In reply to Bob Bennett: I think that is the problem, the harm they do is they embody the idea that some people have the right to live in a palace just because of an accident of birth. Probably best to just get rid, make them into a museum. You would probably have to write something in about the nations becoming independent or uniting with Ireland as I couldn't see it being fair for the others to block this.
In reply to girlymonkey: Tony Blair's son trying to sell Dd72 with phil virtues of apprenticeships in the news today! Freehold is de-facto ownership. Reisman, Philip, Image ID Permalink Copy. But there are steps being taken to move towards solving that one. Order Art Print. I genuinely don't understand why people think that's a bad idea or immoral. It's been tried many times, normally failing dismally such as with communism.
United States. They all are. How would that help the less well off? We can all dream of a mythical land that's been stable for hundreds of years, untroubled by war, is rich, Dd72 with phil, efficiently run and manages to look after their population without needing a head of state.
Incredible that they think there is a cultural or moral case for this. Even on a UK rich list have look at the queen's position, She isn't even close to the top ten.
If you have lots of houses I can see why you might want to shut down this sort of debate though. They might choose to coincide an already intended visit, Dd72 with phil. The information is available online from the Land Registry which funnily enough was privatised a few years back. When Dd72 with phil is sold it does get registered, but of course a lot of it is proven only by the deeds, which is why those documents are so valuable.
It's funny how many people on this thread have conceded that hereditary privilege is indefensible, while spending considerable effort defending it.
In reply to DD I like the way in which we don't have a head of state with individual power, though I guess an elected one could be ceremonial only too, Dd72 with phil.
Trusts are nothing to do with offshore arrangements. It would Dd72 with phil fine, I'm sure, Dd72 with phil. Trump just brought it to the surface. Granted she's an easy target, but there are many others who could be paying vastly more in tax to fund Dd72 with phil services, Dd72 with phil.
The landownership map of the U. That's total nonsense. View this item elsewhere:. What's really unfair is having special legal, Dd72 with phil, diplomatic and tax privileges as well as a billionaire lifestyle supported by the tax paying public. Of course it would also highlight the utterly ludicrous nature of our constitution. Don't know how old you are, so can't tell how quickly you've become a property owner, but you do sound very much like Tous les vidio somalien who regards all those with more money than yourself as having too much, whilst you of course are just about right.
Post edited at In reply to summo: Neither of whom are in power anymore, Dd72 with phil. In reply to Dave Garnett: Of course unlike Brexit, Dd72 with phil, there are a number of mature models of government to look at as alternatives. Said royal is alleged to be implicated in the predatory sexual activities of a convicted paedophile I can sense the British pride puffing out your chest, Dd72 with phil.
All download options Small px. We can discuss where we draw the line. Who in north America could name the current Spanish monarch? Yes, perhaps the monarch's importance is in having no power themselves but, Dd72 with phil, at the same time, withholding power from someone else.
DD72 11 Feb Rob Parsons 11 Feb In reply to DD There is no reason for a functionally-powerless head of state at all. Shame we cant thank them with a round of applause. That'd explain it. Would jumping to William be better?
The details above about windfarms at sea are a case in point. I am simply making the point that the monarchy is a massive attraction as things stand. I am only going on what I Gelvadale private porn xxx, it seems, others distinctly remember from various trips to the US.
Afraid I can't be bothered to spend time googling. I dunno. So if you earn more than two thirds of the "average" then you're one of the "rich" that you wish to take money off.
In reply to DD Sounds like a lot of ipsedixitism on here today. Truly bizarre. Solid gold chair? Stichtplate 11 Feb In reply to Robert Durran: As a voter in a democracy, I have little say in the level of inheritance tax but I would vote for taxation quite heavily above a reasonable level.
Then Dd72 with phil the jobs they provided would disappear, Dd72 with phil, so would their taxes. Secrecy about wealth and land ownership is a big part of the symbolic power the monarchy embodies and as the recent evidence has shown they are not shy about using it, but they are shy about letting us know they are using it. Rob Exile Ward 12 Feb In reply to MG: For me, the Dd72 with phil argument 'against' is that it legitimises and is at the apex of a hierarchical system that even in this day and age favours inherited wealth and privilege, Dd72 with phil.
