- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Kate Middletons baby
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Kate Middletons baby"
Collapse
-
I must admit that I think that black Labrador dogs are cute. Accidents of birth not so...
-
Australian TV has got it right - another bloody unemployable oik to sponge off the state
Leave a comment:
-
No the Crown Estate is owned by the Crown (the clue is in the name), but George III surrendered inturn for an income (the Civil List), the Queen is perfectly in her right to take it back, or basically do anything she wants but she concedes matter of state to the elected government of the day, which is still Her Majesty's Government.Originally posted by VectraMan View Post15% of £210m isn't nothing. The Crown Estate is owned by the state, not the monarch, so in effect it's still a gift to the monarch from the taxpayer for no reason other than who she happens to be related to.
Leave a comment:
-
15% of £210m isn't nothing. The Crown Estate is owned by the state, not the monarch, so in effect it's still a gift to the monarch from the taxpayer for no reason other than who she happens to be related to.Originally posted by SimonMac View PostAs I pointed out the Monarchy doesn't get any money from the tax payer, the Duchy or Lancashire and Cornwall earn a private income which they pay tax on, the Crown Estate makes a profit which is payed to the Treasury (£210m in the last full year account available) which the Royal Family are allowed to keep 15%.
Leave a comment:
-
we need to keep the monarchy as otherwise the only represetatives of the UK abroad would be the shister politicians,
Love or hate the monarchy they certainly help project a decent image when abroad.
Leave a comment:
-
Stick a BK, McD and a Dunkin' Donuts in there and more will come.Originally posted by VectraMan View PostAlso cobblers. How do they bring a boost to the economy? The fact we have had a monarchy, and all the history that goes with that brings in money, but all those American tourists won't stop coming to see Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London etc. just because we don't have a current monarch.
Leave a comment:
-
Saying tourism wouldn't be affected is ludicrous. Old palaces are tourist destinations in countries which renounced their monarchies, but in nowhere near the same way. For simple reasons of celebrity, the royal family add a massive draw to the buildings and history.
Or did you not notice Will & Kate's wedding and baby were bigger news in the USA than here?
Leave a comment:
-
As I pointed out the Monarchy doesn't get any money from the tax payer, the Duchy or Lancashire and Cornwall earn a private income which they pay tax on, the Crown Estate makes a profit which is payed to the Treasury (£210m in the last full year account available) which the Royal Family are allowed to keep 15%.Originally posted by VectraMan View PostPresumably that's like saying 70% of us Christians, which of course is complete cobblers in reality, most just fit into that wishy washy not really sure bracket.
I suppose it depends exactly what you mean by "monarchy". I object to them having any part in the operation of the state, and certainly object to them being given a whole load of tax payers money when they're already stinking rich. So remove the monarch as head of state, stop giving them cash (unless they do work for the state which is different), but The Queen can still be The Queen.
Also cobblers. How do they bring a boost to the economy? The fact we have had a monarchy, and all the history that goes with that brings in money, but all those American tourists won't stop coming to see Buckingham Palace, The Tower of London etc. just because we don't have a current monarch.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Business expenses: What IT contractors can and cannot claim from HMRC Yesterday 08:44
- April’s umbrella PAYE risk: how contractors’ end-clients are prepping Jan 29 05:45
- How EV tax changes of 2025-2028 add up for contractor limited company directors Jan 28 08:11
- Under the terms he was shackled by, Ray McCann’s Loan Charge Review probably is a fair resolution Jan 27 08:41
- Contractors, a £25million crackdown on rogue company directors is coming Jan 26 05:02
- How to run a contractor limited company — efficiently. Part one: software Jan 22 23:31
- Forget February as an MSC contractor seeking clarity, and maybe forget fairness altogether Jan 22 19:57
- What contractors should take from Honest Payroll Ltd’s failure Jan 21 07:05
- HMRC tax avoidance list ‘proves promoters’ nothing-to-lose mentality’ Jan 20 09:17
- Digital ID won’t be required for Right To Work, but more compulsion looms Jan 19 07:41



Leave a comment: