9 ms·

While I can't say that the monarchy isn't in many ways parasitic and smugly cozy in the financial exceptionalism it gets treated with, I think a lot of this art

While I can't say that the monarchy isn't in many ways parasitic and smugly cozy in the financial exceptionalism it gets treated with, I think a lot of this article's focus is absurdly misplaced. Let's assume for a moment that the absolute total assets of the Royal Family, both private and those legally tied to the crown as an institution though nominally the private property of the Queen and her family (respectively claimed to be about a billion dollars for the first and $28 billion for the second, wider category of assets), are all expropriated and given to the state for public funding use. What does this amount to? What could it really buy or do and for how long? Even assuming that some funds and sources of income are concealed through quasi-legal or even completely illegal asset protection mechanisms (and they almost surely are) the Family's total assets would still surely amount to no more than a fraction of the UK government's annual spending, which in fiscal 2020-21 officially sat at about £1,098.6 billion, or nearly 1.4 trillion dollars. This is the more fundamental point that so often doesn't get looked at by pieces like these. They focus so intensely on the amounts often concealed by the wealthy through tax avoidance, tax evasion and so forth while bemoaning how these assets are thus implicitly stolen from public use by the state, while failing to sincerely examine the simple fact that most developed modern governments annually collect and spend such vast amounts of money that their totals dwarf even the full total assets of any private fortune. Much of that public spending is necessary, sure, but how much of it could easily be trimmed or done better in ways that would reduce it even by small percentages that would still be vast in comparison to private assets owned by the crown. Should the focus not be more heavily oriented to seriously scrutinizing how the biggest parasite of all, the state uses its funds? At the very least not analyzing that philosophically seems absurdly blind. And do governments spend money terribly at times? Of course they do. The U.S Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost the country 2 trillion or more dollars across two decades. For what? The UK'S participation in these same wars cost that country an officially audited total of over £21 billion sterling. This doesn't even include certain time frames and categories of related spending. This amount alone -almost entirely pissed away for pseudo-imperial adventure to no concrete gain- nearly matches all known assets, both private and official crown property, of the Royal Family. Not to defend them or their special status, but things like this make much more obvious the real area for focus on how powerful entities spend money.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wfhordie 4y ago
Theft is theft, no matter the percentage. That you think the government doesn’t spend wisely has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that a commonwealth consisting of 25% of the world’s population continues to legitimize an institution which thrives on ill-gotten wealth. Take the queen’s money and set it on fire, or give it back piecemeal to the colonists that were exploited. In any case, burn it all down, because it has no place in the democratic world.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  Oh please. Your hyperbole not only completely misses the point of my post above, it's also useless for actually, realistically solving the problem of the Royal Family's wealth generating methods being legitimized. Short of some extreme revolutionary shift in British politics (or European politics in general) nobody is going to suddenly take everything the royals have and "burn it all down". It wouldn't even have legal standing under the most flexible terms, because not all the wealth of all royals is based on illegitimate activities or ownership structures. And again, what about vast government revenue generation, taxation systems and the things they often get spent on? These absolutely do have relevance to any discussion about tax percentages, policies and how wealthy people are treated by the systems they operate in.
rramadass 4y ago
This thread is about the abuses of power, privilege and money "granted by birth" by the British Royal Family. If you want to discuss the same by the "State" that is a different discussion altogether. The former is not predicated on the latter.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  They are absolutely related topics, and especially in the context of a Royal Family whose head is literally also the head of state of the sprawling UK government and its otherwise non-monarchial bureaucracy. You claiming they're different things is very much off base. That aside, it's a very important related debate that gets less attention from activist media than it fairly deserves. Many organizations and reporters spend enormous effort focusing on billions concealed by wealthy individuals and families, while taking for granted that governments should spend literally many, many trillions annually with little regard fo whether they should have a right to such vast sums. The state is an abstraction in such a way that makes focusing dislike for it more difficult than against specific billionaire families jet setting around the world to move secret money, but the former causes far more waste, loss, theft and harm than these families do. It does this even while it often protects them and itself at the same time. The picture is complicated, but too often gets reduced to cliche emphasis on narratives of billionaires and Caribbean bank accounts. To put it another way, the average Briton is little affected by the Royal Family receiving some marginally miniscule percentage of that person's taxes for some special favor or another. This same average Briton is however annually and enormously affected by the 20% to 45% income tax rate they pay to the state as a whole. Much of this money pays for needed services, yes, but what government wastes in its self-justified spending and the associated social harm are still far larger than what any Royal ever takes from any private individual.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wfhordie 4y ago

Theft is theft, no matter the percentage. That you think the government doesn’t spend wisely has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that a commonwealth consisting of 25% of the world’s population continues to legitimize an institution which thrives on ill-gotten wealth. Take the queen’s money and set it on fire, or give it back piecemeal to the colonists that were exploited. In any case, burn it all down, because it has no place in the democratic world.

helloworld11 4y ago
Oh please. Your hyperbole not only completely misses the point of my post above, it's also useless for actually, realistically solving the problem of the Royal Family's wealth generating methods being legitimized. Short of some extreme revolutionary shift in British politics (or European politics in general) nobody is going to suddenly take everything the royals have and "burn it all down". It wouldn't even have legal standing under the most flexible terms, because not all the wealth of all royals is based on illegitimate activities or ownership structures. And again, what about vast government revenue generation, taxation systems and the things they often get spent on? These absolutely do have relevance to any discussion about tax percentages, policies and how wealthy people are treated by the systems they operate in.

rramadass 4y ago

This thread is about the abuses of power, privilege and money "granted by birth" by the British Royal Family. If you want to discuss the same by the "State" that is a different discussion altogether. The former is not predicated on the latter.

helloworld11 4y ago
They are absolutely related topics, and especially in the context of a Royal Family whose head is literally also the head of state of the sprawling UK government and its otherwise non-monarchial bureaucracy. You claiming they're different things is very much off base. That aside, it's a very important related debate that gets less attention from activist media than it fairly deserves. Many organizations and reporters spend enormous effort focusing on billions concealed by wealthy individuals and families, while taking for granted that governments should spend literally many, many trillions annually with little regard fo whether they should have a right to such vast sums. The state is an abstraction in such a way that makes focusing dislike for it more difficult than against specific billionaire families jet setting around the world to move secret money, but the former causes far more waste, loss, theft and harm than these families do. It does this even while it often protects them and itself at the same time. The picture is complicated, but too often gets reduced to cliche emphasis on narratives of billionaires and Caribbean bank accounts. To put it another way, the average Briton is little affected by the Royal Family receiving some marginally miniscule percentage of that person's taxes for some special favor or another. This same average Briton is however annually and enormously affected by the 20% to 45% income tax rate they pay to the state as a whole. Much of this money pays for needed services, yes, but what government wastes in its self-justified spending and the associated social harm are still far larger than what any Royal ever takes from any private individual.