You said “the big thing i want is the opt OUT “
Off Topic Trevor Sinclair
- Thread starter Oliver's Army
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Think it’s a dangerous game to hand pick your preferences in the tax system, they are plenty of organisations and government departments that don’t effect or make my life better but i accept its part of the system
Easy. Like a donation to the national trust. Those who love the pomp ceremony and to support their lavish lifestyle can pay, those who don’t won’t. Like a tick on your council tax or when you start a company. It’s dead easy really. The flag shaggers tax.
Easy ffs? Don’t you help inner city people who are under privileged,doesn’t effect me but I wouldn’t opt out of contributing to their cause, and what about the old chestnut of illegal immigration would you condemn me if I opted out of funding for them if I follow your model of funding
They don’t earn 21m off one estate and more so it’s hardly a realistic comparison. I’ve never had a stalker before. Nice to meet you Vic.
Complex business!
But clearly too many go, and too many come out with degrees which are not being looked for by good employers.
As for apprenticeships, they might not be well thought of by some, particularly a blinkered blob in the educational establishment, but certainly in technical trades, and others, they are very well thought of by those who complete them.
One of my sons did one. No debt, early twenties , and already earning more than the average salary for a graduate who has been finished uni for a number of years.
Anyone thinking of doing one, or has family thinking that way, should definitely take it seriously.
There is much talk now among professionals about having their children enter " TINA" jobs or professions. ( There Is No Alternative). What they mean is that say a dentist, or a doctor, or a plumber, electrician or hairdresser etc, etc is much harder to do away with by a speedy change in technology and patterns of working.
They are right.
There you go,no answer’s, fukc off then you bitter hypercritical fraud
The simple answer is stop funding them and let them live off their huge estate. I’m offering an opportunity for those who love to see them live an opulent lifestyle and pay off their families sexual exploitation allegations during a world economic crisis an opportunity to chip in, I presume you’ll be putting your hand in your pocket without question.
C
Chunksafc
Guest
You do realise it costs you about 90p a year to pay for the royal family?
I’ll chip in my taxes anytime not a problem, no matter where they end up, you are the one who is discriminating
C
Chunksafc
Guest
Just checked and it's actually £1.29 per person, per year
Who would you spend 345 million on at this point plus the billions Cost on the events, bank holidays etc The multi millionaires with multiple palaces and estates or those not able to switch heating on? https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals
C
Chunksafc
Guest
It's on the Bloomberg website, all broken down based on the published figures
the whole cost thing is a ridiculous argument when you break it down like that. I must say, I've never been a big royalist (whilst respecting the one we had), but if we could remove a few of the distasteful ones from the background then I think I'm probably in favour of it continuing as a symbol for this country.
C
Chunksafc
Guest
Personally I'd rather not be spending the 3.2 billion pound on HS2 and putting that to better use
C
Chunksafc
Guest
I must say, I've never been a big royalist (whilst respecting the one we had), but if we could remove a few of the distasteful ones from the background then I think I'm probably in favour of it continuing as a symbol for this country.
I was just pointing out the cost to add some balance to the discussion.
Personally I don't see how getting rid of the monarchy would help those that most need it, there are a lot of things before them that would have a greater effect
I've said this before- quoting Republic's website on how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer is pointless. I mean, it's not like they've got an agenda or anything.
What organisations like Republic fail to acknowledge is that, even without the Monarchy, we'd still have a head of state. The head of state would require a residence and security. They would have a family who would also require security. There would still be state events. Through analogy with other republics we could anticipate that former heads of states would continue to have security once their term in office was over and might have some kind of state funded pension, which is likely to be substantial.
All of this would be paid for by the taxpayer. Its unlikely, however, that any elected head of state would be able to make the same contribution to the cost that the Royal Family do through their land holdings. Its also unlikely that the state events would attract the same level of interest without the Royal Family and so the economic boosts that such events provide would be lost (conservative estimates suggest that the money generated by the Platinum Jubilee was many times more than the cost to the tax payer of staging it).
On top of all that, we would lose all of the diplomatic leverage that having the world's most recognised and respected Royal Family gives. And we would lose all of the historical significance of the events, places, and traditions surrounding the Royal family which are an integral part of the national identity- which I think is more valuable than mere money.
What organisations like Republic fail to acknowledge is that, even without the Monarchy, we'd still have a head of state. The head of state would require a residence and security. They would have a family who would also require security. There would still be state events. Through analogy with other republics we could anticipate that former heads of states would continue to have security once their term in office was over and might have some kind of state funded pension, which is likely to be substantial.
All of this would be paid for by the taxpayer. Its unlikely, however, that any elected head of state would be able to make the same contribution to the cost that the Royal Family do through their land holdings. Its also unlikely that the state events would attract the same level of interest without the Royal Family and so the economic boosts that such events provide would be lost (conservative estimates suggest that the money generated by the Platinum Jubilee was many times more than the cost to the tax payer of staging it).
On top of all that, we would lose all of the diplomatic leverage that having the world's most recognised and respected Royal Family gives. And we would lose all of the historical significance of the events, places, and traditions surrounding the Royal family which are an integral part of the national identity- which I think is more valuable than mere money.
Just on the last little bit of your post, I reckon there are millions and millions of people around the world, including leaders of nations btw, who are looking at this ceremonial stuff happening here and how its all organised with military precision and to the nth degree with all the history behind it and I bet they are thinking 'Aye, they've ****ing nailed this'.
Apart from Trevor Sinclair of course.
There is of course the ultimate opt out for those that really can't stand living in a monarchy, go live in france, or the states, and so on.
At the very least, show decorum, shut the f*** up til this is over.
At the very least, show decorum, shut the f*** up til this is over.
- Status