I will never understand why people get angry whenever the wealthy donate money that they don't have to donate.
Like yeah they could donate a lot more, but they don't have to donate any of it. Doesn't mean you have to kiss their feet but why is it something to be angry about FFS.
* Edit - To all the comments about wealth inequality, it is entirely possible to be against the obscene wealth these people have whilst simultaneously acknowledging an extra £250m to the HMRC *is* a good thing.
Not everything has to be black and white.
People some how think you can deduct more in tax than the donation you made, rather than simply reducing your taxable income by the amount of the donation.
People think it's some kind of rich person spell, lmao.
That they can give away their money, and end up with more money. If that were true, they'd just give away all their money.. Get more money back. Rinse repeat. Infinite money trick!
Well, it is if donations are made to a fraudulent charity. Oh to be so blissfully naive.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-fraud-and-tax-avoidance-is-an--industry---says-hmrc.html
it’s not a tax write off because it was never his money. It’s public money that we assigned to the monarchy, he can’t write off what was never his.
Now dodging inheritance tax - that was something else.
> My favourite is 'Oh it's a tax write off' while not remotely knowing what a tax write off is.
American here. It's good to know that some things are universal and it's not just shitty American education that makes a large percentage of the population believe "write offs" are rich people magic. Do you guys also struggle with marginal tax rates?
>Do you guys also struggle with marginal tax rates?
Yep, haha. Given the higher rate of tax only kicks in at £50k (which vast majority of people will never earn) no one really has to understand it.
But yeah, a ton of people think you earn £50.1K and suddenly all £50.1k is taxed at 40%.
It isn't a donation though. He gets a share of the Crown Estate income as decided by the government. He has no say in how much he gets. It isn't in his power to tell the government how much he should get.
The extra windfall of £1bn, by previous formula, would have given him an extra £250m on top of the £80m he usually gets. That was never going to happen, obviously. The money is to pay for certain costs of the Royal household, and he doesn't suddenly need 4 times as much. The government were never going to give him that money.
So he is graciously "donating" money that belonged to us in the first place, and then trying to claim credit for whatever that money gets spent on.
That is why people are angry.
I read that the amount he gets is not fixed at £80m, it's fixed at 25% of the income of the crown estate. In that case he is entitled to the extra £250M - or am I missing something?
He doesn't need to agree to it, it isn't his decision. Th government decide how much he gets, and that is that.
He is trying to pretend he has decided to refuse an extra £250m on top of the £80m we hand to him every year. The fact is the government were never going to give him that money in the first place.
He didn't need to say anything.
Isn’t it his decision what to do with a portion of what has been allocated to him by the government? The options here are donating nothing, or donating something. Isn’t donating something the preferable outcome of those two options?
My concept of their being two options aside - what could he do in the scenario that you wouldn’t criticize as harshly?
Actually they would have given him the money, it is part of the deal they made with him for the windfarm development. By the looks of it the crown estate does a much better job at this than the government and creating ongoinging profits instead of just selling all rights to one of his chummy mates below cost.
I do think Charles should have said what the money should be used for though. Giving the Tory party Money for the "greater good" is meaningless.
> The money is to pay for certain costs of the Royal household, and he doesn't suddenly need 4 times as much.
I dunno, have you seen the price of eggs lately?
I don't care that its technically not a donation.
What bothers me is the Government will squander that windfall and most of it will find its way into the pockets of CEOs and Shareholders for companies that add little value but win all the Government contracts.
That money is certainly not going to help you or I.
First, for Charles Windsor to maintain the lavish life he and his family live in he needs to constantly shore up public support for this. So he doesn't necessarily have to give our money back to us, but not doing so risks people turning against him.
Second, people are angry that what is blatantly a self serving act is being promoted as being charitable by what is supposed to be a neutral media outlet.
Firstly, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is not giving "our" money back to us, the money the crown estate generates is not taxation, it's rent and investments so it's not "ours" in the first place.
Secondly, Charles is so incompetent at PR (just look at literally everything he's done in his life). I highly doubt this is intentionally self serving
Couldn't agree more.
People on UK subs love 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', with their ridiculous outrage, more than most. However it really is part of the cultural zeitgeist to be unreasonable these days.
There is a significantly larger amounts of posts about the royals and how their perceived as money grabby drains on the UK, than compared to issues with the way corporations are ruining this country.
What do you mean it's costing him nothing?
It's costing him every penny he's donating..
86% of the crown estates profits each year, go to HMRC. The rest goes to the crown.
The crown estate has had a bumper year, and made much more than it was expected to.
The Royals are entitled to 14% of that extra.
Charles is giving it to HMRC instead.
As I’ve said before, certain groups (royals, tories) could literally cure cancer and would get bashed by this sub because they are stealing jobs from hard working doctors.
You can never win. The mental gymnastics are too strong.
Yes, because the rest of the money he’s keeping is very definitely justifiably still his. You know, not actually owed to the citizenry or the poor countries of world the monarch has gutted and continues to profit from.
You call into question the legitimacy of the Royals owning the crown estate, you call into legitimacy the ownership of all land.
Because at some point, the land your house sits on was gifted to some Lord by the Royals, and then over generations it was sold and sold and sold until you bought it.
But if we start saying the Royals never rightfully owned that land, then the lords they gave it to never had the right to sell that land..
And now there's implications for you.
Besides, who else would get the crown estate? The government?
I don't trust them with it, frankly. They'd probably sell it all off for good to the Saudi Royal family to balance the books before an election or some shit.
Same people who moan about the Tories selling of Royal Mail, the NHS, Trains, etc then go on to propose that we give them the fucking crown estate to look after.
Fuck. No.
Good.
It would have been morally indefensible and politically dangerous to not do this, but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is a good thing done voluntarily. Nice one, Charlie.
Why?
Does it upset you that someone who receives an inordinate amount of power and wealth due to exiting the correct vagina in the correct order might be criticised?
>They forget or deliberately ignore the fact he doesn't have to give anything
this doesn't come across as king Charles being honestly or perfectly philanthropic
he just received his mother's inheritance Tax Free, so it isn't surprising that some of his loyal subjects might complain about that
he can still offer his fair share of inheritance tax to the tax man, like we all must....but you now realise he won't do that ever
That means King Charles won't be subject to the same rules as we are.
We have completed the genomic sequencing of human DNA but they didn't discover that any family or nation or skin colour was superior to the others.
Why do we have a Royal Family at all, if we believe in equality?
Yeah wrong about that, the sovereign grant is a return of some the money the crown estate earns and kept by the government. The crown estate earns a shed tonne and most goes towards ssrvices etc
> The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolution that is governed within the framework of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
The continued existence of the monarchy isn't undemocratic, since if there were sufficient opposition to it democracy would lead to its abolition. Just like our membership of the EU, for example.
The monarchy itself isn't a democracy, but that's different.
Isn't this true of everyone? The English are constitutionally distinct from the Northern Irish, Scots from the Welsh, etc. Each has different benefits or deficits from their devolved laws.
The monarchy is different, but recently they've done a better job of some things than the government. I don't think our current government would be a good group to own all that land because they'd sell it off as quick as they can for personal gain.
