Poll: Royal Engagement

[Nitefly]

I'll be watching, historic event

 

[Ricochet J]

I may watch. If I do I know I'll flick between the channels

 

[[TW]Fox]

what strenuous or difficult work does she do out of interest?

honestly I dont know, so dont bite my head off

To be fair I doubt you do anything particularly difficult either - in the grand scheme of things not many of us do.

I normally jump on people who cry jealousy as an excuse for disliking something but in this case I think it has merit.

Just get over it - they've been here a lot longer than you or I and are more important to society than either you or I.

 

[.Lethal]

Hmmm think I heard of them people off the TV recently, are they famous?

 

[toon_mad]

To be fair I doubt you do anything particularly difficult either - in the grand scheme of things not many of us do.

well my jobs have always been manual labour in some form, ie delivery driver/manual labour for well known electricals, home appliances stores which involved lifting washing machines, ovens, big tvs you name it. also had jobs such as scaffolding, more heavy labour work and factory work etc.

so depending on what you describe as difficult, I am trying to vision what the queen does on a day to day basis, whether that be at her current age, or 10 year ago, or 20 year ago etc. I honestly never pay any interest in celebs or royal family, only day to day events matter to me, so I have no idea what she does in that ivory tower of hers

I just cant imagine, whatever her age that she has done a lot, but thats just me been niave I guess because like so many people probably dont really have an idea or care for what they get up to.

Will be glad when this crappy wedding is over because its been dragging on in the news for some time now, couldnt care less personally apart from the day off

 

[Angilion]

Difference is, the rest of us actually earn our incomes. She draws income regardless, so paying tax on it is moot as it is tax churning.

So...would you outlaw inheritance above a certain amount of money in order to stop people having an income without having to work? Come to think of it, you'd have outlaw all wealth. Someone who became rich without inheriting any of it also has no need to work.

Quite apart from the fact that the queen does work.

So you believe members of the royal family are not paid incomes by the government, pay for their own travel arrangements, royal ceremonies, security details and all the rest of it? My argument was axiomatic, yours is a deluded argument not borne of reality.

Your argument was wrong. The argument you were replying to is very easily proven.

Even if include all of the operating expenses of a head of state (as if we wouldn't need one if the queen didn't exist), your argument is still, to use your own words, a deluded argument not borne of reality.

Your "argument" was

The cost of the royal family to the taxpayer is phenomenal

, yet even by your own inflated costs (see above) it's only £40M a year. Since the state seizes over £200M a year of the royal family's income and tourism exists, your argument is obviously ridiculous.

Are you freaking kidding me?? Estimated cost of the royal family to the taxpayer, according to the BBC, is over £40m per annum, exclusive of costs incurred by security. This is over five times the cost of keeping the Spanish royal family, as a benchmark of comparison. So, forgive me for thinking your figure of £500m of revenue from royalty-related tourism is horse ****.

£500M from admission fees to royalty-related buildings.

The income from royalty-related tourism is much higher than that because it also includes merchandising, media, etc.

You can think what you like in order to pretend to yourself that your argument has any merit, but that won't make it true.

And this income you all blather on about is largely generated by tax churning. Example, the EU's Common Agricultural Policy's largest individual claimant is Prince Charles for land he owns but does not use for agriculture. This is income generated for doing nothing at all, churned through accounts as tax and then subsidy. There is no intrinsic benefit to anybody through this.

It's also untrue. There are various people in the UK who get more from the CAP than he does (though they might be getting it in the name of limited liability businesses wholly owned by them). Also, various businesses get more from it than any individual. If you think that farming subsidies under the CAP should be scrapped, that's a seperate argument.

I'm not saying the Royal Family should be removed or not, but for ****'s sake, please base your arguments on reality rather than what happens in the dream worlds you're clearly living in.

Please take your own advice.

 

[churchhawk]

At the end of the day most poeple will watch it no matter what they say on here, whether you agree with it or not.

Enjoy lol

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Please take your own advice.

Indeed. Theophany, you have been repeatedly served with facts and figures that are contrary to your argument, without actually providing a scrap of qualitative evidence yourself. As such, your side is looking rather pasty right now

 

[kristmace]

Have to watch for at least 5 mins to see how fit she looks

 

[toon_mad]

Have to watch for at least 5 mins to see how fit she looks

dude shes 85

ooooo you mean kate

 

[Theophany]

So...would you outlaw inheritance above a certain amount of money in order to stop people having an income without having to work? Come to think of it, you'd have outlaw all wealth. Someone who became rich without inheriting any of it also has no need to work.

Quite apart from the fact that the queen does work.

What's that got to do with anything? Inheritance is not income. Money is paid to the royal family by the government as income, not inheritance.

Even if include all of the operating expenses of a head of state (as if we wouldn't need one if the queen didn't exist), your argument is still, to use your own words, a deluded argument not borne of reality.

Your "argument" was , yet even by your own inflated costs (see above) it's only £40M a year. Since the state seizes over £200M a year of the royal family's income and tourism exists, your argument is obviously ridiculous.

£500M from admission fees to royalty-related buildings.

The income from royalty-related tourism is much higher than that because it also includes merchandising, media, etc.

You can think what you like in order to pretend to yourself that your argument has any merit, but that won't make it true.

Secondly, I keep seeing these immense numbers but no reference to any sources, something I actually did provide in context.

It's also untrue. There are various people in the UK who get more from the CAP than he does (though they might be getting it in the name of limited liability businesses wholly owned by them). Also, various businesses get more from it than any individual. If you think that farming subsidies under the CAP should be scrapped, that's a seperate argument.

