[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Thunder Bolt]

It will only be corrected when Charles is subject to compulsory taxation, including proper investigations, as the rest of us are. I have long believed that the voluntary taxes he so kindly pays, is simply a way of avoiding investigations into just how much he should be paying.

The Duchy, I don't get your point. Are you saying that people that get an income from state owned entities, should pay no tax? All the people that work for the Duchy, the armed forces, council workers?

I don't think most people want to completely abolish them, but just want a fair deal.
They are not gods and should be treated no worse or better than the rest of us. Many have been calling for taxpayers to fund the head of state alone, for years, but royal lovers seem to want anyone and everyone remotely related, to live a pampered life while the rest of us struggle,
.

It is an absolute disgrace that we don't know who owns what, we should know and it's royal obfuscation, throwing sand in our collective eyes, so we can't see what this dodgy bunch of crooks should be paying, indeed, what they should be earning and doing for this part time job.

You’ve just described the Tory party to a T. I’d rather have the royal family than any of those crooks.

 

[wellquickwoody]

You mean the homes that most of us have to apply for a mortgage on, work hard until retirement paying it off that we might leave to our offspring after our estate has paid inheritance tax and duties etc. if we're lucky enough that the equity hasn't been used to pay for our health care in old age?

Are you really making that comparison that the Queen Mother leaving a property to the people is comparable to an ordinary person leaving their house and garden!?

Power to the People!

 

[wellquickwoody]

This is a hell of a post from someone who has no facts on the matter.

Has never stopped you.........

 

[Springal]

Has never stopped you.........

Pardon?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There was a documentary on ITV just before Christmas about the Duchy of Cornwall (which strangely includes part of Herefordshire). There are tenant farmers on a waiting list for farms and small holdings because it is so well looked after. Farms that are supported and making a profit, but people who have no idea on how to run an allotment on a message board, want to seize it for the 'people'.

 

[portslade seagull]

Doesn't tourism far outweigh the cost of the royals. Keep them

 

[beorhthelm]

It will only be corrected when Charles is subject to compulsory taxation, including proper investigations, as the rest of us are. I have long believed that the voluntary taxes he so kindly pays, is simply a way of avoiding investigations into just how much he should be paying.

why would there be investigation into anyone exempt from tax? i agree they shouldnt, so minor change of the law here solves a minor problem. some credit is due that Charles chose to do the right thing.

The Duchy, I don't get your point.

was refering to the corporate entity of the Duchy, as you brought up that it doesnt pay corporation tax. its part of the state, not Charles private property. (worth noting if run as not for profit, reinvesting all surplus income, it would never pay tax anyway)

I don't think most people want to completely abolish them, but just want a fair deal.

agree.

It is an absolute disgrace that we don't know who owns what, we should know and it's royal obfuscation, throwing sand in our collective eyes, so we can't see what this dodgy bunch of crooks should be paying, indeed, what they should be earning and doing for this part time job.

i think we do know what they own, what is private property or part of crown estate. theres an awful lot of public information about this, far more than politicans divulge, which was my point earlier. you want to get rid of royals because you dont know much about their finances based on flawed assumptions. its a poor reason to remove an institution that is more transparent than others, and issues can be dealt with by adjustment.

 

[The Clamp]

Every fibre of my principles says No.
But I rather like having them around. So it’s a Yes from me. Keep them, the sponging, outdated, foolish old buggers.

 

[Dick Head]

It looks like we're slowly coming round to Charles Ross' viewpoint.

https://www.northstandchat.com/show...f-their-title&highlight=Charles+Ross+monarchy

 

[Sorrel]

The only way republic could work would be by having no head of state at all apart from the Prime Minister.

Can you image the difficulties in agreeing on a UK head of state at the moment? The Scots would object to everyone English, a vote would probably end up with someone in a football mascot costume winning and the whole thing would be a disaster.

Much better to stick with what we have - slimmed down a bit - and getting rid of the Sussex title from those who don't want to be involved.

 

[Bulldog]

There was a documentary on ITV just before Christmas about the Duchy of Cornwall (which strangely includes part of Herefordshire). There are tenant farmers on a waiting list for farms and small holdings because it is so well looked after. Farms that are supported and making a profit, but people who have no idea on how to run an allotment on a message board, want to seize it for the 'people'.

Just because a business is well run it does not mean it should operate tax free when the farmers around it are paying their share like the rest if us.

FYI I don't have an allotment

 

[Bulldog]

You’ve just described the Tory party to a T. I’d rather have the royal family than any of those crooks.