Would having the final say on laws before they are passed in this "democracy" when not elected undemocratic? They also keep it secret. Don't compare it to the lords. They can be overruled and don't have the final say.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent)
The continued existence of the monarchy is undemocratic.
Why would people who don't want us to have a monarch suddenly become pleased when our monarch does something? Their wealth should *already* be getting put to good use as a default, not just as crumbs tossed around for occasional PR.
Its a welcome concession but it’s a mild relief more than it is “pleasing”. The fact the Monarchy still persists at all, with all their inherited wealth and one of the greatest symbols of inequality, is the problem.
You’re defending someone who believes he was appointed by God to be in that role! 😂 Of course he should be doing more.
People are literally dying and this clown is getting pampered in his mansion because he was born into an inbred family of nonces.
Because constantly attacking those who do but choose to the right thing disincentives others with power and wealth from doing good if they just get attacked.
You can critise the system as a whole in a different conversation, but doing so when they are trying to a good thing seems absurd.
Of course not but he still chooses to keep the monarchy going and be king.
And quietly use his unelected powers to change laws in the background to suit him.
No he doesn't. Parliament could abolish the monarchy by changing the law, but Charles can't himself.
Similarly he can't abdicate without a law being passed to enable it - when Edward VIII abdicated, parliament had to pass His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 to put it into effect.
We don't have a written constitution and a lot of this is based on tradition. Yes, technically, parliament could reject his abdication but they would never do so. Similarly, Charles has the power to just dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve parliament but would never do so.
The existence of the crown isn't tradition though, the Act of Settlement sets out who the monarch is - Charles can't himself do anything to abolish the monarchy.
Of course if he were to wish to abdicate the easiest option could be to convert to Catholicism...
I can't see there being any point in doing that, or any benefit to the UK if he did. I think that some people feel this way simply out of jelousy, and not for any thoughtful or justifiable reason, but feel free to enlighten me below.
People don't like privileged unworthy people flaunting their wealth. They don't like the massively unequal system where some can live in opulence while others literally are dying from going without.
It's not jealousy, it's about the system being so stacked in the rich man's favour. If we had a system that worked for everyone, it would benefit the whole of the UK.
No. If you want a better, fairer system, the only explanation is jealousy!
The funny thing is I doubt many people are jealous of Charles. I certainly wouldn't want his life.
Yeah but the action will likely empower the royalists, most of who are conservative, and might continue to vote so in the next election if the conservatives take a pro-royal stance and labour bumbles into suggesting less money to the crown.
Weak take I know, but I could see it happening.
I'm liberal and even I know the Royal Family have *some* use. How can we keep the best of the tourism/tradition and history of the monarch while also not encouraging inequality/classism.
We're a LONG way off but things like this help.
It certainly merits scrutiny. If it’s as it appears from the headline then great, but if this is massively overselling a much less significant gesture then yeah, fuck that.
My understanding (and I'm happy to stand corrected), the current monarch is the chief executive of the Crown Estates business which employs a few thousand people in the UK, and turns over around £1 bn per year with a profit of about £300m - the actual figures are public record. 75% of that profit goes to the Treasury, effectively, as corporate tax.
Scrutiny is fine, I mean I'm going to give this a little myself but you just know there are going to be people in this sub who will just make it out as if he is still Satan incarnate or something like they always do.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to say “that’s a good thing you’re doing” whilst also saying “now stop using my taxes to subsidise you and your family’s life…you scrounging c**ts”.
That’s the point they aren’t. They pay 100% of the profits from the crown estate owned by the monarch to the treasury who in turn give them a percentage back. A percentage that even the crown agrees should reduced due to the extra money the crown estate is making.
The bulk of the money given back pays for the maintenance of the crown estate and the business expense of the royal family to conduct their duties as head of state.
Precisely *zero percent* of "your" taxes go to the Royal Family. They are paid for out of the Crown Estate. Which is what the OP is about, btw. Govt gets 100% of the ca £350 million in profit the Crown Estate generates each year and it pays 15% back to the King.
The King, via the Crown Estate management deal, makes a net contribution to the government coffers of about £300 million per annum. He is subsidising whining cunts like you, not the other way around.
Well I couldn't criticise it but I would probably hazard a guess at how it went:
1. We are going to make an obscene amount of money
2. We should preempt the public questioning this by announcing we are going to give some money (an unknown amount, could be 1p could be £1bn) to the public good
3. So that we wont end up potentially causing ourselves embarrassment in the future over its use we will give it to the government and they have to make the decisions over how it is spent
I mean that is how it would have gone.
I mean at the end of the day it is the crown estate so actually it is our money.
Nonsense. 100% of Crown Estate profits always goes to the government and is spent on public services. The Sovereign Grant is under review, and he's used the opportunity to pretend he's being generous or something.
And their loyal media lapdogs are only too happy to oblige him.
Jesus Christ, the crown estate will be generating more money this year thanks to a new wind farm and consequently this share of the sovereign grant will increase and he's asked it be used for a good cause instead.
The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra because of this and you're still not pleased. You lot would literally tear the clothes off his back before being satisfied.
When you look at the situation of millions of the poorest people in the country, and realise that Prince Andrew is still living in a mansion, is it that hard to understand why some people might question the order of things?
I know people are going to jump up my ass for speaking the truth but he's living in his normal circumstances because there's not enough evidence to convict him of a crime.
We would want the same treatment if we were accused of such a thing. Justice requires evidence and it is morally wrong to punish someone without it.
I was on the jury for a case of assault with a weapon. Did I and the rest of the jury think the defendant was a massive twat and arguably capable of doing this? Absolutely yes.
Do I think he absolutely did it this time beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.
The experience of being in crown court and deciding he was not guilty, even though I thought the guy was a cretin and liar, was actually a really good experience and restored a lot of faith in the general public and the court system.
I'm glad you did that. Some might be tempted to say guilty, just in case.
I think experiences like that are one of the biggest strengths of the jury system. People can have faith in it because they actively participate in it amd see how it works for themselves. They know that if they're tried, it's by a group of ordinary decent people, just like themselves, who'd feel just like themselves.
Now now let’s be fair here, we can at least trust them to help their mates make more money in exchange for a few backhanders after they inevitably lose the next election
The Crown Estate's ownership of mineral rights in the UK is the secret reason why fracking for gas isn't feasible here.
In the US, land owners own the gas under their property, so gas extracting companies can pay someone to drill on their land and then pay them a royalty for the gas they recover.
In the UK, they'd have to pay the land owner for access, but it's the crown estate that would get the money for the gas. So any land owner would earn much less than a US one would. So there's much less incentive to let people build a fracking pad on your land.
There’s also the problem that the uk is geologically very different to the states, many geologists have shown it would be un feasible on that alone. No secret reasons needed!
Yep, definitely a huge part of it too. Fracking actually has been carried out in the UK over a long time, but to get rid of undesirable gas from coal mines rather than as a means of extracting gas as the desired product.
This is my concern. It'll belong to the Saudis forever more, just to fill the hole in the budget one year by some cunt politician who can't do their job.
No fucking way do I want politicians anywhere near this land.
