The whole logic behind inheritance tax is evil. “Hey your family member died. We want part of their bank account…. No they weren’t behind on their taxes, the state feels they deserve it because screw you and your dead relative”
a frail old nobody you've never seen and knows nothing about you.
That applies to basically every ruler on the planet, whether by election or by blood.
Generally speaking, I think a monarch has more incentive to care about not driving their nation off a cliff than a politician does. When a country goes to shit under a politician - I mean, really, really goes to shit, what happens? Usually that politician gets assassinated or exiled.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch?
The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Going by recent events (and not so recent ones), when an elected leader lets a country go to shit, they fleece the country for all it's worth before fleeing it with millions.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch? The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Then it's not working because the whole commonwealth went to shit under the Queen. Who is to blame, her or the people who didn't murder her family?
Now you're going to tell me that she's just a figurehead who doesn't actually run the government and therefore holds zero responsibility on the state of the UK - and I don't know all the finer details of a thousand years of law and history of your country to argue with you - but I'll just point out that there's always soft power in addition to "de jure" power, and everyone has some, not least of which the head of the royal family. I know she's legally barred from intruding on specific customs and procedures, but I strongly doubt she did not have access to a worldwide network of highly-placed individuals and security personnel who took everything she said to heart, or that she couldn't just "make things happen" with a phone call. Even non-monarch basic elites have that. On top of that, when The Crown chooses to make an official public statement, the things they say are of consequence to the culture. That's why they are always so conservative about doing so. It's not something to be taken lightly. If she thought it was important she could have slowed down much of Clown World by simply leading.
A HUGE part of the problem with wokism is the fact that people in lesser positions of power who may be sympathetic to our side do not speak up for fear of being cancelled. That gives leftists the artificial impression that they surround us. Only their voices are allowed.
I'm not saying she was lazy or corrupt. Her family simply chose to prioritize stability of the relationship of the Crown and the government over leadership and promotion of proper culture. Paki grooming gangs raping a thousand English girls? That's a right shame innit, but better the Crown not impose. No drama please.
Then again didn't her husband once say he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus to lower the world's population? Maybe they weren't nice people after all.
Yeah I know it applies to all leaders of nation states on a modern scale.
I'm just replying to the animal-brain part and saying it's monkey brain that says "no likey" to being ordered around by someone who hasn't proven themselves to you. Whether by social power and garnering enough support amongst your peers, or just beating the shit out of whoever disagrees. At least with the elected leader there's the illusion of proven social power for the individual in question to fool the midwits.
That stands for most rulers. Your description of the Queen could equally be applied to the President.
I would rather be ruled by a Monarch than a politician.
When you're ruled by a Monarch, you're ruled by somebody who was thoroughly prepared for this role since birth, in his upbringing and education. It's his duty. His main incentive is leaving the country in the good shape for his descendants, as well as for the entire nation.
When you're ruled by a president, you're ruled by someone who has decided that he WANTS to rule, so usually that's a person with some serious psychological condition. He's elected "by the people", so his competence doesn't really matter. What matters is either how he sells himself to the voters, or who counts the votes cast for him. His main incentive is making as much money as possible until his term ends. Shape of the country doesn't matter if you can spend your retirement in another country.
I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
It sounds like we need some kind of hybrid system, but the inverse of those others you mentioned. Something where the leaders are not people who want to be leaders but those prepped for it from birth - but where there multiple options to choose from. They should be taken from all corners of high society, and forced through some kind of competition or a rigorous election - not a popularity vote by the masses - to determine who will be the ruler. And there needs to a way to retire them without violence and put a new one in place if we realize we made a mistake. (term limits for a start)
Obviously on top of limited government restricted by constitution and law and all that good stuff. I'm less interested in who is in charge than I am what powers they have.
Alternatively, to fund bullshit leftist art projects, ungrateful Africans and Arabs invading and shitting up the place, cunty "researchers" and journos writing papers on leftoid nonsense, social programs for welfare queen cumbuckets, diversity programs for degenerates, etc.
What fuck is this retarded assumption that money given to the state is ever used for these commie wet dreams like "le schools" and "muh hospitals" no it isn't you dumb fucks, it never was, it never will. And people that aren't terminal shitlibs better stop pretending as if burning money in a socialist ritual oil drum is some virtuous, self evidently moral good
Whenever the government does anything the first thing I look for is whose pockets are getting lined. I know guys who work in sales to the government, and stuff that I have made has been sold to governments (though I am no salesman myself). This is more than a theoretical concern to me: I've seen it up close. Even if the money goes to "a school" they're going to waste it on some boondoggle tech or paying some guy's cousin to repaint.