Sorry TB, but that makes no sense at all. How the hell have I just described the Tories?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Just because a business is well run it does not mean it should operate tax free when the farmers around it are paying their share like the rest if us.

FYI I don't have an allotment

Not when the profit is ploughed back into the business. The income comes from the rents.

 

[Bulldog]

why would there be investigation into anyone exempt from tax? i agree they shouldnt, so minor change of the law here solves a minor problem. some credit is due that Charles chose to do the right thing.


was refering to the corporate entity of the Duchy, as you brought up that it doesnt pay corporation tax. its part of the state, not Charles private property. (worth noting if run as not for profit, reinvesting all surplus income, it would never pay tax anyway)


agree.


i think we do know what they own, what is private property or part of crown estate. theres an awful lot of public information about this, far more than politicans divulge, which was my point earlier. you want to get rid of royals because you dont know much about their finances based on flawed assumptions. its a poor reason to remove an institution that is more transparent than others, and issues can be dealt with by adjustment.

If Charlie paid compulsory taxes he could be investigated. All the time Mr Nice guy is a voluntary tax payer, he can't. I think you know the difference. He "chose" to do the right thing so he could avoid investigation and pay less tax that he should.

You say we know what they own yet it is structured so huge profits go to a personal bank account of an individual, whos personal tax liabilities can't be checked because he pays tax on a voluntary basis. That's an attempt to lay a trail so complicated and mired in so much medieval law just so a very rich man can avoid paying what's due.

The whole matter of royal finance stinks and the smell get stronger as we are, slowly, able to peep into their cupboard full of skeletons.

The financial side of monarchy is an irritation to me. But that is nowhere near the main reason I want rid. I want to live in a grown up democracy where the people are mature enough to be trusted to select their own leaders, not be told who they will sing praises to, until then we don't live in a democracy.

 

[Bulldog]

Not when the profit is ploughed back into the business. The income comes from the rents.

The profits aren't put back. It's Charlies main source of income.

He funds his kids lifestyle from it, adds to his car collection from it etc etc. yet pays zero tax on it. I don't believe even a Royalist such as you can consider that to be fair to all the people that do pay their taxes.

 

[Bulldog]

This, from the Republican organisation. I don't agree with everything but they maybe able to get the gist of the argument across better than I can.


Republic's royal finances reform charter proposes the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.

Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.
All security costs to be made transparent and accountable.
All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.
The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.
The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be fully investigated by parliament with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury.
The Crown Estate to be renamed 'the National Estate' and its status clarified through amendment of the Crown Estate Act.

 

[clapham_gull]

Doesn't tourism far outweigh the cost of the royals.

It's a line from that the old Tourism Board, now called Visit Britain. They heavily use the Royal Family to promote the country.

They obviously want their campaigns to appear successful, so suggest the Royals are a major reason for visits.

But they've never been able to present any evidence when asked.

There are however numbers of Royal Palace visits available.

If you are visiting a country because of past or present royalty it's reasonable to assume that you would visit a Palace of some sort.

If you add up the visitor numbers for all the Royal Residences in the UK, they are still less than half the visitors to the single Palace of Versailles outside Paris.

In any case it's a really odd preposition. Has anyone visited a foreign country because they have a Royal Family ?

It's nonsense.

 

[Hamilton]

It's very easy to find the visitor figures for both French Palaces and UK Royal residences. Versailles visitor numbers easily outweigh the total combined visits to all the UK residences.

There are a variety of reasons to keep the monarchy, but tourism isn't one of them. Its a complete myth that started as a promotional mechanism to get people to visit Britain.

The other more modern cliche is the one that cites "President Blair"



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Yep. I agree with you. Tourism as nothing to do with the Royals.

 

[BadFish]

We could change our name, too, to the United States of Britain.

I did vote that it is time to finish it....but it is moot what to put in it's place. I like the unelected second chamber. And I'd rather have a pared down royal family with ceremonial responsibility than a president like the yanks.

Maybe a solution would be to have a ceremonial elected president, like in Hitch Hiker's guide to the Galaxy. No actual power. Just handing out awards and opening things. We could have a new one every year. Richard Branson would stand. I'm sure Grace Jones would do a cracking job, too.

This is interesting, why do you like it?

To be honest this would be the first thing I got rid of so I assume I am missing some of the benefits of it.

 

[BadFish]

If it gets rid of those stupid James Bond and Queen memes then I am all for it