King calls for creative ways to tackle inequality

So we get rid of the royals, remove their power, remove Charles as the figure head of the Commonwealth, share out their cash- then what? How will that change things for those peoples that feel they suffer inequality because of colonialism and the slave trade?

Again, his family's fingers, their history and a good deal of their wealth is built on the back of Empire and those displaced/invaded/ruled people. The change needs to start with them. It won't.

That is just not true though

I don’t say it necessarily meant that. I said it would be taken to mean it, as a contrast to the ‘holy catholic and apostolic’ church in the creed. It’s a convention that has grown up a bit, Anglo Catholics aside. And even then, they use the capital letter to suggest something more akin to the Roman Catholic Church than a standard CofE, don’t they?

With a small c, catholic means universal and inclusive. Catholic with a large C doesn't necessarily refer to the Roman Catholic Church. What about Anglo Catholicism, beloved by John Henry Newman?

Better idea why don't we give them the homes we are building? Oh yes I forgot we can't because they are all for sale and homeless people can't get mortgages ffs 🙄 they are building about three thousand houses in my town and surrounding area our huge homeless population (frank and bob the crackheads plus the nice one) won't get a look in none of our three homeless people will they are being built to sell to people who don't actually live or work here (we don't actually have jobs here just empty houses btw) none of them are social housing so no getting people trapped in too small houses a bigger home or vice versa

Depends whether you use a capital or lower case c I think. So C of E are a catholic apostolic church, but Catholic would be taken to mean Roman Catholic or related churches.

Surely abolishing an inherited monarch is the obvious first step towards a truly equitable society. I wonder if anyone has suggested that to him?

What job description? If he had a job description and performance reviews, it would presumably be possible to sack him when if he fails to deliver.

Agree. And William refused to disclose how much tax he paid on his private income from the vast property portfolio known as the Duchy

It could be £3.50 a year for all we know. He received £30million.

His father before him disclosed how much tax he paid. It was only 25% (and tax paid was £5M) whereas it is 40% for us mere mortals. That's bad enough, but William refusing to divulge how much he paid really does tell us all we need to know doesn't it....

The last sentence sentence should have read as: „”I sincerely believe Charles means well, but he’s not the poster boy for equality”. Apologies.

Maybe making absent parents (usually fathers) pay reasonable child support, make hiding income impossible. Nothing that creative but a start.

OK, but as monarch he has to reflect the Government's stance. So they say no repatriation due. He is saying, let's think about the conversation. Or trying to reframe it. You could argue that he is trying to draw attention to the inequalities and oppression of sovereignty within the limits of his remit/authority. So he is urging the Government to be creative, rather than giving a big fat No.

Of course, there is an argument for, why doesn't he just use his own wealth for repatriation (especially as the RF have a lot to answer for vis a vis the Commonwealth). However, managing wealth comes with rules and restrictions - it's not as simple as writing a cheque (and he probs couldn't afford the amount anyway). But it would be interesting to find a way around it. Maybe he will (don't hold your breath, obvs!)

@SerendipityJane
Most Church bodies or individual denominations have different practices and interpretations of the Christian message.
Roman Catholics teach transsubstantiation of the wine and bread. The C of E teaches that they are symbols only.

As Charles’s, and his family’s wealth, is ever increasing, the average citizen’s wealth is decreasing. He may have empathy for the struggles of the average Brit, but it’s just bit of slap in the face to be getting advice from someone who is richer every day, just by virtue of unearned privilege and inherited wealth. Why do they need all that money and wealth? They could give away half of it, even most of it, and lead by example, and still have enough left to be stupidly, mega rich for generations to come. Of course they don’t have to do that, and they won’t do that, but if they did i would be all ears. I sincerely believe Charles means well, but he’s big the poster boy for equality.

With a wealth tax to be spent on improving our public services, focusing on healthcare, education & housing.

At our current rate of inequality, by 2035 the richest 200 families in the UK will have more wealth than the whole of the rest of the UK.

Most welfare benefits (excluding the billions in corporate welfare) go to people either in work or who have worked.

The wealthy have better access to public services, living in areas with greater access to GPs, better state schools, better funded local councils etc.

Austerity economics kills thousands, a one off wealth tax would save lives.

You win the internet

@NittyLittleThing
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Of all the ways to tackle poverty I think creative is the least suitable. Wouldn't fair, pragmatic or sensible be a better approach?

I mean creative solutions could include making monopoly money real money, giving up on money completely and trading in salt or a mandatory lottery swap of houses once a year?

The wealthiest 1% and the top 1% of earners are two different groups. The top 1% have more than the bottom 50% combined, and the disparity between the two is at almost Victorian levels. Only today's super rich aren't building schools, libraries, museums or parks to benefit society.

To put it into perspective the e wealthiest 1% hold enough wealth to give every single person in the UK £30,000-£50,000 (depending on which estimate you use) and they'd still all be millionaires themselves after doing so.

.

Charles is immune from quite a few laws. He's above the law.

Except Uncle Nonce who wouldn't pass a DBS

Such simplistic views shared here which don't achieve anything.

The king does a lot more to promote equality than any of you.

Yes but there’s a massive difference between ordinary folk who have bought their house through their own efforts and earnings and who have paid taxes all of their lives; and someone with vast inherited wealth, land and estates, who is largely exempt from tax.

It’s about basic fairness.

I was referring to the word Catholic.