Something to cheer you all up, Buck house facelift

[SWP's back]

Sky news reporting it as taxpayer funding - so I suppose they got it wrong as well?

Yes.

Or are you saying Sky News are always correct?

 

[SWP's back]

Buckingham Palace attracts half a million visitors per year and it has done for at least the past twenty years. At £40 per head that's 40x20x500000 = 400 Million.

Why do they need the money again?

Because they give that money to HMRC as it is part of the Crown Estate ffs.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

"Belongs to..." is from your quote from their website mate.

I only copy and pasted your post.

So if you thought it was a stretch you shouldn't have used it to try and make a point.

Why? Because I'm capable of looking past the semantics to the exact arrangements and assume other people on here are intelligent enough to do that too?

To describe it as publicly-owned is clearly false, but to describe it as the personal property of the queen, as some here seem to be implying, is also clearly bullshit.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

You're not understanding it mate.
A deal was done by the monarchy (George the third or whoever) that to settle his private debts and debts incurred by previous monarchs in foreign wars the profits from the crown estates would be paid to the Government. As part of this deal the Monarchy was also relieved of paying for the costs of the judiciary.
So the crown estates profits belong to the Government/ Taxpayer as part of this deal, NOT the monarch.
15 % of these profits were granted by the Government/Taxpayer to the Monarch to pay for things like repairs to the Palace.
Apparently we are told this 15% is not sufficient to pay for these repairs so the Sovereign is being given more funds from the Crown Estate i.e 22% of the crown profits.
It is up to the Monarch to manage the 15% grant to pay for repairs etc, not to come cap in hand to the Government and ask for more money.
Why not manage these funds better or get more revenue in by opening the palace more often to fee paying visitors.?

An excellent answer firmly putting the usual suspects firmly in their place.

 

[SWP's back]

Bollocks.
Royal Palaces don't feature in the top 50 UK tourist attractions.

Apparently you can't read.

GDM said "A huge part of its brand value arises from buildings like Buckingham Palace and other historical landmarks in our capital"

You bastardised his post for your weak rebuttal (and ignored Tower of London at 9 being part of the Crown Estate).

 

[SWP's back]

Why? Because I'm capable of looking past the semantics to the exact arrangements and assume other people on here are intelligent enough to do that too?

To describe it as publicly-owned is clearly false, but to describe it as the personal property of the queen, as some here seem to be implying, is also clearly bullshit.

I quoted your post. You can't then argue against that and retain credibility.

 

[SWP's back]

An excellent answer firmly putting the usual suspects firmly in their place.

Apart from it being incorrect and shot down earlier. The civil list is for the upkeep of the monarchy and not the upkeep of Crown Estate properties.

But you're the poster preferring Rosberg to Hamilton as Hamilton is a tax dodger whilst ignoring they are neighbours in Monaco.

So to be honest, you're fucking clueless.

 

[Len Rum]

Crown Estate is getting a reduction of tax it pays on its profits.

.

Yes and that represents a cost to the taxpayer.
The repairs to the Palace should be managed within the 15% allowance by cutting costs or increasing revenue, just like any other business.

 

[smudgedj]

Future tense?

No future tense in English.

 

[SWP's back]

Yes and that represents a cost to the taxpayer.
The repairs to the Palace should be managed within the 15% allowance by cutting costs or increasing revenue, just like any other business.

Lol so it's not paid for by the taxpayer now but is "a cost to the tax payer" (subtle change from you showing you've realised you're wrong) however;

No because businesses have tax deductible expenses on capital expenditure to ensure continued viability of businesses.

As recent example being the Etihad Campus and work on the extension which in effect reduced the tax paid on total revenue.

You can keep banging your drum as often as you like, you'll still be wrong.

Dave the labourer won't be paying a penny in his 20% income tax towards the refurb.

Saying it's an "expense to the taxpayer" is bull shit you may as well say any land lord that buys an old terrace and puts in a new kitchen and bathroom is a cost towards the tax payer as that expenditure is deductible.

Not sure how many more similes or analogies I can give you before you understand. Luckily West Dids, PLLK, GDM and a few others have the capacity to understand it for what it is.