I will try and make myself clear, and point out some misconceptions.
The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.
The reasons for keeping them seems to to me to be.
Keeping a larger presence in the world. This I think is a fact, all America présidents visit, and many other heads of state, giving us an opportunity to put our point of view in any scenario.
The idea that we are subject to them is in my experience not true. They have had no influence on my life at all.
I like the fact it makes us a little different, special, that most other countries.
Why get rid of history unless you have something better to put in it's place.
At least under the Queen they have done well presenting our nation around the world.
They are popular, so why take the undemocratic step of getting rid of them.
Finally they have made no difference to my life, and cannot as I don't live in the UK.
I don't love the royal family or hate them.
They are an institution that appears to work well in the world's eyes.
"She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative."
Being a ex Soldier I took the oath to serve Queen and Country!..
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware the Queen, new King are the head off the Armed Forces, but, they can not tell them when or what they do!..
The same as with the Guvernment, Royalty can not hire or sack people that are voted into office!..
The Military do what the Guvernment say, the same as the Guvernment can block the Royals doing things that they don't want/like them doing!..
As for abolishing the monarchy, it will never happen because of the money it generates for the Country, the Queen in her time brought in more money than what she earned, and the Guvernment know that!..
I was in the Forces but I didn't join because the Queen was head off state, I joined because its something I wanted to do!..
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
I will try and make myself clear, and point out some misconceptions.
The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.
The reasons for keeping them seems to to me to be.
Keeping a larger presence in the world. This I think is a fact, all America présidents visit, and many other heads of state, giving us an opportunity to put our point of view in any scenario.
The idea that we are subject to them is in my experience not true. They have had no influence on my life at all.
I like the fact it makes us a little different, special, that most other countries.
Why get rid of history unless you have something better to put in it's place.
At least under the Queen they have done well presenting our nation around the world.
They are popular, so why take the undemocratic step of getting rid of them.
Finally they have made no difference to my life, and cannot as I don't live in the UK.
I don't love the royal family or hate them.
They are an institution that appears to work well in the world's eyes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with all of this.
Australia and NZ have a Constitutional Monarchy too.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 16 seconds ago
The best I can say about Charles is that if we became a republic and he stood in a democratic election tomorrow in the UK to be our (non political) Head Of State, against the no marks that would probably put themselves up for it too, then I reckon he would walk it with his experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends who they open up the applications to.
If they're from the cesspool that exists today, you may be right.
If they opened it up to every man, woman, child and beast, I reckon he'd have around 69.999m people ahead of him.
Hard to estimate an animal number.
Most people that oppose the monarchy don’t want it to be a continuation of the elitist and unfair society we live in by looking to emulate the US’ presidential system.
If they opened it up to every man, woman, child and beast in the UK*
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of government revenues it will be a pittance.
In terms of my income it's enormous.
But Bill Gates wouldn't notice.
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
--------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who estimates that?
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell, never knew any of that.
And I want to get rid anyway.
52 you say all the positives and then say they haven't affected your life, which is exactly where I am at.
Same as whichever party is in place, I think things will continue to rise in price and the corrupt, but very determined, people will still plunder the fortunes of the less determined (less determined to be insanely rich and powerful).
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
--------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who estimates that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly; and counterfactually, how much of that revenue would still be earned - and how much more might be otherwise - if the royals no longer held executive powers or royal privileges?
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
“ The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.”
___
This nonsense was put to bed years ago in the eighties.
Myth of the British Monarchy. © Prof. Edgar Wilson
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh they can say it, but it would not happen. She, he, would not be obeyed.
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of armed guards surrounding him was insane. The checks they did on the property was down to the last detail too. He was there for about 15 minutes.
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right here Rosso.
Been here before on this one. Cant be bothered to argue it again.
The Monarch is head of the UK armed forces and is the only person who can declare war or peace in the UK. The last Monarch to declare war was George IV. Although it will require executive/ministerial permissions to do so. And importantly, visa versa.
