Getting rid if the Queen?

[English assassin]

Then, where did anyone's ownership of anything come from?

Well, in my case I went to work, got paid, paid my taxes, paid into my pension plan, paid for my food and clothes, and then what I had left over I spent or saved up. That's basically where everything I own came from.

Even if Charlie saved really really hard, I somehow don't think he paid the mortgage on Windsor castle from his brief stint playing sailors.

[rory_20_uk]

I feel you're missing the point.

Where does ownership for anything come from? Go back far enough and ownership always comes to people having land as they'd kill anyone that tried to take it. That's been dressed up down the centuries, but it comes back to that.

Items are inhereted, and why does inhereted belnogings not count in Charles's case?

[English assassin]

Far from missing the point that is exactly my point. I, in common with most people, have earned what little I own. Charlie hasn't. So, when someone says "oh, they pay their way, they aren't a burden on the taxpayer", the answer is cobblers. They pay their way on the basis of land and assets that at some point have been expropriated from their rightful owners, ie the people.

I'm glad you referred to inheritance though, because inheritance does apply to us all, or anyway, anyone with money, and you are right, charlie should have the same rules are the rest of us. So once Brenda pops off to ask God what he does for a living, Charlie should get £ 285,000 tax free and pay 40% inheritance tax on the rest, same as I'd have to.

Oh, but wait. He won't have to pay any bloody inheritance tax: http://www.guardian.co.uk/queenmothe...712192,00.html

Paul Flynn, Labour backbencher and veteran republican, said yesterday: "If some of the richest people in the country can avoid inheritance tax, why not the butcher or baker, or anyone on a lower income than the royal family? Anyone who owns a house in London these days will be liable to have inheritance tax levied on their estate. This [expletive deleted] must end

[rory_20_uk]

You talk as though there was some time that the people who lived in this land owned it all. They never did. Many businesses grew from the landlord class. Many large landowners still exist. Many magnates have massive fortunes. They don't seem to be the target of your wrath. Why is this? All didn't earn it (which in essence seems to mean that the money you get is fine even though it is given to you from backers that for some reason don't deserve it).

Inheritance tax can easily be avioded by transfering assets 7 years before death. So, by passing on assets to both Charlie and his sons there would be nothing, or little to tax. It is often called "idiot's tax" as it is so easy to aviod with foresight.

[King Henry V]

Far from missing the point that is exactly my point. I, in common with most people, have earned what little I own. Charlie hasn't. So, when someone says "oh, they pay their way, they aren't a burden on the taxpayer", the answer is cobblers. They pay their way on the basis of land and assets that at some point have been expropriated from their rightful owners, ie the people.

What of say, the Rothschilds? I'm sure that the latter members of the family have not worked as hard as the first Rothschilds who made the family fortune, much less than most people. On the other hand, they are much, much richer than most people.
You say that the land was expropriated from the people. The fact is, the land was never expropriated from the people since they never owned it in the first place.
Perhaps Charles ought to pay inheritance tax. However, as revenue from all royal estates passes into government coffers, whether or not he pays inheritance tax makes little difference, since it all goes to the government anyway.

[English assassin]

It is often called "idiot's tax".

I'm in favour of a tax on idiots too, and the Royal family would certainly be liable for that.

Now, what's with all this the people never owned the land business? Who did own it then? When the Beaker people got here, just after the glaciers, the white cliffs of Dover didn't have a big Foxton's To Let sign on them did they? You wouldn't say, for example, that the estate that now belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall was created by a massive bit of armed robbery round about 1066 or so? And did the enclosure acts never happen?

ASs for the Rothschilds (actually, lets assume someone like Bill Gates, since I suspect the Rothschilds history is pretty murky) I don't care so much because (1) the fortune came from someone working or taking a financial risk or having a good idea and (2) Bill Gates doesn't think I should kiss his backside just because he is the son of Mrs Gates.

I don't know what you mean about revenue from the royal estates going to the government, but if you mean the crown estate that's mainly because the crown estate is used as a convenient catch all for a lot of public sector land holdings. Eg DVLA take land in the name of the crown estates but if Liz is down in Swansea processing road tax I'd be surprised.

But look, gang, this is basically an emotional judgement. Charlie is stupid. Charlie is a prat. Charlie think's he is important. Any two of those things I might live with, but its three strikes and out. Frankly I say we just make huim illegal.