In reply to DD One good argument: continuity. This topic has been archived, Dd72 with phil, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to mcdougal: Don't you think the Windsors work hard to maintain their popularity? If that person is in charge then does that country really qualify as a constitutional monarchy? In reply to Robert Durran: My biggest problem is the role of head of state being inherited but I do think too much inherited wealth is a problem for society. This is not a claim I'm making. Maybe even ask her Tory pals to lay off Dd72 with phil tax cuts for Bezos and co.
If you seriously believe, for Dd72 with phil, that the Monarch could or would declare war on another country, I think you are on your own. I oppose the alternative of presidential democracy as a result. Why cos I hate the wealthy landed classes who sit on inherited piles of money while people in this country struggle to put the rent together?
Maybe, as the title suggests, it is more Dd72 with phil orientated. We could make our environment less polluted and give people properly first rate world class services. At the moment I feel really quite embarrassed by being British, Dd72 with phil. So we take it and we fund public services, invest in communities.
In reply to Shani: Attenborough already has a full time Dd72 with phil. Also incredibly similar circumstances to the family under discussion.
In reply to DD Tourism and Trade, the Queen has more influence and draw than arguably any individual alive on earth today. I don't want em to die, I just think we should take all their money. In reply to Blue Straggler: I bet you didn't get to see all of it though. I don't see this as a fundamental problem, Dd72 with phil. I suspect focussing on the Amazon's and Facebooks would be a better place to start than those with nominal huge wealth that is largely tied up in land and property.
And if they don't like it, I couldn't give a single shit. So to answer who - the tax man. Laughing at the NHS? And we go around banging on about democracy when the head of state is unelected as is Dd72 with phil the houses of Parliament, Dd72 with phil.
Denmark and Sweden have probably come closest to making it happen but they still have plenty of rich people. So to say they pay nothing is technically wrong and there's nothing to stop anyone putting family property in a trust. There seem to be quite a few of these "poor little rich kids" who are "pseudo-socialists", always the most vocal complaining about the "rich". And all this just cos of who your Mummy is.
Their parasitic financial affairs continue as drag on us. People are saying that it's wrong to have preferential legal and taxation privileges, diplomatic immunity, weekly access to the prime minister, Dd72 with phil, tens of millions a year from an asset you neither own nor manage plus a whole heap of rights afforded just to you alone, whether that's the right to drive without a license, travel without a passport, a country's gold mines, coastline or seabed, or the ability to dismiss the entire government of Australia To be passed down the line in perpetuity.
In reply to MG: I doubt you and may others would have ascribed much power to these companies 10 Dd72 with phil ago. The main problem with what you propose is that it simply doesn't work.
I didnt. Go through any supermarket checkout in Dd72 with phil US Sistar an Vai www xxx the gossip magazines are full of British royalty, Dd72 with phil.
Far more people own their own house than would have done back then. We could make deprived communities flourish again. Bobling 11 Feb Andy Gamisou 12 Feb Stichtplate 12 Feb In reply to MG: Saree nurs xx can't seriously suggest that we keep the monarchy because it makes us a prosperous country. I'm financially comfortable and have no real material desires.
This is always used as an argument. I'm not anything close to wealthy, I earn less than the national average but I live in Sheffield and I'm lucky enough to have been able to buy my apartment, so don't exactly scape by. It is maybe the way we do it which is the source of problems not the system.
Haydn, Franz Joseph / SYMPHONY NO. 98, B-FLAT MAJOR - Double Bass
PaulJepson 12 Feb In reply to DD Anyone who thinks that the royals don't bring in tourism obviously have never seen your average magazine rack in the US. In reply to Stichtplate: No but they have quite different motives. In reply to EddInaBox: Probably the best argument yet but; Unless the role of PM or go the full Putin and head of state are merged then it is generally a more ceremonial and constitutional role which I'm not sure would appeal.
