|
||||||||
Queen Unwell |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#701 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
I think not.
All you've done is indicate that you don't like the Queen. I have no issue with that. You're not required to. What you haven't done is provide any evidence of wrong-doing on her part, which was really all I had been asking you to do. ![]() The fact that you can't see it is exactly my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#702 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
The detail is very relevant which makes your take on that situation quite inaccurate. Without writing chapter and verse, if you read the reports at that time, you maybe surprised how the event unfolded. It would also appear that even Paul Burrell didn't have such a low opinion of the Queen.
I did read the reports at the time. And yes, I clearly remember Burrell putting on a great show, saying that the queen came through for him in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#703 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
|
Quote:
The fact that you can't see it is exactly my point.
![]() That's all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#704 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,507
|
The queen isn't dead, it's just the illness is preventing her from holding her human form, which is why she isn't in public
|
|
|
|
|
|
#705 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
You have failed to prove anything other than your own dislike.
That's all. Yes, I know you think that. What I'm saying is that you have proven my point. You can't see that absolutely terrible behaviour is bad because it's the queen we're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#706 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
|
Quote:
The fact that you can't see it is exactly my point.
![]() Do you have any reports that you can link to which detail any alleged wrong doing on her part? I assume you are referring to actual wrong doing as opposed to personal moral judgement? |
|
|
|
|
|
#707 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
I can't see it either.
Do you have any reports that you can link to which detail any alleged wrong doing on her part? I assume you are referring to actual wrong doing as opposed to personal moral judgement? ![]() I said that her behaviour has been piss poor and when asked in what way I cited her non payment of tax and the Burrell case, off the top of my head. That some people think it's absolutely fine for her to not pay her fair share of tax and that her amnesia suddenly clearing when Burrell was about to start talking proves my point that her bad behaviour is excused because she's the queen. Anyone else not paying their taxes is pretty much always seen as a bad person, for example. Nothing subjective about it and it's not just my opinion. So I'm not sure what you're not seeing or what you want me to link to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#708 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
|
Quote:
Yes, I know you think that. What I'm saying is that you have proven my point. You can't see that absolutely terrible behaviour is bad because it's the queen we're talking about.
Whether she's the Queen or not, she is not a tax dodger. That's just a plain simple fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#709 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
It's because she hasn't actually behaved in a terrible fashion that you have failed to prove your point.
Whether she's the Queen or not, she is not a tax dodger. That's just a plain simple fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#710 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
|
Quote:
Do you think it's good behaviour for an eyewateringly rich woman to avoid paying tax?
I wouldn't say that a personal wealth of 300 million is eye watering. |
|
|
|
|
|
#711 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
|
Quote:
Do you think it's good behaviour for an eyewateringly rich woman to avoid paying tax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#712 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
The sovereign has no liability to pay tax, though she does, but it isn't disclosed.
I wouldn't say that a personal wealth of 300 million is eye watering. |
|
|
|
|
|
#713 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
Quote:
It's because she hasn't actually behaved in a terrible fashion that you have failed to prove your point.
Whether she's the Queen or not, she is not a tax dodger. That's just a plain simple fact. Secret deals between Buckingham Palace and the Treasury have ensured that the royal family enjoys tax breaks far beyond the £20m saving that the Queen made on inheritance tax after her mother's death, according to official papers uncovered by the Guardian. ------------------- The Treasury files, which have been under lock and key for 30 years, cover a period during which the government and the palace negotiated the Civil List Act 1972, the key piece of legislation which governs payments from taxpayers to the royal family today. One of the most startling revelations is the complex arrangement that allows the Queen to avoid paying income tax on at least £1.5m of her private income. The Treasury papers make clear that by doing this the Queen continues to enjoy a 100% tax exemption on the annuities she pays - a total of nearly £1.5m each year including £87,000 paid to her aunt, Princess Alice - on the grounds that the money is supposed to be spent in connection with carrying out public duties. The Treasury papers show that in 1971 the very existence of these tax exemptions was regarded as explosive. The papers are marked Not for Disclosure. "These figures have been given to the select committee but are not for disclosure and have been omitted from the evidence as printed," another says. Queen's tax deal with Churchill 'worth £1bn' Agreement allowed newly ascended monarch to reclaim money paid on dividends and interest from British investments, analysts find A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign, investment statisticians have calculated. According to figures published yesterday, the secret arrangement allowed the Queen, alone among British tax payers, to reclaim tax paid on dividends and interest from her investments in British companies. The statisticians from Barclays Capital, the investment division of Barclays Bank, calculated that a £2m stock market investment in 1952, the year she came to the throne, would be worth £1.4bn if all dividends had been reinvested, and less than £300m if she had had to pay tax. A newspaper report claimed that documents marked secret but released by the public records office at Kew, south- west London, in 1995, though unnoticed since, showed that the Queen's advisers secured the arrangement with the then chancellor of the exchequer, RA Butler, though parliament was never informed, and that the arrangement was even backdated to the start of her reign. Her father, George VI, and monarchs since Queen Victoria had paid income tax but the Queen herself did not do so until 1993. |
|
|
|
|
|
#714 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
She does pay tax. You carrying on saying that she doesn't will not change the facts.
I'm not saying she doesn't pay any tax at all. I'm very clearly saying that she didn't pay any tax for a very long time and now pays some tax. Do you think this is good behaviour? |
|
|
|
|
|
#715 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the logic of the Queen paying tax tbh. Because doesn't she receive a load of income from the treasury?