Please take your own advice.

Firstly, can I just say that I have no idea where you're headed with this inheritance argument. My view on inheritances is that they should not be taxed, but I fail to understand how you've come to the conclusion that inheritance = income, they are two fundamentally different types of wealth in the UK's tax code, so I'm not going to grace it with a response.

So riddle me this, Batman. If they make so much money as you claim, why are they dependent on state handouts? According to what you've posted here, they should be totally self-sufficient and be able to meet all their incurred costs themselves, why is it then that they do not? The entirety of your post is vehemently arguing that the royal family is not a net burden but makes all this money through simply existing, do you see what I'm getting at here?

If over £200M is seized by the government out of this £500M, that still leaves around £200M left for themselves, which easily outweighs the ~£40M they receive from the state.

Either something is fundamentally wrong with your argument or the system. Whether you want royals or not, how are they such cash cows generating all this money and yet still require to be paid for by the taxpayer?

Indeed. Theophany, you have been repeatedly served with facts and figures that are contrary to your argument, without actually providing a scrap of qualitative evidence yourself. As such, your side is looking rather pasty right now

Oh blow off, I was 'served' AFTER my post. Give me a chance to respond before you chime in with your incredibly informative and valuable commentary.

 

[RDM]

Firstly, can I just say that I have no idea where you're headed with this inheritance argument. My view on inheritances is that they should not be taxed, but I fail to understand how you've come to the conclusion that inheritance = income, they are two fundamentally different types of wealth in the UK's tax code, so I'm not going to grace it with a response.

Because the inherited land and property and holdings generates income? If you do away with the monarchy the only way it becomes cheaper is if you recind the agreement with regards to the Crown Estates. Effectively you take the Crown Estates off the monarchy. The income from the Crown Estates currently goes in to the Treasury, this more than pays for the cost of the monarchy even at the higher end estimates.

So riddle me this, Batman. If they make so much money as you claim, why are they dependent on state handouts? According to what you've posted here, they should be totally self-sufficient and be able to meet all their incurred costs themselves, why is it then that they do not? The entirety of your post is vehemently arguing that the royal family is not a net burden but makes all this money through simply existing, do you see what I'm getting at here?

Simple, the money that the royal estates make go into the Treasury. Give that back to them and they don't need any "handouts". Of course you are then going to have a lot of costs for a head of state replacement and nothing but taxation to pay for it...

 

[BunnyKillBot]

If over £200M is seized by the government out of this £500M, that still leaves around £200M left for themselves, which easily outweighs the ~£40M they receive from the state.

Either something is fundamentally wrong with your argument or the system. Whether you want royals or not, how are they such cash cows generating all this money and yet still require to be paid for by the taxpayer?

Erm, how exactly are they 'paid by the taxpayer' if they get given £40M and give back £200M? Thats a 500% return?

 

[Angilion]

Firstly, can I just say that I have no idea where you're headed with this inheritance argument.

You dismissed the queen paying income tax as not really paying income tax at all, just tax churning, because she doesn't earn it. She gets her income from wealth she inherited. You should therefore be applying your argument to all inherited wealth in order to be internally consistent.

My view on inheritances is that they should not be taxed, but I fail to understand how you've come to the conclusion that inheritance = income, they are two fundamentally different types of wealth in the UK's tax code, so I'm not going to grace it with a response.

Feel free to do so if you come up with any argument that's consistent with itself.

So riddle me this, Batman. If they make so much money as you claim, why are they dependent on state handouts? According to what you've posted here, they should be totally self-sufficient and be able to meet all their incurred costs themselves, why is it then that they do not? The entirety of your post is vehemently arguing that the royal family is not a net burden but makes all this money through simply existing, do you see what I'm getting at here?

If over £200M is seized by the government out of this £500M, that still leaves around £200M left for themselves, which easily outweighs the ~£40M they receive from the state.

Either something is fundamentally wrong with your argument or the system. Whether you want royals or not, how are they such cash cows generating all this money and yet still require to be paid for by the taxpayer?

What you've just said completely contradicts what I wrote. What's the point of me writing anything if you're just going to pick numbers out and combine them at random?

For example, who said anything about the government taking £200M out of £500M? I didn't. You're the only person who's mentioned it. You've made it up. It's nothing to do with me. The royal family gets none of it. The £200M and the £500M are different things from different sources and the £700M goes to the state.

You're making numbers up and then jeering at me for not supporting the numbers that you made up. What the hell is that about? You're not making any sense.

 

[Angilion]

Erm, how exactly are they 'paid by the taxpayer' if they get given £40M and give back £200M? Thats a 500% return?

Especially as they're only given £7.9M (not £40M) and most of that £7.9M pays other people's wages.

The £40M might be an estimate of total cost including building maintainence, travel costs, hospitality for visiting foreign politicians, etc, i.e. running costs that would be incurred with or without a monarchy. Or it might just be made up.

 

[Andr3w]

Where has this figure of £40m come from, i'm sure it's only around the £8m mark.

 

[PMKeates]

I have personally heard that the monarchy actually costs £84.3 mn?

 

[Vonhelmet]

My 4 year old is really excited about it, so we'll definitely be watching.

 

[RDM]

My 4 year old is really excited about it, so we'll definitely be watching.

My five year old daughter is the same, wants to see a real princess. My wife will watch it with her, I will probably be finishing off an assignment!

 

[qqg3]

Well I'll have to be up about 3AM or something if I want to tune in over here, so maybe I'll just catch some highlights or something. It's only a wedding.