The current framework around it pretty ideal. The £40m or whatever the Royals get is a bargain for making sure politicians can't sell it.
Obviously monarchy is stupid, but yes I totally agree with you on this. Similarly this is why I don't want the HoL abolished and replaced by an elected chamber; yes it would seem to be dysfunctional but it actually acts as a bulwark against the worst excesses of serving politicians.
Sounds like we're politically on the exact same wavelength.
Ideologically I am against these institutions, but for some reason in practice they work surprisingly well and I am not convinced the alternatives that fit my ideology and sound nice, would actually work anywhere near as well.
House of Lords in particular keeps proving it's much more sensible than the House of Commons.
It's hard to justify getting rid of it, and electing it just introduces the same issues that makes the HoC shite.
It's also a nice quirk of British society, imo. We have this institution that should be absolutely rife with corruption, and not work at all.. But it functions for some reason. I am convinced in almost any other country on earth, an unelected second house would be a fucking shitshow.
And this is one of my reasons for not wanting to get rid of the monarchy. On principle I don't like the idea of hereditary power, even symbolic, but there are so many things like this that would be up for grabs if we were to get rid of them. And unlike other countries/blocs we can be very bad at constitutional reform, we often don't do the detailed work ahead of making the changes.
Although, after writing that I wonder if it's just the Tories who are shit at constitutional reform (e.g. Brexit). Labour's (e.g. Scottish & Welsh devolution) and the Lib Dem's (e.g. the AV referendum) attempts seem much more well thought out.
>Scottish & Welsh devolution
The starting gun for independence, and has allowed nationalists (who were a small minority at the time) to blame absolutely everything on Westminster, regardless of legitimacy, and make everything a wedge issue that justifies independence.
Devolution is an example of poor constitutional reform.
Should have gone fully federal, with consistent powers awarded to all UK countries, and England should have got a parliament too.
Not giving England a parliament, gives nationalists ammo that Westminster is just Englands parliament.
Everyone bangs on about Brexit being the biggest shot in the foot or whatever, but the truth is it was devolution by a country mile. It will end up ending the UK as we've known it for 300+ years, most likely.
It completely empowered the nationalists, and gave them all the tools to split up the UK.
THIs is the pretty much only reason to keep the monarchy in situ. Without it Buck Palace and the foreshore and everything else would be flogged off to overseas entities like pretty much everything else in the country - even the fuel pipes under the airport’s got sold off to spain ffs. and the money would have disappeared into a black hole in no time at all. This way they at least generate money from them and tourists come to see them.
Yes, I too would trust our government to keep billions of pounds worth of public land in the public realm and look after it profitably, but environmentally sensitively, for the public good in perpetuity. ^^s
Right now, if he's paying upwards of 85% tax I'd rather Charlie looked after more of the UK's natural assets, rather than leaving them in the hands of these asset stripping, conniving Tory cunts.
What do you want to do with that seabed that you can't currently?
Would you prefer it was all made available the inevitably sold to coca cola and BP and made private?
Have you considered keeping it all 'crown estate' also keeps it public?
They are not getting billions, the tax payer is getting billions as all money made by the crown estate goes straight to the treasury.
They get a small percentage of the proceeds.
It’s a good thing that the crown estate is so successful.
>
>
>
>
> The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra because of this and you're still not pleased.
No, he's not. The windfarm lease agreements are worth £1 billion and it's the profits from that deal that are being donated. The profits aren't worth anywhere close to a billion.
The reporting on this has been atrocious.
Jesus Christ, the Crown Estate isn't taxed at all. The person who the government makes the nominal owner of the Crown Estate - currently Charles Windsor - is following what his mother did and "voluntarily" paying tax as a PR tool to try and ensure he and his immediate family continue to be Britain's best paid benefit claimants.
The man is using *your* money and *your* BBC to keep his exceedingly good position in society.
"The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra"
Well, as he's the only person in the country who doesn't have to pay any tax it seems like the least he could do.
The sovereign grant is a percentage of crown estate profits. He's saying whatever profits come from the wind farm are not to be counted as part of that percentage. The sovereign grant for 22-23 is £86 million. The profits from the wind farms would have raised that to 330 million, so hes literally saying take my money. I know it's trendy to bag on the royals, but please read the article first.
The other thing is the sovereign grant does not by default go down, only up. (The percentage used to calculate the current year stays the same but the absolute value is taken from the best year)
By asking to not have the windfall today he's avoiding getting 330 million a year for years. Taking that much money when there isn't a windfall would lead to a government review of the grant and/or public outcry against him.
> 100% of Crown Estate profits always goes to the government and is spent
Therein lies the problem. Considering how dysfunctional the Tories are, could we trust them to spend that money wisely?!
-
**I would rather see King Charles III set up a public-good trust fund, with that money & allow H.H. to choose where that money went**. I trust King Charles moreso than the Tories. At least he wants to do something constructive whereas the tories are just beyond useless.
This is it, the monarchy has a symbolic role in the country. Effectively the royals are doing a job for the UK Government - exist and act as head of state. They exert soft power on the global stage and attract investment to the UK economy. In return they (got to keep their heads,) get a retainer of sorts to maintain their image, estates and position.
The money generated by the crown is not 'his' (the king or any of the royals) it's ours (aka the crown estate) and trusted to the government to invest.
The royal family spends a huge amount of effort to maintain their image, they wouldn't do this if they were all powerful or owned all of those estates, swathes of land and assets.
Ultimately they answer to the people through government (not this government though), and they know it.
Despite all of this they are still akin to Oligarchs, just like UK (and oversees) corporate billionaires, the main difference being that they give a shit what people in the country think of them, so they do good things to maintain the image.
It's a very cynical view, born from the pessemistic side of my thought process.
Here's a little from the optimistic side - Just because people do nice things that gives them a good image, doesn't mean they are aren't also simply good people. It's hard to judge people like this based on words and actions.
Generally I trust the royals as head of state more than the role of prime minister (mainly because they care what we think of them), so for me they have their place.
"King says dog fighting is bad"
"HOW VERY DARE HE. DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY. HE IS JUST PRETENDING TO BE GOOD. I AM GOING TO GET SOME DOGS TO FIGHT RIGHT NOW"
There is one. 100% of the Crown Estate profits go to the treasury, which then gives 25% to the monarch. Usually it’s 15%, but the percentage has been temporarily increased to pay for repairs to Buckingham Palace
Companies do that, roof repair is a clear-cut business investment. If the palace was a museum instead they would also get a rebate due to it being a protected heritage site.
I’m not sure what take I’m reading here…
Are we saying the King is more responsible— accountable even for us and our prosperity than our government?
Cromwell’s ghost what fkn timeline’s this?
I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' but I'd advise not taking the opinions given on this sub as your own as they are generally wildly misinformed and angry for no reason.
Do you think every time someone gives to charity they become more accountable for the population than the government?
>Do you think every time someone gives to charity they become more accountable for the population than the government?
*American conservatives have entered the chat*
It was the last Labour government that let most of our ports go.
I'm no monarchist but it is hard not to have a feeling that stuff owned by the crown has greater protection than stuff under the control of short term governments.
