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

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A risk many extremely rich people  have to contend with unfortunately

OTOH, poor and powerless people are kidnapped all the time into sex trafficking and slavery, of every gender.  ALL THE TIME.  Not occasionally.  And nobody gives a damn if they if they survive the breaking in etc.  Many do not. Those who do are ... well not in good places of any kind, particularly financially.  Plus, of course, nobody gives a goddamn.  They don't even want to see it on tv as entertainment because such a buzz kill.

[horangi]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

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.

LOL, well fortunately I would never expect, nor want, that kind of 'service'- being a fully functional human and all.

As for having done the aforementioned... Yes- it was called Graduate School. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour 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.

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.

I brought up 1984 and 1986 because that is when the reforms happened that closed significant loopholes that were in the 1954 Code.  The 1954 Code was an improvement over the 1939 Code, for sure, but there was a lot there.  Prior to the significant limitations on things like deductions for passive losses (passed in 1986), meant that people did all kinds of things to reduce their rate.  That was the golden age of pig farms and aircraft engine partnerships, foreign tax generator partnerships and offshore bank accounts.  Don’t kid yourself.  There is a HUGE body of what I’ll call “substance over form” common law (I’m putting things like step transaction in that bucket too). That all arose piecemeal (and often different in different circuits) because the 1954 Code was a sieve.  

I’d actually really put the blame on the restoration of true capital gains preferences in the 1990s (in 1986 they were taxed at a top rate of 33%, but when ordinary rates were increased in 1990 and 1993, they retained the top rate of 28% on capital gains - was stupid).  The other thing I would suggest is that margin loans should be taxed if outstanding for more than [2] years.  This is very, very do-able.  

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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?"

Well, the question is how much of a suggestion is it.  My clients listen to me when I tell them they have a “high class problem” when their realization gets them a tax of 54% (assuming NY) and suck it up.  If they were forking over 90% you and I both know that dog wouldn’t hunt.  Could you raise the top federal rate to 60%?  Sure.  States would race to the bottom fast, and I’m not sure that’s a good thing, but sure.  Beyond that?  Nah.  

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

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. 
 

If you want to tag the 1% of the 1% see above on taxing margin loans and eliminating the capital gains preference.  

[mormont]

First off:

[mod] Let's keep it civil, please. I had to delete a fair amount of interpersonal bickering and I know you all know how to correctly respond to that, and it's not by firing back. Thank you. [/mod]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Citation needed - other than this board.

I was going to cite this, too:

Quote

 

Now sure, there are always going to be a substantial percentage that don't like them

I mean, do we disagree on that point? It doesn't seem so from that comment. 

Even QEII, who had a tremendous approval rating and a compliant press, still had about 10% of people who had a negative view of her personally. Charles has 27%. 68% have a positive view of the UK monarchy as an institution and before Liz's death, only 33% of 18-24 year olds wanted to continue the monarchy. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/britain-grief-polling-figures-monarchy-popularity

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all

Now, those figures for a politician would be pretty good but the entire point of a monarchy is that they're supposed to not be politicians: as you say, their entire purpose is to be unifying figures. Their job is to avoid controversy and unpopularity. So that's not really the correct point of comparison IMO.

Anyway. I've cited UK figures because they were the easiest for me to dig up, but there may be differences elsewhere.  

10 hours ago, DMC said:

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.

Well, the topic is monarchies and those are generally unelected. It's cited as a point in their favour. But fair enough. 

You didn't really address the point that monarchs are inherently political figures posing as non-political figures. Just because someone isn't elected, doesn't mean they're non-political. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 1/11/2023 at 11:40 PM, mormont said:

When we abolish the monarchy, not long now, we should seize the lot. Morally, it's all ours anyway.

A philosophical question if you allow me.

Will you abolish the monarchy before or after Scottish independence. I know chicken-egg question. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

16 hours 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.  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.

Is your thesis here that inherited wealth is a burden most of us should be happy not to have?  L O Fucking L.  "They suffer so you don't have to."  

[Zorral]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

You didn't really address the point that monarchs are inherently political figures posing as non-political figures. Just because someone isn't elected, doesn't mean they're non-political. 

Think of the many hereditary, non-elected, monarchs currently running their countries.  Saudi,  Jordan, the UAEs, and many others; there are also 'mixed use' >Ha!< monarchies too, in which the royal retains many-most of the powers of a ruling king.

Quote

 

This is a list of current monarchies. (As of 2019), there are 44 sovereign states in the world with a monarch as Head of state. 13 in Asia, 12 in Europe, 10 in North America, 6 in Oceania and 3 in Africa:

https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/31833#:~:text=This is a list of,Oceania and 3 in Africa.

