dreamdancer 0 #1 June 22, 2009 QuoteLast year the Prince's income from the Duchy rose by £1.1 million to £16.3 million. He paid just under £3.25 million income tax. The value of the Duchy of Cornwall estate, which is spread over 54,764 hectares across three counties mainly in the south west of England, rose in 2007 by eight per cent to £647 million. It was created by Edward III in 1337 to provide a private income for the heir to the throne. On Monday June 28 Buckingham Palace will also publish the annual report into the cost of the monarchy which last year was £40 million. The Queen's private wealth has been the subject of huge speculation. Buckingham Palace has not discussed it since 1993, when the Lord Chamberlain dismissed estimates of the value of her assets at more than £100 million as "grossly overstated". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5594124/Prince-of-Wales-beats-the-recession-with-30-million-property-deals.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #2 June 22, 2009 Still nothing from you. Just copy and paste.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 June 22, 2009 Quote Still nothing from you. Just copy and paste. Yeah, but you gotta admit, he's getting closer. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #4 June 22, 2009 Quote Yeah, but you gotta admit, he's getting closer. Closer to what is the question.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 June 22, 2009 Well, if it were my country I'd be up in arms about it. The whole royal thing is antiquated and silly, but . . . it's not my freekin' country so whatever. I guess a certain part of GB's population is willing to pay for the stupid royals and all of their silliness. I dunno why. History and tradition I suppose. We pay for a good deal of that here in the US as well I guess. There really is no "good" reason to give an ex-president a 21 gun salute and state funeral, but I suppose that will continue even in the worst of times.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #6 June 22, 2009 Quote Closer to what is the question. Signal to Noise Ratio approaching 1:1. Not that he's there by a long shot, but still, progress is progress. Hell, I applauded JR when he got this close. I'm sure he doesn't remember that, but whatever.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #7 June 22, 2009 dreamdancer is in fact a malfunctioning chatbot escaped last year from the turing labs in switzerland stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #8 June 22, 2009 Quotedreamdancer is in fact a malfunctioning chatbot escaped last year from the turing labs in switzerland Ahhhhhhhh, okIf you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 June 22, 2009 Quote dreamdancer is in fact a malfunctioning chatbot escaped last year from the turing labs in switzerland Well, we've speculated as much about numerous posters over the years. There was a point where I thought one poster in particular had simply created an ELIZA program and substituted responses with political rantings. To test it I made a thread and simply said "white," it responded with, "black." I'm still not sure thing particular user ever was anything but an automated response program. We've also had (I suspect) at least one professional social networking site shill for a political candidate. Guy showed up about 6 months before the 2004 election, pissed and moaned about Clinton endlessly. Copied and pasted gigabytes worth of crap and the minute the election was over, gone, never to be heard from again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #10 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote dreamdancer is in fact a malfunctioning chatbot escaped last year from the turing labs in switzerland Well, we've speculated as much about numerous posters over the years. There was a point where I thought one poster in particular had simply created an ELIZA program and substituted responses with political rantings. To test it I made a thread and simply said "white," it responded with, "black." I'm still not sure thing particular user ever was anything but an automated response program. We've also had (I suspect) at least one professional social networking site shill for a political candidate. Guy showed up about 6 months before the 2004 election, pissed and moaned about Clinton endlessly. Copied and pasted gigabytes worth of crap and the minute the election was over, gone, never to be heard from again. how many jumps had this shill done? (and had he ever been elected onto his sport's governing body)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 June 22, 2009 What would a libertarian do about a prince? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #12 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteLast year the Prince's income from the Duchy rose by £1.1 million to £16.3 million. He paid just under £3.25 million income tax. The value of the Duchy of Cornwall estate, which is spread over 54,764 hectares across three counties mainly in the south west of England, rose in 2007 by eight per cent to £647 million. It was created by Edward III in 1337 to provide a private income for the heir to the throne. On Monday June 28 Buckingham Palace will also publish the annual report into the cost of the monarchy which last year was £40 million. The Queen's private wealth has been the subject of huge speculation. Buckingham Palace has not discussed it since 1993, when the Lord Chamberlain dismissed estimates of the value of her assets at more than £100 million as "grossly overstated". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5594124/Prince-of-Wales-beats-the-recession-with-30-million-property-deals.html Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #13 June 22, 2009 QuoteIs there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #14 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. I think that it might, if you consider the massive legal expense (and potential asset loss) of trying to disentangle the government's property from that of the royal family. I'm not sure what the actual legal standing is right now, but there was a time when the monarch actually owned every bit of government property personally. I bet the current system would look like a pretty good compromise if it came down to having to reimburse the Queen for the use of "her" navy, for example.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #15 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4119194.stm How much does it cost to keep the head of state and his family in the USA? How much net tourism income is produced?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #16 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIs there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4119194.stm How much does it cost to keep the head of state and his family in the USA? How much net tourism income is produced? The difference being John, we get a chance to toss them out of the palace every 4 years.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #17 June 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIs there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4119194.stm How much does it cost to keep the head of state and his family in the USA? How much net tourism income is produced? The difference being John, we get a chance to toss them out of the palace every 4 years. So what? How does that affect cost and revenues? The Royals are a huge tourist magnet. In FY2003/4 (last year for which I can find data quickly), the Crown gave 179.3 million pounds to the UK Treasury, the money coming from tourism. And this doesn't count secondary tourism revenues like hotels, restaurants, etc. By any measure the Royals are net revenue producers for the UK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #18 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #19 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. I think that it might, if you consider the massive legal expense (and potential asset loss) of trying to disentangle the government's property from that of the royal family. I'm not sure what the actual legal standing is right now, but there was a time when the monarch actually owned every bit of government property personally. I bet the current system would look like a pretty good compromise if it came down to having to reimburse the Queen for the use of "her" navy, for example. so libertarians are ok with kings and queens (and all the attendant lords and ladies) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #20 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat Source please. Data would be useful, or you're just blowing republican smoke. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #21 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat Source please. Data would be useful, or you're just blowing republican smoke. hey quade - this is what happens if you don't do your copy and pastes well in advance stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #22 June 22, 2009 Quote hey quade - this is what happens if you don't do your copy and pastes well in advance No. It's actually much sweeter this way. Now just refer them back to the link in the original post and others that support your claim.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #23 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat Source please. Data would be useful, or you're just blowing republican smoke. hey quade - this is what happens if you don't do your copy and pastes well in advance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Appears you are wrong.The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue of around £190 million for HM Treasury every year, greatly exceeding the costs of the Civil List.[1] For example, it owns much of Regent Street in London. In 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was carried over from the 1990-2000 Civil List. The reserve was created from surpluses caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the palace more efficient. For the period of 2000 - 2010, the Civil List has continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 annually, the same as was established during 1990. Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #24 June 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Is there something wrong with inherited wealth? It appears he pays tax on the income, like any other heir to a fortune would. Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat Source please. Data would be useful, or you're just blowing republican smoke. hey quade - this is what happens if you don't do your copy and pastes well in advance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Appears you are wrong. which is the bit which says i'm wrong stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #25 June 22, 2009 Quote en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List Appears you are wrong. Please explain this sentence; Quote The money repaid by the Queen can be claimed against her personal tax bill however, meaning she makes an annual profit of over £500,000 from this arrangement. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