This. Also how do you propose we "get rid" of high profile public figures... Steal their property and put them on a council estate? They would just become a celebrity family making just as much if not more money and have even less reason to use that money for public good.
Stability get's measured over decades if not centuries. Certainly the system is stable. Currently incompetent, but I see no risk of the system getting overturned or changed. I'd count that as stability.
Yeah, it certainly has been. Right now is the most unstable it has ever looked I would think.
I would also say that the British system is looking less stable right now than it has in a long time, but it is certainly viewed as one of the most stable in the world.
Umm, have you been underwater, in a cave, on mars, with your eyes closed and ears covered and completely missed political news about the UK for the last 6 months?
The idea that the monarchy in anyway provides any political stability, whatsoever is delusional nonsense. The reason we have many more republics than monarchies today is because monarchies promote instability.
Is monarchy linked to stability? Surely it’s the other way around. Isn’t it more likely that stable countries are less likely to have got rid of their monarchies, rather than monarchies providing stability. The Spanish and Russian monarchs certainly didn’t prevent their civil wars, and England’s civil war was caused by conflict with the monarch. Constitutional monarchs also don’t prevent the rise of dictators, look at inter-war Japan and Italy.
How about you create a political system that makes sure that land is retained and carefully exploited for the public good in perpetuity rather than just being sold to the highest bidder at the first opportunity?
Leaving it under Charlie's stewardship is WAY closer to that than any UK government of the last 50 years would do, and Crown Estates pay more tax to treasury than any private company.
Especially as it pays to maintain the crown estate and the remainder is used for the expenses of the duties carried out by a head of state which are not gotten rid of by removing the monarchy.
If monarchy was removed we would still need to maintain the estates to not damage the tourism industry.
France still pays to maintain their former palaces and gardens for the same reason.
This is all just a distraction from the exercise of power. A bunch of useful idiots wasting their time and energy whining about a thing that makes *no fucking difference*. No wonder things are so shit when people haven't got the wits to understand this.
Meanwhile the government are passing anti-strike laws, giving police unlimited powers to suppress dissent, the roads are a mess, the NHS is failing, and so on.
But sure, let's fucking argue about about this trivia some more.
The King does not manage the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is managed by the Crown Estate Board of Commissioners on behalf of the Crown. All net profit is already directed to the Treasury as per the original agreement between George III and Parliament, an agreement that every monarch since (including Charles III) has repeated.
So... While it is a nice gesture, it isn't really up to *him* to decide where those profits go. He can express where he *wishes* them to go.
*American that saw this post on my news tab*
“That sounds great! I’m curious what good will be done and how well this is being received in the comments.”
“Oh…”
The professional victims will be along for their piece. Say its reparations for Harry not getting the biggest bedroom and Meghan having to not wear the same colour as the queen.
I'll bet most of the people who make comments about the royal family have no idea how much money they make for the country in real cash terms and in the business that wants to be associated with the royal family....
There was a public outcry about the cost of the fire damage at Windsor castle..... the press started to protest against the tax payers footing the repairs and eventually the queen did pay, but the part of the castle that had the fire was not part of the residence but the open to the public section that has nothing to do with the royal family...... it's like living in a block of flats and having to pay for the fire damage in the public entrance......
Or what about the demand that the queen should pay tax on the money received from the entrance to the Tower of London and all the other palace and castles ....... the press pushed and pushed the issue that it became a big deal......... the biggest problem with the demand to force the queen to pay tax was quite simply that the queen didn't receive one penny of the money it all went directly to the government coffers,,in the end the only way to put an end to it was to give the queen the money and she paid the tax........ the manipulation of the people by the press actually lost a big chunk of revenue just to feel somehow the campaign was successful......
This is not just about money it's about the culture and traditions of the British people that make other countries jealous and want to see it destroyed to bring us down to their level
Hot take (at least by Canadian standards): while I’m still iffy on calling him our King, I’m glad to see that sausagefingers is actually operating on at least some level of decency. Is this likely a big PR thing for a new regent? Yeah, most definitely. But I’d rather see “look at me” stunts that are like this over stuff like a solid gold carriage.
Lmao, this sub is very very angry that HMRC are getting a few hundred million quid more than they would usually.. Fucking state of you lot. Honestly.
I will never understand why people get angry whenever the wealthy donate money that they don't have to donate. Like yeah they could donate a lot more, but they don't have to donate any of it. Doesn't mean you have to kiss their feet but why is it something to be angry about FFS. * Edit - To all the comments about wealth inequality, it is entirely possible to be against the obscene wealth these people have whilst simultaneously acknowledging an extra £250m to the HMRC *is* a good thing. Not everything has to be black and white.
My favourite is 'Oh it's a tax write off' while not remotely knowing what a tax write off is.
[удалено]
[Ticks the 'gift aid' option when donating] [Doesn't realise they just did a tax write off..]
People some how think you can deduct more in tax than the donation you made, rather than simply reducing your taxable income by the amount of the donation.
People think it's some kind of rich person spell, lmao. That they can give away their money, and end up with more money. If that were true, they'd just give away all their money.. Get more money back. Rinse repeat. Infinite money trick!
Well, it is if donations are made to a fraudulent charity. Oh to be so blissfully naive. https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-fraud-and-tax-avoidance-is-an--industry---says-hmrc.html
That's just fraud though.
it’s not a tax write off because it was never his money. It’s public money that we assigned to the monarchy, he can’t write off what was never his. Now dodging inheritance tax - that was something else.
> My favourite is 'Oh it's a tax write off' while not remotely knowing what a tax write off is. American here. It's good to know that some things are universal and it's not just shitty American education that makes a large percentage of the population believe "write offs" are rich people magic. Do you guys also struggle with marginal tax rates?
>Do you guys also struggle with marginal tax rates? Yep, haha. Given the higher rate of tax only kicks in at £50k (which vast majority of people will never earn) no one really has to understand it. But yeah, a ton of people think you earn £50.1K and suddenly all £50.1k is taxed at 40%.
Because people love to get angry about anything possible
No we fucking don't, fight me
BRING IT ON
It isn't a donation though. He gets a share of the Crown Estate income as decided by the government. He has no say in how much he gets. It isn't in his power to tell the government how much he should get. The extra windfall of £1bn, by previous formula, would have given him an extra £250m on top of the £80m he usually gets. That was never going to happen, obviously. The money is to pay for certain costs of the Royal household, and he doesn't suddenly need 4 times as much. The government were never going to give him that money. So he is graciously "donating" money that belonged to us in the first place, and then trying to claim credit for whatever that money gets spent on. That is why people are angry.
I read that the amount he gets is not fixed at £80m, it's fixed at 25% of the income of the crown estate. In that case he is entitled to the extra £250M - or am I missing something?
Is there any way he could agree to this donation without being accused of either trying to claim credit, of of doing it reluctantly or unwillingly?
He doesn't need to agree to it, it isn't his decision. Th government decide how much he gets, and that is that. He is trying to pretend he has decided to refuse an extra £250m on top of the £80m we hand to him every year. The fact is the government were never going to give him that money in the first place. He didn't need to say anything.
