• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives lifting austerity for state funded benefits?

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I love all these disingenuous 'she's actually really cheap and great value' people that the press always manage to drag out.
Click to expand...

I'm a republican (small r) at heart but for some reason I've gone right off the idea of having an elected president as head of state instead of a monarch...;)
 
Darat said:
Hopefully this is a sign of things to come:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

An 8% raise won't bring benefits to where they would have been if they been raised in line with inflation over the "austerity" years but it will be a start.
Click to expand...

"Crown Estates to be taxed slightly less heavily than 85%" doesn't have quite the same ring.
 
theprestige said:
What does it mean, to tax Crown Estates?
Click to expand...
The Crown Estate is the land owned by the Crown that is neither the personal property of the monarch, nor that of the government. By centuries old agreement, though, the government gets the income from them, and kicks back the Sovereign Grant - currently 15% of the income - to the monarch. Until the previous agreement the monarch got all the income, but was responsible for a lot of state expenditure, especially military. It isn't an actual tax, but figuratively the Crown Estate is therefore taxed at 85%.

The extra money - which is actually quite small compared to the Sovereign Grant and the Crown Estate income - is for essential and long-deferred - maintenance work to the Occupied Royal Palaces, the cost of which by long-standing agreement falls to the government, not the Sovereign Grant. The Occupied Royal Palaces include Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not the personal properties of the Queen (e.g. Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House). Suggesting that the extra money is going to the Queen would be a bit like saying that the US President was personally receiving or benefitting from X million dollars earmarked for refurbishing the White House.
 
Information Analyst said:
Suggesting that the extra money is going to the Queen would be a bit like saying that the US President was personally receiving or benefitting from X million dollars earmarked for refurbishing the White House.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison, the US President has a limited term of use of the Whitehouse and doesn't get to pass the privilege on to their offspring. I agree that it is not personal property but neither is it public in the way that the White House, Downing Street or Chequers is, in the sense that occupation is avaliable to anyone, provided they can get the job.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I don't think that's an entirely fair comparison, the US President has a limited term of use of the Whitehouse and doesn't get to pass the privilege on to their offspring. I agree that it is not personal property but neither is it public in the way that the White House, Downing Street or Chequers is, in the sense that occupation is avaliable to anyone, provided they can get the job.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't a fair comparison. There is nothing to compare with our ridiculously costing monarchy in any comparable country. It is a shame that people accept the fantasy of divine rule in this day and age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom