Forum menu
Strontium Dog Avenue?
@grum various news reports and govt figures, from memory Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea provided 10% of stamp duty and that was before the recent doubling of top rate stamp duty which is highly applicable to central London (note it will be seen how effective it is as post the rise property market activity has fallen significNtly, you can now rent for 6 years before you match stamp duty cost). London has by far the highest concentration of high paid jobs so consistent with top 1% paying 27% of the taxes it makes a jumbo contribution. As is normal and as it should but it needs to be understood and recognised by those outside the South East.
Edit: whether its 2 boroughs or 10 in London the point is still the same. London pays the bills
I find it bizarre how much so many of you resent, and even despise, the Head of State. All democracies have one - often unelected - and as far as I can tell, pretty much only Brits actually get that bothered by it.
The alternative, of course, is a demagogue whom we can 'elect', and merely devolving the privilege to a different unelected elite - such as Hollywood stars and Wall Street moguls.
Rest assured that hierarchy and privilege will always exist. It just depends on who gets it.
I, for one, would rather have a family bound by constitutional responsibility than an unknown quantity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_heads_of_state
A bit of moaning is the least of her worries.
What @Saxon says. France may be a republic but each town has a Mayor who have a town hall many of which look like a Palace. The President is treated like Royalty with no questions asked about his behaviour. We have far more scruitiny of our Royal family than do they of "theirs". Most bizarre.
pretty much only Brits actually get that bothered by it.
Statistics would suggest the opposite, it is just this site is full of republican misanthropes.
[quote=jambalaya ]London has by far the highest concentration of high paid jobs so consistent with top 1% paying 27% of the taxes it makes a jumbo contribution.
Sure, but how much of the spending does it take? Are you including the cost to the country of the financial crisis in that?
Are you including the cost to the country of the financial crisis in that?
How are you calculating that?
They did this with the New Southern General Hospital in Govan. The name was unexpectedly changed by a few senior NHS directors at a non-minuted meeting to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. There was no wider Health Board or public consultation. Over 10,000 people signed a petition seeking reversal, over £50,000 had to be spent altering NHS signs, maps and stationery. Local bus and taxi companies were similarly affected.
No reason whatsoever, beyond some lickspittle sucking up to Lizzie Windsor.
The President is treated like Royalty with no questions asked about his behaviour.
Actually, the entire French nation asks about his behaviour, and he has to leave office if they say so.
Coronation Street? Albert Square?
Where will the madness end?
Will no-one think of the corgis?
All you anti-monarchists, would you really prefer President Blair?
"Are you including the cost to the country of the financial crisis in that?"
Want that caused by that rocky bank in Newcastle and them there dodgy Scottish banks?
Whats that got to do with them there London tax thieves.
Now if we had a Free Yorkshire (an it better be cheap), we'd not have to be concerned with Lizzie an your other offcumbners.
It's interesting that the same people who think we should have an elected head of state are often the same who bemoan the state of politics.
President Blair - yeah, right, he'd be a shoe in.
All you anti-monarchists, would you really prefer President Blair?
Do all you royalists have so little imagination?
Rest assured that hierarchy and privilege will always exist. It just depends on who gets it.
what a sad satement
I dont think you have to be a communist
to think that this is an insult to common decency
that the queen gets >£30 million a year from the taxpayer plus some lickspittle politicians naming a trainline after her
meanwhile in teh rest of mega rich london half a million children live below the poverty line and social care, libraries, councils schools etc have seen a sustained assault on their funding
IHN - Member
It's interesting that the same people who think we should have an elected head of state are often the same who bemoan the state of politics.
nah it should be a national lottery, everyone gets to a chance to live in the royal palaces for a year! 😆
Any Royal Scott biscuits to enjoy this one with.....?
they could make it free to travel, just a tug of the forelock lets you through.
[quote=IHN ]It's interesting that the same people who think we should have an elected head of state are often the same who bemoan the state of politics.
true but, for all its ill, an elected head of state TRUMPS all other options 😉
grum - MemberAny source for the jambafacts?
The source for the #grumfact in your post being?
Middenface McNulty Mews?
Here you go retro83.
Mind you unlike jamba I don't have a reputation for continually being wrong/making things up - and lo and behold he has 'his memory' as a source.
steady there Grum there is no place for a fact based evidence led approach to debate on STW.
I dont think you have to be a communist
to think that this is an insult to common decency
that the queen gets >£30 million a year from the taxpayer plus some lickspittle politicians naming a trainline after her
meanwhile in teh rest of mega rich london half a million children live below the poverty line and social care, libraries, councils schools etc have seen a sustained assault on their funding
I think you're right. EXCEPT...
while I wouldn't argue with the desirability of reform to how the Head of State gets remunerated, an extra £30 million in the government's coffers is hardly going to eliminate child poverty. But if it really did make a difference, then - as I say - by all means make cuts to pay.
That said, it's not like that £30 million is her personal fortune that she can use to buy gold-wrapped McLarens or anything. Whoever wears the crown is always on duty, even when on holiday, and knows nothing of privacy or even of private decisions. So the queen gets to shop at Fortnum and Mason's while the rest of go to Tesco. Big deal. What of all those wastrels whose only claim to fame and fortune is that they are the sons and daughters of celebs and socialites with shampoo advertising deals? They're also enjoying great privilege, and yet they are doing so with no constraints, in often the most vulgar ways.