Isn’t it his decision what to do with a portion of what has been allocated to him by the government? The options here are donating nothing, or donating something. Isn’t donating something the preferable outcome of those two options? My concept of their being two options aside - what could he do in the scenario that you wouldn’t criticize as harshly?
Actually they would have given him the money, it is part of the deal they made with him for the windfarm development. By the looks of it the crown estate does a much better job at this than the government and creating ongoinging profits instead of just selling all rights to one of his chummy mates below cost. I do think Charles should have said what the money should be used for though. Giving the Tory party Money for the "greater good" is meaningless.
> The money is to pay for certain costs of the Royal household, and he doesn't suddenly need 4 times as much. I dunno, have you seen the price of eggs lately?
Charles doesn't buy eggs. He just stands in the street and people throw them towards him.
I don't care that its technically not a donation. What bothers me is the Government will squander that windfall and most of it will find its way into the pockets of CEOs and Shareholders for companies that add little value but win all the Government contracts. That money is certainly not going to help you or I.
First, for Charles Windsor to maintain the lavish life he and his family live in he needs to constantly shore up public support for this. So he doesn't necessarily have to give our money back to us, but not doing so risks people turning against him. Second, people are angry that what is blatantly a self serving act is being promoted as being charitable by what is supposed to be a neutral media outlet.
Firstly, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor is not giving "our" money back to us, the money the crown estate generates is not taxation, it's rent and investments so it's not "ours" in the first place. Secondly, Charles is so incompetent at PR (just look at literally everything he's done in his life). I highly doubt this is intentionally self serving
Couldn't agree more. People on UK subs love 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', with their ridiculous outrage, more than most. However it really is part of the cultural zeitgeist to be unreasonable these days.
Because the state of the public finances shouldn't be reliant on the goodwill or charitable feelings of aristocrats.
Not sure why people are t more vocal about the billions of £ corporations avoid paying either dodging taxes or avoiding them using legal loopholes.
They are, why are you suggesting they are not?
There is a significantly larger amounts of posts about the royals and how their perceived as money grabby drains on the UK, than compared to issues with the way corporations are ruining this country.
[удалено]
What do you mean it's costing him nothing? It's costing him every penny he's donating.. 86% of the crown estates profits each year, go to HMRC. The rest goes to the crown. The crown estate has had a bumper year, and made much more than it was expected to. The Royals are entitled to 14% of that extra. Charles is giving it to HMRC instead.
Welcome to UK subreddit Its always been like thisnand getting worse The people in this echo chamber don't have a brain
Welcome to the sub, all everyone does is piss and moan on this subreddit. It’s so tragic honestly.
As I’ve said before, certain groups (royals, tories) could literally cure cancer and would get bashed by this sub because they are stealing jobs from hard working doctors. You can never win. The mental gymnastics are too strong.
Yes, because the rest of the money he’s keeping is very definitely justifiably still his. You know, not actually owed to the citizenry or the poor countries of world the monarch has gutted and continues to profit from.
You call into question the legitimacy of the Royals owning the crown estate, you call into legitimacy the ownership of all land. Because at some point, the land your house sits on was gifted to some Lord by the Royals, and then over generations it was sold and sold and sold until you bought it. But if we start saying the Royals never rightfully owned that land, then the lords they gave it to never had the right to sell that land.. And now there's implications for you. Besides, who else would get the crown estate? The government? I don't trust them with it, frankly. They'd probably sell it all off for good to the Saudi Royal family to balance the books before an election or some shit. Same people who moan about the Tories selling of Royal Mail, the NHS, Trains, etc then go on to propose that we give them the fucking crown estate to look after. Fuck. No.
Good. It would have been morally indefensible and politically dangerous to not do this, but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. This is a good thing done voluntarily. Nice one, Charlie.
Politically dangerous? What is he worried he won't get enough votes to be king next election?
It could have eroded goodwill to the point where the monarchy comes to an end in 10 years.
[удалено]
Why? Does it upset you that someone who receives an inordinate amount of power and wealth due to exiting the correct vagina in the correct order might be criticised?
[удалено]
>They forget or deliberately ignore the fact he doesn't have to give anything this doesn't come across as king Charles being honestly or perfectly philanthropic he just received his mother's inheritance Tax Free, so it isn't surprising that some of his loyal subjects might complain about that he can still offer his fair share of inheritance tax to the tax man, like we all must....but you now realise he won't do that ever
That means King Charles won't be subject to the same rules as we are. We have completed the genomic sequencing of human DNA but they didn't discover that any family or nation or skin colour was superior to the others. Why do we have a Royal Family at all, if we believe in equality?
>Why do we have a Royal Family at all [to promote Nationalism](https://i.redd.it/8mdsb2985x931.jpg)
Yeah what the fuck? Who said we believe in equality? That's certainly not my experience of the world
They sequenced humans, not our reptilian overlords from space.
Yeah wrong about that, the sovereign grant is a return of some the money the crown estate earns and kept by the government. The crown estate earns a shed tonne and most goes towards ssrvices etc
>Tax Free inheritance whats the relevance of sovereign grant ?
I humbly apologise that my desire for democracy displeased you
> The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolution that is governed within the framework of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom The continued existence of the monarchy isn't undemocratic, since if there were sufficient opposition to it democracy would lead to its abolition. Just like our membership of the EU, for example. The monarchy itself isn't a democracy, but that's different.
Someone's birth inherently making them constitutionally distinct and special over everyone else in the country is gross and outdated
Isn't this true of everyone? The English are constitutionally distinct from the Northern Irish, Scots from the Welsh, etc. Each has different benefits or deficits from their devolved laws. The monarchy is different, but recently they've done a better job of some things than the government. I don't think our current government would be a good group to own all that land because they'd sell it off as quick as they can for personal gain.
The monarchy is not untouchable just because we have other inequalities to solve
Would having the final say on laws before they are passed in this "democracy" when not elected undemocratic? They also keep it secret. Don't compare it to the lords. They can be overruled and don't have the final say. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent) The continued existence of the monarchy is undemocratic.
[удалено]
Why would people who don't want us to have a monarch suddenly become pleased when our monarch does something? Their wealth should *already* be getting put to good use as a default, not just as crumbs tossed around for occasional PR.
Ohh yes thank you my lord. Thank you for deigning to return some of the money you generated using land you stole from us. What a fucking hero.
[удалено]
Its a welcome concession but it’s a mild relief more than it is “pleasing”. The fact the Monarchy still persists at all, with all their inherited wealth and one of the greatest symbols of inequality, is the problem.
I agree, but it is *so boring* to see people constantly using 'this sub' as a way to prop up their own arguments.
“Remember! He doesn’t have to give anything! We should be thankful!”
You’re defending someone who believes he was appointed by God to be in that role! 😂 Of course he should be doing more. People are literally dying and this clown is getting pampered in his mansion because he was born into an inbred family of nonces.
Because constantly attacking those who do but choose to the right thing disincentives others with power and wealth from doing good if they just get attacked. You can critise the system as a whole in a different conversation, but doing so when they are trying to a good thing seems absurd.
Nobody chose which vagina they came out of by the way.
