If it's true that we are paying the PoW 1.5 million a year rent for Dartmoor prison...

[CurlewKate]

...among many other things, do you think that's OK? If so, why?

Absolutely this @Seedcakeandsausagerolls77

The weekly lobby meetings with the PM.

And how can the PM take so much time out of his diary every week to go over to the palace for a meeting?

How much does that meeting cost over a four year period?

How much do they tell the king and how much don't they tell? We can never know because the PM is bound by secrecy.

It blows my mind every tine I think of it. A LESS democratic situation would be hard to find.

Actually they do have to. Parliament has passed laws requiring that, and Treasury policies it. From HMT’s Memorandum about them approving the Duchy’s transactions:

When assessing proposed large property transactions under s11 of the Act,
the Treasury seeks evidence that the terms are commercial. Helpful indicators include:
• for sales, competition among potential purchasers and at settlement prices in
line with estate agents’ guide prices;
• for investment and development projects, actual or expected returns at market
level

(I imagine that small but important point wasn’t covered in the media coverage though. I wonder why not…?)

I think that, in fairness to the other poster, you need to go do your own research and report back.

As noted above, you need to lobby Parliament to change the law that applies to the Duchy then.Getting angry at the Duchy for acting as required by the law that specifically applies to it and is policed by Treasury is a bit of a waste of energy.

If the NHS is "paying too much" rent on a property (ie above market rate), then that merely illustrates how useless the NHS is in getting value for money, and is symptomatic of all the waste that exists. That is the real "scandal", not the fact that Royal Duchies are operating perfectly legally as landlords.

But its all our taxes who pay for the NHS, so yet again we pay for the Royals. Time for a vote.

That's what I thought.

Why are the RF exempt from income and capital gains tax?!?
This makes me so angry. I just cannot believe we accept this.

What I find hypocritical is they go round to hospitals and charities being ''goodies'' and all the time they are raking vast amounts of money in from the cash strapped NHS which means ''we'' all have to pay more tax! Revolution anyone? Hope they don't give any more ''be kind'', ''be good'' or ''I'm so kind'', I'm so good'' speeches.

NO. They pay 0% tax. Fully exempt.

Also, they get prior notice re any proposed legal changes which may cost them, then they use their power to object and change them, to benefit themselves. And they go to great lengths to hide their wealth from their subjects, in case it upsets them.
Why we fall for this shit I just don't know. We look like morons.

I think it’s beginning to dawn on me, and others, that these arrangements have all been crafted so that the public are unaware, and once they become aware, there literally are very few legitimate means through which we can object.

Did you see all the fuss on RF threads when Republicans dared to wear yellow t-shirts and protested peacefully at the Coronation? They were denounced as being disrespectful and selfish! And in some cases were arrested! For exercising their right to free speech! Something you would think true patriots would value!

And yet those same voices, with a few exceptions , are suddenly mute on threads about the Dispatches programme!

Did you see all the fuss on RF threads when Republicans dared to wear yellow t-shirts and protested peacefully at the Coronation? They were denounced as being disrespectful and selfish! Extraordinary!

And despite having agree with the Met months in advance where they could stand (away from the procession), they were arrested and detained for the whole of the time the Coronation was going on. Even volunteers on a night safety scheme who had nothing to do with Republic were detained too.

They aren’t though.

The only people who fall into a unique tax situation are the monarch and the Prince of Wales. Both of them are not compelled to pay income tax on their income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. Both do pay this voluntarily.

On the death of a monarch, property transferred directly from monarch to monarch is not subject to inheritance tax. This was specifically agreed by Parliament in the 1990s for two key reasons - firstly the monarch is the holder in name of the Crown Estates, which are held for the benefit of the nation. Taxing those assets would be counter productive. And secondly it was realised that it was better to have a monarchy that could be self/funding, rather than one which in a few generations was reliant on parliament to fund.

Those two matters aside, all normal individual tax rules apply. Any bequests QEII made to any of her other children, grandchildren or other children would be subject to inheritance tax, for example.