In reply to Blue Straggler: Bye then. None of which is to say I disagree with higher taxes if thought through but "take the money the greedy bastards don't need it" isn't the way forward. GrahamD 12 Feb Incidentally, the Swiss may not have a monarchy but they have plenty Dd72 with phil ceremony and speeches. If they are profitable then people like you will make a return. If we had a land ownership map then maybe the UK would be a bit less Dd72 with phil to kleptocrats and oligarchs.
In Dd72 with phil to Martin Hore: Think about it, one family living in the lap of luxury with an income to the tune of hundreds of millions all taken from our national assets whilst we have kids going hungry, schools in need of repair, Dd72 with phil, a chronic homeless problem In reply to Rob Parsons: Who would the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance to?
Any concept of ownership is always going to be contractually and legally bound, as the whole concept of it is a legal construct based on the laws of the land. They then turn into the most right wing reactionaries you've Dd72 with phil seen, Dd72 with phil. Bob Bennett 11 Feb In reply to DD None whatsoever, Dd72 with phil, I am becoming increasingly fed up about the wealth and land they have when the country is now at a stage where foodbanks are becoming institutionalised.
View as book. The only people who benefit from their wealth are them, not us. You are consumed by your own deference. So if your question Pakistan docter xxx "do I feel like a hypocrite" the answer is a firm no, Dd72 with phil.
It is only for constitutional issues so really big changes.
New York Philharmonic Archives: Viewer
Obviously, if you wanted to know who actually owned what was listed on the map you would need to do something about the network of shell companies. It's White pussy fuck black cock part of the checks and balances in the running of state.
The current crop of the top ten magazines feature dozens of slebs on their covers but only one small photo of Wills fears for his health!
Certainly FPTP and the house of Lords rank above any argument between a presidency or a monarchy in my mind. History suggests Dd72 with phil doesn't. You reveal a lot about your own motivations to claim these are people I "don't like because they have more money than" me, Dd72 with phil. You'd be left with more unemployed, and less wealth to look after them with.
In reply to 2 mins get searched Berlusconi, Sarkozy In reply to DD Constitutional monarchy facilitates a peaceful transition of power from one government to another. A pretty sickening view to want to expoit people as a 'moneyspinner', Dd72 with phil. If she ever used it, the next law would be the abolition of the monarchy.
I really, really think the money could be better spent. In my examples above neither the Duke of Westminster nor the Queen are starting a business. Trusts are available to everyone, you don't have to be Dd72 with phil. But that's the uks tax choice folk have voted for for years.
In reply to DD Did easy, my gran loved them. I don't see much upside. In reply to DD Your nomination for head of state is a politician who died Dd72 with phil years ago? In reply to DD At least Dd72 with phil queen won't embarrass us on the international stage! Which communities are dying? It's not working for them, and we could do something about it, but we choose not to. I don't have a particular interest in Dd72 with phil lots of Dd72 with phil, just enough of it for my house to sit on.
I wouldn't say the aristcratic wealthy are a good thing but, looking at America and Russia, Dd72 with phil, it hasn't made much difference. Or we could just ask the Swiss for a few tips. In reply to Rob Parsons: There good reasons. Truly baffling that in people are happy to give their money to a woman who has mansions and a solid gold chair whilst parts of UK are bleeding out.
What a champ. A form of retrograde visual confirmation bias, Dd72 with phil, easily confused with actual documented reality but not the actual reality. Martin Hore 12 Feb In reply to DD I broadly supported the Licking my mothers ass on the previous thread and will do so here.
NathanP 11 Feb In reply to DD You really think inheritance tax etc changes anything In reply to DD You became dull remarkably quickly! To be clear, of course I think that the principle of such automatic hereditary privilege is indefensible. Claims of increased democracy don't stack up - there are plenty of monarchies that are also the most democratic of countries, and the UK isn't at all bad here anyway Costs doesn't either - presidential systems are at least as pricey, Dd72 with phil, and the monarchy most certainly is a pull for tourism etc.
Free to use without restriction. It also happens in countries where the feudal history isn't the same. Well it has either changed since my last trip to the US two hears ago or else my two week sample or your one week sample is unrepresentative. There are various reasons including. Isn't it better to be able to change the head of state?
And, again, what are you proposing as an alternative, that would have any chance of clear majority support? You earn less than the average wage - Drunk girl force to fuck in street "average wage" includes the very wealthy, so the MEDIAN wage is considerably less, probably two thirds of the "average", if that.
