Is it fair to pay millions in taxes to the Royal family?
Scroll to see replies
To all those who say that they do work/tourism, do the royal family not have enough £££ privately to run their own affairs (apart from the palaces I guess)
Original post by Margaret Thatcher
L i b, the OP isn't worth your monarchy debating prowess - clearly a moron.
Hi Lady Thatcher,are you still a damn Tory?
Original post by jimcatinnes
Lool, I love that, it makes it sound like I could hire the queen out to make balloon animals at a child's birthday party.
haha, my lack of sleep has finally caught up with me
1. They pay massively more in taxes on their personal wealth than they come close to getting back.
2. We don’t just give them random money for being them; it is a wage for doing a job. This job means the queen does more hours flying around and working than you will ever have to endure - also its small compensation for keeping the monarchy which effectively ends their ability to live any real life. I wouldn’t swap into their position for 10x the payments.
3. It is nowhere near millions that they get themselves. They are a working monarchy - they have huge staff costs etc. The vast majority of the money goes on these staff (providing employment for society), and even more on maintenance on the "royal" property that WE own which is hardly stupid. They do get a small amount towards their own property but by percentage this is nothing compared to what MPs get, and the queen has even paid for the public property out of her own pocket before. And they obviously get a wage/expenses - see number 2.
2. We don’t just give them random money for being them; it is a wage for doing a job. This job means the queen does more hours flying around and working than you will ever have to endure - also its small compensation for keeping the monarchy which effectively ends their ability to live any real life. I wouldn’t swap into their position for 10x the payments.
3. It is nowhere near millions that they get themselves. They are a working monarchy - they have huge staff costs etc. The vast majority of the money goes on these staff (providing employment for society), and even more on maintenance on the "royal" property that WE own which is hardly stupid. They do get a small amount towards their own property but by percentage this is nothing compared to what MPs get, and the queen has even paid for the public property out of her own pocket before. And they obviously get a wage/expenses - see number 2.
Original post by fire2burn
Queen is Supreme Governor of the church, by proxy I'm sure she owns your soul.
Eternal damnation or taxes... or both. Pick one.
Eternal damnation or taxes... or both. Pick one.
Mate, you do chat a bit of a poo!
Original post by Pitch
You don't know much if you think it isn't the taxpayers' money.
I'm sorry, but can you then explain to me how it is taxpayers money?
Because last time I checked, if you own land/property/indeed any asset, the money you generate from it, minus tax, is yours, not "taxpayers money"...
And if that is the case, we are living in a communist state, and I want out...QUICKLY.
Original post by james212
I'm sorry, but can you then explain to me how it is taxpayers money?
Because last time I checked, if you own land/property/indeed any asset, the money you generate from it, minus tax, is yours, not "taxpayers money"...
And if that is the case, we are living in a communist state, and I want out...QUICKLY.
Because last time I checked, if you own land/property/indeed any asset, the money you generate from it, minus tax, is yours, not "taxpayers money"...
And if that is the case, we are living in a communist state, and I want out...QUICKLY.
The Queen wants an extra £4m a year from taxpayers to fill a looming £40m hole in Royal finances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/royal-family-public-finances
Original post by Pitch
The Queen wants an extra £4m a year from taxpayers to fill a looming £40m hole in Royal finances.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/royal-family-public-finances
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/29/royal-family-public-finances
Firstly, as I suggested earlier, the figure is no-where near £70m - and it was claimed the figure was £70m just for Prince Charles.
Its £40m for the whole Royal Family.
Secondly, you seem to fail to read what I wrote above. The Queen pays FAR IN EXCESS of this to The Treasury on income on property she owns. The payback to her (The Civil List) is a FRACTION of what she pays to the government, and most of this is on things that are in the national interest and part of her duties for the country - e.g. maintaining Buckingham Palace (almost 1/4 the entire spend) - something that if you want tourists there and for it to be used as an official building, then the country would have to pay anyway.
