Kate and Williams Baby

[Raithe]

The difference being the "really rich families" didn't amass their fortunes through taxation.

 

I'm pretty sure that depends on how you look at it, the rich families that started out as Renaissance money-lenders might not be classed as "taxation" in the one sense...

 

Also, please, the revolving door of politicians in any modern democracy make a killing via government money. They go in, spend their years as politicians making contacts, then come out to be lobbyists or work for a defence firm or some other group that swills from the government trough.

 

Tell you what, shall we look at all the fine upstanding families that made their original fortune on the slave trade? Tell them that just because they haven't been involved in it for 200 years or so, it doesn't matter how they make their money now because the seed money comes from that, so the government has a right to take it away?

 

Wait, shall we hit the swiss banks and do the same?

 

Edit:

By the by, didn't earn it?  Do you really think it was easy becoming the first Kings and ruling a nation and protecting it from other people who wanting to crush it and add it to their domains?  

Edited July 24, 2013 by Raithe

[Gfted1]

Unless Ive missed some subtlety you seem to be repeating yourself so perhaps I need to restate my opinion. What Im saying is that the monarchy is a product of the people it represents and has created wealth via the taxes of its citizens. Private wealth is earned differently and liking the method is immaterial. As such, imo, the monarchy shouldn't "own" anything, it should belong to "the people". 

[Malcador]

Why single out the Royal family as if just because they're Royal it makes it worse then all the others you're totally happy with.  Say "let's kick em out and take their money" all you want. Just be perfectly valid and say "Lets get rid of the Kennedy's!"  or pretty much EVERY family group that's been rich for a century.

Well, you could differ between the two by one not invoking divine right or something like that. A slight difference I assume. Not that the Royals are any better than a cabal of rich bankers, though.

[Amentep]

The difference being the "really rich families" didn't amass their fortunes through taxation.

 

If they earn it through manipulation of public office, does it matter if it was taxation or ensuring companies they held interests in got preferential treatment (lower taxes, government grant funds, exclusive or lopsided contracts with the government)?

[BruceVC]

 

 

And the less fortunate can suck it.

 

Gfted1 you naughty, naughty boy. That's a terrible thing to say !!! I am going to send you to your room without desert !!!!

 

You can't say you are someone who strives to  address the social and economic imbalances of the world with an attitude like that ?

[Malcador]

Meanwhile Canadians are grousing over those Royals taking our money

[alanschu]

Im not interested in arguing that the monarchy should be disbanded, only in the comparisons to other wealthy families. The stark difference being everyone else "earned" it, while they commanded it.

 

And the less fortunate can suck it.

 

They earned it, literally, by paying people less than what they delivered (although, hopefully, more than what the person felt was fair).  This is a foundation of capitalism/economics, and drives the profit motive.  Which is fine and fair (I prefer less government in the economy).

 

This ignores the families that made their money doing outright illegal things, or things we later see to be wrong (slavery).

 

 

 

 

By the by, didn't earn it?  Do you really think it was easy becoming the first Kings and ruling a nation and protecting it from other people who wanting to crush it and add it to their domains?

 

Harold Godwinson had to fight off two different claimants at the same time!  Hahaha.

 

I do agree though, that being a ruler of realms back then was a bit more tricksy than it is today.  Especially in terms of preserving it.

 

 

As for the baby, I honestly don't care too much.  I think the Royals are a great example of how people are able to be made "interesting" through the media and the likes.  Kim Kardashian is the worst for this, as she is famous pretty much for being famous.

[HoonDing]

Edit:

By the by, didn't earn it?  Do you really think it was easy becoming the first Kings and ruling a nation and protecting it from other people who wanting to crush it and add it to their domains?

 

[Amentep]

Whooo, I totally did not read Cnut the Great's name right on that map the first time...

[Malcador]

I'm sure he wasn't a nice guy, in any case.

[Gfted1]

If they earn it through manipulation of public office, does it matter if it was taxation or ensuring companies they held interests in got preferential treatment (lower taxes, government grant funds, exclusive or lopsided contracts with the government)?

IMO, it does matter. Until recently, the monarchy is the law of the land. You could literally have been killed for not paying your taxes. Business's are private enterprises that are forced to work under the laws of the land and earn money by providing .  

 

You can't say you are someone who strives to  address the social and economic imbalances of the world with an attitude like that ?

True dat.

[BruceVC]

 

 

True dat.

