Something going on in Parliament - RIP QE2

[ladymuck]

Tax arrangements I don't really have an issue with as that's what all rich people can afford to do.

What I am uncomfortable with, which the Grauniad ran some articles on over the past year or more, is the way the Royal Family are able to influence and amend legislation and therefore have themselves exempted from many laws that affect their interests.

I prefer our head of state to be a member of the royal family, as a ceremonial figurehead who can be consulted and provide advice from a position of independence. I don't think that status should give them the right to have laws changed to better suit them. Queen's Consent (or King's as it will be now be known) looks harmless as a lovely bit of tradition and that's all it should be - however, the reality is somewhat different.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...queens-consent

[WTFH]

IMO it's ludicrous the royal family pay tax anyway, don't they do so as a voluntary gesture or have I got that wrong?

Their private business enterprises - or whatever you want to call them - e.g. Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster, they have been known to use off-shore investment schemes.
The royals do voluntarily pay tax on some earnings, but not on others.

Oh, and the Duchess of Sussex has US companies registered in the US, so that should get a few hot under the collar.

[northernladuk]

IMO it's ludicrous the royal family pay tax anyway, don't they do so as a voluntary gesture or have I got that wrong?

They don't personally profit from what they do in Royal duties and I think paying tax is a gesture to be in keeping with the common folk which is understandable. More symbolic than reflecting real income and all that. That said they do have personal income from estates and many other things. I believe Prince Charles paid nearly £6M on his private income alone though so difficult to argue they don't pay in. Does that get paid for by the public purse in some way shape or form? Possibly but bearing in mind the numbers below it's nothing more than phyric victory to argue it

Hard to nail down the finances of royalty but there are some figures banding around that they contributed 1.9 billion to the British Economy in mainly tangible ways and that figure must be far bigger when considering other intangible activities that lead to money generation further down the tree. Doesn't matter how accurate the numbers it is nowhere near the £86M they cost so it's a pointless argument. There has also been a hell of a lot of work over the last period to reduce this with no Royal Yacht, Trains and reduction in paid monarchy so they are listening and making a lot of moves.

I think it's a waste of time talking about how much they pay in taxes, take from the purse etc when looking at a 1.9 Billion income vs 86 Million cost. Anyone suggesting the Monarchy is a drain on the Uk finances need their heads examining.

You can be for or against the monarchy but you cannot argue fact they are good for the UK economy as a whole.

[d000hg]

Just watched a little bit of the lying in state on BBC iPlayer - enough to see the flow of people and the changing of the guard that happens every 20 minutes. I can see how people would find it moving.

I would imagine if you were insomniac or similar this could be a very soothing thing to have on the small hours, quite compelling. I'd also want to keep watching for any oddballs (there must be some) or people who refuse to move on and want to recite a 30 page speech. I'm sure somebody is compiling 'highlights' and we'll see it in a Monday List in future.

I'd not give him a break for his off-shoring of businesses to avoid tax

What about brief-cases of dirty cash?

IMO it's ludicrous the royal family pay tax anyway, don't they do so as a voluntary gesture or have I got that wrong?

[Zigenare]

Is setting up an off-shore company to reduce your contributions to the UK immoral?
What if it's only the very wealthy that do it, is it OK, particularly if no one else has the funds to do it?

If a family receive £100million in benefits from UK taxpayers, but then set up their own businesses off-shore so they don't pay tax, could anyone sense that wasn't necessarily a moral way of doing things?

What family would that be? The same family that paid £340million in tax?

[Paddy]

Is setting up an off-shore company to reduce your contributions to the UK immoral?
What if it's only the very wealthy that do it, is it OK, particularly if no one else has the funds to do it?

If a family receive £100million in benefits from UK taxpayers, but then set up their own businesses off-shore so they don't pay tax, could anyone sense that wasn't necessarily a moral way of doing things?

These offshore loopholes have been largely closed in the EU hence why the rush to get Brexit done.

[WTFH]

So not paying more tax than you are legally obliged to is "immoral"?

Are you immoral or do you volunteer to pay more tax than you are legally required to?

Is setting up an off-shore company to reduce your contributions to the UK immoral?
What if it's only the very wealthy that do it, is it OK, particularly if no one else has the funds to do it?

If a family receive £100million in benefits from UK taxpayers, but then set up their own businesses off-shore so they don't pay tax, could anyone sense that wasn't necessarily a moral way of doing things?

[Zigenare]

It is immoral if you champion causes that are paid for by the public purse.

So not paying more tax than you are legally obliged to is "immoral"?

Are you immoral or do you volunteer to pay more tax than you are legally required to?

[TheDude]

Why, is that illegal?

It is immoral if you champion causes that are paid for by the public purse.

[ladymuck]

Just watched a little bit of the lying in state on BBC iPlayer - enough to see the flow of people and the changing of the guard that happens every 20 minutes. I can see how people would find it moving.