Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers

⁨71⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨thehatfox@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨unitedkingdom@feddit.uk⁩

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Emperor@feddit.uk ⁨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.”

    source
  • Syldon@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
    • thehatfox@lemmy.world ⁨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.

      source
  • Melpomene@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Doesn't a pay raise suggest that there's some sort of work involved? Call it what it is... royal welfare.

    source
    • damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      We’ll be does do some stuff.

      I don’t necessarily think we need for your family but at the same time there’s so many fuxked up things in this country to get worked up, about I just can’t really bring myself to be all that bothered.

      source
  • anteaters@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source
    • G4Z@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source
      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
        [deleted]
        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Skua@kbin.social ⁨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.

      source
    • FatLegTed@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      £350 million?

      That would look good on the side of a bus 🤔

      source
  • rayquetzalcoatl@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Get a job you fucking leeches, the rest of us have to

    source
  • Baggers@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Evidently a lot of monarchy haters here and the downvotes suggest that facts won’t change entrenched opinions.

    That’s a shame because facts are facts:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

    source
    • Skua@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ahh, the video that says the British castles are more attractive to American tourists than French ones literally as it shows a picture of a monastery in famously republican and world number one tourist destination France as the "awesome" UK one. While we're on the topic of facts being facts, the Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch as claimed in the video and my source on that is the Crown Estate. The other argument is "oh the name of the country would be weird if we got rid of the monarchy and then also changed the country's name to something weird".

      We could, if we wanted, literally just decide that the monarch is to be democratically elected and is otherwise still called king or queen and still gets the fancy outfits and a justification to keep the name the same. They're our laws.

      source
      • the_inebriati@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        We could, if we wanted, literally just decide

        This is basically what it comes down to.

        Unless you’re worried about Charlie sailing to France to raise a mercenary army, we can assume he’ll do exactly what he’s told.

        Even if the Crown Estate was his personal property (which it isn’t) - parliament is sovereign and there’s more of us than him. We could just take it from him.

        God, I hope long enough to see a Great British Republic.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • rubberkeys@freeradical.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      @Baggers @thehatfox

      That video is utter rubbish. Here's every point refuted:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U

      source
    • the_inebriati@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I swear every monarchy-loving flag-shagger bases their entire personality off the same 4 minute, 12-year-old poorly researched youtube video.

      No, Charlie Boy would not get to keep the Crown Estate were we to evict him.

      source
    • damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I miss r/casualUK where everyone nas more normal.

      source
      • Hogger85b@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        There is !ukcasual a pretty active c with same vibe

        source
      • G4Z@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        That sub is shite.

        source
      • HaunchesTV@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The “no politics” rule on the sub really only stopped the flag nonces from piping up. They were there, I’m sure.

        source
  • FatLegTed@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    Poor old sod.

    source