

[Varysblackfyre321]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Israeli president is usually quite popular -- even though they are almost always former prominent politicians. 

A president as a ceremonial head would be fine.

 

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.

But did you know the monarch wipes their own ass?

Are you not impressed with queen Elizabeth being able to do that for the vast majority of her life?

Also Did you know the food brought to her on a silver platter she had to chew it and then swallow it all by herself?/s

[Wade1865]

Wealth and income being equal, I'd choose being an anonymous Waste Management Consultant over being a member of the Royal Family with status. Regardless, all labor is honorable 

[JGP]

 

7 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Regardless, all labor is honorable 

We didn't have these kinds of problems when Santos ran the board, boy howdy

[A True Kaniggit]

Just now, JGP said:

 

We didn't have these kinds of problems when Santos ran the board, boy howdy

We didn’t have ANY problems when Santos ran the board. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

To be fair, I could walk up to you and try to give you a cinnamon roll and you might slap it out of my hand if you were in a bad mood. 

That's simply not true.  I love cinnamon rolls and never get to eat any.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Exactly.

If that is what she wanted instead of BEING QUEEN LIKE HER GREAT+GRANNY VICTORIA , she would have stepped down long ago because you know her HEIR was more than of age.  But like her GREAT+GRANNY VICTORIA she wasn't about to let go of BEING NUMBER ! forever and ever world without end for Queenie of Windsors.  Blech.

It is more appealing to one’s ego to be known as the monarch than the mother of the monarch.

Shes the one that gets invited by tories gets to talk on how government needs to tighten its spending habits,  all while wearing jewels worth millions she paid for through being a parasite..

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

We didn’t have ANY problems when Santos ran the board. 

Santos created this board—and ASOIAF.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's simply not true.  I love cinnamon rolls and never get to eat any.

There's one Cinnabon in Tampa and they deliver. Treat yourself tomorrow. 

[Wade1865]

Please tell me that was historical and not a meme.

[Wade1865]

OK, nvm. I get the reference now 

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Wade1865 said:

Please tell me that was historical and not a meme.

Ha, no it's a meme.  Clever.

https://imgflip.com/i/76kc65

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, horangi said:

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!

They don't even put on their own make-up -- except, maybe, precious lipgloss? 

Have you ever written a presentation, make a video accompaniment, packed, rushed to an airport for a late flight, found out somehow They doublebooked your room, tried to get around driving yourself in a rental in a tangled up city you have never been in, with horrible traffic plus roadwork everywhere with detours, not had dinner yet, and by the time you leave the event, where so many wanted to talk to you you never got any of the food and drink -- and this happens to be a place where at 10 PM there are no restaurant open? (Frequently the case in small liberal arts college towns, in case you wonder.) Then have to do the same thing all over again day after day?  If you did, you'd change your mind about how none of that is a problem.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You appear to be offended that I used the F-word for emphasis when asking why we even need a ceremonial head of state.

Again, TBF, it's not actually a terrible idea if you have a parliament with proportional representation. It's just a really bad one if you then say one family gets to be it based on some dumb bloodline shit. 

In the context of the US, I think it would work if we still have an Executive Branch with a great deal of power, but not actually have someone directly elected to run it. A multiparty legislative body could pick a head of the FBI or Department of Energy, for example, without having an imperial Presidency that nominates them.

And then independent of the everyday function of government have a ceremonial head of state who is also elected, but just sorta does shit like host foreign leaders or gives out awards or what have you, and it could be a position filled every few years by someone society really likes. President Tom Hanks, President Beyonce, President Scientist that cures cancer, whatever, if again they had no power except to be a glorified ambassador.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

President Tom Hanks, President Beyonce, President Scientist

Just to piss some people off president Megan Markle.

[Cas Stark]

People inherit all kinds of things.  They are born into families that run businesses large, medium and small and are expected to participate in that business.  The vast majority of them of course have an easier time walking away than the royal family, but many?most? don't becasue they're raised to be a part of XX, hardware store, real estate empire, media empire, whatever.  They inherit houses, investment portfolios and junk. 

I simply don't see the horror in this, inherited wealth or title or whatever.   I also don't believe the government should take .99/1.00, nor do I believe if you somehow managed to evade the tax people, that the goverment should then take 100% of whatever you have when you die.  So, a fundamentally different view of inherited wealth and taxation than most on here.

Also, speaking of the risks of the 'job' there was that time someone tried to kidnap Princess Anne and those [not very professional] assassination attempts agains the queen.  I'm sure though that being rich means none of that is stressful or matters at all.  Just as I'm sure being on public display your entire life isn't stressful at all. I mean, look at Harold, he's the picture of sanity and mental wellbeing, not twisted whatsoever by his position.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

I'm all for better enforcement, and, as I have said repeatedly, the rate for income should go down and the capital gains rate should be abolished and/or be taxed at a higher rate.  You seem to think that the tax system of the post-war era was a well-functioning highly complied with machine.  You would think wrong (and I have the case law to back me up).  A lot of what happened in 1984 and then more comprehensively in 1986 was to reform the system so that the rules were a lot clearer, there were fewer "loopholes" (i.e., legal ish ways to reduce tax bills without actually suffering economic loss), and to reduce the ability of individuals to game the system.  Put differently, the tax law shouldn't be like the American speed limit - more or less a suggestion for lots of different classes of people.  Rates as high as you are suggesting are not viewed by the general population as equitable over long periods, and you do end up driving away investment and wealth.  In a voluntary compliance system you want to incentivize compliance and that has a carrot and a stick element.  Now, if you want to fix the taxation system itself, you really need to boil back to first principles.  What are you taxing?  How do you measure it? Over what period?  What is your collection method?  It's actually fascinating, and we could do better, but it's actually pretty hard (as it turns out) to construct something that is in fact workable.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

Interesting.  I think we are similar, candidly.  We have something similar to your country houses.  They are called "family farms" and they are both mythical and sacred.

