Government Accounts

[wykikitoon 21505]

They have or are posting these and they have said on 5Live that we have paid Prince Charles £600k to access his land on Dartmoor for MoD activities. WTF!

[AgentAxeman 199]

...........and?

 

 

 

if he's the owner of the land then so what.

[Rob W 0]

That would be the Duchy of Cornwall - not Charles personally - basically he gets the income, pays tax on it and we don't have to pay for his upkeep

 

"The principal activity of the Duchy is the management of its land and properties. The Duchy also has a financial investment portfolio. The Duchy owns land totalling 540.9 km² (or 135,000 acres). Nearly half of the holdings are in Devon, with other large holdings in Cornwall, Herefordshire, Somerset and Wales. For the fiscal year 2007, the duchy was valued at £647 million, and annual profit in 2007 was £16.3 million, thus yielding 2.5%.

 

As a crown body managed by the crown estate, the duchy is exempt from paying corporation tax, but, since 1993, the Prince of Wales has voluntarily paid income tax. The Prince paid a voluntary contribution to the treasury of 50% of his duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and he has paid 25% since his 1981 marriage. Tax is calculated after deducting business expenditure. Detailed records are kept to determine the split between public and private expenditure.

 

The Duke of Cornwall is not entitled to have or to spend any of the Duchy’s capital (but is only entitled to its annual income) the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts Act) 1838 gave the Treasury a role to ensure that actions taken by any Duke when managing the Duchy cannot compromise the long term value of the estate. For this reason the Treasury must, for example, approve all property transactions with a value of £500,000 or more.

 

The Duchy’s accounts, which are audited by a professional external auditor, are, through the Treasury, laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that Parliament can be satisfied that the Treasury is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities."

[Happy Face 29]

...........and?

 

 

 

if he's the owner of the land then so what.

 

War profiteering isn't very becoming behaviour of a monarch is it?

[Guest alex]

...........and?

 

 

 

if he's the owner of the land then so what.

Bit of a racket going on iyam like. He's done fuck all to earn having that land too, let's be honest.

[Kid Dynamite 7318]

Surely as King in waiting of the country he should be nice enough to let the armed forces protecting that country use his land for nowt?

[Rob W 0]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

[Guest alex]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

You could but while a similar principle is being applied it's on a completely different scale, the person inheriting the house isn't (on the whole) already receiving a massive amount of money from the public purse, most people aren't renting their back garden out to the MoD for an exorbitant fee and it's unlikely your Dad only owned the land because one of his ancestors stole it off someone. So I think it's slightly different. Exactly the sort of thing that should be being looked into too imo.

[Anth 113]

Abolish the Royal Family, asset strip them and give their land / £££ to the people. Let the government absorb any "Tasks" they carry out. Put them on the waiting list for social housing

Jobs a good'un

Edited November 19, 2010 by Anth

[Happy Face 29]

Abolish the Royal Family, asset strip them and give their land / £££ to the people. Let the government absorb any "Tasks" they carry out. Put them on the waiting list for social housing

Jobs a good'un

 

If you just asset strip and put it into the coffers it's a one time drop in the ocean tbh.

 

Not sure how stuff like the duke of Edinburgh awards scheme get financed at the moment but I'm pretty sure little of the funding comes direct from the royal family wealth. They should be made to use the income from stolen property to contribute to schemes like that....and fund further educational schemes for music, business, sport, arts etc.

[AgentAxeman 199]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

You could but while a similar principle is being applied it's on a completely different scale, the person inheriting the house isn't (on the whole) already receiving a massive amount of money from the public purse, most people aren't renting their back garden out to the MoD for an exorbitant fee and it's unlikely your Dad only owned the land because one of his ancestors stole it off someone. So I think it's slightly different. Exactly the sort of thing that should be being looked into too imo.

 

 

He has land, the MOD wish to rent/lease it, so whats the problem? Alex, If you had something of value that someone wanted to rent would you not charge them?

 

Just cos he's rich doesn't mean he should be a charity case.

[manc-mag 1]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

You could but while a similar principle is being applied it's on a completely different scale, the person inheriting the house isn't (on the whole) already receiving a massive amount of money from the public purse, most people aren't renting their back garden out to the MoD for an exorbitant fee and it's unlikely your Dad only owned the land because one of his ancestors stole it off someone. So I think it's slightly different. Exactly the sort of thing that should be being looked into too imo.

 

 

He has land, the MOD wish to rent/lease it, so whats the problem? Alex, If you had something of value that someone wanted to rent would you not charge them?

