this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
71 points (96.1% liked)

United Kingdom

4137 readers
23 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
71
King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

I think that high-pitched whistling noise might be a sign my piss is boiling.

Take it away Lord Turnbull:

Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary, Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, who was involved in official discussions over royal financing, accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the monarchy was funded.

He said that linking the royal finances to the profits of the crown estate was “silly” and was motivated by a desire to promote the idea that the king was paying for himself and was reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

“You get people writing in saying: ‘Isn’t it a good thing that the king is so sensitive to public opinion that he has waived some of the money he could have had?’ I think it’s bollocks. It is deliberate – that’s really what makes me so cross about it. It is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate how the thing works.”

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the Bank of England doesn't think this will exacerbate inflation.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago

Perhaps our train drivers and doctors should just retrain to be royalty instead.

The UK’s attitude to the monarchy is as tone deaf as ever.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

That's nice of them. They take good care of their aging king who is surely not fit for employment.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Is this what they meant when they said Brexit would increase wages?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, how nice for him. I switched from name brand olive oil spread to generic table spread in 1kg tubs.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything is sp bloody expensive now he probably needs it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

His Tesco bills just keep soaring.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Leave the old chap alone.

He has been unemployed his whole life. He deserves some money, after living such deprived life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I support this fully, as long as he uses our money to go to Switzerland and do us all a favour. Get a job you fucking leech, the rest of us have to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

He'll be able to afford a new pen and some more socks now then.

Poor old sod.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The Crown owns the Crown estates. It was never tax payer funded

The state (aka us) owns the crown, the crown is not owned by the monarch.

As for tax free. Since the US revolution. The Crown has given the income to the government.

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.

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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If I sign a contract with you to let you use my car as a taxi in exchange for a set amount of money, an increase in the amount of money I get from the deal is not being paid for by me. Especially not when the car is actually a company car.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

£350 million?

That would look good on the side of a bus 🤔