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In the context of the US, I think it would work if we still have an Executive Branch with a great deal of power, but not actually have someone directly elected to run it.

The current office that runs the executive branch in the US already is not directly elected.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

People inherit all kinds of things.  They are born into families that run businesses large, medium and small and are expected to participate in that business.

Political power or position should never formally be one of them.

 

A person can inherit a business and bankrupt the business, their failures not having a guarantee for a bailout or a virtually never ending supply of funds by the tax payer.

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

The vast majority of them of course have an easier time walking away than the royal family, but many?most?

Stop trying  to make being an ridiculously over-paid mascot some sorrowful feat we need all slobbery thankful for.

 

The lowliest shop keeper has contributed to the world than did in her 70 year reign dressing fancy going to extravagant balls, and being treated like a living god by most she’d met.

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

don't becasue they're raised to be a part of XX, hardware store, real estate empire, media empire, whatever.  They inherit houses, investment portfolios and junk. 

 

Elizabeth never had to work a day in her life to get or keep her position, neither did her immediate predecessors nor her brood or their brood because they are parasites onto society.
 

She also used her position and wealth to shield her pedo son from justice. How do feel about that?

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

I simply don't see the horror in this,

It’s bad when people are parasites.

Its bad when political positions and or power are legally owed to people based their bloodline 

 

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Also, speaking of the risks of the 'job' there was that time someone tried to kidnap Princess Anne and those [not very professional] assassination attempts agains the queen. 

A risk many extremely rich people  have to contend with unfortunately.

No one should feel grateful or give reverence towards the queen for bearing these risks to get her wealth and power anymore anymore than they should towards people who won a lottery and were killed

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm sure though that being rich means none of that is stressful or matters at all. 

It can be stressful.

 

I’m going to guess like plenty American conservatives you rage about people who are much more economically vulnerable positions(let’s say a single mother of five who works as a maid) using welfare programs and cry about people needing to pull themselves up from their boot straps.

If this is an unfair assessment I truly apologize.

If not… 

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

Just as I'm sure being on public display your entire life isn't stressful at all.

For a life of decadence it probably becomes remarkably less so.

 

Monarchs get a luxurious lifestyle they never have to lift a finger to earn or upkeep.

the most labor intensive thing you listed for Elizabeth was her doing small talk and occasionally doing speech to crowds that practically worshipped her.

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

I mean, look at Harold, he's the picture of sanity and mental wellbeing, not twisted whatsoever by his position.

Eh, seems like a pretty normal guy all things considered. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

The current office that runs the executive branch in the US already is not directly elected.

Spoken like a man who hasn't enjoyed a pastry in a long fucking time. You know what I meant.

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'm all for better enforcement, and, as I have said repeatedly, the rate for income should go down and the capital gains rate should be abolished and/or be taxed at a higher rate.  You seem to think that the tax system of the post-war era was a well-functioning highly complied with machine.  You would think wrong (and I have the case law to back me up).  A lot of what happened in 1984 and then more comprehensively in 1986 was to reform the system so that the rules were a lot clearer, there were fewer "loopholes" (i.e., legal ish ways to reduce tax bills without actually suffering economic loss), and to reduce the ability of individuals to game the system.  

Obviously you understand the subject much better than I do, but I'm curious, why did you bring up a time well after the understood post-WW2 era and also, isn't that the time when taxes dropped an insane amount for the wealthy and the loopholes began to explode? It's in the mid 80's when the horrendous wealth gap really started to begin and a huge reason why that happened was the change in tax laws and the ultra rich really beginning to exploit in a way the was reminiscent of the Gilded Age up until the market crashed.

Quote

Put differently, the tax law shouldn't be like the American speed limit - more or less a suggestion for lots of different classes of people.  Rates as high as you are suggesting are not viewed by the general population as equitable over long periods, and you do end up driving away investment and wealth.  

It is a suggestion though. The people who can't afford someone like you or @Chataya de Fleury are basically forced into a different set of speed limits. And the argument you're making is more less, "well, you could drive people with means away, so why risk it?"

I don't see this any differently then when I suggest to @Spockydog that soccer might be made better by having less stringent offside rules. Worse causse scenario, you try it for a bit, and if it turns out to be a bad idea you admit a mistake was made and you reset everything. The world will not come crashing down. 

Quote

In a voluntary compliance system you want to incentivize compliance and that has a carrot and a stick element.  Now, if you want to fix the taxation system itself, you really need to boil back to first principles.  What are you taxing?  How do you measure it? Over what period?  What is your collection method?  It's actually fascinating, and we could do better, but it's actually pretty hard (as it turns out) to construct something that is in fact workable.

Perhaps this is just me being a cynical optimist, in the weirdest and truest sense, but I do think you can make a pretty workable system with what you outlined. I don't think you need to build a tax structure that focuses on the super rich that will in any way, shape or form hurt even the upper middle class. I'm arguing why we need to focus in on the 1% of the 1%, and everything else really seems like a distraction that we can figure out a solution for that won't negatively impact anyone who can't afford it.

As of right now, we have people not making very much who pay more in federal taxes than literal billionaires. So long as that's the case, there's no defending the current system. 
 

[DMC]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Spoken like a man who hasn't enjoyed a pastry in a long fucking time. You know what I meant.

I was certainly being a smartass, but actually no I don't really understand what your suggestion there was.