 

Just cos he's rich doesn't mean he should be a charity case.

 

I think Alex is basically saying that he's rich precisely because he's a charity case. In a manner of speaking.

[AgentAxeman 199]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

You could but while a similar principle is being applied it's on a completely different scale, the person inheriting the house isn't (on the whole) already receiving a massive amount of money from the public purse, most people aren't renting their back garden out to the MoD for an exorbitant fee and it's unlikely your Dad only owned the land because one of his ancestors stole it off someone. So I think it's slightly different. Exactly the sort of thing that should be being looked into too imo.

 

 

He has land, the MOD wish to rent/lease it, so whats the problem? Alex, If you had something of value that someone wanted to rent would you not charge them?

 

Just cos he's rich doesn't mean he should be a charity case.

 

I think Alex is basically saying that he's rich precisely because he's a charity case. In a manner of speaking.

 

 

aye, you could say that i suppose. but if thats the case then people on any form of benefit are also 'charity cases' as they draw from the public purse.

 

that makes an awful lot of charity cases that should be giving their services for free in this country. Had on, aint that a new tory policy?

 

 

regardless of where he has recieved his wealth from, he has something that someone else wants so he rents it to them. I really dont see the problem (apart from rampant republicanism )

[manc-mag 1]

I guess you could say that about anyone who inherits a house TBH

You could but while a similar principle is being applied it's on a completely different scale, the person inheriting the house isn't (on the whole) already receiving a massive amount of money from the public purse, most people aren't renting their back garden out to the MoD for an exorbitant fee and it's unlikely your Dad only owned the land because one of his ancestors stole it off someone. So I think it's slightly different. Exactly the sort of thing that should be being looked into too imo.

 

 

He has land, the MOD wish to rent/lease it, so whats the problem? Alex, If you had something of value that someone wanted to rent would you not charge them?

 

Just cos he's rich doesn't mean he should be a charity case.

 

I think Alex is basically saying that he's rich precisely because he's a charity case. In a manner of speaking.

 

 

aye, you could say that i suppose. but if thats the case then people on any form of benefit are also 'charity cases' as they draw from the public purse.

 

that makes an awful lot of charity cases that should be giving their services for free in this country. Had on, aint that a new tory policy?

 

regardless of where he has recieved his wealth from, he has something that someone else wants so he rents it to them. I really dont see the problem (apart from rampant republicanism )

 

I was going to make the very same point. It's one way of looking at it.

 

Charles' wealth (or much of it) is effectively in the gift of the British taxpayer, thus the taxpayer is entitled to a view as to how generous it wants to be. That makes him entirely distinguishable to private individuals of independent wealth and therefore different considerations (and sensibilities) should apply.

 

On a purely legal basis you're perfectly correct, I don't dispute it. That said all that would be required for the legal basis to be turned on it's head is an act of Parliament-again the expression of the will of the British taxpayer.

[AgentAxeman 199]

Charles' wealth (or much of it) is effectively in the gift of the British taxpayer, thus the taxpayer is entitled to a view as to how generous it wants to be. That makes him entirely distinguishable to private individuals of independent wealth and therefore different considerations (and sensibilities) should apply.

 

On a purely legal basis you're perfectly correct, I don't dispute it. That said all that would be required for the legal basis to be turned on it's head is an act of Parliament-again the expression of the will of the British taxpayer.

 

 

Great post, one of the most sensible in this thread.

[Kid Dynamite 7318]

This is why the Royal Family is worth it though

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

This is why the Royal Family is worth it though

 

Drawing a crowd = good

 

Edited November 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[AgentAxeman 199]

This is why the Royal Family is worth it though

 

Drawing a crowd = good

 

 

 

[Rob W 0]

Charles' wealth (or much of it) is effectively in the gift of the British taxpayer, thus the taxpayer is entitled to a view as to how generous it wants to be. That makes him entirely distinguishable to private individuals of independent wealth and therefore different considerations (and sensibilities) should apply.

 

On a purely legal basis you're perfectly correct, I don't dispute it. That said all that would be required for the legal basis to be turned on it's head is an act of Parliament-again the expression of the will of the British taxpayer.

 

 

Great post, one of the most sensible in this thread.

 

 

Charles of course sees it the other way round - it was in his family long before we had every common idiot given the vote - he pays taxes on the profit

 

The Crown Estates are an even bigger landholder but they are run totally by the Govt and that was the Kings original land holdings