Well he is more than welcome to donate to these causes himself or volunteer at a food pantry or something. I know it’s easier to whine about someone else’s money though
This guy is either being deliberately obtuse or just an idiot considering it's the United KINGDOM, it's in the name the monarchy owns the place, they just chose (correctly for their families survival, mixed results for the people) to hand off all day to day governance to parliament.
And the royal family kind of have all the cards that everyone with a brain tells them to shut the fuck up with trying to get money off the royal family as the country gets the profits from royal lands as part of a deal set up during the reign of King George III.
seriously, the Royal Family aren't a tax drain, they are a net generator of cash for the UK. Not just through tourism but also in the fact that they directly own a MASSIVE amount of productive land in the UK that is privately held and generates a huge amount of income every year that is donated to the kingdom in return for a stipend.
Eh, they understand these things. They really do. They just pretend none of it makes sense because that’s how they win their power game. You can nail down a commie with an absolute victory in a slam dunk debate, and that demon will be shouting the same evil from the rooftops later that same day.
Basically so if we become a Republic, we lose all of that money as it's their lands, unless you want to go full communist (in which case we're more fucked than going back to feudalism) it's their land and money from their land to do with as they wish.
Ever since the 20th century, they typically don't stay Republics and go full communist, be extremely thankful America was created at the time English libertarian views and not after Karl Marx.
in the event of becoming a republic, the state loses the income from something like 16% of the productive land in the country and in return gets to keep a 40 million a year stipend. Check those figures for yourself though since Its right off the top of my head.
Unlike with other monarchies the lands still retained by the house of windsor are in fact DIRECTLY in the name of windsor and not considered royal land. There is a seperate term "royal land" in the commonwealth for "crown owned land" which is actually controlled by the parliament. That bullet was dodged in the 1800's by a very savy monarch and the royal family now directly owns their lands as a family owned trust and the amount of land that they directly own in the UK is past 10%.
Governments need to start a givesendgo-like for anything they want funded. If the people won't give it to you, just fuck right off.
Anyone who exercises their vote, needs to pay into a certain amount for government "functioning".
Obviously more details needed, but if it doesn't start from the above, you give the government authority to grab what they want, and absolute yahoo's that contribute nothing get to decide the direction of the cuntry.
Pay2Vote. I like it. I've always said you should have to own property to vote, but that's kind of an indirect way of achieving the same thing. If you'd rather live in an apartment and pay an annual fee then that works too.
So I’m not a monarchist or anything…. But as I understand it the taxes are paid to the crown…. She was the crown. So what you expect the crown to pay taxes to the crown?
That being said, inheritance tax should not exist. Nothing beyond income tax and value added tax should exist, and even then income tax might be unnecessary.
Nothing beyond income tax and value added tax should exist
I'm fine with property taxes if it's limited to a maximum amount. Once you've paid that total amount (in one lump sum or after years of paying installments) then no more property tax until it changes hands.
In general I agree, though it's kind of like a tip at a restaurant. You have to factor that in in advance, or you don't go out to eat. The problem is they can suddenly change the value of your property and thereby change your tax burden. That's why I think the tax should be a lump sum you can see based on the original property value.
Abolish inheritance tax entirely is the correct takeaway here.
The whole logic behind inheritance tax is evil. “Hey your family member died. We want part of their bank account…. No they weren’t behind on their taxes, the state feels they deserve it because screw you and your dead relative”
The animal-logic part of my brain wonders why the hell anyone would expect a monarch to pay taxes in the first place.
That said that's also the part of your brain that should go "fuck no" to being ruled by some old broad in a metal hat.
Ruled by anyone really, but especially a frail old nobody you've never seen and knows nothing about you.
That applies to basically every ruler on the planet, whether by election or by blood.
Generally speaking, I think a monarch has more incentive to care about not driving their nation off a cliff than a politician does. When a country goes to shit under a politician - I mean, really, really goes to shit, what happens? Usually that politician gets assassinated or exiled.
When a country goes to shit under a monarch?
The whole fucking extended family gets murdered because the solution becomes not to oust a bad leader, but to eradicate a bloodline.
Going by recent events (and not so recent ones), when an elected leader lets a country go to shit, they fleece the country for all it's worth before fleeing it with millions.
Then it's not working because the whole commonwealth went to shit under the Queen. Who is to blame, her or the people who didn't murder her family?