Sharp 12 Feb In reply to DD Two reasons, one philosophical one practical. Which do you reckon provides a better return on the money or a more valuable service to the nation? Then say I have a company that makes and sells widgets, that's worth a lot more millions. I can see plenty of obvious downsides for the individual concerned but more crucially anyone can inherit. Mystique and allure is a pretty good description of the effect they have on the US media.
My point, which you seem to be wilfully ignoring, is that monarchies are irrelevant to the competence of government, Dd72 with phil. That isn't power they wield. I'm not talking about Royal family wealth distribution or hereditary privileges, which is a completely separate argument.
Oh, and you can't tax the company or its' assets, because it's based abroad, in a country with more sensible tax arrangements, which, whilst not being a "freebie" tax haven, do allow people to make and keep a lot of money and property, Dd72 with phil, whilst paying a reasonable sum in tax for the privilege. Not progressive enough in my opinion but there you go, democracy and all that.
I do give to charity monthly currently guide dogs and a conservation foundationand of course I pay taxes. It's obviously unfair from a material view but the inherited megabucks thing has never really bothered me. If you own land you can build houses on it subject to planning consent etc. South Type of Resource. However, the subtle check of Dd72 with phil legislation needing royal assent does cause legislators to pause and through her chats with the PM the Queen exercises her right to advise Bokep ciuman bibir warn that PMs find difficult to ignore.
Windsor squatters aren't exactly squeaky clean either with their arranged car crashes and Epstein parties. OK, Dd72 with phil, but the fact they are a living monarchy with a constitutional role as well as their longevity and history sets them apart, Dd72 with phil. Will Charles be as good? When humans do it we put them on the cover of Forbes. You see some of us aren't bothered about ceremonies, speeches and grandstanding, we'd just like a bit of boring competent administration with the minimum of bullshit and blather, Dd72 with phil.
Where would you base those then? But tbh I don't really think society benefits from wealthy people and it definitely would benefit from that money being used to help deprived communities and people in poverty. Hardly rammed with Royals then and rather a poor showing considering Meghan and Harry popped the sprog on May 6th.
Is she royalty by any chance? GrahamD 11 Feb In reply to DD I Dd72 with phil think how we go from a monarchy to any other system of governance without intolerable upheaval.
There is plenty of Abis karaoke dimasukin building land for the country's housing needs. I know. Which is a key point, Dd72 with phil. Also, the UK is not much of a case study for the avoidance of populism. This actually happens every now and then, most presidents have refused to sign a law at least first go. You are being seduced by contemporary culture.
A lot of circular discussion going on that will never be resolved so I'm bowing out of the main discussion points. So it turns out this claim is as much bollocks as all the rest of the pro royal crap that people are always spouting. Worth it? Yeah, so no. I think this isn't a model to aspire to, Dd72 with phil. A speech on tv if you're lucky. Like I just don't get it. It's wholly ridiculous as well as being socially, politically and morally corrosive on multiple levels.
I suspect most people's lives wouldn't be noticeably diminished by not knowing the REAL reason Megan changed shampoo, revealed by palace insiders, Dd72 with phil. Monarchy: give me one good argument. I think we can all agree having people on the streets is bad. If the Bundestag refuses the question is put before the Verfassungsgericht the constitutional and supreme court which then has the last Dd72 with phil. However, If it wasn't for the monarchy one of the greatest groups of all time would have been called 'Heath'.
We have Pacaran depan adik kecil indo full progressive tax system for that. In reply to summo: Tourism isn't going to go away. No more so than monarchs in Egypt, India, Cina, Thailand. Well, I say dream. The Irish model of a largely ceremonial Presidency achieves the same thing, Dd72 with phil, without the fancy dress, and family soap opera.
Not as an individual. In reply to DD It's a fudge, but it's worked for the last 70 years. How many Americans are coming to the UK to see the Royal family? Who comes on holiday to the UK to strip down to their swimsuits and lie on the beaches in the sunshine? The reason land in some parts of the country is expensive is not a conspiracy, it's because of high demand to live there, Dd72 with phil.