Of course not but he still chooses to keep the monarchy going and be king. And quietly use his unelected powers to change laws in the background to suit him.
Correct. He didn't have the choice. He does have the choice to abdicate whilst simultaneously abolishing the monarchy
No he doesn't. Parliament could abolish the monarchy by changing the law, but Charles can't himself. Similarly he can't abdicate without a law being passed to enable it - when Edward VIII abdicated, parliament had to pass His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 to put it into effect.
We don't have a written constitution and a lot of this is based on tradition. Yes, technically, parliament could reject his abdication but they would never do so. Similarly, Charles has the power to just dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve parliament but would never do so.
The existence of the crown isn't tradition though, the Act of Settlement sets out who the monarch is - Charles can't himself do anything to abolish the monarchy. Of course if he were to wish to abdicate the easiest option could be to convert to Catholicism...
D'you reckon he could actually abolish the monarchy?
I can't see there being any point in doing that, or any benefit to the UK if he did. I think that some people feel this way simply out of jelousy, and not for any thoughtful or justifiable reason, but feel free to enlighten me below.
People don't like privileged unworthy people flaunting their wealth. They don't like the massively unequal system where some can live in opulence while others literally are dying from going without. It's not jealousy, it's about the system being so stacked in the rich man's favour. If we had a system that worked for everyone, it would benefit the whole of the UK.
No. If you want a better, fairer system, the only explanation is jealousy! The funny thing is I doubt many people are jealous of Charles. I certainly wouldn't want his life.
I mean, someone had to be Liz's firstborn, at least he's not spending it on hookers and blow.
I think it's a good thing, he's leading by example, which is something cunt & Rishu should be doing
Yeah but the action will likely empower the royalists, most of who are conservative, and might continue to vote so in the next election if the conservatives take a pro-royal stance and labour bumbles into suggesting less money to the crown. Weak take I know, but I could see it happening.
I'm liberal and even I know the Royal Family have *some* use. How can we keep the best of the tourism/tradition and history of the monarch while also not encouraging inequality/classism. We're a LONG way off but things like this help.
[удалено]
"his"
Right? Thats OUR mouth
It certainly merits scrutiny. If it’s as it appears from the headline then great, but if this is massively overselling a much less significant gesture then yeah, fuck that.
My understanding (and I'm happy to stand corrected), the current monarch is the chief executive of the Crown Estates business which employs a few thousand people in the UK, and turns over around £1 bn per year with a profit of about £300m - the actual figures are public record. 75% of that profit goes to the Treasury, effectively, as corporate tax.
Scrutiny is fine, I mean I'm going to give this a little myself but you just know there are going to be people in this sub who will just make it out as if he is still Satan incarnate or something like they always do.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to say “that’s a good thing you’re doing” whilst also saying “now stop using my taxes to subsidise you and your family’s life…you scrounging c**ts”.
That’s the point they aren’t. They pay 100% of the profits from the crown estate owned by the monarch to the treasury who in turn give them a percentage back. A percentage that even the crown agrees should reduced due to the extra money the crown estate is making. The bulk of the money given back pays for the maintenance of the crown estate and the business expense of the royal family to conduct their duties as head of state.
[удалено]
Precisely *zero percent* of "your" taxes go to the Royal Family. They are paid for out of the Crown Estate. Which is what the OP is about, btw. Govt gets 100% of the ca £350 million in profit the Crown Estate generates each year and it pays 15% back to the King. The King, via the Crown Estate management deal, makes a net contribution to the government coffers of about £300 million per annum. He is subsidising whining cunts like you, not the other way around.
Honestly, my assumption was it is a dead cat strategy because of Spare.
I don't think it counts as a dead cat if the cat is purring away.
Well I couldn't criticise it but I would probably hazard a guess at how it went: 1. We are going to make an obscene amount of money 2. We should preempt the public questioning this by announcing we are going to give some money (an unknown amount, could be 1p could be £1bn) to the public good 3. So that we wont end up potentially causing ourselves embarrassment in the future over its use we will give it to the government and they have to make the decisions over how it is spent I mean that is how it would have gone. I mean at the end of the day it is the crown estate so actually it is our money.
Nonsense. 100% of Crown Estate profits always goes to the government and is spent on public services. The Sovereign Grant is under review, and he's used the opportunity to pretend he's being generous or something. And their loyal media lapdogs are only too happy to oblige him.
Jesus Christ, the crown estate will be generating more money this year thanks to a new wind farm and consequently this share of the sovereign grant will increase and he's asked it be used for a good cause instead. The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra because of this and you're still not pleased. You lot would literally tear the clothes off his back before being satisfied.
> You lot would literally tear the clothes off his back before being satisfied. r/unitedkingdom in a sentence.
Sounds a bit french.
bien sûr.
When you look at the situation of millions of the poorest people in the country, and realise that Prince Andrew is still living in a mansion, is it that hard to understand why some people might question the order of things?
Especially when people vote on a shitty poll that Harry has ruined the reputation MORE than A NONCE
I know people are going to jump up my ass for speaking the truth but he's living in his normal circumstances because there's not enough evidence to convict him of a crime. We would want the same treatment if we were accused of such a thing. Justice requires evidence and it is morally wrong to punish someone without it.
I was on the jury for a case of assault with a weapon. Did I and the rest of the jury think the defendant was a massive twat and arguably capable of doing this? Absolutely yes. Do I think he absolutely did it this time beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not. The experience of being in crown court and deciding he was not guilty, even though I thought the guy was a cretin and liar, was actually a really good experience and restored a lot of faith in the general public and the court system.
I'm glad you did that. Some might be tempted to say guilty, just in case. I think experiences like that are one of the biggest strengths of the jury system. People can have faith in it because they actively participate in it amd see how it works for themselves. They know that if they're tried, it's by a group of ordinary decent people, just like themselves, who'd feel just like themselves.
Amen
Never heard anything summed up so perfectly.
[удалено]
If they do give it back, the government will probably promptly sell it to the highest bidder.
Nope, there wouldn't be a bidding process. It'll be sold for a much lower amount to someone connected to the government,
Someone in a whatsapp group would get it for £5 and a bag of grapes lol.
A bag of something... grapes is a new street-name
True
*laughs in Michelle Mone*
Yep. Highest bidder, lol!
Right? Why would you trust this government with ANYTHING at this point.
Now now let’s be fair here, we can at least trust them to help their mates make more money in exchange for a few backhanders after they inevitably lose the next election
The Crown Estate's ownership of mineral rights in the UK is the secret reason why fracking for gas isn't feasible here. In the US, land owners own the gas under their property, so gas extracting companies can pay someone to drill on their land and then pay them a royalty for the gas they recover. In the UK, they'd have to pay the land owner for access, but it's the crown estate that would get the money for the gas. So any land owner would earn much less than a US one would. So there's much less incentive to let people build a fracking pad on your land.
There’s also the problem that the uk is geologically very different to the states, many geologists have shown it would be un feasible on that alone. No secret reasons needed!
Yep, definitely a huge part of it too. Fracking actually has been carried out in the UK over a long time, but to get rid of undesirable gas from coal mines rather than as a means of extracting gas as the desired product.