Now you're going to tell me that she's just a figurehead who doesn't actually run the government and therefore holds zero responsibility on the state of the UK - and I don't know all the finer details of a thousand years of law and history of your country to argue with you - but I'll just point out that there's always soft power in addition to "de jure" power, and everyone has some, not least of which the head of the royal family. I know she's legally barred from intruding on specific customs and procedures, but I strongly doubt she did not have access to a worldwide network of highly-placed individuals and security personnel who took everything she said to heart, or that she couldn't just "make things happen" with a phone call. Even non-monarch basic elites have that. On top of that, when The Crown chooses to make an official public statement, the things they say are of consequence to the culture. That's why they are always so conservative about doing so. It's not something to be taken lightly. If she thought it was important she could have slowed down much of Clown World by simply leading.
A HUGE part of the problem with wokism is the fact that people in lesser positions of power who may be sympathetic to our side do not speak up for fear of being cancelled. That gives leftists the artificial impression that they surround us. Only their voices are allowed.
I'm not saying she was lazy or corrupt. Her family simply chose to prioritize stability of the relationship of the Crown and the government over leadership and promotion of proper culture. Paki grooming gangs raping a thousand English girls? That's a right shame innit, but better the Crown not impose. No drama please.
Then again didn't her husband once say he wanted to be reincarnated as a virus to lower the world's population? Maybe they weren't nice people after all.
If people aren't starving, it's not shit enough.
People won't stick their necks out unless they're hungry.
Yeah I know it applies to all leaders of nation states on a modern scale.
I'm just replying to the animal-brain part and saying it's monkey brain that says "no likey" to being ordered around by someone who hasn't proven themselves to you. Whether by social power and garnering enough support amongst your peers, or just beating the shit out of whoever disagrees. At least with the elected leader there's the illusion of proven social power for the individual in question to fool the midwits.
That stands for most rulers. Your description of the Queen could equally be applied to the President. I would rather be ruled by a Monarch than a politician.
When you're ruled by a Monarch, you're ruled by somebody who was thoroughly prepared for this role since birth, in his upbringing and education. It's his duty. His main incentive is leaving the country in the good shape for his descendants, as well as for the entire nation.
When you're ruled by a president, you're ruled by someone who has decided that he WANTS to rule, so usually that's a person with some serious psychological condition. He's elected "by the people", so his competence doesn't really matter. What matters is either how he sells himself to the voters, or who counts the votes cast for him. His main incentive is making as much money as possible until his term ends. Shape of the country doesn't matter if you can spend your retirement in another country.
...yeah, it's a no-brainer, really.
The main problem with monarchs is you get to generations with weak or sinful kings, and it's hard to get rid of them
I mean shit England got a queen for some reason
I know that's the main argument against the monarchy, but then nobody really gets rid of the presidents either. "We have a mechanism to get rid of him" is irrelevant if you never use that mechanism. Who cares whether it's more difficult to get rid of the king than the president (arguable) when it's essentially the same?
And honestly the presidents do not represent the best in the nation. With a king, "weak or sinful" is a "maybe". With a president, it's a "maybe not".
Theoretically the best of the two worlds would be an elective monarchy, such as eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century or Vatican currently -- but the practice shows that it's actually the worst of the two worlds. You get an uneducated, psychologically impaired head of state with royal powers for life.
Presidents automatically time out in most countries. yeah, it's a problem where they don't. They're usually called dictators.
It sounds like we need some kind of hybrid system, but the inverse of those others you mentioned. Something where the leaders are not people who want to be leaders but those prepped for it from birth - but where there multiple options to choose from. They should be taken from all corners of high society, and forced through some kind of competition or a rigorous election - not a popularity vote by the masses - to determine who will be the ruler. And there needs to a way to retire them without violence and put a new one in place if we realize we made a mistake. (term limits for a start)
Obviously on top of limited government restricted by constitution and law and all that good stuff. I'm less interested in who is in charge than I am what powers they have.
the SPQR has entered the chat
No one was really ruled by her though. She mooched off them, at best, and worked as some kimd of spokesperson.
It's either that or a clown in a suit who's deathy scared of combs.
Rule By Einstein Types
Alternatively, to fund bullshit leftist art projects, ungrateful Africans and Arabs invading and shitting up the place, cunty "researchers" and journos writing papers on leftoid nonsense, social programs for welfare queen cumbuckets, diversity programs for degenerates, etc.