It's no accident these people are often referred to as 'royalty':
[img] 
[/img]
I just find it ironic that we malign a pretty well-functioning political system for certain imperfections, when some of those same perceived imperfections are practically celebrated in other areas of society.
Eg, the regressive tax system that is Association Football!!
Bit of a gender biased pay gap there eh?
Whoever wears the crown is always on duty, even when on holiday, and knows nothing of privacy or even of private decisions.
No-one is forced to do it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family
It's not just the £38 million she gets, it's the nippers as well, plus the 1/2 Billion she's amassed as her "personal wealth".
it's not like that £30 million is her personal fortune that she can use to buy gold-wrapped McLarens or anything.
Agreed her personal wealth is way more than £30 million- Times has it at £340 for 2015
Whoever wears the crown is always on duty, even when on holiday, and knows nothing of privacy
I know those 6 weeks she just spent in Norfolk were so busy for her and so intrusive on that massive estate of hers where she knows nothing of privacy.
By all means say why you support them , and its fair to say she has strange life, is in the public eye and is often very busy but that is a bit OTT
As for the actors. I dont think they deserve what they get paid but the critical difference is they get it due to their own talents rather than because who their mum and dad are.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Eg, the regressive tax system that is Association Football!!
Is it just snobbery of the working classes that makes you object to the market in this area?Clearly you dont GAS about high pay or talent getting what the market will support[ you love it ] so why do you keep bringing this up? and you say I troll 😕
yeah its a tough old life being royalty, I imagine Prince Geroge will be dead at 50 from miners lung 🙄
It's not just the £38 million she gets, it's the nippers as well, plus the 1/2 Billion she's amassed as her "personal wealth".
Quite.
Perhaps we could solve some of the housing crisis by building on some of the land that the royals "own".
Build a few schemes on Balmoral for starters... 🙂
my cousin and her husband live in Maidenhead. They're very excited about [s]crossrail[/s] The Queen Elizabeth Line, as it'll reduce their commuting time.
Which, at around 30mins currently, is considered a huge inconvenience. and thoroughly deserving of £15Billion.
Despite being an anti-royalist, this comes as a relief - I was expecting it to be called the Boris Line, in keeping with his campaign to take credit for improving the lives of Londoners while in fact screwing them over at every opportunity.
Rogue Trooper Boulevard?
while I wouldn't argue with the desirability of reform to how the Head of State gets remunerated
It was in the last parliament, it is now linked to the income of the Crown Estate at a set percentage, the remainder of the income goes to the public purse. We could have a bicycling monarch like the Dutch, the only problem being they are even more expensive and have greater personal wealth.
[quote=Junkyard ]As for the actors. I dont think they deserve what they get paid but the critical difference is they get it due to their own talents rather than because who their mum and dad are.
Brooklyn Beckham?
I think you may have cherry picked the most expensive royal household in Europe- who only recently overtook ours- to overstate your point.
I am also not sure they are actually personally wealthier than ours. Not sure it matters as we can all agree they are al very very wealthy
As for the actors. I dont think they deserve what they get paid but the critical difference is they get it due to their own talents rather than because who their mum and dad are.
Even if some of the children [url= http://www.imdb.com/list/ls004897708/ ]listed here[/url] have gone on to do things in their own right, I am pretty sure that their starts were made significantly easier on the basis of who their parent(s) were.
And again, whereas all these people are pretty free to make good and bad choices with their wealth, I would argue that our royalty is not. At least not in the same way. So yes, the queen's net worth may be many many millions, but what does that even mean? She still has to live within some very strict parameters that the rest of us are free from.
Again, it may not be a perfect system, but I just don't think the imbalance is as gross as you're suggesting.
Even if some of the children listed here have gone on to do things in their own right, I am pretty sure that their starts were made significantly easier on the basis of who their parent(s) were.
Sure, but if you're arguing for a meritocracy, are you in favour of 100% inheritance tax?
She still has to live within some very strict parameters that the rest of us are free from.
Again, no-one is forcing her to be Queen.
How about 0% inheritance tax? much better idea all round
Again, no-one is forcing her to be Queen.
She comes from a family that has been dedicated to their national duty for generations. When King Edward VIII abdicated, he was seen as a disgrace and sent into exile.
It may not be something we post-moderns think that highly of, but it is still a guiding principle to some.
grum - MemberHere you go retro83.
Wow that's a pretty impressive disparity 😯
Considering that was just before the Olympics, hopefully there is less of a difference now, but I can't find any data. All the articles seem to be referencing that same 2011 study.
Do all you royalists have so little imagination?
It's an example, ffs. If we had a presidential election tomorrow, who do you think would be standing? And who would get elected? And exactly how would that make you personally better off?
I'm not a massive fan of royalty, but I really don't see that the alternatives are any more appealing. It's also true that the British Royal Family(TM) attracts a reasonable proportion of our tourist business - I can't see a president doing that, whoever they were.