King calls for creative ways to tackle inequality

People who have never gone out to work already have other taxpayers’ money “redistributed” to them.

Exactly, the Royals who've lived a pampered, cosseted life paid for with inherited wealth and tax payers money should step down.

We should pay a Head of State a wage and get rid off this embarrassing anachronism. Some of their wealth should be used to make slavery repatriations since they benefited from it.

The majority of wealth is owned by a tiny percentage of people in this country. Don't worry about them, they're not concerned about you.

Do you live in the uk? If you do, then you will likely be in the top 1% of the world, wealth wise.

Does this mean that you are not allowed to care about the wellbeing of others?

King Charles is not just "wealthy" though,

He occupies a position as Head of State that is denied to any and all of us and our children. Children who we have to tell to know their place and forget about ever aspiring to that position themselves.

I think you can level the same at anyone who tries to do good works from a position of relative comfort.

I work with the homeless shelter every winter. I get to feel all self satisfied because I get up at 5am and do 3 hours there before work, two days a week. Then I go home to my comfortable life in my 4 bed house, which I have no intention of sharing.

Would it be better if I did nothing?

They need to move out of their own glass houses before they start throwing stones.

Of course they are. But this isn't just rich people, it's people who are paid for by the taxes of poorer people.
Bill Gates for example built a company and earned his money. What has KC done to earn his wealth? Nothing except being born, theirs by the grace of God - highest form of entitlement 🙄

They may campaign for what they please. But personally unless they're prepared to take direct action as well, I'd rather they didn't. I'm not much of a fan of the do as I say not as I do approach. It's arrogant and wins little support. It also acts as a convenient illusion that the person is not in fact causing harm by their role in perpetuating the unfair system..because...see! They've SAID its wrong and told us to change it, so they're the solution not the problem...

if a business can’t afford to pay its staff a reasonable living wage (one that they can live on without top ups) then it can’t afford to function.

100%. Why is it taking politicians a hot minute to realise this??

Well he could cut down on the amount of property he owns, or at least rent some out.

I mean how many homes do you need?

I think this is a false dichotomy. I agree with what you said about Royalty and inherent lack of equality, but I think culture, beauty and art are important, they enrich lives (and can earn a lot too- ideally for the public purse). I don’t think they should be destroyed. We can do better. These cultural artefacts aren’t, of themselves, causing starving children and homeless mothers, and getting rid of them wouldn’t stop those things. It would just make life poorer for everyone.

This! 100%

I'm not sure the royals being very much joy to anyone's lives do they? Bar the occasional state occasion.

Sure they are. And we can look at their campaign speeches, see if their words match their actions, and judge just how hypocritical they're being as a result.

Thankfully we don’t, and hopefully we will never, and there will always be a degree of inequality in society, no matter what the set up . But my point is that the inequality, in this country, is vast, within some parts of society, that no matter how hard a person may try to better themselves, improve their lives, the opportunities are just not there. And every single thing is a perpetual fight. But I don’t see how Charles giving advice on equality would inspire people to do better, given that the chances and opportunities are just not there, for many, whilst Charles was born into unimaginable privilege.

The royals could give a hulking great chunk of money towards addressing this without it even significantly impacting them

They could lead the way in making substantial philanthropy an important responsibility for the wealthy again.

So are you advocating for all culture to be eradicated and we live in a soulless joyless world? Ok Oliver Cromwell.

The whole raison d'etre of Royalty is to do as we say, not do as we do.

It's a false decision anyway, but if people insist on pushing it, I'd rather everyone was fed, sheltered and had the best opportunity to move forwards than any amount of "culture". However, in the spirit of balance, I do acknowledge there are others - maybe on this thread - who feel starving children and homeless mothers are a fair price to pay to allow their culture to exist.

So wealthy people aren't allowed to campaign for a fairer society now?

There is little to nothing to respect about a man who can shamelessly occupy a position that epitomises unfairness and inequality while having the gall to tell us its not right and we should creatively resolve it. Its hypocrisy of the highest order. I'd have had more respect for him if he'd for once had the sense to know when to keep it shut, smile at the bowers and scrapers and thank his lucky stars there's enough of them who for some inexplicable reasons still let him get away with it.

How about he starts by paying tax on all his inheritance and earnings from the Duchy of Cornwall?

And my response was (using Lambeth palace as an example) most historic sites are under public ownership because these buildings cost so much to maintain their actual owners can't keep them.

All of the above.

In response to
SerendipityJane's comment
Well start by selling Lambeth Palace. Plenty of housing could be put up there.
You said
So we should destroy all our culture and historic buildings for the sake of a few overpriced houses?
And my thought was we don't have to destroy them, we could bring them into public ownership. And either manage them as tourist attractions for the benefit of the public purse, and if they weren't paying their way, find alternative use that doesn't necessarily destroy the buildings. 🙄

I'd like to know what he actually means by this. He could be thinking on the lines of:
Everyone having access to a dietician and healthy food.

Having a cleaner
Sending DC to a good school, where they will achieve no matter what.
A lovely home, being able to keep it warm in winter and an XL garden that isn't overlooked
Go jetsettig without worrying about the carbon footprint, cause the environment is someone else's problem.
...
These points of inequality definitely need to be addressed creatively. EVERYONE, should have a piece of the Royal cake!

nah not jealous of the rich, ok maybe a little bit

The church owns Lambeth Palace (specifically the Archbishop of Canterbury) it never goes into private hands.