Something to cheer you all up, Buck house facelift

[blueish swede]

Yeah, because I'm sure this is the only cost involved in running Buckingham Palace.

Just for comparison, the Palace of Versailles, which is in a far less convenient location, sees 3 million tourists come through its doors every year. Looks like Madame Guillotine has a lot to answer for.

Having said that, I wouldn't give a shit if this money was coming out of tax. In relative terms, this is fuck all and you don't throw away your national treasures because the country's going through a bit of a rough patch.

So the Royals understand the concept of "maintenance" and "paying for things" - yes?
A finacially responsible policy would be to put money aside each month/year so that when major work is required the money is there to pay for it. Save up or your next combi boiler while you still have use of your curent one. We should not be rewarding their financial ineptitude.
Let them take out a loan. I'm sure there is a pay day loan company that would jump at the chance of a marketing tie-in.

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

No it doesn't - it goes to a "charity" for queenie.

 

[SWP's back]

So the Royals understand the concept of "maintenance" and "paying for things" - yes?
A finacially responsible policy would be to put money aside each month/year so that when major work is required the money is there to pay for it. Save up or your next combi boiler while you still have use of your curent one. We should not be rewarding their financial ineptitude.

Who owns the property?

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

And in the mean time James Hewitt's still not paid a penny in maintenance.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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

I have no desire to appear credible to you mate.

 

[SWP's back]

No it doesn't - it goes to a "charity" for queenie.

The bastards giving it to charity.

Wish they were more like Amazon.

 

[SWP's back]

I have no desire to appear credible to you mate.

That's fine. The reader can decide.

You make I post, I quote it, you argue against your own post.

It's pretty open and shut.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That's fine. The reader can decide.

You make I post, I quote it, you argue against your own post.

It's pretty open and shut.

Of course it is. Keep telling yourself that, it won't make it true.

 

[Mike N]

Some proper bores on here.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

I'd like to thank the taxpayer for contributing towards the roof of one of my rental properties and the replacement windows in another.

 

[casserole of nonsense]

Gawd bless 'er.

And gawd bless our Princess Eugenie of York.

Mine's a gin.