This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Government says there's no money...but Gove says get a £60m yacht for the Queen?

I'd rather they spend the money on this yacht than giving it to former Woolworths employees. Both are ridiculous. At least we know where all the money from cuts is going.

Reply 581

curtis871

13

Original post by lambert1

Yes because every time i've been to London the royal family can be seen partying in the streets... never in my lifetime have I ever seen a royal. We are scamming tourists by saying the royals are chilling in the streets ready to meet them. If you mean the actual tourist attractions then why would we get rid of them? they are not the monarchy.

I've fallen a bit behind in this thread so haven't read any past your post but I've seen several royals. Unfortunately never in London so your point still stands :tongue:

With the exception of royal events and certain memorials I guess.

Reply 582

curtis871

13

Original post by robin22391

they pay taxes when they buy cars, charities dont pay taxes.

Original post by ForKicks

Okay then, not cars. How about shoes or any luxury goods?

Luxury goods you do pay taxes on. Stupidly priced shoes for children (children's shoes are tax free) would be a better example though I struggle to see the relevance unless robin would be happy for people to choose to donate to the yacht if taxes were charged from that still but I doubt he would. Personally I can't see a problem with people choosing to donate towards the yacht if they want. As for robins argument that they shouldn't because other people need it more why is he even able to say that? Surely the internet is less needed than food so he should be donating the money he spent on the internet to someone who has no food by that argument.

Original post by gateshipone

Well that's not really an accident since all those sperm are heading to the same place and have the same goal. An accident would be a sperm wandering around admiring the decor and bumping into the egg because they were distracted.

I think the bit in bold is what happens :tongue:

.

Reply 583

ForKicks

12

Original post by curtis871

Luxury goods you do pay taxes on. Stupidly priced shoes for children (children's shoes are tax free) would be a better example though I struggle to see the relevance unless robin would be happy for people to choose to donate to the yacht if taxes were charged from that still but I doubt he would. Personally I can't see a problem with people choosing to donate towards the yacht if they want. As for robins argument that they shouldn't because other people need it more why is he even able to say that? Surely the internet is less needed than food so he should be donating the money he spent on the internet to someone who has no food by that argument.

I think the bit in bold is what happens :tongue:

.

An accident of birth would be if there was a national semen lottery to make the future king or queen :tongue:

Yeah, not sure why got dragged into a tax argument, especially as it will be used to train teens, thus paying the equivalent of tax over time. Research and commercial facilities will help pay security when Queen uses it. It is more a 'should private donations be allowed' debate, which is pretty silly!

Reply 584

curtis871

13

Original post by ForKicks

An accident of birth would be if there was a national semen lottery to make the future king or queen :tongue:

Yeah, not sure why got dragged into a tax argument, especially as it will be used to train teens, thus paying the equivalent of tax over time. Research and commercial facilities will help pay security when Queen uses it. It is more a 'should private donations be allowed' debate, which is pretty silly!

Wow that sounds like a good idea :biggrin:

! Lets start the revolution for that :tongue:

.

I agree that a "should private donations be allowed debate" is silly. If someone wants to buy the queen a present they should be able to, if someone wants to contribute towards a joint present they should be able to and if someone doesn't want to spend their money on a present for her then that's fine too.

Though realistically because of its multiple uses it's not just a present for her. If it had been proposed as a training ship belonging to a college that the Queen could use occasionally I doubt there would have been the same reaction. Personally either way I think the cost if it was paid for by tax money would be too high for the benefits but as it wont be then I see no problem with people choosing to donate. People can't moan about wanting freedom then try to limit how other people spend their money :tongue:

Reply 585

freddy2222

13

Original post by curtis871

Luxury goods you do pay taxes on. Stupidly priced shoes for children (children's shoes are tax free) would be a better example though I struggle to see the relevance unless robin would be happy for people to choose to donate to the yacht if taxes were charged from that still but I doubt he would. Personally I can't see a problem with people choosing to donate towards the yacht if they want. As for robins argument that they shouldn't because other people need it more why is he even able to say that? Surely the internet is less needed than food so he should be donating the money he spent on the internet to someone who has no food by that argument.

I think the bit in bold is what happens :tongue:

.

this was answered previously.

