Great headline, subby. Made me chuckle over my first cup of coffee for the day.

LewDux:

I hear "Bicycle!" in my head.

/ring ring

sno man: They've decided on a new singer?

His name rimes with Bustin Jieber

Not sure if serious subby??

And before this evolves into a whole "Waah, the Queen gets money" argument like every thread about royalty does, the British royal family PAYS far more in taxes than they get, and generate a whole helluva lot of tourism income, et al.

It's been done before you know.

The Queen looks alot like my Mom. They are the same age. I've never seen them in the same room together.

Please. Sell a painting.

Do you want fries with that, peasant?

hetheeme: Let a brit explain it for everyone, just watch the video.

Wow, that brit really sucks up to the monarch. The reason why George III was in debt was because he was supposed to pay for the running of parts of the government/military. After all, it was his country, his government, his army, etc. It wasn't simply a trade of crown revenue for a salary as that brit claims. The reason why every monarch since George III has "voluntarily" made the same trade is because if they didn't, they would suddenly be stuck paying for a very large government and would be instantly bankrupt. There is no "profit" from the crown estate.

Shirley Ujest: The Queen looks alot like my Mom. They are the same age. I've never seen them in the same room together.

Does your mom have a fat bottom?

wrs1864: hetheeme: Let a brit explain it for everyone, just watch the video.

Wow, that brit really sucks up to the monarch. The reason why George III was in debt was because he was supposed to pay for the running of parts of the government/military. After all, it was his country, his government, his army, etc. It wasn't simply a trade of crown revenue for a salary as that brit claims. The reason why every monarch since George III has "voluntarily" made the same trade is because if they didn't, they would suddenly be stuck paying for a very large government and would be instantly bankrupt. There is no "profit" from the crown estate.

Well, not if you expect it to support the British nanny state. That's what oppressive taxes levied by evil, cackling Prime Ministers are supposed to handle.

Link (new window)

The Queen owns numerous businesses, estates and so on. Heck the only reason she not one of, if not the richest person in the world is the billions earned by the Crown Estate rentals have to go to the Government as a tax and is then used to pay for the same people who biatch she doesn't do anything.In return she gets a small stipend back to pay for the enormous upkeep of numerous palaces which were written into the Royal contract over a century before she was born.

sno man: They've decided on a new singer?

queenextravaganza.com

topcon: And before this evolves into a whole "Waah, the Queen gets money" argument like every thread about royalty does, the British royal family PAYS far more in taxes than they get, and generate a whole helluva lot of tourism income, et al.

If you even think this is close to being true, you are borderline retarded.

wrs1864: hetheeme: Let a brit explain it for everyone, just watch the video.

Wow, that brit really sucks up to the monarch. The reason why George III was in debt was because he was supposed to pay for the running of parts of the government/military. After all, it was his country, his government, his army, etc. It wasn't simply a trade of crown revenue for a salary as that brit claims. The reason why every monarch since George III has "voluntarily" made the same trade is because if they didn't, they would suddenly be stuck paying for a very large government and would be instantly bankrupt. There is no "profit" from the crown estate.

True. But I'm wondering if I'm missing the joke here - isn't 'that brit' a murrican? Tired and confused...

topcon: And before this evolves into a whole "Waah, the Queen gets money" argument like every thread about royalty does, the British royal family PAYS far more in taxes than they get, and generate a whole helluva lot of tourism income, et al.

If the Royal family increases tourism, how come people come here despite the fact that they probably won't see them?

limeyfellow: The Queen owns numerous businesses, estates and so on. Heck the only reason she not one of, if not the richest person in the world is the billions earned by the Crown Estate rentals have to go to the Government as a tax and is then used to pay for the same people who biatch she doesn't do anything.In return she gets a small stipend back to pay for the enormous upkeep of numerous palaces which were written into the Royal contract over a century before she was born.

There's your problem right there. This is the 21st century, you know; there is no reason for you to have a monarch, and it doesn't speak very well for you as a people. If the British were reasonable the royal property would be confiscated and they would be left with enough money to do anything they wanted, but not enough to do nothing. If they proceeded to piss it away, well, too bad. I ain't even mad, I just snicker in amused contempt every time I hear that someone still has a king or queen. There's no difference between the royals and any family in West Virginia, except that your inbreds are for some reason revered.

I like them. They're like expensive pets, fun to have even though they're practically useless, yet still amusing in an exotic sort of way.

