Prince Harry of Santa Barbara County

Day-Tripper

Day-Tripper

10-Year Member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
895
Does anyone actually care?
Is the idea of a hereditary monarchy (even a sorta-kinda ceremonial one) a little silly in the 21st century? Especially in a country where modern democracy was founded.
Does it make sense to use taxpayer money to finance non-working people to live like billionaires? Don't say tourism - France did away with their royals & lots of people travel there.
Why does this situation garner more passion and interest than the fact the UK has had 5 prime ministers in 6 years (not, in itself, a bad thing)?
The uniforms, the palaces, the castles, etc. Pretending like its always 1870. Women in those hats. King Charles dresses like a field marshal or air force ace or naval admiral, for no reason. Ugggh.
Imagine if all US presidents wore Abe Lincoln-like stove pipe hats & were surrounded by soldiers in Civil War uniforms. Forever.

Or is all this a cottage industry aimed at middle age women swooning over the "romance" of the whole thing? Buying up commeorative plates and tabloid newspapers?

Like him or hate him, Bonnie Prince Harry is the only one of the bunch to have to had a paying job (army for a decade, Netflix entertainment something-or-other currently).
 
Harold and Meghan: famous for being famous. Though I do give them credit for weaning themselves from the royal purse and making a living on their own. Much more than we can say for the others.
 
Hereditary Royalty is much less a problem than the Hereditary Wealthy. Both of which are supported by the working classes. Both receiving their undeserved position based on the luck of birth.

At least with the Royals they generally seem harmless enough.
 
They are the new generation of Tik Tok influencers. I jest, but do I really??

We have our own ‘Royalty’. Although not divinely appointed, they are similar. The Kardashians, for example.
 
Last edited:
Day-Tripper said:
Like him or hate him, Bonnie Prince Harry is the only one of the bunch to have to had a paying job (army for a decade, Netflix entertainment something-or-other currently).
Click to expand...
Charles was a Naval Officer for years. William also served.
.
While I personally think that it is ridiculous, I do think it's THEIR BUSINESS and as I am not a Brit, I keep my thoughts to myself.
I only wish that the multitudes of Canadians, Brits, French, etc who opine endlessly would keep their pie-holes shut about OUR system.
 
One benefit (and cant recall if QE2 said it or just retold it) is that it isnt so much about authority but preventing others from having it. If the PM was the absolute head of state, I believe the political pendulum would have wilder swings in the UK. The monarchy also performs many of the "ribbon-cutting" duties that would fall on the PM if abolished. That frees the PM up to have more time governing.

In practice, I can't speak for how effective or better that is. But, it does seem be a benefit that makes the system not completely without use.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
Hereditary Royalty is much less a problem than the Hereditary Wealthy. Both of which are supported by the working classes. Both receiving their undeserved position based on the luck of birth.

At least with the Royals they generally seem harmless enough.
Click to expand...
While the characterization of hereditary royalty may be accurate, it does not apply to hereditary wealth. As long as they keep procreating, royalty does not dissipate over time and in many cases is supported by the masses of all classes.

Wealth is created through ambition, hard work, intelligence, and opportunity. It is passed on to future generations who may grow it and use it purposefully, without support from the masses, working class or otherwise. It may also be squandered, to be passed on no further - it dissipates over time without continued effort and diligence. Looking closely at the great cities of America often reveals the noblesse oblige of great families, some whose lineage has dissipated and some who still continue their work below the radar of most observers.

I have been acquainted with individuals of families of hereditary wealth; some have made me want to puke and some I respect greatly. Unfortunately, the unsavory ones make better headlines.
 
jl123 said:
While the characterization of hereditary royalty may be accurate, it does not apply to hereditary wealth. As long as they keep procreating, royalty does not dissipate over time and in many cases is supported by the masses of all classes.

Wealth is created through ambition, hard work, intelligence, and opportunity. It is passed on to future generations who may grow it and use it purposefully, without support from the masses, working class or otherwise. It may also be squandered, to be passed on no further - it dissipates over time without continued effort and diligence. Looking closely at the great cities of America often reveals the noblesse oblige of great families, some whose lineage has dissipated and some who still continue their work below the radar of most observers.

I have been acquainted with individuals of families of hereditary wealth; some have made me want to puke and some I respect greatly. Unfortunately, the unsavory ones make better headlines.
Click to expand...
A fair chance for all. Let the children of the wealthy earn their own spot. Otherwise they are just kids born on 3rd base with the wind behind their back and an unfair unearned advantage to push them along.

Born lucky nothing more. Every advantage that money can buy.


Let’s see how smart and resourceful and hardworking they are if they have to earn everything on their own.

Heck some of the children of the wealthy might even end up serving in our military for GIBill money if nothing else.
 
And serving in the military.

I will give the Brit royals their due. They were not raised to be draft dodging combat avoiding non serving types. They don’t avoid serving in war with 3 4 5 deferments.

Our wealthy elite tend to raise the other kind of kid.
 
There is not, never has been, and never will be an equal starting point.

Most wealthy people raise their children to be responsible, productive adults. The same is true of most poor and middle class people. A poor or middle class parent will provide every advantage they can to their children. No less should be expected from a wealthy parent.