Reply 586

freddy2222

13

Original post by curtis871

Wow that sounds like a good idea :biggrin:

! Lets start the revolution for that :tongue:

.

I agree that a "should private donations be allowed debate" is silly. If someone wants to buy the queen a present they should be able to, if someone wants to contribute towards a joint present they should be able to and if someone doesn't want to spend their money on a present for her then that's fine too.

Though realistically because of its multiple uses it's not just a present for her. If it had been proposed as a training ship belonging to a college that the Queen could use occasionally I doubt there would have been the same reaction. Personally either way I think the cost if it was paid for by tax money would be too high for the benefits but as it wont be then I see no problem with people choosing to donate. People can't moan about wanting freedom then try to limit how other people spend their money :tongue:

wasnt trying to limit anyones freedom to buy presents for extremely rich old ladies through a charity that pays no taxes, while children starve.

oh no, i just think its disgusting and i am seriously disturbed by it.

if you WANT to donate to charity donate to a proper one for the needy, or dont donate at all and instead try to fix the problem.

Reply 587

freddy2222

13

Original post by ForKicks

An accident of birth would be if there was a national semen lottery to make the future king or queen :tongue:

Yeah, not sure why got dragged into a tax argument, especially as it will be used to train teens, thus paying the equivalent of tax over time. Research and commercial facilities will help pay security when Queen uses it. It is more a 'should private donations be allowed' debate, which is pretty silly!

who pays the expenses on the training of teens and all the gin and caviar etc.

Reply 588

Integral

10

Original post by robin22391

who pays the expenses on the training of teens and all the gin and caviar etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Educate yourself.

Reply 589

curtis871

13

Original post by robin22391

wasnt trying to limit anyones freedom to buy presents for extremely rich old ladies through a charity that pays no taxes, while children starve.

oh no, i just think its disgusting and i am seriously disturbed by it.

if you WANT to donate to charity donate to a proper one for the needy, or dont donate at all and instead try to fix the problem.

So if they deducted taxes from the donations or the £60m included taxes you'd have no objection? I'm pretty sure ships and boats are exempt from VAT if they're big enough (and this one is pretty big I think :tongue:

) so they can't charge VAT and if I give money to a someone then no tax is charged on that so why charge tax in this case?

Reply 590

KrishanC93

11

I don't think we should pay so much money for a boat....

Reply 591

gladders

16

Original post by artery08

I agree with this. People are struggling to make ends meet and yet Gove decides to make a 60 million pound yacht a public taxpayer's present to the Queen, at the same time slashing public spending which is likely to lead to another recession. Reprehensible.

No he hasn't.

Reply 592

@Sam

8

Original post by KrishanC93

I don't think we should pay so much money for a boat....

We are not, the British government along with over sixty other governments and other individuals and groups are making a series of donations to cover the cost. The real cost we will have is operating the ship when it comes into service, some of the sailors will undoubtedly be British (each nation is allocated a number based on their naval/coast guard personnel) as will the Marines.

Reply 593

DrunkenMaster

16

It amazes me about us British. We moan and kick up a stink about 'benefit scroungers', yet were happy to support this lot!
Paris has more tourists than London, and they got rid of their Royal Family 200 years ago, so I personally don't buy the tourist income argument!

Reply 594

gladders

16

Original post by DrunkenMaster

It amazes me about us British. We moan and kick up a stink about 'benefit scroungers', yet were happy to support this lot!

Why are they benefit scroungers? They only receive public funds for conducting public duties - y'know, like a president does. Their personal lives are privately funded.

Paris has more tourists than London, and they got rid of their Royal Family 200 years ago, so I personally don't buy the tourist income argument!

The tourism argument isn't a terribly good argument for either side, really.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 595

A Mysterious Lord

20

This thread is full of republicans hell bent on a rant rather than making an educated reply after considering all the facts :rolleyes:

Reply 596

gemnomnom

12

Can I have a car for my 18th?

Reply 597

username848421

And still this royalty stuff seems to be very popular in england. All this people waiting hours to see the prince and the princess to kiss, what a wonderful world.

Reply 598

JoeLatics

9

Original post by pinouche13

And still this royalty stuff seems to be very popular in england. All this people waiting hours to see the prince and the princess to kiss, what a wonderful world.