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 7 minutes ago
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it never possible to refer to people who have a different view in a civilised way.
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 11 minutes ago
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is amusing is the fact that you accept everything he says as gospel.
Sign in if you want to comment
The constitution
Page 4 of 21
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 11/9/22
I will try and make myself clear, and point out some misconceptions.
The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.
The reasons for keeping them seems to to me to be.
Keeping a larger presence in the world. This I think is a fact, all America présidents visit, and many other heads of state, giving us an opportunity to put our point of view in any scenario.
The idea that we are subject to them is in my experience not true. They have had no influence on my life at all.
I like the fact it makes us a little different, special, that most other countries.
Why get rid of history unless you have something better to put in it's place.
At least under the Queen they have done well presenting our nation around the world.
They are popular, so why take the undemocratic step of getting rid of them.
Finally they have made no difference to my life, and cannot as I don't live in the UK.
I don't love the royal family or hate them.
They are an institution that appears to work well in the world's eyes.
posted on 11/9/22
"She is also able to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, declare war, declare peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. All of this lies within the Royal Prerogative."
Being a ex Soldier I took the oath to serve Queen and Country!..
Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware the Queen, new King are the head off the Armed Forces, but, they can not tell them when or what they do!..
The same as with the Guvernment, Royalty can not hire or sack people that are voted into office!..
The Military do what the Guvernment say, the same as the Guvernment can block the Royals doing things that they don't want/like them doing!..
As for abolishing the monarchy, it will never happen because of the money it generates for the Country, the Queen in her time brought in more money than what she earned, and the Guvernment know that!..
I was in the Forces but I didn't join because the Queen was head off state, I joined because its something I wanted to do!..
posted on 11/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
I will try and make myself clear, and point out some misconceptions.
The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.
The reasons for keeping them seems to to me to be.
Keeping a larger presence in the world. This I think is a fact, all America présidents visit, and many other heads of state, giving us an opportunity to put our point of view in any scenario.
The idea that we are subject to them is in my experience not true. They have had no influence on my life at all.
I like the fact it makes us a little different, special, that most other countries.
Why get rid of history unless you have something better to put in it's place.
At least under the Queen they have done well presenting our nation around the world.
They are popular, so why take the undemocratic step of getting rid of them.
Finally they have made no difference to my life, and cannot as I don't live in the UK.
I don't love the royal family or hate them.
They are an institution that appears to work well in the world's eyes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with all of this.
posted on 11/9/22
Australia and NZ have a Constitutional Monarchy too.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 16 seconds ago
The best I can say about Charles is that if we became a republic and he stood in a democratic election tomorrow in the UK to be our (non political) Head Of State, against the no marks that would probably put themselves up for it too, then I reckon he would walk it with his experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends who they open up the applications to.
If they're from the cesspool that exists today, you may be right.
If they opened it up to every man, woman, child and beast, I reckon he'd have around 69.999m people ahead of him.
Hard to estimate an animal number.
posted on 11/9/22
Most people that oppose the monarchy don’t want it to be a continuation of the elitist and unfair society we live in by looking to emulate the US’ presidential system.
posted on 11/9/22
If they opened it up to every man, woman, child and beast in the UK*
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of government revenues it will be a pittance.
In terms of my income it's enormous.
But Bill Gates wouldn't notice.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
--------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who estimates that?
posted on 11/9/22
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
posted on 11/9/22
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
Still waiting on a response to that hyperbole comment of "they live off the tax payer".
The queen also made the royal family start paying taxes in the early 90s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much inheritance tax was paid from the Queen Mother’s personal estate when she passed away? How much do you think will be paid from Liz’s now?
(I’ll give you a clue: they have a waiver in place to prevent that kind of inconvenience.)
