@Purplefoxes
@OMG12 "Peoples views change as they get older"
Really, that radically? Were you antimonarchist then? What changed your mind exactly?
oh God I was anti everything as everybody should be when young. Subscriber to the socialist worker, idealistic, convinced I was right, the old people hadn’t a clue. Four legs good, two legs bag, the whole 9 yards.
what happened? Life, experience. Seeing the shit for what it was. Hearing shouts of “four legs even better”. Elected heads of state coming and going. Realising actually most people in power are corrupt, watching politicians arguing over crap, nothing really changing amidst the arguing of politics. In contrast seeing the value of continuity, the value of someone who can represent the country not playing a constant “pick me” game. The value of continuity over 100s of years.
"But do you think and other head of state is better value for money? Look at the US president."
Yes if they can actually change things for better as at least there is hope, and they are elected as part of a democracy. As people have said the monarchy can't technically (shouldn't!) influence politics. Literally the all they can do is smile, wave and cut ribbons or pretend to empathise with people, basically be a toothless figurehead. Of course the flip side is a presidency can change things for worse too! That is the risk. But they would be voted in and not born in. So if we don't like them we can enact change in a few years via democratic means.
but this happens because a president is head of government as well as state. Being elected in and out every few years is divisive and lacks continuity. By separating the two roles it gives democratic account for politics whilst ensuring the head of state can stay out of the divided nature of politics. People rarely respect democracy, how many Corbyn supporters accepted Boris? Not many. It’s helpful to have a person who can unify and represent beyond politics-politicians the world over recognised this
*to think getting rid of the monarchy would suddenly solve societal problems is naive to say the least"
Of course it is and noone is saying that! But they are part of a wider problem. And certainly to redistribute some of those billions and make them entirely self funded or paying normal amounts of tax like other citizens rather than placing any burden for their events on the taxpayer that can't hurt can it?
because much of their wealth is necessary to maintain the family. A lot of it is the wealth of the crown or the office being held. It’s not theirs to dispose of. They are custodians. Are they wealthy in monetary terms yes, do I think they need to be compensated for the crap they have to endure -yes. Do I think they’re value for money -yes. I’d rather support them that some chancer who can’t be arsed to work or decided to have 5 kids they can’t support.
*it is usually -this person has more money than me, I want to drag them down to my level."
You'd have to drag them down a very very very very long way to be even close to my level 🤣 This is the thinly veiled jealousy argument isn't it! Nope these people are head of state and we represent the state yet have zero say in it. They do not pay tax yet we do. What I want is fairness and equality not for them to be the exact same level as me. They should pay the same taxes I have to, give me a good reason they should be exempt? Why should I pay for their funeral when I have to pay for mine? Because much of their wealth maintains the institution. The crown contributes many millions to the treasury each year. The queen voluntarily paid the equivalent of income tax, they will pay all indirect taxes the same as you or I. Are we talking IHT then? The majority of the assets belong to the crown, even personal assets like paintings etc will be unlikely to be sold. The assets aren’t readily convertible. If each generation have to fund Iht on such assets the family would soon be bankrupt- no doubt you would enjoy that.
"Have you considered getting rid of most of your assets to support those less privileged than yourself eg people without clean water. If not, why do you think you should cling onto your accidental privilege whilst others suffer"
Yes I regularly give up a good proportion of my salary to charity which may as a percentage be more than the royal family comparatively. My 'privilege' is not accidental, I did not come into by birthright or inheritance I earned it entirely through my wages and personal sacrifice. I've never had any help from anyone. Yet I gladly donate as much as I am able to (whilst still feeding my family) to charity. No one is asking them to give up ALL their wealth. Just to be taxed the same as everyone else. And to streamline and fund their own security and their events etc. No one person needs 7 houses. You cannot live in all 7 at anyone time. The funeral was funded by the state. How much do you think it cost? Hazard a guess. Prince Charles and Prince William will not be paying inheritance tax as any normal citizen would on the death of their relative and receipt of inheritance. Do you agree with that? If so why? - I’ve answers the iHT point above.
The 7 houses are mainly crown property (although you’ll be pleased to hear that Charles is planning to open more up).
and yes you are privileged through an accident of birth. You were born into an environment where you’re not having to walk miles for dirty water, find food on a rubbish heap. You are markedly more privileged than than the vast majority of the world’s population just by virtue of where you were born, nothing to do with hard work at all, you’re privileged by birth alone in that regard.