Envy of those with more is as destructive to a society as creating impediments for those with less.
 
justdoit19 said:
They are the new generation of Tik Tok influencers. I jest, but do I really??

We have our own ‘Royalty’. Although not divinely appointed, they are similar. The Kardashians, for example.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the Kardashian family at all.....but they don't take a cent from the US Treasury (and I imagine pay some in taxes) & actually have worked for their wealth (if you call it "work") unless royalty.
 
OldRetSWO said:
Charles was a Naval Officer for years. William also served.
.
While I personally think that it is ridiculous, I do think it's THEIR BUSINESS and as I am not a Brit, I keep my thoughts to myself.
I only wish that the multitudes of Canadians, Brits, French, etc who opine endlessly would keep their pie-holes shut about OUR system.
Click to expand...

In a free world people can praise or criticize at will. Makes for good pub conversation, if nothing else. Opining endlessly is in the eye of the beholder.
 
jl123 said:
There is not, never has been, and never will be an equal starting point.

Most wealthy people raise their children to be responsible, productive adults. The same is true of most poor and middle class people. A poor or middle class parent will provide every advantage they can to their children. No less should be expected from a wealthy parent.

Envy of those with more is as destructive to a society as creating impediments for those with less.
Click to expand...
I don’t care how well the wealthy raise their children. That is not an issue except for this——They certainly do not raise their children to serve the country.

Unlike generations of long ago.

Since these ultra rich who often generate so little for the actual good of a society and since they, their children, and grandchildren will refuse to serve in a military( or peace corps or similar) that protects their riches——-time to make sure they pay a significant amount of tax.


The days of billionaires who refuse to serve and then don’t pay their fair share of taxes should be over. A significant min tax for all the truly wealthy. Make them carry some of the load.
 
I've only done one thing related to H&M. I canceled my Netflix account when I realized how much of my money was potentially spent on the H&M special (which, of course, I didn't watch). Not missed Netflix at all and saving $16/month. Amazon Prime video works just as well and actually has more things I want to watch.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
A significant min tax for all the truly wealthy. Make them carry some of the load.
Click to expand...
I like the death tax for everyone. Anything in the estate over $500,000 should be taxed at 55%-70%. In 1981 anything over $175,000 was taxed at 70%. In today's dollars that $175k is about $600k. I'd be okay with 2001's amount of $1 million, but at the 1981 rate of 70%- no exceptions or doubling if married, just whack the whole estate at 70%. The old tale from 20 years ago about farmers losing their generational family farm, was BS. The farm bureau couldn't cite one example of a lost farm due to estate taxes.


www.nytimes.com

Talk of Lost Farms Reflects Muddle of Estate Tax Debate (Published 2001)

Article on reality of estate taxes, which is far different from mythology in which family farmers have become icons for abolition campaign; IRS analysis for 1999 finds that almost no actual working farmers owe anything in estate taxes, Iowa State economist Neal Harl has never found case in which...
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

taxfoundation.org

Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014

Table: Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014 Year Estate Tax Exemption Lifetime Gift Tax Exemption Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Maximum Estate Tax Rate Maximum Gift Tax Rate Source: Internal Revenue Service, CCH Inc.; Julie Garber’s “Annual Exclusion from Gift...
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org
 
nature boy said:
I like the death tax for everyone. Anything in the estate over $500,000 should be taxed at 55%-70%. In 1981 anything over $175,000 was taxed at 70%. In today's dollars that $175k is about $600k. I'd be okay with 2001's amount of $1 million, but at the 1981 rate of 70%- no exceptions or doubling if married, just whack the whole estate at 70%. The old tale from 20 years ago about farmers losing their generational family farm, was BS. The farm bureau couldn't cite one example of a lost farm due to estate taxes.


www.nytimes.com

Talk of Lost Farms Reflects Muddle of Estate Tax Debate (Published 2001)

Article on reality of estate taxes, which is far different from mythology in which family farmers have become icons for abolition campaign; IRS analysis for 1999 finds that almost no actual working farmers owe anything in estate taxes, Iowa State economist Neal Harl has never found case in which...
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

taxfoundation.org

Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014

Table: Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rates, Exemptions, and Exclusions, 1916-2014 Year Estate Tax Exemption Lifetime Gift Tax Exemption Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Maximum Estate Tax Rate Maximum Gift Tax Rate Source: Internal Revenue Service, CCH Inc.; Julie Garber’s “Annual Exclusion from Gift...
taxfoundation.org taxfoundation.org
Click to expand...

I prefer government become fiscally responsible. It’s double taxation. All that wealth was subject to income taxes already.
 
They won’t serve to protect the country and it’s people. They have since VN sprinted into a non serving cowardly class who run from taxes the same way they run from serving during a time of decades of combat deployments..

And they don’t pay their fair share of taxes to help,others help protect and serve the country.

They are often just dead weight that does not help carry the load and not as fun to watch as the Royals are for so many

.https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/based-wealth-growth-26-top-billionaires-paid-average-income-tax-rate-just-4-8-6-recent-years/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top