Trance750: I think it's funny that people complain how much a CEO makes, but will defend the weath of the Queen, who does nothing but sit on her Throne all day long

IMO doing nothing would be (societally speaking) an improvement over what CEOs usually do.

Shirley Ujest: The Queen looks alot like my Mom. They are the same age. I've never seen them in the same room together.

The bedroom?

/gaaaaahhhh!

whereas "In God We Trust" puts the USA in the position of obeying some titular non-entity but still having to support the fat-ass largess of numerous religions which function as amusement for the plebs

topcon: And before this evolves into a whole "Waah, the Queen gets money" argument like every thread about royalty does, the British royal family PAYS far more in taxes than they get, and generate a whole helluva lot of tourism income, et al.

The crown has a helluva a lot of holdings too. They own shopping malls and office buildings.

I'd like to see politicians of all stripes refuse their 'salary', like Lee Iococa did It (For $1/year) was no skin off Lee's nose; he was already incredibly wealthy anyway, but it sent a GREAT message, that their pampered leader was willing to sacrifice a bit for the good of his company.

I don't have much love for the 'Royals' but this send a great message too...

BUT: What we really need to see is our wealthy, pampered politicians sacrificing a bit in the same way. The idea might then spread to the other "Captains of Industry" that they should work "For Free" too.

Naaah. The suited ones running the show are just TOO DAMN GREEDY.

The G8/G20 conference displays of opulence and paranoia will be their own undoing in the long run.

lohphat: limeyfellow: The Queen owns numerous businesses, estates and so on. Heck the only reason she not one of, if not the richest person in the world is the billions earned by the Crown Estate rentals have to go to the Government as a tax and is then used to pay for the same people who biatch she doesn't do anything.In return she gets a small stipend back to pay for the enormous upkeep of numerous palaces which were written into the Royal contract over a century before she was born.

So to be clear, she earned none of her possessions through meritocracy but through birthright.

accident of birth plays an important role in many lives. those who benefit from it the most often seem familiar with it the least.

lohphat: limeyfellow: The Queen owns numerous businesses, estates and so on. Heck the only reason she not one of, if not the richest person in the world is the billions earned by the Crown Estate rentals have to go to the Government as a tax and is then used to pay for the same people who biatch she doesn't do anything.In return she gets a small stipend back to pay for the enormous upkeep of numerous palaces which were written into the Royal contract over a century before she was born.

So to be clear, she earned none of her possessions through meritocracy but through birthright.

Actually, the point is that she pays a whole hell of a lot more money into the system than she takes out. The Queen pays approximately an 80% tax rate (and that's an absolute, not marginal, rate). And even that's not accurate. She has 100% of her income taken by the Excehquer, and then Parliament decides how much they want to give her back - and of the ~20% she gets back, about 75% of that comes with conditions on what she can do with it. So, imagine your boss (or you, if you are self employed) gave your entire paycheck to the IRS, and then Congress gave you back whatever it felt you should get back, complete with a scheduled budget of how you were to use the vast bulk of what they gave you. If the Queen was to simply keep the income off her lands and then pay tax just like everyone else, her income would at least double (and possibly treble), the Exchequer would have to fill a hole in the budget, and it would have to pick up some of the bill on stuff she covers now (not all of the things she is expected to pay for the upkeep of are technically hers). And if the government were to take her lands from her to keep the revenue, the price they would have to pay her would stagger the Exchequer (250M pounds being the profits, not the value, of her holdings) You can oppose the monarchy for several reasons, but monetarily, the UK does better with her where she is.

And as for your point, most of the rich do not start off destitute in a gutter and rise to be magnates based solely on moxie - most were born squarely on third. Unless you are suggesting that governments completely confiscate every person's estate upon death (and send a bill to all heirs for any expenses incurred by the deceased on their behalf - tuition, room and board as children, etc, so that said children do not benefit from their parent's work as opposed to their own), your comment is meaningless; George W Bush has benefited more from his grandfather's footsie with Hitler than Elizabeth has from being Sophia's descendent, yet I am hard pressed to find anyone saying all of his wealth should be stripped from him and given to the Treasury (I can find you several that want him dead or incarcerated, but few who even think about wholesale confiscation of all Bush wealth). That being said, if we can subject all those with inherited wealth to the same non-compensated confiscation of property you want for one old lady who merrily pays the largest tax bill by percentage there is, then go for it - we will pay off the debt and fund schools from here to Doomsday, with enough left over for the Pentagon to play toy soldiers to their hearts' content