Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Palace] Costs of the Royal family



Invicta

Invicta

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 1, 2013
3,212
Kent
Could have housed 5 homeless families there and spent £2.4m on a nice house in Sussex !
 




Westdene Seagull

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
20,993
The arse end of Hangleton
dejavuatbtn said:
Well, I guess we put a line in the sand by stop funding them and charge them tax, as in any other business, on their income. No doubt they will have plenty of exemptions in costs and charities, but at least they will maybe stop being charged as spongers.
Click to expand...

Crown Estates currently pays an effective tax rate of 75% - once the Buck House refurb is finished it will a rate of 85%. To tax them like any normal company / individual would see them paying less tax. The ultra rich pay even less than you and I in tax - the Crown Estates don't employ tax avoidance because it's a set percentage they pay - no off setting and all that rubbish. They pay more by percentage than anyone else.
 


Uh_huh_him

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,663
Westdene Seagull said:
Crown Estates currently pays an effective tax rate of 75% - once the Buck House refurb is finished it will a rate of 85%. To tax them like any normal company / individual would see them paying less tax. The ultra rich pay even less than you and I in tax - the Crown Estates don't employ tax avoidance because it's a set percentage they pay - no off setting and all that rubbish. They pay more by percentage than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Yes but the Crown Estates do not belong to the royal family.... The Crown Estates are a Trust fund which secures revenue for the queen and the treasury. Effectively Joint ownership, but neither party own them.

The revenue from them is supposed to pay for government (previously the responsibility of the monarch).. That was the deal struck by George III in 1760.

The Queen gets 25% of the revenue, the rest belongs to the Treasury.
It isn't a donation from a benevolent monarchy, nor is it tax... It's the cost of being the Monarch.
 


Uh_huh_him

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
10,663
FatSuperman said:
Are you seriously asking that question? Do the tone and words in my posts lead you to believe in an utter imbecile? I’m not suggesting anything of the sort, I’m pointing out two things across these posts;

1. They pay IN a lot more than they take OUT -
2. Even ignoring point 1, why risk getting rid of them given the paltry sum they cost, we don’t know what their tourism draw is, but it’s not £0
Click to expand...

I don't think we should get rid of them. I think they do a good job.
There is a fair and reasonable arrangement in place, in the main.

However spending an additional £2.4m on a private residence for Harry, is morally no different to the Expenses scandal at Westminster.
Why not choose to live somewhere else that doesn't need £2.5m worth of work. Lord knows they have enough to choose from.

Sure it's a drop in the ocean when we look at Government costs.
But after 10 years of Austerity, why should we think that Millionaires dipping into the trough is ok?
It isn't.
 


G

Garry Nelson's teacher

Well-known member
May 11, 2015
5,257
Bloody Worthing!
It is very, very strange that a country in turmoil over the exercise of 'undemocratic control' by the EU can quite happily accept the continued existence of both a non-elected Head of State and upper House of its Parliament.
 






D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
2.4M is a little exccesive, however they are still worth the money for the tourism it brings in to this country.
 
















B

Billy the Fish

Technocrat
Oct 18, 2005
17,493
Haywards Heath
BBassic said:
Tourists come to see and tour the buildings.

If they were paying thousands for a meet and greet with the old bag then that'd be fair enough.

The buildings and the history will still be there long after the freeloading lot of them have shuffled off to the great palace in the sky.
Click to expand...

The tourism is a bit of a red herring IMHO. Their real value is in PR for the county, they're flying around the world selling the UK brand.

If it wasn't them doing it, it would be someone else, and given the current state of politics that someone else would be a power mad, highly corrupt politician.
 


grawhite

grawhite

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2011
1,432
Brighton
The Royal family bring more money into the country then any other business, so the little bit spent on home upgrades is just pocket change...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 




G

Garry Nelson's teacher

Well-known member
May 11, 2015
5,257
Bloody Worthing!
Worried Man Blues said:
Really like Ferryside, take the dogs down there for the beach, probably hasn't changed! Apart from a ferry over to Llansteffan which started this year.
Click to expand...

Yes - I've got good memories of it, but by Christ didn't it rain there!

(Fancy it actually having a ferry these days! Originally I believe it was so named because pilgrims used it as a short-cut to get to St Davids?)
 


B

Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,357
FatSuperman said:
Are you seriously asking that question? Do the tone and words in my posts lead you to believe in an utter imbecile? I’m not suggesting anything of the sort, I’m pointing out two things across these posts;

1. They pay IN a lot more than they take OUT
2. Even ignoring point 1, why risk getting rid of them given the paltry sum they cost, we don’t know what their tourism draw is, but it’s not £0
Click to expand...

1 - My point was only about tourism. I'm not debating their political role or how much they give to / take from the State.
2 - And yes, I'm seriously asking that question (which despite the bluster in your post you didn't answer).
 












You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here