The Royals

[Cryogenic]

Mt first instinct was to check the data of the sweeping generalisation. You don't specify which tax, but for the purposes of simplicity I'll assume that you're referring to income tax. In which case, a 3% increase to income tax would raise around £18bn.

Just to put things into perspective rather than have dramatisation for effect. I'm sure you can do the maths and calculate what increase in tax is needed to make your example more accurate.

But while I'm here, is there anything else you'd like to be able to opt out of paying tax for?

Also, if there are indeed benefits to the royal family, how do we opt you out of those? Perhaps increase your income tax to compensate?

Devil's advocate.

According to other sources in this thread, it seems we pay no income tax at all. Why then is the 50p a day per person bandied about by the media.

In terms of opt outs - you can opt out of your 2nd pension and the deduction disappears from your payslip. You can opt-in to salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers and the amount appears on the payslip. Why not introduce the RST (Royal Super Tax) in addition to the NI contributions which appears on the payslip and make it optional where opt-outs are concerned. Just a thought since you asked.

 

[Cryogenic]

[QUOTE="One thing that *does* bother me - whether or not you like the Queen - is forcing our MPs to swear an oath of allegiance to the King/Queen. To my mind, that is wrong. Utterly wrong. They should swear to serve the people honestly and with compassion, not swear an oath to the Queen.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. How about this for starters - "For nationhood and our people's generation, I do solemnly swear not only to uphold the rule of law, but to protect our lands far and near, and to carry out this duty as honourably as possibly to the best of my abilities, for the people and by the people"

 

[The_Abyss]

This should be in Speakers corner IMO.

I would like to agree but I cannot, as there's already more than sufficient typical GD unevidenced opinion posts in here to suggest that it isn't SC-worthy.

That said, SC moderators just don't even bother anymore with the original standards of that forum, so SC is basically just GD for moderately serious topics.

 

[The_Abyss]

According to other sources in this thread, it seems we pay no income tax at all. Why then is the 50p a day per person bandied about by the media.

In terms of opt outs - you can opt out of your 2nd pension and the deduction disappears from your payslip. You can opt-in to salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers and the amount appears on the payslip. Why not introduce the RST (Royal Super Tax) in addition to the NI contributions which appears on the payslip and make it optional where opt-outs are concerned. Just a thought since you asked.

You can't opt out of the State Second Pension (S2P) since 2016.

Your other point is just plain ridiculous. Salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers means that you're buying something pre-tax - childcare vouchers. If your RST was introduced and you decided to opt out, how would the benefits of the Royal Family (the financial ones of which you've accepted earlier in the thread) be deducted from you?

 

[Cryogenic]

You can't opt out of the State Second Pension (S2P) since 2016.

Your other point is just plain ridiculous. Salary sacrifice for childcare vouchers means that you're buying something pre-tax - childcare vouchers. If your RST was introduced and you decided to opt out, how would the benefits of the Royal Family (the financial ones of which you've accepted earlier in the thread) be deducted from you?

Apologies, S2P was indeed a historical initiative but was merely to illustrate the point that things can be added and removed from the payslip via opt-ins/outs i.e. they are not fixed in stone. The same is true of salary sacrifice, though its intended purpose is pre-tax based, again, my point (apologies if it was not made clear) was that is can be added and removed from month to month from the payslip without too much effort from the payroll dept.

Regarding the benefits of opt-in, it may surprise you to learn this, but the tax system is not equal, it is designed to give the poor a leg up, and to tax the richest at a higher rate to spread the wealth around (redistribution) and changes ratios depending on who is in power, therefore if 30% opted into a Royal Super Tax, it would clearly benefit the remainder 70% too who chose to support their parents instead for example. This is a win win situation, as there is no point adding much more to those who already have hundreds of billions in assets unless you want to give your hard earned money away while you live frugally? It simply does not bear sense. Bill/Melinda Gates have already worked that one out, they also do not hunt for fun which is another plus point.

Similarly, I pay a unidirectional tax called council tax, but some people live in low crime neighbourhoods, and do not really benefit from the police, and some people do not have children but pay for other children's schools.

 

[BowdonUK]

You mean the 2.4 million spent to maintain valuable properties? (they don't just replace things like structural timbers because someone is moving in and they don't like the old wood).

The royals get paid a salary from the royal purse. Harry moved out of his official home to move in to this Frogmore place. If he wants to do that then he should use his own money to do any renovation.