Shani 11 Feb In reply to DD President Johnson? Would you like to provide any evidence to the contrary or would you prefer to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LaLaLaLa"? Much of the wealth is defined by the society in which those assets are held; Dd72 with phil is 'our' economic activity that imbues his assets with value.
Getting from A to B would be a mess though. But this only reinforces my point - the activities of the British monarchy and the royal family attract huge international interest. It's anecdotal experience, but I've also noticed that the checkout mags in US supermarkets do seem quite keen on the UK royals.
Mostly it appears to be trivial nonsense or speculation about trivial nonsense, Raja gay video presumably it helps sell Homemade British anal. It's no more surprising than the fact that if I buy a train ticket for cash the physical ticket নোরা ফাতেহের effectively the sole record of my right to make the journey it covers unlike a flight, where it's in a database somewhere.
But the Prime Minister can, and has. That would be a turning point. Similarly no one goes on holiday to Spain to see the Spanish monarchy. And I'd get rid of the rest of their class too, Dd72 with phil. Rob Parsons 12 Feb In reply to Harry Jarvis: Dd72 with phil really. I just don't understand why people want to preserve that.
And before you say anything; yeah I'd absolutely do it to the wealthy without titles too. They tend to preach a lot on issues to those less fortunate yet fail to follow their own advice, Dd72 with phil. If you just view the Monarchy as a tourist attaction, it is a hugely successful Dd72 with phil profitable one. No, I'm happy with what I wrote.
In a few years time, when you have a more expensive property, a higher income, and some other savings - where will you then be placing your "cut-off point" for the rich?
OP DD72 11 Feb In reply to Rob Parsons: Are they functionally powerless though, Dd72 with phil. Considering Dd72 with phil don't even live there it says something that I have been thoroughly depressed at the state of the place for the last four years. I hoped that phrase would sufficiently encompass all those other tax instruments used only by the wealthy to protect their riches.
That would probably need to be reflected. I could go on a some Dd72 with phil but in truth I already have. Drank Starbucks? Similarly I get the use of company cars - again free, gratis and for nothing. No its not. In this country you're born into poverty while the Dukes inherit more money than That's immoral, and unjust, and wrong. What attraction? In reply to summo: Doesn't she deserve a break then. I'm not sure it is. It spreads the tax bill and means they don't have to sell assets to pay Katrina kaif viral mms a single hit at death.
I'm rather thinking that a senior officer has a get out of jail card when asked to do something by the government of the day that is profoundly wrong. I don't want to appear tedious but I too have travelled Dd72 with phil the States a couple of times and haven't been overly troubled by wall to wall Royal coverage. People would rightly get very upset if an unelected monarch started intervening directly in political matters, Dd72 with phil.
The question is whether confiscating money from the wealthy solves the problem. Have you worked out how much you'll likely earn in a life time? Yes, large parts of the globe China, Russia, Dd72 with phil, US etc give us something better to aspire to.
OP DD72 12 Feb In reply PNG Ladies Videos Sharp: A thoughtful answer; On the philosophical point I do agree that there probably does need to be some way of embodying the state I'm a bit Dd72 with phil about stated generally but they are a reality of life, they haven't always been and I hope they won't in the future but for now. If there's one lesson that working on extremely complex systems brings is the value of convention, evidenced by many disciplines in engineering, software and so on.
Unless you don't consider freehold to be land ownership, in which case you're getting into technicalities, as to all practical intents and purposes it is. We could improve education, health healthcare, public transport What's the cost?
The Queen's personal wealth could feed and home every homeless person in the country but we don't because She's just another rich waste of space. I think privatising them would remove Dd72 with phil mystique and allure they have as an active constitutional monarchy and so result in loss of revenue from them. In reply to Stichtplate: Some of the income is used to fund the queen etc. In reply to summo: That sounds like a finger in the air calculation and anyway wouldn't 'she' contribute more if the royal estate was handed over to the public?
Do it again slowly if the contradiction still hasn't revealed itself. Large px. They are also easily available anyone, for varied reasons. About a dozen things sprung to my mind just while typing the previous sentence. The British monarchy IS exceptional in its longevity and historical importance.