All of the tax payments the family makes are voluntary. Liz and Charles have apparently been making the appropriate income and capital gains tax payments in recent years, but the Queen alone saved millions over decades and decades by failing to pay income tax or CGT on her earnings, and it’s still unclear how many of the other members of the family have been doing so.
In terms of their funding, there’s the Sovereign Grant to start with. Some people seem to look at that and think, “Well, it’s a lot of money, but it doesn’t seem like a *ridiculous* amount.”
The Grant is actually only a proportion of the cost to the taxpayer of funding the family’s ‘public’ activities. Exactly how much it costs to fund them is still a mystery, as government after government has - unlawfully - refused to answer FoI requests asking for a full breakdown of all taxpayer funds used for such. The grant doesn’t cover, for example, Met Police, military procession, royal event, private security costs, etc. etc. *On its own* the Grant is the best part of £100m a year.
The royals also ‘own’ other property - the Dutchies -solely by virtue of their position as royals from which they receive the profits personally. (Note that if they sell Dutchies, they are not entitled to keep the revenue from the sales - this would go straight into the public purse. So there’s no real argument that they have any legitimate legal rights of ownership over the Dutchies. They are the British people’s lands.)
If the Dutchies were a presidential head of state’s ‘property’, you wouldn’t see the president deriving personal revenue from it: all of that would go directly in state coffers. These lands are worth *well over a billion* and generate vast revenue the family is keeping from the British people.
I mean, I could go on. There are a raft of ways in which we’ve paid and continue to pay for them, and they continue to save a fortune each and every year by failing to pay the same taxes as any other citizen would be obliged to pay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell, never knew any of that.
And I want to get rid anyway.
52 you say all the positives and then say they haven't affected your life, which is exactly where I am at.
Same as whichever party is in place, I think things will continue to rise in price and the corrupt, but very determined, people will still plunder the fortunes of the less determined (less determined to be insanely rich and powerful).
posted on 11/9/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
--------------------------------------------------
The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.
They can keep their tax money if that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who estimates that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly; and counterfactually, how much of that revenue would still be earned - and how much more might be otherwise - if the royals no longer held executive powers or royal privileges?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
posted on 11/9/22
“ The crown is estimated to have a positive effect of £1.6bn to the UK economy.”
___
This nonsense was put to bed years ago in the eighties.
Myth of the British Monarchy. © Prof. Edgar Wilson
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh they can say it, but it would not happen. She, he, would not be obeyed.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by 🏴 (U9094)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 48 seconds ago
How many shook his hand Babyen? And did anyone say, afterwards, that they wished they hadn't as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the business owners shook his hand. I was there with the children in my charge. The members of staff had the choice to line up and shake his hand if they wanted to. They, like me, chose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice one for the update. I can see your point of view, for sure.
I'd have shook his hand, but asked a tough question at the same time, holding his hand until he answered.
I wouldn't, for fear of being shot, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good idea in theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of armed guards surrounding him was insane. The checks they did on the property was down to the last detail too. He was there for about 15 minutes.
posted on 11/9/22
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
“The Monarchy has power only in theory. They cannot declare war, only parliament can, as an example.”
Sorry mu52, but that’s factually incorrect.
The Royal Prerogative grants the monarch the absolute power to act in such a way. It’s unarguable.
The only question is whether in practice she or he would choose to exercise such power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right here Rosso.
Been here before on this one. Cant be bothered to argue it again.
The Monarch is head of the UK armed forces and is the only person who can declare war or peace in the UK. The last Monarch to declare war was George IV. Although it will require executive/ministerial permissions to do so. And importantly, visa versa.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 7 minutes ago
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it never possible to refer to people who have a different view in a civilised way.
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 3 minutes ago
Anybody left that would fight and die for King Charles?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MU52
posted on 11/9/22
comment by Ignacio Varga (U11781)
posted 11 minutes ago
Rosso has wiped the floor with all of these wet monarchy loving mugs on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is amusing is the fact that you accept everything he says as gospel.
Page 4 of 21
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10