Please, try reading a wide range of media rather than getting your information from a source with a slanted agenda (read The Times, Independent, Telegraph and perhaps The Guardian EVERY DAY, plus The Economist, The Week) before coming out with rubbish like the above. Then you will have a decent picture, and be able to make up your own mind with a balance of ranging opinions, plus a more accurate reflection of reality.
Original post by Pitch
If enough people agreed with me,we could make a referendum
Good luck then.
Original post by Kiwiguy
And visiting buckingham palace/windsor gardens etc is the main income of tourism revenue, not to mention that is brought in from offical state responsibilities. Now grow up, stop spamming threads, and get over it.
And visiting buckingham palace/windsor gardens etc is the main income of tourism revenue, not to mention that is brought in from offical state responsibilities. Now grow up, stop spamming threads, and get over it.
Precisely, and these buildings along with the history and tradition that tourists find alluring would remain regardless of whether the monarchy continues to exist or not.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Precisely, and these buildings along with the history and tradition that tourists find alluring would remain regardless of whether the monarchy continues to exist or not.
I disagree. People go stand outside buckingham palace hoping for the rare chance to see the queen walk past in the window or what not.
That combined with the state duties that the queen carries out, not to mention the herritage and tradition make the royal family well worth your 62p or whatever it is that it costs you per year.
Original post by damos92
**** this tourism ****, I the taxpayer doesn't see any of that money, so why bring it up with regards to taxes that I pay?
I aint a corner shop in London or the owner of a airline.
I aint a corner shop in London or the owner of a airline.
You simple minded prole. Just because a ten pound note doesnt appear in your wallet doesnt mean that it doesnt benefit you.
If places like hotels and resturants have to expand/ hire new staff/ buy more food, WHATEVER, they pay tax, which goes back in the system to pay for your benefits. Or they hire new staff, who get paid money, who then have disoable income to spend, in shops/hotels/online, generating more jobs, other poeple in shops/factories etc making the goods they buy, or by again tax, which as i have said, pays for you to be thick.
See? Wasnt that fun? Lets rap again sometime.
Original post by Installation
To all those who say that they do work/tourism, do the royal family not have enough £££ privately to run their own affairs (apart from the palaces I guess)
As has been said before, the royal family do pay for all their own affairs out of their money - this money is made up by their private wealth (from business such as duchy biscuits) and a grant from the government.
The royal family actually pays more to the treasury in tax than it takes out, so what is the problem?
Original post by Pitch
It's more than 70 million every year to Charles.Tourists would still come and we could use the money for lower students' fees
From a spending budget of ~700 billion, 0.01% is Charles. The margin of error for accountancy mistakes is measured in billions. The royal family is nothing.
Original post by Kiwiguy
I disagree. People go stand outside buckingham palace hoping for the rare chance to see the queen walk past in the window or what not.
That combined with the state duties that the queen carries out, not to mention the herritage and tradition make the royal family well worth your 62p or whatever it is that it costs you per year.
That combined with the state duties that the queen carries out, not to mention the herritage and tradition make the royal family well worth your 62p or whatever it is that it costs you per year.
This depends on what kind of tourist we are talking about. If we are talking about 'local' tourists, by which I mean tourists visiting London who reside in the UK, then you may well have a point. However, while still injecting money into the UK economy, this kind of 'local' tourism is of little value when compared with foreign travelers bringing money into Britain from abroad. Regardless, in order to justify the figures being quoted as tourism based income derived from the continued existence of the monarchy, foreign tourists must be included. Now I am highly sceptical of the premise that people traveling to Britain, from as far away as China and Japan, spending thousands of pounds in the process, are motivated to do so by the vanishingly small chance of seeing an elderly woman walk past a window. They come to see British culture, history, tradition etc, but as I said before, none of this would disappear if the monarchy were to be abolished.
In any case, my problem with the royal family is not an economic one, but an ideological one. Frankly, the values on which modern Britain are built i.e. democracy, meritocracy, equality, secularism etc are simply incompatible with the archaic concept of hereditary monarchy by divine right.
