United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
No in the rather odd example you invent.mit would be paid for by the company owning the car. And if that money is given to you. It would be classed as your wages.
But the point is. It would not be considered to come from the tax payer.
Because any minimal research into the Crown estates makes it clear. They are not in any way shape or form. Owned by the tax payer. Nor have they ever been.
At all poi ts in history the Crown has kept its own income separate from national income. (Ie taxes).
When the us revolution happened the king funded it. And went bankrupt.
Because unlike now. The Crown funded war. Not parliment then. So the king made a deal. All income from the Crown estates. Was to go to parliment. In exchange for the royal grant.
Parliment knew at the time that long term this would be a huge benifit. Now it is.
It is freaking petty and wrong to claim it is tax payer money. It is basically they Crown paying less then 100% tax on there company earnings.
I assume this was meant to be a reply to my comment. I'm not sure what's odd about the example, and it's hardly strange to "invent" an analogy. A party has control of an asset via the position they hold, they sell the rights to use and profit from that asset to a second party in exchange for financial compensation. That's the deal. The monarch doesn't have the rights to the profits of the Estate because the Treasury has the rights to it under the existing legislation.
The Estate was established 16 years before the American revolution with the Civil List Act 1760. That the monarch used to fund wars is entirely irrelevant to who has the rights now.
The Estate is also explicitly not the monarch's private property. It's a perk of the most overpaid and intentionally nepotistic civil service position in the country. Far from petty, I'd say it's only right to question that