Ripped off by the Royals?

Certainly sounds like we are.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ns-charities-public-services-nhs-leasing-land

 

There was a programme on C4 last night....although some of it seemed a bit agenda driven...some of it was quite shocking.

 

What's new???

 

And reading earlier that 14% of the homes the duchy estate rent out are category f . And cost the tenants loads to keep warm due to the poor state of the homes

 

Let's get the pitch forks out!

 

Left wing royal hating media platforms like Guardian and Channel 4 have always had an agenda against the Royal family.

 

Landlord charges tenant rent shocker!!!
Surely the issue should be why I’d the NHS doing it (not read/watched article)?

 

And. ?. Should we bow to them. ?
Filthy rich through heritage. And exempt from certain taxes apparently.

Copied
The investigation has prompted calls for a parliamentary investigation and for the two empires to be folded into the crown estate, which sends its profits to the government. The king and Prince William pay income tax on profits from the estates after business expenses have been deducted, but both now refuse to say how much.

Critics say the estates, the income from which have been used by successive governments to keep the headline cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer down, enjoy a commercial advantage over rivals because they are exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax.

 

Grasping leeches, always have been.

The Queen tried to access a poverty fund to heat the palaces and over the years exempted herself from all sorts of laws - employee rights, animal welfare, environmental requirements etc.

 

I’m not exactly a royalist - but this is a tale as old as time.

Channel four and the guardian have pushed this agenda since the day dot.

Charles as monarch pays millions in income tax from the estate entirely voluntarily. As monarch he is legally exempt - but chooses to pay it as his mother did - eventually. She didn’t always.

As always, the guardian article fails to give due strength of focus to the fact that the crown estate, owned by the monarch, has had a hundreds of years old agreement to give all its income to the government; in return for the sovereign grant (previously the civil list) - last numbers suggest the crown estate contributed over £400million in the last year with the grant under £100million.

The king (or any reigning monarch) COULD kill the agreement and just keep the income.

If we abolished the monarchy they wouldn’t transfer ownership straight to the state. You can’t just do that.

The royal family don’t actually cost the 75p per head per year they mention. They cost nothing.

 

Laughing at the idea the Royals are somehow being generous with the current arrangement.

 

Never said they were generous.

What I said was - or at least what I was pointing out - a lot of what is contributed is at the sole discretion of the reigning monarch.

The king and the queen before him do/did not have to pay the millions in income tax that they do - it is entirely voluntarily.

The old agreement re the crown estate is also at the discretion of the monarchy.

I’m no fan of the royal family or aristocracy in general; unearnt monies and everything else that comes with it.

But the devout republicans and royal haters get their knickers in a twist over finances when the truth is that the country would be worse off by hundreds of millions per year in direct cash and Christ knows how much more in lost secondarily generated funds through tourism and other interested outlets.

I’d probably rather our head of state was someone I had a say in choosing; however we have what we have and I would never vote to abolish the monarchy. It would be disastrous.

And as our American friends are showing us, having a republic and appointing your own head of state isn’t necessarily a good thing for your country. We’d end up quite a lot of the time with someone with a political ideology that would most definitely not benefit a system of meritocracy, and instead would forward an agenda for the haves versus have nots.

Calling the royal family leeches has some credence in that they don’t necessarily do that much to ‘earn’ the amounts they do - but suggesting it is at cost to the taxpayer and a drain on public finance is provably false.

 

He shouldn't be. That's the issue.

Of course you can. Seize their ill-gotten assets for the good of the country.

 

I didn't vote for them!

 

Copied
It is of course well documented that Charles has avoided paying any inheritance tax on the vast fortune he inherited from his mother as a result of a clause agreed by then Prime Minister John Major back in 1993. Another peculiarity is the monarchy’s exemption from Freedom of Information Requests, which shields them from the type of accountability that you would expect any publicly funded institution to be held to. This weekend’s coronation ceremony is just the latest in a long line of indulgences afforded to the monarchy at the taxpayers expense.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Perhaps he should sell off some of his land to cover the inheritance tax, The like imposed on wealthy farmers.
Or should we say fekk your conquering armies and strip em of the lot.
I'm not for the latter as I believe they do have a value. But not in its present form.

 

To be fair, each and every one of us on here has benefitted from that.

 

Some lots more than others. And those should contribute more. To help get us out of this s4it show at present.

 

News for you, Republicanism reaches right across the political spectrum, Anti-royalty is not exclusive to the left

 

Yep, Parasites.