Original post by Kiwiguy
You simple minded prole. Just because a ten pound note doesnt appear in your wallet doesnt mean that it doesnt benefit you.
If places like hotels and resturants have to expand/ hire new staff/ buy more food, WHATEVER, they pay tax, which goes back in the system to pay for your benefits. Or they hire new staff, who get paid money, who then have disoable income to spend, in shops/hotels/online, generating more jobs, other poeple in shops/factories etc making the goods they buy, or by again tax, which as i have said, pays for you to be thick.
See? Wasnt that fun? Lets rap again sometime.
If places like hotels and resturants have to expand/ hire new staff/ buy more food, WHATEVER, they pay tax, which goes back in the system to pay for your benefits. Or they hire new staff, who get paid money, who then have disoable income to spend, in shops/hotels/online, generating more jobs, other poeple in shops/factories etc making the goods they buy, or by again tax, which as i have said, pays for you to be thick.
See? Wasnt that fun? Lets rap again sometime.
That was the worst excuse for an arguement that i've ever heard and the fact that you have the audacity to call me simple minded and then spout that inane rubbish, which you clearly haven't mastered, or even barely understood the concepts of, tells me that Kiwiguy needs to cease to be in the arena of debate.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Kiwiguy
As has been said before, the royal family do pay for all their own affairs out of their money - this money is made up by their private wealth (from business such as duchy biscuits) and a grant from the government.
The royal family actually pays more to the treasury in tax than it takes out, so what is the problem?
The royal family actually pays more to the treasury in tax than it takes out, so what is the problem?
Are you actually serious?
Retard, where the **** does the money for the grant from the Government come from?
Original post by Kiwiguy
Im so dumb I know how form sentence structures without ranting, and just spamming threads of nothing more than jealous rants.
And visiting buckingham palace/windsor gardens etc is the main income of tourism revenue, not to mention that is brought in from offical state responsibilities. Now grow up, stop spamming threads, and get over it.
And visiting buckingham palace/windsor gardens etc is the main income of tourism revenue, not to mention that is brought in from offical state responsibilities. Now grow up, stop spamming threads, and get over it.
This will be my first and last post in a thread like this. 'Debating' with the average pro-royalist like I've always said, is like debating with a theist. In other words, they are borderline retarded. They bend over backwards to pick an argument forgetting important concepts, arguments and facts. When all fails, which it usually does they result to the 'the monarchy brings in tourism' idiocy. Ignoring the fact that it is the buildings themselves that brings in the tourism. This is the single most redundant reason to keep any system of government. In the 2010 human beings (most of us) have reached the capacity to warrant a better justification for political systems.
If the royal family died today. Tourist will not stop coming to Britain. People do visit the White House expecting or even wanting to see the President. No one visits House of Parliament to talk to the MP's. No one visits the Vatican to get an audience with the Pope. Do you fly over to Paris taking pictures, because you want to meet their President or Prime Minister? We will still have visitors to see our palaces just like we have people seeing the Tower of London. Despite no one being locked up in there.
(edited 13 years ago)
it isnt fair. tbh except for a few other nations we are the only ones with this royal stuff. we should either do away with it or make changes. Maybe the queen should ,ake money from the royal stuff and keep the money to support herself and the closer people to her. im sure the extended royals can do something for themselves.
I know say if she offered parties and banquets for the rich etc at Clarance House liz would make bank.
I know say if she offered parties and banquets for the rich etc at Clarance House liz would make bank.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Should the royal family exist?
- what's the most useless job?
- Will you be celebrating the King's Coronation?
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Whats the rules on importing stuff from the EU now and China or America?
- Just won 1 million in the lottery!! What do i do???
- Couple accommodation
- Haven’t got paid
- 16 million miles of England’s bus routes axed
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Why are rents so high
- Which universities have been affected by the strikes?
- Starting a small business age 17?
- Guardian - UK middle classes ‘struggling despite incomes of up to £60,000 a year’
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- I’m Renting A Room But Being Charged Full Council Tax
- Stuck at university, can't afford to leave?!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