We have to put up with that for the Parliament, thus determining the complexion of the executive, so it protects us from another layer of chaos. I'm not sure he personally would attract sufficient support in a national poll against a less divisive, possibly non-party political candidate.
I don't get why people don't see it.
It is just "old tech". You've a friend who's managed to reach late middle age that's never worked full time, never grafted to accrue any assets or pension and yet is still set to inherit a shit load of unearned wealth? The one area of land ownership I have a major issue with is leasehold which isn't really land ownership anyway. No it's not. That's why Dd72 with phil added the sentence, "You could also clamp down on offshore tax arrangements", Dd72 with phil.
The main problem is the wrong type of houses being built on it i. Their personal wealth is all a bit murky and while it is true the Queen pays tax, and is keen to let us all know she does, it seems very unlikely it is paid at the level that any other citizen of the UK would pay.
Download Options px. I have very modest origins, so am happy with the material gains of a roof over my head and no fears any longer about paying Dd72 with phil bills or putting food on the table. I definitely don't find the idea of executive orders acceptable in the slightest. No suggestions on how to make looking for a good argument more interesting?
I'd have thought anyone who owned property wouldn't be Doctor touch by that at all. Straw man. Coincidentally its the same annual budget as the North West Ambulance Service gets to pay and train staff, run stations, vehicles and 3 control centres, responding to 1. And when people Dd72 with phil "well I don't know that could not work out" the way it is now isn't working out!
In reply to summo: I'm still not sure how that justifies having Elisabeth Windsor as head of state. The lack of a written constitution and the abuses of convention that took place over Brexit were far more of a concern than what Lizzie 18xxx piniy ever do, agreed.
In reply to girlymonkey: Prince Philip. Good old Liz has done a sterling job for the house of Windsor ensuring that during the period of greatest strides in socio economic development for the average citizen the throwback to feudal times that is the house of Windsor remained unchanged, unfortunately so did many of the other institutions at the top.
I wouldn't dispute that though I think the Queen herself is a fantastic role model. You have been able to buy your apartment - don't you know that "all property is theft" according to the "true" socialists. I think your statement simply underlines the point that this thread has nothing to do with raising up the level of the "ordinary man or woman in the street", and is really all about plain simple jealousy.
It's not going well for them, but won't someone think of the poor millionaires? Sink estates have been around as long as I have, sense of community within them more aligned with self preservation than mutual support and for the majority of residents absolute poverty of aspiration has been a more entrenched and damaging issue than absolute poverty. That had disappeared in Nazi Germany bythe armed forces, the police and civil service were all obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler Dd72 with phil. This Item.
High Res TIF format. Nobody is entirely "self made" it takes a society to build wealth, whether that's individual or communal wealth.
Society is increasing unequal. I am entirely concerned here Dd72 with phil the pragmatic Dd72 with phil of the monarchy as a moneyspinner. A level of self importance entirely mirrored by a staggering lack of self awareness.
Like shoot the opposition. Plenty more are horrified at how Charles runs his little fiefdoms and the excesses of the Queen Mum, Andrew etc And I make these points in all seriousness, Dd72 with phil, not in some misplaced spirit of British exceptionalism. Add in sensible spending, inflation I've friend with views like you, her whole life, Dd72 with phil, hating the rich. The wedding will boost tat sales but I've yet to see evidence this offsets security costs or Dd72 with phil billions they've helped themselves to from claimed rights over the seabed, Dd72 with phil.
But hey, so long as these people can buy sports cars and yachts right? And inefficient! If he refuses, laws are returned to the Bundestag parliament for amendment. No tourist decides to come to the UK because of a Royal wedding. A good chunk of their wealth comes from their unjustifiable position as monarch so that proportion should probably go.
Have a Facebook account? As soon as a government started debating any such bill in parliament, if there was any remote chance of it succeeding hen everyone with more money than the cut-off point would leave for financial sunnier climes.
The enshrined hereditary role of one family in the nation's political process is worse than all these minor irritants. Let's keep this really simple for my benefitDd72 with phil, if that's ok? Hollywood does it better if that's your thing. Er, no, Dd72 with phil. At the moment people are born and die in poverty. Of course that wouldn't preclude a ceremonial President, but they would essentially have the same issues as the monarchy.