Surely it would make more sense to just give her less (or no) tax payers money in the first place rather than giving her a load with one hand and then taking some of it back with the other? ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#716 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
This is a really weird conversation.
I'm not saying she doesn't pay any tax at all. I'm very clearly saying that she didn't pay any tax for a very long time and now pays some tax. Do you think this is good behaviour? |
|
|
|
|
|
#717 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#718 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
|
Quote:
Dodging; Avoidance; call it what you like; however these reports for instance go back many years have been publicly reported and to the best of my knowledge have never been denied by the Palace or provoked legal action;
Secret deals between Buckingham Palace and the Treasury have ensured that the royal family enjoys tax breaks far beyond the £20m saving that the Queen made on inheritance tax after her mother's death, according to official papers uncovered by the Guardian. ------------------- The Treasury files, which have been under lock and key for 30 years, cover a period during which the government and the palace negotiated the Civil List Act 1972, the key piece of legislation which governs payments from taxpayers to the royal family today. One of the most startling revelations is the complex arrangement that allows the Queen to avoid paying income tax on at least £1.5m of her private income. The Treasury papers make clear that by doing this the Queen continues to enjoy a 100% tax exemption on the annuities she pays - a total of nearly £1.5m each year including £87,000 paid to her aunt, Princess Alice - on the grounds that the money is supposed to be spent in connection with carrying out public duties. The Treasury papers show that in 1971 the very existence of these tax exemptions was regarded as explosive. The papers are marked Not for Disclosure. "These figures have been given to the select committee but are not for disclosure and have been omitted from the evidence as printed," another says. Queen's tax deal with Churchill 'worth £1bn' Agreement allowed newly ascended monarch to reclaim money paid on dividends and interest from British investments, analysts find A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign, investment statisticians have calculated. According to figures published yesterday, the secret arrangement allowed the Queen, alone among British tax payers, to reclaim tax paid on dividends and interest from her investments in British companies. The statisticians from Barclays Capital, the investment division of Barclays Bank, calculated that a £2m stock market investment in 1952, the year she came to the throne, would be worth £1.4bn if all dividends had been reinvested, and less than £300m if she had had to pay tax. A newspaper report claimed that documents marked secret but released by the public records office at Kew, south- west London, in 1995, though unnoticed since, showed that the Queen's advisers secured the arrangement with the then chancellor of the exchequer, RA Butler, though parliament was never informed, and that the arrangement was even backdated to the start of her reign. Her father, George VI, and monarchs since Queen Victoria had paid income tax but the Queen herself did not do so until 1993. As I said before, every monarch since George III in 1760 has had differing financial and taxation arrangements made with their governments at some stage in their reigns. Each time, the taxation arrangement have formed part of a much bigger set of financial arrangements between monarch and government, with various changes and concessions on both sides. When such an agreement between monarch and government has been mutually AGREED, it is a legal agreement. Dodging would be operating outwith the terms of an agreement. I accept that there will be many people who do not like the idea of some such agreement but it doesn't change the fact that the Queen has not avoided or "dodged" the payment of taxes. If she was not asked to pay them, they she cannot have dodged them. There was simply was no provision made for her to be required to pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
#719 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
She isn't any more liable for tax now than she was then, so she's better behaved than me. HMRC don't get a penny above the absolute minimum from me, and I work hard to ensure that I reduce my bill as much as is legally possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#720 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
Maybe not then.Okay, she's moderately well off. A comfortable pensioner managing to cover her outgoings. |
|
|
|
|
|
#721 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,688
|
Quote:
Didn't she voluntarily refund millions of pounds worth of annuities back to the treasury?
The tax break arises from the complicated way in which royals receive civil list payments. Royalists frequently argue that the Queen has taken nearly all her relatives off the civil list. In fact she has not. The Treasury has continued to pay the Queen yearly civil list payments for all the royals. The Queen then reimburses the government for the cost of all of the annuities except those paid to herself and Prince Philip. The Treasury papers make clear that by doing this the Queen continues to enjoy a 100% tax exemption on the annuities she pays - a total of nearly £1.5m each year including £87,000 paid to her aunt, Princess Alice - on the grounds that the money is supposed to be spent in connection with carrying out public duties. The Treasury papers show that in 1971 the very existence of these tax exemptions was regarded as explosive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#722 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,540
|
Quote:
Yes, we must congratulate her. She could be depriving the country of more than she is now. Well done her. A shining example to us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#723 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,729
|
Quote:
She does indeed and apparently for a very good reason; from the RF perspective in any event.
The tax break arises from the complicated way in which royals receive civil list payments. Royalists frequently argue that the Queen has taken nearly all her relatives off the civil list. In fact she has not. The Treasury has continued to pay the Queen yearly civil list payments for all the royals. The Queen then reimburses the government for the cost of all of the annuities except those paid to herself and Prince Philip. The Treasury papers make clear that by doing this the Queen continues to enjoy a 100% tax exemption on the annuities she pays - a total of nearly £1.5m each year including £87,000 paid to her aunt, Princess Alice - on the grounds that the money is supposed to be spent in connection with carrying out public duties. The Treasury papers show that in 1971 the very existence of these tax exemptions was regarded as explosive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#724 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: the cleaning cupboard
Posts: 25,209
|
Quote:
How much more do you pay that you aren't liable for?
And why so much negative publicity for the likes of Gary Barlow, various coffee chains, Google and the rest who play the tax system right up to just before breaking point? Do you think they've been treated unfairly? Was the criticism unjustified? |
|
|
|
|
|
#725 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
How much more do you pay that you aren't liable for?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17.