Frogmore used to be split in to 5 properties that housed staff. Then harry and meghan saw it, had the staff move out, combined 5 in to 1 big property and now we're picking up the bill.

I have no problem with the main royals living the high life. The crowns bloodline is now William and his family.

I think the houses of parliament, a building built for a function, is more relevant to the people than this Frogmore place.

I would have thought the stories about the US tax man potentially probing the royal accounts would have made the Queen wary to become entangled in harry and meghans financial affairs.

 

[The_Abyss]

Apologies, S2P was indeed a historical initiative but was merely to illustrate the point that things can be added and removed from the payslip via opt-ins/outs i.e. they are not fixed in stone. The same is true of salary sacrifice, though its intended purpose is pre-tax based, again, my point (apologies if it was not made clear) was that is can be added and removed from month to month from the payslip without too much effort from the payroll dept.

You're missing the point though. 'Things can be added to the payslip without too much effort' but you're ignoring the other side of the equation in that there's a tangible benefit being accrued elsewhere - pension, childcare vouchers or whatever is relevant.

Regarding the benefits of opt-in, it may surprise you to learn this, but the tax system is not equal, it is designed to give the poor a leg up, and to tax the richest at a higher rate to spread the wealth around (redistribution) and changes ratios depending on who is in power, therefore if 30% opted into a Royal Super Tax, it would clearly benefit the remainder 70% too who chose to support their parents instead for example. This is a win win situation, as there is no point adding much more to those who already have hundreds of billions in assets unless you want to give your hard earned money away while you live frugally? It simply does not bear sense. Bill/Melinda Gates have already worked that one out, they also do not hunt for fun which is another plus point.

Similarly, I pay a unidirectional tax called council tax, but some people live in low crime neighbourhoods, and do not really benefit from the police, and some people do not have children but pay for other children's schools.

I'll ignore your sarcastic comment about being surprised about the tax system after I just reminded and corrected you about how part of it works.

You then go on to argue about how some taxes should be optional and how only the wealthy would be likely to support the royals through your tax. Then mumble something random about hunting.

Bur then you name council tax and unidirectional, and how it is paid irrespective of the benefits that the payers receive, using the example of how people in low crime neighbourhoods don't benefit from the police (questionable) and how others subsidise those with children.

Using your argument, can people opt out of paying for police in high crime areas, and for education for other people's kids if they don't have any of their own?

Please try to make sense of what you're proposing.

 

[Rroff]

The royals get paid a salary from the royal purse. Harry moved out of his official home to move in to this Frogmore place. If he wants to do that then he should use his own money to do any renovation.

Frogmore used to be split in to 5 properties that housed staff. Then harry and meghan saw it, had the staff move out, combined 5 in to 1 big property and now we're picking up the bill.

I have no problem with the main royals living the high life. The crowns bloodline is now William and his family.

I think the houses of parliament, a building built for a function, is more relevant to the people than this Frogmore place.

I would have thought the stories about the US tax man potentially probing the royal accounts would have made the Queen wary to become entangled in harry and meghans financial affairs.

I don't know the truth of it but supposedly there is a bit more behind the change of move to Frogmore than that.

 

[Cryogenic]

You're missing the point though. 'Things can be added to the payslip without too much effort' but you're ignoring the other side of the equation in that there's a tangible benefit being accrued elsewhere - pension, childcare vouchers or whatever is relevant.



I'll ignore your sarcastic comment about being surprised about the tax system after I just reminded and corrected you about how part of it works.

You then go on to argue about how some taxes should be optional and how only the wealthy would be likely to support the royals through your tax. Then mumble something random about hunting.

Bur then you name council tax and unidirectional, and how it is paid irrespective of the benefits that the payers receive, using the example of how people in low crime neighbourhoods don't benefit from the police (questionable) and how others subsidise those with children.

Using your argument, can people opt out of paying for police in high crime areas, and for education for other people's kids if they don't have any of their own?

Please try to make sense of what you're proposing.

Ok, to keep it simple, keep paying and maintain the status quo. What other option is there? Just don’t ask me to bow courtesy to anyone, or to fight for queen and country, just country, and for my fellow countrymen. They don’t own me.

 

[The_Abyss]

Ok, to keep it simple, keep paying and maintain the status quo. What other option is there? Just don’t ask me to bow courtesy to anyone, or to fight for queen and country, just country.