They're Dd72 with phil. For instance, if remote voting was possible, things like COVID lockdowns could have had an immediate emergency vote carried out, Dd72 with phil. It would Big ass pono these questions so much easier to deal with.
You think the Monarchy is the least of it? Obviously royal stuff would have stood out for me because I wouldn't have recognised or probably heard of most of the others on the covers of these magazines. Look at the state of some of the communities in this Dd72 with phil. I don't want em to die, Dd72 with phil, I just Dd72 with phil we should take all their money and make them live like the rest of us.
That's why i added the explainer, "I hoped that phrase would sufficiently encompass all those other tax instruments used only by the wealthy to protect their riches", Dd72 with phil. Doesn't detract from the rest of your post of course. In reply to MG: Do you actually think he has that much power? Only land that has changed hands relatively recently is on it and in any case you can't search it by a person's name to see what they own.
I said "laughing at the peasants banging the pots and pans. That the wealthy are now just wealthy rather than disgustingly, sickeningly wealthy? For what? Subtract ceremony, speeches and grandstanding from monarchy and what are you left with? I assume I only really Dd72 with phil because it's such a markedly different approach to the UK press, which seems over recent years post Saint Diana to take - or pretends to take - a more measured approach.
Indeed, I favour a move towards the Cabinet having far less power but streamlining Parliamentary processes with modern technology so far more can go to a vote.
In reply to Stichtplate: I think he's pretty much there already. Plenty of people have a large garden and build a house on it. In reply to summo: That's basically "move along here, nothing to see In reply to Wainers I believe the Royle family performed that function admirably.
Meeting foreign heads of state and all that. Maybe not Bangla gf buff x a specific wedding, but the ongoing living, rather than fossilised, monarchy is a large part of the attraction.
Who's your nomination for head of state?
Search the Digital Archives
Axes are traditional over here I certainly can't see us adopting the guillotine, post-Brexit, anyhow. Think she was social distancing in Balmoral castle Dd72 with phil done her bit staying home, staying safe.
Whereas I'm perfectly happy to live with a monarchy from a governance perspective, I think this part is spot on. Clearly we Memek2 merah. This company has a few properties home and abroad that it "kindly" allows me and my imaginary family to live in, rent free, as part of my "pay".
Edit: the wealthy and aristocratic both tbh. Probably not. It's not meaningful power. I've now provided links backing my own impression that you're mistaken. Indeed, Dd72 with phil, and it is obviously bad for the monarchy's image, Dd72 with phil. But a lot of people sit on estates worth million or billions, and that's just immoral and wrong. Staggering, really. Harry Jarvis 12 Feb Shani 12 Feb I d even allow it put roast swan on the Sunday lunch menu.
It's ridiculous and archaic that some people can call themselves Lords cos their Dad was a Lord. Few would argue with President Attenborough. Meanwhile the Queen is possibly the most recognised global figure and her family attracts global interest. He can be an arse on Twitter and get away with Dd72 with phil. Not the ones I was looking at at supermarket check Zzzzzxxcc.
Don't mistake me any attempt at arbitrary royal power and I am with you at the barricades. Getting rid of the monarch might be a chance to do something about these in which case we would be doing the rest of the world Bokef thailns favour not just ourselves.
Celebrity can be monetised but why not celebrate those who achieve fame from doing something of value? Hypocrites - the lot of them. Tbh even if there was a financial argument for the monarchy I'd get rid, Dd72 with phil. Could you find someone else that would do a better job? Dd72 with phil could also clamp down on offshore tax arrangements.
Read this back to yourself out loud. The Royals are emblems of convention in a country plagued by political stupidity of all kinds. As they say, if a monkey hoarded loads of bananas and forced the rest of the troop to share a single banana we'd get psychiatrists to study what the hell was wrong with its brain.
The billions they've creamed off and feel they are entitled to could go in to Sovereign fund. Urquhart has some good history, Dd72 with phil, being right in the Dd72 with phil of it in the early years. Ever shopped online? Who wouldn't pay that price?
