here declare the reduction of taxation

[GoodTaste]

(Here is a made-up scenario by me for purpose of mastering English).

We, King of England, cognizant of the suffering our people have experienced during this pandemic, and in order to revive our economy, here declare the reduction of taxation...


Is the expression "here declare the reduction of taxation" formal in English? Well, editing of the entire passage well be apreciated (to make it really sound spoken by King of England).

 

[GoesStation]

You mean hereby decree a reduction in tax rates. But I think your time will be better spent on writing set in more realistic contexts. For one thing, even if England had a king (or a queen), he (or she) wouldn't have the power to decree anything.

 

[teechar]

even if England had a king (or a queen),

England does have a queen. :shock:

 

[GoesStation]

England does have a queen. :shock:

Not since 1707.

 

[teechar]

The queen of the UK is the queen of England.

 

[GoesStation]

The queen of the UK is the queen of England.

I keep seeing Quora.com posts comparing such an appellation to describing the chief executive of the United States as (God forbid) "the President of Ohio". But perhaps it's not a good idea for me to take them seriously.

 

[teechar]

Does Ohio not have a president then?

 

[emsr2d2]

(Here is a [STRIKE]made-up[/STRIKE] scenario [STRIKE]by me[/STRIKE] I made up for the purpose of mastering English.)

We, King of England, cognisant of the suffering our people have experienced during this pandemic, and in order to revive our economy, here declare [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] a reduction in the rate of taxation ...

Is the expression "here declare [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] a reduction in the rate of taxation" formal in English? [STRIKE]Well,[/STRIKE] Editing of the entire passage [STRIKE]well[/STRIKE] would be appreciated (to make it really sound as if it could be spoken by the king of England).

See above.

I'm not sure that writing something that sounds as if it has come from the 17th century is going to help you master English! I'm also not sure what you're trying to achieve. If you really are trying to sound as if it was spoken several centuries ago, it mostly works (although I imagine some of the vocabulary wasn't in use then). However, if it's meant to be set now, there are two basic errors:
1) There is no king of England.
2) The monarch doesn't announce changes in taxation. The government does that.

 

[GoesStation]

Does Ohio not have a president then?

No. Our chief executive is the Governor of Ohio.

 

[teechar]

But isn't the president of the United States president of all the 50 states?

 

[GoesStation]

But isn't the president of the United States president of all the 50 states?

No, the states are sovereign entities in their own right. He's the chief executive of the federal government, not of the individual states. The relationship is very vaguely similar to that between the President of the European Commission and the EU's remaining member states, though the US federal government has much more power over domestic matters than the European Commission has.

 

[GoodTaste]

Regarding "reduction of taxation": Before I posted the thread, I searched it and found New York Times has used it:

https://www.nytimes.com/1862/11/14/archives/reduction-of-taxation.html

It might work at that time.I am not sure.

 

[emsr2d2]

Regarding "reduction of taxation", before I posted the thread, I searched for it and found [that] the New York Times has used it:

https://www.nytimes.com/1862/11/14/archives/reduction-of-taxation.html

It might work [STRIKE]at that time[/STRIKE] there. space after a full stop I am not sure.

See above.

 

[SoothingDave]

But isn't the president of the United States president of all the 50 states?

No. He's the president of all the citizens in the states, but he is not the president of any state.

 

[teechar]

He is the president of the United States.

 

[GoesStation]

He is the president of the United States.

I never noticed the potentially confusing nature of the title. He's president of the country called "the United States of America", not president of the states that are united. The same reading applies to the Queen, who isn't the monarch of two places called "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland" but of the kingdom as a whole.

 

[emsr2d2]

I never noticed the potentially confusing nature of the title. He's president of the country called "the United States of America", not president of the states that are united. The same reading applies to the Queen, who isn't the monarch of two places called "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland" but of the kingdom as a whole.

But she is the Queen of the United Kingdom (and other Commonwealth countries). The United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland so she is, by definition, the queen of both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

[GoodTaste]

See above.

I'm not sure that writing something that sounds as if it has come from the 17th century is going to help you master English! I'm also not sure what you're trying to achieve. If you really are trying to sound as if it was spoken several centuries ago, it mostly works (although I imagine some of the vocabulary wasn't in use then). However, if it's meant to be set now, there are two basic errors:
1) There is no king of England.
2) The monarch doesn't announce changes in taxation. The government does that.

The scenario in the OP is fictional and is supposed to happen at 6527 (that is in future, more than 4 thousand years from now) when somehow this kingdom appear.

 

[emsr2d2]

The scenario in the OP is fictional and is supposed to happen at 6527 (that is in future, more than 4 thousand years from now) when somehow this kingdom appear.

Well, there's some information that would have been really helpful in post #1!