Are you actually being asked to bow or courtesy (good gender equality here) or fight for queen and country, or are you arguing on behalf of somebody else? Are you due to meet a member of the royal family soon, or go into combat?

 

[Cryogenic]

Are you actually being asked to bow or courtesy (good gender equality here) or fight for queen and country, or are you arguing on behalf of somebody else? Are you due to meet a member of the royal family soon, or go into combat?

Obviously not, but if I was your neighbour and kept showing off in my flash car. You would no doubt be ok with this too. And if I wore a flash suit, would you step aside for me every day? If so, hello neighbour

Good to have people under the thumb sometimes, would’t you say? After all money talks. Never mind the person behind it.. there is also a difference between earned and unearned wealth. Which do you respect more?

 

[Rroff]

there is also a difference between earned and unearned wealth. Which do you respect more?

What matters is the kind of person someone is not whether they earned or inherited their wealth. 9 times out of 10 people who get their knickers in a twist about unearned wealth are simply jealous nothing more or less.

 

[The_Abyss]

Obviously not, but if I was your neighbour and kept showing off in my flash car. You would no doubt be ok with this too. And if I wore a flash suit, would you step aside for me every day? If so, hello neighbour

Good to have people under the thumb sometimes, would’t you say? After all money talks. Never mind the person behind it.. there is also a difference between earned and unearned wealth. Which do you respect more?

The problem is in your head, and nowhere else.

If you're my neighbour and have a great car, then of course I expect to see it every day. If you have a flash suit then you have a flash suit - I'll hold the door open if I'm there first and if not then expect the same courtesy from you.

You're then going on to another ramble - last time it was something about hunting that you've ignored since. Are you trying to make the same or a different point? And another question back at you - why are you bothered about the source of wealth - earned or unearned? Why does one demand greater respect than another, and why does either? Isn't it more about the person than about what they have or the origins of what they have? How would you be judged through this lens, and your parents and your children?

What exactly is your problem? You're not articulating it terribly well but there's a risk of a certain direction...

 

[Teh_Next]

Not going to even entertain you, you're clearly just looking for an argument. It wasn't even you I called brainwashed, you quoted my message which was clearly for someone else just so you could take offence. Like I said, I never claimed to know it all, I just used common sense. Read the posts properly before getting on your high horse.

I'm out of this convo', carry on with your deluded vision that the Queen and Royal family are some evil lizard overlords or whatever. Enjoy.

You're not entertaining it because you can't. You did claim to know if all but, you just wouldn't because .. 'brainwashed' a recurring theme with you.

 

[Cryogenic]

The problem is in your head, and nowhere else.

If you're my neighbour and have a great car, then of course I expect to see it every day. If you have a flash suit then you have a flash suit - I'll hold the door open if I'm there first and if not then expect the same courtesy from you.

You're then going on to another ramble - last time it was something about hunting that you've ignored since. Are you trying to make the same or a different point? And another question back at you - why are you bothered about the source of wealth - earned or unearned? Why does one demand greater respect than another, and why does either? Isn't it more about the person than about what they have or the origins of what they have? How would you be judged through this lens, and your parents and your children?

What exactly is your problem? You're not articulating it terribly well but there's a risk of a certain direction...

Ok, fair enough.

 

[McBain]

Hang him!!!

 

[dirtybeatfreak]

You're not entertaining it because you can't. You did claim to know if all but, you just wouldn't because .. 'brainwashed' a recurring theme with you.

Ok, said I wasn't going to continue this, but I'll bite one more time.

You don't read posts very well do you? Or more likely you purposely ignore the bits that don't suit you.

Please quote me where I stated I knew it all? Or even that I stated I was correct over anyone else? The posts I have made are little bits of information which I have gained over several threads here at OCUK on this topic. That or are just what I feel is common sense (like I explained). Like I said, anyone with an ounce of common sense could do a quick google and find the actual facts out. I also even explained that.

What do you mean I can't entertain you? I already answered you before? I meant I'm not going to entertain you as it would be pointless,not that I don't have my own views on the subject, but that you just want to argue, just as you're proving. Please remind me what the question is/are which I cannot answer? The Crown estate thing? Again, like I said, it's easily searched and a quick read will give you the facts. Here's a link (as that seems a bit difficult for you) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate.