 

 

But now you are contradicting yourself as you said....wait... hold on... you are agreeing with me. I didn't expect that

 

I am sorry my friend but I have to remove you from the list of possible candidates for the much desired and respected " BruceVC Liberal, Philanthropist and Altruism Award for 2013 "  

[Gfted1]

I am sorry my friend but I have to remove you from the list of possible candidates for the much desired and respected " BruceVC Liberal, Philanthropist and Altruism Award for 2013 "

Its a good thing you did, I would have just besmirched that lofty title with some hooker scandal.

[Raithe]

 

I am sorry my friend but I have to remove you from the list of possible candidates for the much desired and respected " BruceVC Liberal, Philanthropist and Altruism Award for 2013 "

Its a good thing you did, I would have just besmirched that lofty title with some hooker scandal.

 

 

What's more liberal and philanthropic then making sure that hookers can earn money too? Making sure some young, pretty girl can actually pay her way through college and/or university and get that all important Law/Economics/Business degree?

[Malcador]

Its a good thing you did, I would have just besmirched that lofty title with some hooker scandal.

Bah, that's not fun. Aim to get involved in a scandal where you secretly fund and supply some Third World guerillas.

[alanschu]

Are prostitute scandals even scandals nowadays?

[BruceVC]

 

I am sorry my friend but I have to remove you from the list of possible candidates for the much desired and respected " BruceVC Liberal, Philanthropist and Altruism Award for 2013 "

Its a good thing you did, I would have just besmirched that lofty title with some hooker scandal.

 

 

Good news, I have to award you the famous BruceVC " Funniest post of the week " award

[Malcador]

Are prostitute scandals even scandals nowadays?

In NA, certainly. Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

[LadyCrimson]

So the prince has been born and he is a cute "little critter"

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/world/europe/uk-royal-baby/

 

Its all over the news and for me its significant but I wouldn't mind a break from the constant updates on the international News Channels. Anyway what do you guys think, do you care and have you been following the developments?

I didn't even know anyone was pregnant, so you can guess how much I think about/keep up on such things.

 

...and it's about the same amount of time I spend on wondering if the US President went golfing/fishing or where he spent his Thanksgiving.

[Amentep]

 

If they earn it through manipulation of public office, does it matter if it was taxation or ensuring companies they held interests in got preferential treatment (lower taxes, government grant funds, exclusive or lopsided contracts with the government)?

IMO, it does matter. Until recently, the monarchy is the law of the land. You could literally have been killed for not paying your taxes. Business's are private enterprises that are forced to work under the laws of the land and earn money by providing .

 

I may be misremembering the industrial revolution, but my memory is that the meat, coal, oil and railway industries (at least) did keep (or at least was accused of keeping) pay down for workers, intimidating/killing workers who tried to unionize and in some cases working employees to death. They got away with it by buying politicians or becoming politicians themselves and using that to get favorable governmental consideration so as to make their high profits and to turn a blind eye to what they were doing.

 

Or in some cases, they didn't get away with it (like Boss Tweed).

Edited July 24, 2013 by Amentep

[Raithe]

I just find it interesting where people draw this mysterious ethical line over just what point it's all a-ok to be descendents gaining the benefit from different things that you have a modern perspective as being immoral sources of funds, and that for so many it seems that a king having taxed his subjects 900 years ago is seen as much worse then the slave trader of 200 years, or the industrial baron who wasn't bothered by working people to death a century ago..

[Gfted1]

Youre the one that brought up ethics. My whole point is that the monarchy is a product of the people and at the end of the day the "people" should own the public holdings that they themselves provided to the monarchy.

[Raithe]

But my point is that the people that provided those taxes did so about 500+ years ago. The majority of the money the Royal Family has comes from real estate and the fee's earned via renting it out. And while you say the people gave that money to the King of the time, the point is that at that time, the money was used for a whole variety of reasons that were for the good of the Kingdom, not just the King.

 

Why is that so different to the more run-of-the-mill capitalist uber-rich families? A service was provided, a fee was taken. Hell, the fee's taken helped provide the service.

But because this original seed money was brought about via taxation of the time, it automatically makes it wrong for them to have any money now based on it?

[Gfted1]

I never said it was wrong for them to have money but its different because their sources of income were not optional to the payer as they are when a person purchases a product or service.

[alanschu]

Youre the one that brought up ethics. My whole point is that the monarchy is a product of the people and at the end of the day the "people" should own the public holdings that they themselves provided to the monarchy.

 

I'd dispute that the monarchy is a product of the people.

 

The legacy of the monarchy, and the feudal system in general, is closer to that of a landlord IMO.  The taxes could be construed as rent.