Given that the Monarch's wealth is growing year on year, I have NO idea why they can't pay IHT

Money grows money, they won't suffer if they did. The King's private wealth is just short of £2billion, William £1billion.

Who is ‘they’ and which taxes are you talking about?

Thank you very much for replying Serenster

The only people who fall into a unique tax situation are the monarch and the Prince of Wales. Both of them are not compelled to pay income tax on their income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. Both do pay this voluntarily.

Great, if they are happy to pay voluntarily the same income tax that we all pay, then it may as well be made mandatory, because apparently there’s no issue.

The same principles should also apply to their commercial activities.

On the death of a monarch, property transferred directly from monarch to monarch is not subject to inheritance tax. This was specifically agreed by Parliament in the 1990s for two key reasons - firstly the monarch is the holder in name of the Crown Estates, which are held for the benefit of the nation. Taxing those assets would be counter productive. And secondly it was realised that it was better to have a monarchy that could be self/funding, rather than one which in a few generations was reliant on parliament to fund.

For the Crowm estates: they should pay all the same taxes for their business activities as all other businesses do, and in relation to transfer of assets between monarchs, which belong to the state, the Monarch in return should not benefit from the profits generated.

Those two matters aside, all normal individual tax rules apply. Any bequests QEII made to any of her other children, grandchildren or other children would be subject to inheritance tax, for example

Good: what I think would be fair, on principle, is uniform application of personal and commercial taxation.

What you have confirmed in fact Serenster is that as far as the Monarch is concerned, the principle is accepted, but not the practice!

'Let's repeat this -13% of the houses they let are unfit according to the law. The average for rhe country is around 1-2%.'

Sorry, but this is just completely untrue. 15% of social housing is deemed 'non-decent', ranging from 9% in some areas to over 30% in others. I imagine the % of private rentals unfit is far higher - reporting suggests at least 25%.

Please read all my posts. I was attempting to get to the bottom of whether this rent is low, typical or high for the area.

(Now, that is, not against previous leases for the site as we do not know what T&Cs the old lease had)

That is not defending. It's a wish to establish as much source material as possible

Most pay tax on their income. They probably don't bang on about ending homelessness either.

Gasp. How dare you apply logic and common sense. You should be outraged because -> RF.

I don't understand how people are so exercised by the RF yet fail to apply that same level of venom at the established religious organisations.

You have extremely low standards.

Why are you trying to derail the thread by bringing religious institutions in to it?

There is another board for topics that come under the category of religion and philosophy where you can post about your objections to organised religion.

This board is specifically about the RF.

And frankly if your only defence is “religious institutions are just as bad” it’s a pretty weak one!

According to The Times some, but not all, of the properties have exemptions. The Times said:

"Last week, the duchy admitted one in eight of the properties it is letting out are rated F or G. It said those properties that did not have exemptions were awaiting scheduled improvement."

I don't know whether you are using those words to @AnnaBegins as an insult or not. I am in my seventies. For the first 40 odd years of my life I lived in a dwelling that didn't have much insulation and didn't have central heating and did have single-glazed windows, no double glazing. Strangely, most people of my generation grew up in houses like that and we are not all dead yet. AnnaBegins seems to have been content with what she got, for a smaller rent.

The context is energy ratings for rental properties:

In 2020, the year the rules on not renting properties below an E came into force, the Government found that 4.4% of rental properties were “non-compliant”. The latest from the Office of National Statistics found that just over 1.5% of rental properties are an F or a G but these include those with an exemption in place. In comparison, 14% of the Duchy rentals we found were rated F or G - nearly ten times higher.

Here is an archived link for the Mirror article where they explain the exemptions and lack thereof

https://archive.is/s5bHY

I am reading the Sunday Times article with my jaw on the floor. Now I understand what people mean by unearned income. Apparently last year Charles made a billion profit from off shore wind farms because someone decided he owns the seabed. And that is only a tiny part of all the deals the article details. I had never encountered such such relentlessly greedy, predatory and unethical actions before.