71
King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
71 points (96.1% liked)
United Kingdom
4060 readers
260 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just to be clear the royal grant is a portion of the profits from the crown estates. That the gov earns about 350m a year. So the taxpayers this comes from is technically themselves.
No it's not though because they don't own the crown estates, the public own that and give them a portion of the earnings.
Everything they have comes from us, they didn't earn any of it, it's all just stolen wealth and unitaxed inheritance.
No in the rather odd example you invent.mit would be paid for by the company owning the car. And if that money is given to you. It would be classed as your wages.
But the point is. It would not be considered to come from the tax payer.
Because any minimal research into the Crown estates makes it clear. They are not in any way shape or form. Owned by the tax payer. Nor have they ever been.
At all poi ts in history the Crown has kept its own income separate from national income. (Ie taxes).
When the us revolution happened the king funded it. And went bankrupt.
Because unlike now. The Crown funded war. Not parliment then. So the king made a deal. All income from the Crown estates. Was to go to parliment. In exchange for the royal grant.
Parliment knew at the time that long term this would be a huge benifit. Now it is.
It is freaking petty and wrong to claim it is tax payer money. It is basically they Crown paying less then 100% tax on there company earnings.
I assume this was meant to be a reply to my comment. I'm not sure what's odd about the example, and it's hardly strange to "invent" an analogy. A party has control of an asset via the position they hold, they sell the rights to use and profit from that asset to a second party in exchange for financial compensation. That's the deal. The monarch doesn't have the rights to the profits of the Estate because the Treasury has the rights to it under the existing legislation.
The Estate was established 16 years before the American revolution with the Civil List Act 1760. That the monarch used to fund wars is entirely irrelevant to who has the rights now.
The Estate is also explicitly not the monarch's private property. It's a perk of the most overpaid and intentionally nepotistic civil service position in the country. Far from petty, I'd say it's only right to question that
I'm all for taking it all fully back and not giving them a penny.
I think anything they can't prove they earned, like with a p60 and a bank account trail they lose. Any money them simply made from owning shit, well, that's ours that is.
They can go on universal credit until they get jobs in Asda, if Asdas will take em.
We need people to pick fruit and vegetables...
They're exempt from IHT.
Indeed, one more travesty for the pile.
The Crown owns the Crown estates. It was never tax payer funded. The Crown has kept its income separate from the national income all through history.
As for tax free. Since the US revolution. The Crown has given the income to the government. Somits pretty much a 75% tax rate for most of that time. Def higher then engine else was paying at the time.
Simple research into the history of the Crown estates makes it clear it dosenot in any way shape or form belong to the tax payer.
The state (aka us) owns the crown, the crown is not owned by the monarch.
You mean our assets have paid money to the monarchy as part of a centuries old deal to pay for the last Charlie boys debts. Fuck that, I don't see we have to keep one family in a state of perpetual luxury because of that.
No, simple research shows that it does in fact belong to us. I'd love to see your source mate.
Can Charlie sell any of it? Can he put it in his will? Can he even make renovations? No, well he doesn't own it does he.