What fuck is this retarded assumption that money given to the state is ever used for these commie wet dreams like "le schools" and "muh hospitals" no it isn't you dumb fucks, it never was, it never will. And people that aren't terminal shitlibs better stop pretending as if burning money in a socialist ritual oil drum is some virtuous, self evidently moral good
Whenever the government does anything the first thing I look for is whose pockets are getting lined. I know guys who work in sales to the government, and stuff that I have made has been sold to governments (though I am no salesman myself). This is more than a theoretical concern to me: I've seen it up close. Even if the money goes to "a school" they're going to waste it on some boondoggle tech or paying some guy's cousin to repaint.
Well he is more than welcome to donate to these causes himself or volunteer at a food pantry or something. I know it’s easier to whine about someone else’s money though
This guy is either being deliberately obtuse or just an idiot considering it's the United KINGDOM, it's in the name the monarchy owns the place, they just chose (correctly for their families survival, mixed results for the people) to hand off all day to day governance to parliament.
And the royal family kind of have all the cards that everyone with a brain tells them to shut the fuck up with trying to get money off the royal family as the country gets the profits from royal lands as part of a deal set up during the reign of King George III.
seriously, the Royal Family aren't a tax drain, they are a net generator of cash for the UK. Not just through tourism but also in the fact that they directly own a MASSIVE amount of productive land in the UK that is privately held and generates a huge amount of income every year that is donated to the kingdom in return for a stipend.
Explaining things like income, and profit margin, loss leaders, and revenue streams to communists is like trying to teach a fish to climb trees.
Eh, they understand these things. They really do. They just pretend none of it makes sense because that’s how they win their power game. You can nail down a commie with an absolute victory in a slam dunk debate, and that demon will be shouting the same evil from the rooftops later that same day.
Basically so if we become a Republic, we lose all of that money as it's their lands, unless you want to go full communist (in which case we're more fucked than going back to feudalism) it's their land and money from their land to do with as they wish.
Depends on how your country becomes a Republic. Royal families typically didn't get to keep their land ( or heads ).
Ever since the 20th century, they typically don't stay Republics and go full communist, be extremely thankful America was created at the time English libertarian views and not after Karl Marx.
in the event of becoming a republic, the state loses the income from something like 16% of the productive land in the country and in return gets to keep a 40 million a year stipend. Check those figures for yourself though since Its right off the top of my head.
While that is true that was also the case in other countries that were monarchies. Guess what happened to that land when monarchy was abolished.
Unlike with other monarchies the lands still retained by the house of windsor are in fact DIRECTLY in the name of windsor and not considered royal land. There is a seperate term "royal land" in the commonwealth for "crown owned land" which is actually controlled by the parliament. That bullet was dodged in the 1800's by a very savy monarch and the royal family now directly owns their lands as a family owned trust and the amount of land that they directly own in the UK is past 10%.
Don't care about the Queen.
Fuck Income Tax.
Governments need to start a givesendgo-like for anything they want funded. If the people won't give it to you, just fuck right off.
Anyone who exercises their vote, needs to pay into a certain amount for government "functioning".
Obviously more details needed, but if it doesn't start from the above, you give the government authority to grab what they want, and absolute yahoo's that contribute nothing get to decide the direction of the cuntry.
Pay2Vote. I like it. I've always said you should have to own property to vote, but that's kind of an indirect way of achieving the same thing. If you'd rather live in an apartment and pay an annual fee then that works too.
The taxes are paid to her.
Pedoland and WEF Way and and Moloch's Midden are tax funded under her seal. Peasant.
I'm just guessing, but surely the Queen's fortune is owned by the crown - a corporation - and thus not 'inherited' at all?
So I’m not a monarchist or anything…. But as I understand it the taxes are paid to the crown…. She was the crown. So what you expect the crown to pay taxes to the crown?
If it's not illegal, it's not tax avoidance.
That being said, inheritance tax should not exist. Nothing beyond income tax and value added tax should exist, and even then income tax might be unnecessary.
I'm fine with property taxes if it's limited to a maximum amount. Once you've paid that total amount (in one lump sum or after years of paying installments) then no more property tax until it changes hands.
The problem with property tax is, what happens if you become poor? Do you lose your home? How can it be yours if it can be lost like that?
In general I agree, though it's kind of like a tip at a restaurant. You have to factor that in in advance, or you don't go out to eat. The problem is they can suddenly change the value of your property and thereby change your tax burden. That's why I think the tax should be a lump sum you can see based on the original property value.
Tips are voluntary, sir.
Original? Properties are centuries old. People would pay cents per year.
Even her questionable sons will use that money for more useful things to society and poor people than the UK government would.
avoiding tax is a virtue
Rules for thee, not for me.
The literal welfare queen of a nation doesn't contribute anything to society. Surprise!