Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The monarch hasn't had any power in centuries.

They don’t use the power they have. The monarch’s have become comfortable being parasites.

As a proud red-blooded American such an anti-meritocratic institution is perverse to me.
 

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The 'cost' to the taxpayer is miniscule, in the US federal budget $120 million is a fucking rounding error.

The fiscal conservative within me hates any government waste.;)

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

They dress nice, attend community events, a few big splashy events.  They never express any opinion more controversial than 'childhood education, good; gardens, good, domestic violence, not good.  I

They can do all that stuff without unearned privileges by the government.

Hell they may be forced to do even more of that to keep up their wealth.

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

.  The Queen worked for 30 years after the most lowly shop clerk would have put her feet up in retirement.

The most lowly shop keeper would trade lives with the queen in a second. Her job which she earned by virtue of being born wasn’t that difficult.
 

She didn’t sacrifice anything substantial by keeping the position that she got through blood right. A position that got her worshipped by hundreds of millions and only entailed what you laid out—dressing nice, going out to big flashy events, and saying politically uncontroversial statements occasionally.

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Sure, I like pageantry and I think it's great that there is a living connection to 1000 years of history and it will be very very sad when the monarchy finally ends.  

Tradition isn’t commendable in it of itself.

you keep bringing up this juvenile idea of how long something has existed as being indicative of its moral worth

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

She didn’t sacrifice anything substantial by keeping the position that she got through blood right.

Except for her privacy, her personal agency, and her family.  

I wouldn't say I wouldn't take that deal, because I would. But I am quite sure the Queen would have much preferred being a rich aristrocrat who could breed horses and dogs, hunt, go to tea and make 1 or 2 public appearances a year and do whatever she wanted than the life she led.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They don’t use the power they have. The monarch’s have become comfortable being parasites.

The whole point is they don't actually have that power, its ceremonial at best. If they ever tried to exercise it, it would be taken away from them immediately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That worked out so well for Charles I

The war to remove cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and parliament remained dissolved for over a decade.

 

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Harry is looking at 33/59 split on the negative and I don't think his book is winning him any favours. Meghan is doing even worse.

It still amuses me you equate Harry to a child-rapist.

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He could try.  Somehow, I think it's unlikely he'd succeed.

“Try” ”somehow” dude this is what he can constitutionally do. If he does do thing that he can legally do what’s the recourse to getting rid of him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The war to remove cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and parliament remained dissolved for over a decade.

And.. then he had his head chopped off. I'm sure Charles 3 is totally up for repeating that.

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It still amuses me you equate Harry to a child-rapist.

You have trouble reading on the best days.

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

“Try” ”somehow” dude this is what he can constitutionally do. If he does do thing that he can legally do what’s the recourse to getting r

Take me through a scenario where this actually plays out. See how far you get before you have a lightbulb moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This I thought was a great piece, the author considers the best reason to end the monarchy isn't all this class BS and envy as seen on this thread but because it is incredibly damaging to the individuals who are caught in the golden trap and are already molded to the role before they have any ability to consent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/prince-harry-spare-memoir-meghan-monarchy/672701/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Except for her privacy

As any celebrity does

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

her personal agency

I want to say Nope, she’ had more more power than you or I will probably ever will dude.

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

and her family.  

Are you implying she murdered her way to the throne somehow lol?

Sorry I don’t know what this means.honestly.

9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

wouldn't say I wouldn't take that deal, because I would. But I am quite sure the Queen would have much preferred being a rich aristrocrat who could breed horses and dogs, hunt, go to tea and make 1 or 2 public appearances a year and do whatever she wanted than the life she led.  

Clearly she preferred being worshipped by hundreds millions, getting a hundred plus of.millions a year than being a lower-tier aristocrat that would see her attend a few less decadent parties or whatever.

 

I think it’s funny how you mocked Harry for complaining about having a smaller room than his brother but try to frame Queen’s life as some Herculean self-sacrificial task we should all be in awe of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

This I thought was a great piece, the author considers the best reason to end the monarchy isn't all this class BS and envy as seen on this thread

Pointing out that some rich fucker doesn't deserve their wealth isn't envy.

Never quite understood why people would look up to the aristocracy, whether it's the British inbreds or the exploiting capitalists like Bezos. What these parasitic fuckers truly deserve is the guillotine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Supporting a hereditary monarchy as a ceremonial head of state and supporting democracy are hardly mutually exclusive.  There's no inherent conceptual contradiction between the two.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You have trouble reading on the best days.

You see child-rape as bad for being a social taboo—not for the actual harm it brings.

That imho is disgusting.

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And.. then he had his head chopped off. I'm sure Charles 3 is totally up for repeating that.

No, he appears to be comfortable being a parasite like his mother and most of his recent predecessors. Can’t say for sure the moral compass or mental well-being of future kings.

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Take me through a scenario where this actually plays out. See how far you get before you have a lightbulb moment.

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we really have an argument about high earners being taxed a lot being bad. Do me a favour. High taxes for the wealthy go some small way to equalising the difference between jobs getting inordinately high wages because capitalism is screwy and those equally hard, just as and often far more important jobs getting low wages because, well, capitalism is screwy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Pretty rich from a country where the top rate hits at a level two or three times higher than the top rate in Canada. And like I said, I didn’t make $100M a year, let alone a billion.

 

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Nobody actually paid those rates, in the UK, unless they were very badly advised.

Income tax allowances were far higher, relative to incomes, than now, capital gains were untaxed, and all manner of expenses could be offset against income.