It's you that keeps going on about the brainwashed comment? I said it once, to someone else, which I have already told you the first time you brought it up. The guy I said it to then replied saying it must be the other way round but he didn't mean that offensively and I replied I didn't mean it like that too. You're the one bringing it up again, just so you can be offended over it, even though I have told you I didn't say it about you.

 

[Angilion]

My question: Would you bow to a Royal member who joined 1 hour ago? If not, why not?

If it was appropriate protocol for the particular situation, yes. My question: Why are you asking a question irrelevant to the text you're quoting? Bowing to someone does not mean that you see them as a living god. Far from it. The custom for that, at least in my cultural heritage, is at least kneeling on both knees and possibly completely prostate on your belly. Bowing is a far lesser thing, absolutely not for a "living god". Even in the days when people really believed that the monarch ruled by divine right and was the chosen of god, the most formal protocol was to go to one knee because the monarch was not a god. There are some cultures in which the ruler was regarded as a living god, but this was never one of them.

Head of state = current elected prime minister & standard expenses for the elected duty

One person can't do 2 jobs. If you made the PM head of state you would have to have someone else in another position to do some of the work the PM currently does plus some additional staff. You would not be reducing even the cost of security because you'd still have 2 people. In addition, there are additional costs for the head of state that would be completely unaffected by who did the job. Building maintainence, grounds maintainence, staffing costs, travel costs, diplomatic function costs. The cost savings of making the PM head of state would be at best minimal even if you were to steal the Queen's personal possessions (which you would have to do in order to avoid a huge increase in costs).

Not disputing the income side.

"I think that retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage matters."

This has to be a wind up, whilst previous generations lived in castles marrying into each others families with court jesters to keep them entertained. Your/my lineage was likely ploughing the field and living in a straw hut when men on horseback came to collect 'land tax' in coins. Not sure which part you want to remember about this exactly other than the threat of the gallows?

Both our lineages were more likely living in wattle and daub roundhouses (which are a quite sophisticated and very efficient method of construction in the circumstances that existed in the past), not "a straw hut". When the harvests were OK, their lives would have been OK for the time. The gap between them and the wealthy elite wasn't hugely different to how it is today. I am a peasant. The level of technology has changed and that has vastly improved everyone's lives, but I have to work more than my medieval peasant ancestors did to survive.

Perhaps you'd like to think of not being enslaved or murdered by whatever raiders attacked or by the followers of whoever was ruthless enough to have seized power in your locality? That usually didn't happen because the authorities enforced a reasonable degree of peace. Without that, it would have happened routinely.

Besides, "retaining some aspects of our own cultural heritage" does not mean "considering only the worst aspects of life in the past" or even "replicating all aspects of the past". It's largely ceremonial and symbolic. For example, the state opening of Parliament symbolises parliament's independence from the crown. That's an important part of this country's heritage. It's worth keeping.

 

[Angilion]

According to other sources in this thread, it seems we pay no income tax at all. Why then is the 50p a day per person bandied about by the media. [..]

Deceit to sell papers/views/clicks. Clickbait, essentially.

If you give me £100 and then I give you £15 of it back, a person could portray that as me giving you £15. That wouldn't technically be a lie, so they could get away with putting it in the media and claiming it's true.

 

[Teh_Next]

Ok, said I wasn't going to continue this, but I'll bite one more time.

You don't read posts very well do you? Or more likely you purposely ignore the bits that don't suit you.

Please quote me where I stated I knew it all? Or even that I stated I was correct over anyone else? The posts I have made are little bits of information which I have gained over several threads here at OCUK on this topic. That or are just what I feel is common sense (like I explained). Like I said, anyone with an ounce of common sense could do a quick google and find the actual facts out. I also even explained that.

What do you mean I can't entertain you? I already answered you before? I meant I'm not going to entertain you as it would be pointless,not that I don't have my own views on the subject, but that you just want to argue, just as you're proving. Please remind me what the question is/are which I cannot answer? The Crown estate thing? Again, like I said, it's easily searched and a quick read will give you the facts. Here's a link (as that seems a bit difficult for you) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate.

It's you that keeps going on about the brainwashed comment? I said it once, to someone else, which I have already told you the first time you brought it up. The guy I said it to then replied saying it must be the other way round but he didn't mean that offensively and I replied I didn't mean it like that too. You're the one bringing it up again, just so you can be offended over it, even though I have told you I didn't say it about you.

A wiki link, is that it?
Mind blown. You truly are the expert.