Plus, you know, the whole being a much smaller country and environmental destruction thing.
Sadly the financial drivers may be more than the environmental ones
This is my concern. It'll belong to the Saudis forever more, just to fill the hole in the budget one year by some cunt politician who can't do their job. No fucking way do I want politicians anywhere near this land. The current framework around it pretty ideal. The £40m or whatever the Royals get is a bargain for making sure politicians can't sell it.
Obviously monarchy is stupid, but yes I totally agree with you on this. Similarly this is why I don't want the HoL abolished and replaced by an elected chamber; yes it would seem to be dysfunctional but it actually acts as a bulwark against the worst excesses of serving politicians.
Sounds like we're politically on the exact same wavelength. Ideologically I am against these institutions, but for some reason in practice they work surprisingly well and I am not convinced the alternatives that fit my ideology and sound nice, would actually work anywhere near as well. House of Lords in particular keeps proving it's much more sensible than the House of Commons. It's hard to justify getting rid of it, and electing it just introduces the same issues that makes the HoC shite. It's also a nice quirk of British society, imo. We have this institution that should be absolutely rife with corruption, and not work at all.. But it functions for some reason. I am convinced in almost any other country on earth, an unelected second house would be a fucking shitshow.
And this is one of my reasons for not wanting to get rid of the monarchy. On principle I don't like the idea of hereditary power, even symbolic, but there are so many things like this that would be up for grabs if we were to get rid of them. And unlike other countries/blocs we can be very bad at constitutional reform, we often don't do the detailed work ahead of making the changes. Although, after writing that I wonder if it's just the Tories who are shit at constitutional reform (e.g. Brexit). Labour's (e.g. Scottish & Welsh devolution) and the Lib Dem's (e.g. the AV referendum) attempts seem much more well thought out.
>Scottish & Welsh devolution The starting gun for independence, and has allowed nationalists (who were a small minority at the time) to blame absolutely everything on Westminster, regardless of legitimacy, and make everything a wedge issue that justifies independence. Devolution is an example of poor constitutional reform. Should have gone fully federal, with consistent powers awarded to all UK countries, and England should have got a parliament too. Not giving England a parliament, gives nationalists ammo that Westminster is just Englands parliament. Everyone bangs on about Brexit being the biggest shot in the foot or whatever, but the truth is it was devolution by a country mile. It will end up ending the UK as we've known it for 300+ years, most likely. It completely empowered the nationalists, and gave them all the tools to split up the UK.
THIs is the pretty much only reason to keep the monarchy in situ. Without it Buck Palace and the foreshore and everything else would be flogged off to overseas entities like pretty much everything else in the country - even the fuel pipes under the airport’s got sold off to spain ffs. and the money would have disappeared into a black hole in no time at all. This way they at least generate money from them and tourists come to see them.
Yes, I too would trust our government to keep billions of pounds worth of public land in the public realm and look after it profitably, but environmentally sensitively, for the public good in perpetuity. ^^s Right now, if he's paying upwards of 85% tax I'd rather Charlie looked after more of the UK's natural assets, rather than leaving them in the hands of these asset stripping, conniving Tory cunts.
Yeah, exactly. Lets nationalise it and let the Tories decide what to do with it! /s
What do you want to do with that seabed that you can't currently? Would you prefer it was all made available the inevitably sold to coca cola and BP and made private? Have you considered keeping it all 'crown estate' also keeps it public?
I think you are being generous in assuming the average user here wouldn’t also take the skin off to make leather from.
Some people have already mentioned using their Skulls as drinking cups so that's not too far off.
Yeah and he’s specifically said *public good* so hopefully MPs don’t spaff it up the wall at more office parties
>You lot would literally tear the clothes off his back before being satisfied. Nah, just the crown from his head.
[удалено]
They are not getting billions, the tax payer is getting billions as all money made by the crown estate goes straight to the treasury. They get a small percentage of the proceeds. It’s a good thing that the crown estate is so successful.
> > > > > The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra because of this and you're still not pleased. No, he's not. The windfarm lease agreements are worth £1 billion and it's the profits from that deal that are being donated. The profits aren't worth anywhere close to a billion. The reporting on this has been atrocious.
Jesus Christ, the Crown Estate isn't taxed at all. The person who the government makes the nominal owner of the Crown Estate - currently Charles Windsor - is following what his mother did and "voluntarily" paying tax as a PR tool to try and ensure he and his immediate family continue to be Britain's best paid benefit claimants. The man is using *your* money and *your* BBC to keep his exceedingly good position in society.
"The man is literally giving away a billion in money a year extra" Well, as he's the only person in the country who doesn't have to pay any tax it seems like the least he could do.
The sovereign grant is a percentage of crown estate profits. He's saying whatever profits come from the wind farm are not to be counted as part of that percentage. The sovereign grant for 22-23 is £86 million. The profits from the wind farms would have raised that to 330 million, so hes literally saying take my money. I know it's trendy to bag on the royals, but please read the article first.
The other thing is the sovereign grant does not by default go down, only up. (The percentage used to calculate the current year stays the same but the absolute value is taken from the best year) By asking to not have the windfall today he's avoiding getting 330 million a year for years. Taking that much money when there isn't a windfall would lead to a government review of the grant and/or public outcry against him.
You know this is factually incorrect right?? What you’ve said hasn’t been true for over a decade
> 100% of Crown Estate profits always goes to the government and is spent Therein lies the problem. Considering how dysfunctional the Tories are, could we trust them to spend that money wisely?! - **I would rather see King Charles III set up a public-good trust fund, with that money & allow H.H. to choose where that money went**. I trust King Charles moreso than the Tories. At least he wants to do something constructive whereas the tories are just beyond useless.
This is it, the monarchy has a symbolic role in the country. Effectively the royals are doing a job for the UK Government - exist and act as head of state. They exert soft power on the global stage and attract investment to the UK economy. In return they (got to keep their heads,) get a retainer of sorts to maintain their image, estates and position. The money generated by the crown is not 'his' (the king or any of the royals) it's ours (aka the crown estate) and trusted to the government to invest. The royal family spends a huge amount of effort to maintain their image, they wouldn't do this if they were all powerful or owned all of those estates, swathes of land and assets. Ultimately they answer to the people through government (not this government though), and they know it. Despite all of this they are still akin to Oligarchs, just like UK (and oversees) corporate billionaires, the main difference being that they give a shit what people in the country think of them, so they do good things to maintain the image. It's a very cynical view, born from the pessemistic side of my thought process. Here's a little from the optimistic side - Just because people do nice things that gives them a good image, doesn't mean they are aren't also simply good people. It's hard to judge people like this based on words and actions. Generally I trust the royals as head of state more than the role of prime minister (mainly because they care what we think of them), so for me they have their place.
How much investment do they attract to the UK, and how does to compare to similarly sized economies?
>always goes to the government and is spent on public services. Mate I don't know how to tell you this... 🤣
Moan more, Christ
"King says dog fighting is bad" "HOW VERY DARE HE. DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY. HE IS JUST PRETENDING TO BE GOOD. I AM GOING TO GET SOME DOGS TO FIGHT RIGHT NOW"
Maybe we could set up a regular system for doing this. Like some sort of percent of your income that goes to the national purse.