 

 

[DMC]

13 hours ago, mormont said:

Now, those figures for a politician would be pretty good but the entire point of a monarchy is that they're supposed to not be politicians: as you say, their entire purpose is to be unifying figures. Their job is to avoid controversy and unpopularity. So that's not really the correct point of comparison IMO.

Your point of comparison seems unrealistic.  68% certainly qualifies as a unifying figure - that's two-thirds of the country.  I mentioned the Japanese emperor being very popular.  In 2020, Naruhito had 75% favorability.  Upon his abdication in 2019, 87% said Akihito "fulfilled his role as a symbol of the state."  The Norwegian monarchy is currently enjoying record approval at 84%.  Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has an approval of over 80%.  

As a student of political behavior, these are about as high as any reasonable expectations should anticipate for a unifying and nonpartisan figurehead.

14 hours ago, mormont said:

You didn't really address the point that monarchs are inherently political figures posing as non-political figures. Just because someone isn't elected, doesn't mean they're non-political. 

When did I say they're "non-political?"  I said they're supposed to be above the partisan fray and, subsequently, their role is depoliticized.  But of course any head of state - even ceremonial - is still necessarily a "political figure."

[mormont]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Your point of comparison seems unrealistic.  68% certainly qualifies as a unifying figure - that's two-thirds of the country.

OK, then we may simply have a different definition of 'unifying'. 'Unity', to me, does not mean 'a 68/32 split'. I'm not asking for 100% support, but the Royals are lagging behind the NHS as a 'unifying' force in the UK (the NHS has about 88% support).

The figures for other countries are interesting - that's more 'unifying' for me. But my other principled objections remain: monarchies are not a good thing in this day and age. We can and should find better unifying institutions.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

We can and should find better unifying institutions.

Any ideas?

[DMC]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

But my other principled objections remain: monarchies are not a good thing in this day and age. We can and should find better unifying institutions.

Agreed.  As I said in my first post ideally the ceremonial head of state should be elected.  What I was responding to there was the contention that one can not be a small-d "democrat" and still support a hereditary monarchy as a ceremonial head of state.  I don't think that's the case at a theoretical/logical level.  And at an empirical level, some of the most "democratic" countries in the world also have hereditary monarchies.  

[Zorral]

“What fools these mortals be!”  Does come to mind among all the blob media and other babble regarding Spare, and H&M.  Inevitably one must think of Mervyn Peake’s take on British monarchy, already back in the 1940’s and 50’s, Titus Groan, the putative protagonist of the Gormenghast Trilogy.

[Wade1865]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Any ideas?

Heartofice -- a transitional (non-apocalyptic) period comprising the cleansing fires of global natural disasters coupled with an adequate destruction of life and wealth; followed by the reorganization of whatever’s left by the strong(est).

[Wade1865]

[Cas Stark]

I just wanna know who are the 2% who've never heard of anyone in the RF including the late Queen.  It's interesting that the other European royal houses are more popular overall that the British RF.  I wonder if that has to do with the UK tabloid culture having turned them into de facto celebrities? I don't know really anything about the media climate in Denmark or Japan, so that may not be a viable reason.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Japan is a bad comparission. The Tenno is in some way probably more comparable to the Pope (for Catholics) in many respects (at least socially).

I don't really care that much for Royals and Royal Houses and that whole shizzle, but I don't think the tabloid treatment for let's say the Dutch royalty is much different from their English counterparts. But that's probably something some Dutch is better prepared to answer.

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Japan is a bad comparission.

Er, there's absolutely no reason to omit Japan in a discussion comparing hereditary monarchies as ceremonial heads of state.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Yes, and no.

I think the cultural difference is a bit too much to properly compare the Tenno to Charles.

I mean, we could probably also have a discussion about how much of a democracy a state is, that's effectively been ruled by one party for the past 70 years (the LDP's strangehold on the Japanese electorate is a real thing). 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yes, and no.

I think the cultural difference is a bit too much to properly compare the Tenno to Charles.

There's cultural differences between all of them.  As well as institutional differences, political contexts, etc.  The British monarch is also the head of the Church of England.  Should we omit the UK too?  If you're going to compare hereditary monarchs as ceremonial heads of state, then it's best to be comprehensive.  Of course if you wanna do a multilevel analysis you can also operationalize these differences as variables, but the sample should include all of them.  Well, maybe you can leave out Andorra cuz, like, twelve people live there.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I'd still argue for a narrower analysis of Western Democracies with hereditary monarchs as head of states (that is admittedly a rather narrow pool, basically Spain, Scandinavia, the Benelux states, Liechtenstein, and the UK and commonwealth realm (that kept House Hangover Windsor as their heads of state)).