Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion

Should people be able to choose if their tax money goes towards the royal family?

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,246
Forum Member
✭
in General Discussion #1
For example the government could bring in an opt out scheme so people who don't like the royal family don't have to pay for them? do you think this would work?
«134567…13

Comments

  • rufusrainrufusrain Posts: 923
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    Yes definitely and think their should be a referendum on getting rid of these blood sport loving leeches for good. It's 2014 now not the 19th century.
  • neelianeelia Posts: 24,186
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    No it wouldn't.

    Nor would a scheme work where you opted out of paying for abortions or for food and accommodation for those convicted of murder,

    Apart from anything else such a scheme would cost more money than we can afford,
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    As long as we can also opt out of supporting other things we don't like
  • Dare DevilDare Devil Posts: 118,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #5
    No because then it would start a "but I want to opt out of paying towards x". The list would be never ending.

    That comes from an anti royalist and I think the royal family should get £0 from the state - they're millionaires!

    edit - point already proven in the posts 4 and 6
  • Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    welwynrose wrote: »
    As long as we can also opt out of supporting other things we don't like

    This.
  • Dragonlady 25Dragonlady 25 Posts: 8,587
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    We would still have to pay for a Head of State.
  • neelianeelia Posts: 24,186
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Dragonlady 25 wrote: »
    We would still have to pay for a Head of State.

    .. and their security even when they cease to be,
  • yourpointbeing?yourpointbeing? Posts: 3,696
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    No...
  • Dragonlady 25Dragonlady 25 Posts: 8,587
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    neelia wrote: »
    .. and their security even when they cease to be,

    True too!! :D
  • yourpointbeing?yourpointbeing? Posts: 3,696
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    welwynrose wrote: »
    As long as we can also opt out of supporting other things we don't like

    I would not want the job of managing that :D
  • anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    SuperDude95 wrote: »
    For example the government could bring in an opt out scheme so people who don't like the royal family don't have to pay for them? do you think this would work?

    That's funny.:D

    How about Politicians too?:D
  • abarthmanabarthman Posts: 8,501
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    SuperDude95 wrote: »
    For example the government could bring in an opt out scheme so people who don't like the royal family don't have to pay for them? do you think this would work?
    How much do they cost the average taxpayer per year?

    56p?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cost-of-royal-family-rises-twice-as-fast-as-inflation-9563293.html

    Is that really worth worrying about?
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #14
    rufusrain wrote: »
    Yes definitely and think their should be a referendum on getting rid of these blood sport loving leeches for good. It's 2014 now not the 19th century.

    Yes I agree. I'd vote to be rid of these parasites once and for all.

    Having the likes of the bone idle Edward and Andrew do a day's graft would probably kill them. They are the most bloated, freeloading family on earth >:(
  • anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #15
    80sfan wrote: »
    Yes I agree. I'd vote to be rid of these parasites once and for all.

    Having the likes of the bone idle Edward and Andrew do a day's graft would probably kill them. They are the most bloated, freeloading family on earth >:(

    None of them have weight issues do they?:D
  • welwynrosewelwynrose Posts: 33,666
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    80sfan wrote: »
    Yes I agree. I'd vote to be rid of these parasites once and for all.

    Having the likes of the bone idle Edward and Andrew do a day's graft would probably kill them. They are the most bloated, freeloading family on earth >:(

    That's ok you don't pay for them
  • Dragonlady 25Dragonlady 25 Posts: 8,587
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    80sfan wrote: »
    Yes I agree. I'd vote to be rid of these parasites once and for all.

    Having the likes of the bone idle Edward and Andrew do a day's graft would probably kill them. They are the most bloated, freeloading family on earth >:(

    Oh get off the fence and tell us what you really think!!

    (I did hear of another family called the Kardashians (SP ?) I think the above description might include them too. )
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #18
    Rich people might like to vote that none of their tax money goes to the poor and then where would be?

    But if the basic principle of modern taxation is wealth redistribution then giving any to rich land-owning parasites is ridiculous.
  • neelianeelia Posts: 24,186
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    CLL Dodge wrote: »
    Rich people might like to vote that none of their tax money goes to the poor and then where would be?

    But if the basic principle of modern taxation is wealth redistribution then giving any to rich land-owning parasites is ridiculous.

    The basic principle of modern taxation is provision for the infrastructure to govern and safeguard the country, If a political party seeks wealth distribution that is it's position but it is not a universal given,

    Personally the concept of wealth distribution has no appeal, I want to provide equality of opportunity to succeed and a safety net for those who don't but that is a different thing.
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    welwynrose wrote: »
    That's ok you don't pay for them

    Since Kate Middleton got her snout in the trough, there's probably nothing left!

    Middleton sums up that lot. One of life's workers she ain't.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    rufusrain wrote: »
    Yes definitely and think their should be a referendum on getting rid of these blood sport loving leeches for good. It's 2014 now not the 19th century.
    You do realize that all the evidence shows that a referendum would be heavily in favour of keeping them?
    CLL Dodge wrote: »
    Rich people might like to vote that none of their tax money goes to the poor and then where would be?

    But if the basic principle of modern taxation is wealth redistribution then giving any to rich land-owning parasites is ridiculous.
    All countries have a head of state. People such as the president of France also have multiple houses attached to the job. And the principle of modern taxation is absolutely not wealth redistribution, it is funding communally used services, including the royal family supported by the majority of the population. Here we are: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10206708/Confidence-in-British-monarchy-at-all-time-high-poll-shows.html Percentage wanting a republic: 17%.

    I'm pretty sure that if we offered an opt-out from paying tax for things people didn't believe in, we would find that an awful lot of people didn't believe in anything at all, and were happy to be assessed for 0% tax.
    80sfan wrote: »
    Since Kate Middleton got her snout in the trough, there's probably nothing left!
    :confused: Why? What has she been spending independently of her husband? I have never heard her singled out as particularly extravagant, other than the Daily Mail's absurd posturing about her wanting a family kitchen in their apartment at Kensington Palace.
  • valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Can I opt out of paying Chavs to produce strings of kids.?
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,069
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    I'm very much anti-royal, but no. We can't have specific opt-out tax breaks, based on personal opinion. That would only lead to people campaigning for opt-out on every single tax in existence.

    If you've got an issue with a government policy, then campaign against it. If its a popular opinion, it will gain traction. If its popular enough, it will be picked up by a political party. Then vote for that party. If enough people think its important, they will vote for that party, too. Then they can change the tax law. That's how it works.

    For instance, I think it would be good if we had a regular referendum on the future of the royal family. Perhaps every time the monarch changes would be a good period. Then the electorate can remain in charge of this issue. However at the same time, I don't care enough to campaign about this issue. So if it doesn't happen, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
  • biggle2000biggle2000 Posts: 3,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    What a load of hog wash. Next you'll want to choose if our tax money should go to the unemployed or to education. Hell why don't we stop all monies going to the diabled. Let's face it they are so inconsiderate being too disabled to provide for themselves we should just let them starve!!!
  • 80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    valkay wrote: »
    Can I opt out of paying Chavs to produce strings of kids.?

    That's no way to talk about the Cambridges ;-)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,341
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    But who'd keep a grip on the politicians' power?
    The shitbags in Parliament already think that they can do/get away with what the hell they want and don't have to answer to anybody as it is
    Whoever gets in, there'll always be a ruling class that live in luxury and splendour.
Sign In or Register to comment.