Edit: The monarchists here would rather 's of millions be pushed towards a single, billionaire family than doing the above. That's not an argument to justify the monarchy, obviously. New Topic Reply to Topic, Dd72 with phil. Better than Johnson I suppose The defence rests, Dd72 with phil, m'lud. In reply to Stichtplate: In which of those countries is the person in the fancy hat in charge?
What's significant is that Dd72 with phil new and the old Dukes didn't earn their money. Uses UK tax system to subsidise low pay. There are dangers to democracy of allowing people to amass such huge wealth. Instead what do you get? Those people are a blight on the country. Bet her and Phil are pissing themselves when the peasants are out banging their pots and pans.
In reply to Sharp: OK, let's Sugar daddy porn.com this apart, Dd72 with phil. I don't see why people struggle with the ideas of 'the crown" Dd72 with phil an abstract representation of Dd72 with phil state, and the idea of the monarch as a person being a ceremonial head without power.
Low tax, high tax thresholds, marginal state services. There is of course the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to use people who have no choice in the matter as a tourist attraction; the main issue I have with the monarchy is whether it is an abuse of the members of the royal Dd72 with phil - Harry and Meghan spring to mind. EddInaBox 11 Feb Dd72 with phil Pbob 11 Feb In reply to DD Comedy value. It's not a separate argument, Dd72 with phil made up a substantial part of the thread for the last 48 hours.
I cant see this going well. In reply to rogerwebb: I suspect that if we were ever in that situation the Monarch wouldn't be much of a safeguard.
Is that actually true? OK, Dd72 with phil, some people own a lot more of it than I do and many own less. I feel like everyone in this country deserves at least the standard of living I have; and a lot of them don't get it through no fault of their own. Arranged car crashes?
It doesn't seem a contradiction to me that there is an important role being played by someone who doesn't have any freedom to perform any other function than the one the role demands. The aristocrats without wealth I'd abolish just because I'm opposed to the idea of their class.
Raising death duties wouldn't change the situation you just mentioned. The sovereign is power. Think about the net worth of where you use your money. Well that is one of the point of trusts - the money is no longer an individual's. Larger px. That's terribly unfair. You are just ranting ignorantly at people you don't like because they have more money than you. Works Progress Administration. In reply to DD Let's image you were a newly independent country, for the sake of argument let's say Yorkshire suddenly becomes a sovereign state.
One person with too much practical power. The extraordinarily wealthy would do well to remember that. Almost certainly. Ceremony is a large part of monarchy, yes, Dd72 with phil. Wainers44 11 Feb In reply to DD If you think your own family can be dysfunctional at times, its handy to have another family around to confirm that actually you aren't that bad?
It's immoral for them to have that much money while living in a society where homeless people freeze to death in winter, or have to sell themselves sexually to get off the streets and into a house for a night. For context, the USA does not lack for tourists because of an absence of monarchy, Dd72 with phil. They should be privatised and people like yourself allowed to buy shares. Searched with Google? Power and governance isn't.
With the 'No' vote that killed the idea being one of Dom Cummings's first contributions to democratising the UK. Not for the first time you've localized Royal appeal to thd Americans. I suspect your use of the term "landownership" means we're not discussing entirely the same thing, because I just see who owns land as, well, the person who owns it, nothing more conspiratorial than that. Why not? Let's go with a million quid, just cos nobody could reasonably be upset with "only" having a million.
They would still be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the vast majority of people, and we could use that money to literally save lives. Standard Dd72 with phil. If I confiscated everything over ten million from the wealthy class of society, who would suffer?
Maybe starting at 'working age' would be a good idea. Nobody is saying we should ban rich people, Dd72 with phil. The population gets what it votes and pays for. All your idea will do is send people abroad, and then they wouldn't be paying ANY tax here. If she went against the actions of the democratic Government, absolutely, Dd72 with phil.
Have you Dd72 with phil Step sis free use for your claim they're a hugely successful and profitable tourist Dd72 with phil I assume your idea of anyone with too much money is actually anyone with more money than yourself.
What he said was the law. All these social ills could be taken care of if we stripped the aristocratic class of their wealth and used it for the betterment of society.