what do you expect for free?

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

in some ways yes. however there is always an amount that they are legally obliged to pay. unlike the queen.
.

aha, so I'm not disorganised and poorly eductaed as to the best way to arrange my finances but rather I am Donor. Yippee.

I think its tax. Not all things need to be required by law to none the less be required.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

in some ways yes. however there is always an amount that they are legally obliged to pay. unlike the queen.

as soon as income tax is voluntary for the rest of us i will agree the queen pays tax. until then i see what she pays as charity. and charity to appease republican sentiment.

If you genuinely think the queen pays tax voluntarily and that she has a real choice in the matter (irrespective of how it's presented to the unthinking masses) , you're more naieve than I've given you (dis) credit for.

Honestly, what a chump.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

If you genuinely think the queen pays tax voluntarily and that she has a real choice in the matter (irrespective of how it's presented to the unthinking masses) , you're more naieve than I've given you (dis) credit for.

Honestly, what a chump.

then if it's not voluntary why present it as such? why not just make it a legal obligation?

and there was me thinking the argument was that the fact is was 'voluntary' made it even more honorable.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

the Monarchy is clearly a very good thing from the perspective of what it delivers to the country's coffers, both directly and indirectly.

how so? in what way would the assets of monarchy deliver any less value if they were held in a different way?

and don't come the tourism nonsense with me. no one plans a holiday based on the fact as to whether a country has a monarchy or not. the palace of versailles is still an attraction even though the french sensibly did away with their royals.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

then if it's not voluntary why present it as such? why not just make it a legal obligation?

and there was me thinking the argument was that the fact is was 'voluntary' made it even more honorable.

If there is honour in it it is that the honourable part was that it hasn't been needed to made law.....yet. They payment itself not so much.

why not just do anything.....there is politics, diplomacy and most importantly money. Its not cheap to make laws, and I guess if it became ''legally'' required we'd not be able to legally do much if it were legally avoided.

Sometimes in life...whether its a monarch paying ''tax'' or a village interaction or an episode at work...its much more effective* to use the human animal laws of honour and police it with diplomacy I think.

* caveat, I am talking out of my 4rse. I have no idea what the difference in money would be in either direction.

IronWolf

ninky wrote: »

how so? in what way would the assets of monarchy deliver any less value if they were held in a different way?

and don't come the tourism nonsense with me. no one plans a holiday based on the fact as to whether a country has a monarchy or not. the palace of versailles is still an attraction even though the french sensibly did away with their royals.

Sensibly? You mean when they conducted a mass slaughter of anyone with nobility?

ninky_2

IronWolf wrote: »

Sensibly? You mean when they conducted a mass slaughter of anyone with nobility?

i was not referring to the methodology but more the result.

Radiantsoul

Sex should be free!

hcb42

it usually is

IronWolf

ninky wrote: »

i was not referring to the methodology but more the result.

You mean their democracy failing miserably, ultimately leading to Napoleon being crowned emporer to the applause of the nation?

We are a democracy, the monarch is now a ceremonial position, but it has stood for hundreds of years and there's no reason to abolish it.