OT: Oh no, not politics again (PLEASE DON'T LOOK IF EASILY OFFENDED)

[JoePass]

It quickly becomes a political point all by itself - a fair amount of that untaxed money comes back as contributions to the tory party coffers

I have no problem with that.

[sidders]

Everything you say is true but Sid and his mate BFP want to turn it into a political point scoring as usual.

sidders sidders is online now
Hall Of Fame
Join Date
Mar 2017
Posts
862
Quote Originally Posted by SmiffyPie View Post
They're all in the trough, just as many Lab as Con at it. As would any on here posting about it if they had the dosh to make it worthwhile.
Smiffy, this is not a Labour v Conservative issue.

Are you blind by intention or nature, 1961?

[seriouspie]

I am really thick so if you could explain that would be great.

I haven't either the time or inclination to trawl through masses of figures as I am not a qualified accountant or economist. However to simplify things we can establish the Royals don't actually EARN money as we know it, but GENERATE cash into our economy in various ways. (1) Tourism to London and other places connected to the Monarchy (2) Income derived from the Duchy's of Cornwall and Lancaster (3) Clothing brands worn by Kate and the children have seen their profits soar resulting in more tax being paid on their profits. (4) Income from rents and other land charges owned by the Monarchy etc. So these are only four examples of cash being generated. It would appear however that the Royals do get a load of free gratis cash taken from this income but the amount left over is considerable, and what is left the Royal family pay a voluntary tax upon, this being approximately the same percentage as income tax. There are other things but from what I understand, the tax paid by the Queen and her family (although voluntary) still runs into hundreds of thousands plus the 'invisible' cash generated to others which in turn has tax going into the economy.

[SmiffyPie]

sidders sidders is online now
Hall Of Fame
Join Date
Mar 2017
Posts
862
Quote Originally Posted by SmiffyPie View Post
They're all in the trough, just as many Lab as Con at it. As would any on here posting about it if they had the dosh to make it worthwhile.
Smiffy, this is not a Labour v Conservative issue.

Are you blind by intention or nature, 1961?

Why are you quoting post 18 (which isn't point scoring and if it was it would be 1-1) Yet ignore the last sentence of post3 !! "Sadly there is no political will, why would the Tories want to annoy it's best-paying donors and friends in the media." which is point scoring? Very selective.

[seriouspie]

sidders sidders is online now
Hall Of Fame
Join Date
Mar 2017
Posts
862
Quote Originally Posted by SmiffyPie View Post
They're all in the trough, just as many Lab as Con at it. As would any on here posting about it if they had the dosh to make it worthwhile.
Smiffy, this is not a Labour v Conservative issue.

Are you blind by intention or nature, 1961?

Hey Conchie ....... Chris Grant died last week. You wouldn't have been taught your views by Chris, that's for sure.

[navypie]

[QUOTE=BigFatPie;38699918]I am really thick

No arguments here.

[JoePass]

[QUOTE=navypie;38699988]

I am really thick

No arguments here.

Rule Britannia. God save the Queen. A pox on Momentum.

[sidders]

Why are you quoting post 18 (which isn't point scoring and if it was it would be 1-1) Yet ignore the last sentence of post3 !! "Sadly there is no political will, why would the Tories want to annoy it's best-paying donors and friends in the media." which is point scoring? Very selective.

Sorry for not making it clearer, Smiffy. I was trying to show the imaginatively named '1961' that, like you, I did not regard this as a party political split. He had said I was merely trying to make political capital out of it. Not aimed at you, mate.

[sidders]

Hey Conchie ....... Chris Grant died last week. You wouldn't have been taught your views by Chris, that's for sure.

I'm unsure what on earth Conchie means but I quite like it so go ahead. Very sorry to hear about CG. He was a good man and taught the atheistic me (as I was then) about RE and the Bible. At that time I was actually a Young Conservative so he would have been okay with that. All the smart talent in Newark went there, you see. Then I saw the error of my ways and helped to found Newark Young Socialists.
I always thought of him as a decent bloke and a top batsman. Not the kind of chap to write somebody off because they had a different political perspective.

[BigFatPie]

I haven't either the time or inclination to trawl through masses of figures as I am not a qualified accountant or economist. However to simplify things we can establish the Royals don't actually EARN money as we know it, but GENERATE cash into our economy in various ways. (1) Tourism to London and other places connected to the Monarchy (2) Income derived from the Duchy's of Cornwall and Lancaster (3) Clothing brands worn by Kate and the children have seen their profits soar resulting in more tax being paid on their profits. (4) Income from rents and other land charges owned by the Monarchy etc. So these are only four examples of cash being generated. It would appear however that the Royals do get a load of free gratis cash taken from this income but the amount left over is considerable, and what is left the Royal family pay a voluntary tax upon, this being approximately the same percentage as income tax. There are other things but from what I understand, the tax paid by the Queen and her family (although voluntary) still runs into hundreds of thousands plus the 'invisible' cash generated to others which in turn has tax going into the economy.

You’d have defended the feudal system and serfdom on the grounds it got people fed and gave them somewhere to live. How grateful we all should be that the bloodsuckers “voluntarily” pay some tax on income that they haven’t lifted a finger to earn.

Now the weird son has been caught stashing it away as well. The aristocracy laugh their tits off at the likes of you serious.