So my diabolical plan worked and we are actually talking tax policy.  While the Laffer curve is in fact laughable, there is academic research that supports that marginal rates above a certain level do in fact (i) reduce economic activity and (ii) possibly more importantly, incentivise non-compliance (and therefore reduce trust in the system).  Basically where you have a voluntary reporting system, the greater the marginal benefit of "cheating" or perceived cheating.  I think the optimal rate is somewhere in the 60s, but would have to go back and read the papers.

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The whole point about income taxes is they are regressive, because it takes money directly out of the pockets of lower paid workers before they even have access to it. If you are in any way a higher income earner then you have the ability to funnel your money in a way that makes sure you don't get taxed to those levels on it, and once you do become a higher earner you put in a lot more effort to do so. 

I am interested in seeing how an actual wealth tax functions instead, because it is wealth that is far more important in these instances. 

The most efficient way to do this is through real inheritance taxes.  Unfortunately this is a super emotional issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

The queen used £12m of public money to keep her paedo son out of court, while nurses working 18 hour-shifts are having to use foodbanks. 

If this isn't the definition of Parasitic Cunts, then I don't know what is.

Exactly.

The propaganda that the monarchy / firm has no real power, and isn't meaningful in any way to the nation's condition of aristocratic rulership and WHO ARE DOING THE RULING WHILE PAYING NO TAXES AND STAYING OUT OF PRISON AND EVEN FREE FROM LEGAL-CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF ANY KIND, are purely decorative and ornamental is the bullshyte passed out to the serfs, peons, and all the other little people who are to be kept quiet and blinded by the further propaganda directed by them to the garbage media and tabloids.  That everyone keeps swallowing this is incomprehensible.  Just for starters -- why in a democracy is your top ruling body the House of LORDS?  Um, this isn't just ceremonial.  You cannot have a House of LORDS without royalty.

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Clearly she preferred being worshipped by hundreds millions, getting a hundred plus of.millions a year than being a lower-tier aristocrat that would see her attend a few less decadent parties or whatever

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Did we really have an argument about high earners being taxed a lot being bad. Do me a favour. High taxes for the wealthy go some small way to equalising the difference between jobs getting inordinately high wages because capitalism is screwy and those equally hard, just as and often far more important jobs getting low wages because, well, capitalism is screwy.  

No. I don’t think taxing high earners is bad. The problem is the definition of a high earner. When I was in my peak earning years that was $80,000. I just looked at the tax brackets in Canada, and was surprised to see the top bracket in Canada is now $216k, where you pay 33% in federal taxes, but then you pay provincial taxes in addition to that amount. My province considers $90k as the “rich” threshold, the combined rate being almost 43%, (it does a slow creep to almost 47% at $220k) still a helluva a lot better than the 53% I was paying (I think in my worst/best year the effective rate was 42%), but of course when you add in all other taxes and fees, most of which are not tax deductible, you might get into the 75% range. Things could be worse, I could live in Quebec where the top combined rate even today is just under 60%, because of stupid debt accumulated over the last 50 years.

In the US, that top bracket kicks in at just under $540k. At one point I saw a story about what the effective rate the Obamas paid after he left the presidency, iirc it was 19%. He’s a lot richer than I am, I look wistfully at that tax rate.

I read a book more than a decade ago called, I think, What’s Your Number, where the author went around asking people what amount of money they’d need to consider themselves “rich”. Once upon a time the magic number was a million dollars, many people said that rapidly went to $10M, and once they hit middle age they realized they really needed $25M. Quite a few people said “rich” doesn’t hit until you have $100M. The book is more than a decade old, I bet most Americans now think you aren’t really rich until you have $500M.

The problem is today that if you tax someone with $10M at 60% they get very, very angry, because they aren’t “rich” and shouldn’t pay that kind of money in taxes. You saw Ty’s comments, I think, where he said H&M really aren’t rich at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

So my diabolical plan worked and we are actually talking tax policy.  While the Laffer curve is in fact laughable, there is academic research that supports that marginal rates above a certain level do in fact (i) reduce economic activity and (ii) possibly more importantly, incentivise non-compliance (and therefore reduce trust in the system).  Basically where you have a voluntary reporting system, the greater the marginal benefit of "cheating" or perceived cheating.  I think the optimal rate is somewhere in the 60s, but would have to go back and read the papers.

 

I don't need no stinking papers. The amount of tax cheating far exceeds any potential negative impact to growth by having tax rates too high.

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Pointing out that some rich fucker doesn't deserve their wealth isn't envy.

Never quite understood why people would look up to the aristocracy, whether it's the British inbreds or the exploiting capitalists like Bezos. What these parasitic fuckers truly deserve is the guillotine.

I think that rich world countries are very fortunate to have plenty of billionaires.

Peter Mandelson was right when he said he had no problem with people getting filthy rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Pointing out that some rich fucker doesn't deserve their wealth isn't envy.

Never quite understood why people would look up to the aristocracy, whether it's the British inbreds or the exploiting capitalists like Bezos. What these parasitic fuckers truly deserve is the guillotine.

The most French thing ever said on this board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The most efficient way to do this is through real inheritance taxes.  Unfortunately this is a super emotional issue.  

There is literally no level of inheritance tax that is too high as far as I'm concerned. :commie:

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that rich world countries are very fortunate to have plenty of billionaires.

None at all is the number that we would be fortunate to have globally.

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Peter Mandelson was right

Nothing that follows these four words can ever be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

There is literally no level of inheritance tax that is too high as far as I'm concerned. :commie:

I don't know. I'm all for progressive tax policy, seriously, but I think with Inheritance taxing [general] you may be getting a little too close to state double dipping, no go. 

 

[makes finger-heart thingies at tax Queen @Mlle. Zabzie]

 

Y/N? 

Edited by JGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...