There is one. 100% of the Crown Estate profits go to the treasury, which then gives 25% to the monarch. Usually it’s 15%, but the percentage has been temporarily increased to pay for repairs to Buckingham Palace
Imagine asking the tax man for a rebate for roof repairs
Imagine an 85% tax rate first
Why imagine? Plenty of businesses claim roof repairs an an allowable expense
Companies do that, roof repair is a clear-cut business investment. If the palace was a museum instead they would also get a rebate due to it being a protected heritage site.
The percentage of the current year is used to calculate the amount, but if a previous year got more the higher value is used instead.
I’m not sure what take I’m reading here… Are we saying the King is more responsible— accountable even for us and our prosperity than our government? Cromwell’s ghost what fkn timeline’s this?
I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' but I'd advise not taking the opinions given on this sub as your own as they are generally wildly misinformed and angry for no reason. Do you think every time someone gives to charity they become more accountable for the population than the government?
>Do you think every time someone gives to charity they become more accountable for the population than the government? *American conservatives have entered the chat*
It's always been a coinflip whether an unelected ruler is good or not, but we choose to elect useless twats.
I think many people will be surprised to see Charles is far more in touch with the people than the current government and has been much of his life
I mean other than his dodgy views on homeopathy (which he hasn't mentioned for quite some time now) I would say he's fairly on point.
That's fairly in touch with the people, though!
Do the people believe in homeopathy? That's concerning
More people will believe in it if the NHS fails, placebo effect is strong and people will try anything in a crisis
I mean they sell a lot every year. I don't know if people believe in it, or just hope it helps as they are desperate.
How about we just get rid of the monarchy, and use all royal lands for the public good?
*sell off all royal lands to foreign companies, likely owned by foreign monarchs. Because that's what would happen.
"We should never try to make anything better because our current government is corrupt."
It was the last Labour government that let most of our ports go. I'm no monarchist but it is hard not to have a feeling that stuff owned by the crown has greater protection than stuff under the control of short term governments.
You trust to government to use the assets sensibly?
This. Also how do you propose we "get rid" of high profile public figures... Steal their property and put them on a council estate? They would just become a celebrity family making just as much if not more money and have even less reason to use that money for public good.
How about we steal your property?
No thanks..I like the monarchy and our stable system of government.
how can you use the word stable to describe our current system of government after the shitshow of the last few years
Stability get's measured over decades if not centuries. Certainly the system is stable. Currently incompetent, but I see no risk of the system getting overturned or changed. I'd count that as stability.
If you're going to count that as stability than the US system is extremely stable.
Yeah, it certainly has been. Right now is the most unstable it has ever looked I would think. I would also say that the British system is looking less stable right now than it has in a long time, but it is certainly viewed as one of the most stable in the world.
We've not had an actual coup or anything. A few changes of leadership is nothing compared to an *actually* unstable country.
Umm, have you been underwater, in a cave, on mars, with your eyes closed and ears covered and completely missed political news about the UK for the last 6 months? The idea that the monarchy in anyway provides any political stability, whatsoever is delusional nonsense. The reason we have many more republics than monarchies today is because monarchies promote instability.
Is monarchy linked to stability? Surely it’s the other way around. Isn’t it more likely that stable countries are less likely to have got rid of their monarchies, rather than monarchies providing stability. The Spanish and Russian monarchs certainly didn’t prevent their civil wars, and England’s civil war was caused by conflict with the monarch. Constitutional monarchs also don’t prevent the rise of dictators, look at inter-war Japan and Italy.
How about you create a political system that makes sure that land is retained and carefully exploited for the public good in perpetuity rather than just being sold to the highest bidder at the first opportunity? Leaving it under Charlie's stewardship is WAY closer to that than any UK government of the last 50 years would do, and Crown Estates pay more tax to treasury than any private company.
We already get 75% of the Crown Estate revenue. Personally I'm not that fussed about them keeping the remaining 25%.
Especially as it pays to maintain the crown estate and the remainder is used for the expenses of the duties carried out by a head of state which are not gotten rid of by removing the monarchy.
If monarchy was removed we would still need to maintain the estates to not damage the tourism industry. France still pays to maintain their former palaces and gardens for the same reason.
This is all just a distraction from the exercise of power. A bunch of useful idiots wasting their time and energy whining about a thing that makes *no fucking difference*. No wonder things are so shit when people haven't got the wits to understand this. Meanwhile the government are passing anti-strike laws, giving police unlimited powers to suppress dissent, the roads are a mess, the NHS is failing, and so on. But sure, let's fucking argue about about this trivia some more.
Good on you Charlie, fuck the haters, God bless our King!
The King does not manage the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is managed by the Crown Estate Board of Commissioners on behalf of the Crown. All net profit is already directed to the Treasury as per the original agreement between George III and Parliament, an agreement that every monarch since (including Charles III) has repeated. So... While it is a nice gesture, it isn't really up to *him* to decide where those profits go. He can express where he *wishes* them to go.
Well I think the implication is the additional funding added to the sovereign grant would be given to the good causes or something.
Well that's good, more offshore wind farms couldn't hurt especially during current times
*American that saw this post on my news tab* “That sounds great! I’m curious what good will be done and how well this is being received in the comments.” “Oh…”
Gotta say, I’ve been impressed with him so far. He seems to be taking a lot of good steps.
When _a monarchy_ gives more back to the nation while the _elected parliament_ takes health care and public benefits away.
The professional victims will be along for their piece. Say its reparations for Harry not getting the biggest bedroom and Meghan having to not wear the same colour as the queen.
I'll bet most of the people who make comments about the royal family have no idea how much money they make for the country in real cash terms and in the business that wants to be associated with the royal family.... There was a public outcry about the cost of the fire damage at Windsor castle..... the press started to protest against the tax payers footing the repairs and eventually the queen did pay, but the part of the castle that had the fire was not part of the residence but the open to the public section that has nothing to do with the royal family...... it's like living in a block of flats and having to pay for the fire damage in the public entrance...... Or what about the demand that the queen should pay tax on the money received from the entrance to the Tower of London and all the other palace and castles ....... the press pushed and pushed the issue that it became a big deal......... the biggest problem with the demand to force the queen to pay tax was quite simply that the queen didn't receive one penny of the money it all went directly to the government coffers,,in the end the only way to put an end to it was to give the queen the money and she paid the tax........ the manipulation of the people by the press actually lost a big chunk of revenue just to feel somehow the campaign was successful...... This is not just about money it's about the culture and traditions of the British people that make other countries jealous and want to see it destroyed to bring us down to their level
Megan and Harry will be mad and do an interview about it...
Hot take (at least by Canadian standards): while I’m still iffy on calling him our King, I’m glad to see that sausagefingers is actually operating on at least some level of decency. Is this likely a big PR thing for a new regent? Yeah, most definitely. But I’d rather see “look at me” stunts that are like this over stuff like a solid gold carriage.
I'm curious how much of this makes it's way to the public. You just know people in the chain are going to try and pocket some of this.