5 ms·

tl;dr: they're good businessmen and do their best to preserve the wealth they were handed over from their parents. The article spends too long telling irreleva

• pjc50 9y ago
  > carefully conflating the aristocracy of old with the modern aristocrats > preserve the wealth they were handed over from their parents There's a conflict between these. If your father got his wealth by driving out subsistence farmers at gunpoint, to what extent can you say it's nothing to do with you and that your wealth is a totally meritocratic inheritance? Note that owning land is a great zero sum way to get rich. If the Duke of Westminster owns half of London, and isn't interested in selling it, you can't invest there. > if you are so incensed at the aristocracy, why do you keep giving them power Please explain how the people are incensed are also "giving them power" in any meaningful sense?
  • Sacho 9y ago
    > There's a conflict between these. If your father got his wealth by driving out subsistence farmers at gunpoint, to what extent can you say it's nothing to do with you and that your wealth is a totally meritocratic inheritance? Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? This is a time jump in the article itself: > Historically, the British aristocracy’s defining feature was not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They stole land under the pretence of piety in the early middle ages, they seized it by conquest, they expropriated it from the monasteries and they enclosed it for their private use under the pretence of efficiency. > ..... > And when democracy finally and rudely shunted them aside, they found new means of preserving their extravagant riches without the tedium of pretending they sought the common interest. Far from dying away, they remain very much alive. Moreover, the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now, and has had ample time to address inheritance law, and land ownership law. Like the article states: > That is no accident. British laws on land tenure, inheritance tax, corporate governance and discretionary trusts still make it easy to hide wealth from public view. Land is subsidised, and taxed more lightly than residential property. Unearned income bears less of a burden than earned income. The article claims that this is the secret to the power of the aristocracy. This power is given to them by laws, designed and voted in by MPs, who are in turn voted in by the people.
    • pjc50 9y ago
      > the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now, and has had ample time to address inheritance law, and land ownership law This is true, and it hasn't had time to do it since first properly overruling the Lords in 1911. For some reason the newspapers owned by Lord Rothermere have agitated against it. The Scottish government has had much less time (since May 1999) to work on the subject and has got much further with land reform.
      • ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        And the tiny steps it has taken (e.g. suggesting it would be good to know who owns all the land) were denounced as being akin to Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe by prime minister David Cameron's father-in-law who just happened to be a major land owner.
    • TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      It's easy to pretend to be a democracy when you own all the top schools, the popular press, the top universities, the civil service, the land, and all the core businesses. Democracy does not mean the peasants get to vote. Democracy means that the peasants get to set policy for their own benefit - which means that improving the opportunities, prospects, and living conditions of the majority of the population becomes a national goal, not an occasional failure of default policy. In a genuine democracy this happens with honest and open public debate and effective economic and political action, not with rhetoric, dishonesty, demagoguery, and misdirection.
    • dghf 9y ago
      > Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? Enclosure of common land took place mostly in the 18th century. The Highland Clearances went on into the 19th.
    • crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Because it wasn't your father, it was your...how many generations are there between us and the middle ages, again? This is a time jump in the article itself: Does it really matter if the Duke of Westminster got his land because his father fought a war or because his great^10 father fought a war? The 'moral argument' for society granting him billionaire status is still based entirely upon a past war and primogeniture. >Moreover, the UK has been a democracy for quite some time now Democracy isn't binary, it's a continuum. The media is largely owned by elites and until recently, the internal party political machinery of the two major parties were too. The Duke of Westminster's wealth wasn't stripped because British citizens really wanted him to keep it. He got to keep it because it wasn't seen as a fight worth starting to take it back.
  • sjellis 9y ago
    "Note that owning land is a great zero sum way to get rich. If the Duke of Westminster owns half of London, and isn't interested in selling it, you can't invest there." This is the point: an aristocracy is a closed shop. The article points out that land and titles can be bought, thus getting a few people and their descendents in, but it is still a system that is designed to exclude the merely capable. Schools like Eton, the London clubs and the House of Lords seats exist to create near-automatic privileges for the lucky few who were born into the "right" families.
    • Boothroid 9y ago
      Exactly, and the nation suffers as a result of the elevation of mediocrities to positions of power.
      • ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        There's a similar argument to be made about monopolistic corporations. The money that Bill Gates made (and later gave some of to charity) isn't the real problem, it's the multiples of that which he destroyed via economic inefficiency or the crushing of other smaller entrepreneurs. Similarly, aristocrats who are not the absolute riches people on the planet, could still have torched Trillions in value by playing silly games to keep them on the top of the heap.
  • Allower 9y ago
    Dude your comment is complete nonsense, whats up with that?
• charlesdm 9y ago
  > - the rich evade taxes by restructuring their business It keeps amazing me how many people write 'evade' while they actually mean 'avoid' (or they use it as if it's exactly the same). Avoiding taxes is legal, kids. Evading taxes means you'll (eventually) end up in jail. I personally know a few Belgian aristocrats with decent wealth. Most are horrible at managing their money and they get screwed left and right by investment advisors. Most just tend to be really frugal, meaning they don't spend a lot. Several of them work normal jobs. Their wealth isn't meant to be spent or enjoyed (only perhaps a little bit -- they tend to own a nice property), it needs to be invested and safeguarded for the next generation. Some of these people are still enjoying the gains of land and capital they received or acquired in the 12th century.. most won't take crazy risk with that.
  • yorwba 9y ago
    My mother used to have a colleague who was a prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so related to Queen Elizabeth through a few corners. They worked in a call center. The only thing his title bought him was the opportunity to mess with customers who asked for his full name (presumably to complain about him later).
    • arethuza 9y ago
      My wife has a colleague who had a title - which they didn't use normally but sounded pretty impressive in full!
• rb808 9y ago
  > None of these points are specific to aristocrats. We all strive towards these goals - When you say "we" you don't include a big chunk of Guardian readers who believe if you earn above average income you probably are stealing it from someone.
  • charlesdm 9y ago
    Given they define the use of trusts as tax evasion, I have to agree. A newspaper just loses all credibility if they get basic facts wrong.
    • rjsw 9y ago
      That presumes that everyone agrees that availability of "trusts" and their exemption from taxes are a fundamental right. I think that trusts will need to be eliminated at some point.
      • charlesdm 9y ago
        Maybe they need to be amended and/or phased out. But there is nothing illegal about them at this point, and they definitely don't facilitate tax evasion so I don't see how they can make that connection.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
• danmaz74 9y ago
  > owning land is a great way to get rich Not to get rich, but to keep your family rich.
• SteveJones37 9y ago
  The aristocracy run the army, get a veto on the government, own most of the land and are rich enough to bribe god. Those enough reasons for you?