Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
the direct line, I mean. Who would the queen be without her jewels and tiaras and palaces? Just another old lady. |
That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?
Anonymous
Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them. |
Anonymous
Well, no shit. Are these your deep thoughts of the day? You sound like an idiot. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| Imagine how many more royals there would be if Charles and William had children at 23, like QEII. |
Anonymous
That’s why the tax payer pays instead. |
Anonymous
QEII only has 4 kids? Maybe you mean Victoria. She had 9 kids. As I recall the adjusted-inflation for each of their allowances until she managed to marry them off out of country was $1 million a year. Andrew must be pissed - $300K is (or was) a steep decline. |
Anonymous
This is what most people *in America* due given specific things in the US Tax Code…which I have no idea if that is the case i the UK. In particular, given the step up in basis at death you can actually have sizable proceeds to split. If the basis in the property was what it was in the hands of the deceased (usually what they paid for it) people would likely hold on to items for a longer amount of time. Why should the second tier royals be taxed any differently from anyone else? 1) there are other aristocrats whose families are older than the BRF and they have to follow the same tax rules as everyone else (2) they’ve had the benefit of having access to the wealth that comes with being royalty for generations. If they can’t make enough money to be able to keep these items despite all those advantages then them having to sell it is natural selection. |
Anonymous
You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year. They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue. |
Anonymous
You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals. The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people. |
Anonymous
You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though. |
Anonymous
No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think. |
Anonymous
|
Good note on the remaining EU monarchies
|
Anonymous
|
This is the one relevant to the UK
|
Anonymous
NP here. I couldn’t listen. The narrator’s voice is like nails on a chalkboard. |