Zombie Democracy – Apartheid Fort NZ

5,500 Foreigners Violently Killed & 35,000 Seriously Injured by NZ Tourism Machination since 2000 — Welcome to the World's Deadliest Tourist Attraction: The Final Destination!

Archive for January 25th, 2020

The “serial hypocrite” parasites on Greta Thunberg

Posted by te2ataria on January 25, 2020

Sent by a visiting scholar [Title added by a moderator ]

Your Royal Highness, Do You Take Us for Fools?

Prince Charles flew to Switzerland in a private jet, which produces six tonnes of carbon per passenger compared to 0.19 tonnes on a commercial flight. Then he called for new eco-taxes, greener fuels and hydrogen-powered planes by 2030.

Total travel costs of the British Royal Family in 2018/19 was £4.6 million including £1.7m by helicopter

Prince Charles Was the Royal Family’s Biggest Spender on Travel Last Year
Together with the Duchess of Cornwall, they spent about £1.3m ($1.68 million).

The cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers? A not-inconsiderable £292 million in 2017.

“Britain cut almost as much from desperately needed national flood defenses over recent years, as part of the government’s austerity agenda. The U.K. could employ 14,000 new police officers or 15,000 new teachers for the amount we spend on the royals. Instead, police forces and schools are being told to make cuts, while more money is thrown at the queen and her extended family.”

“Royal family finances can be complicated, as many details of their fortune are kept private. But it’s fair to say that Queen Elizabeth and the royal family’s net worth is in the tens of billions — around $88 billion as of 2017, according to Forbes. Since the royal family’s jobs aren’t like the average person, how do they make all their money? The short answer: much of the royal family lives off trusts like the Crown Estate, which is owned by the reigning monarch and includes real estate properties like Buckingham Palace.”

The reality is different. We actually subsidise those born to rule at a time of gross inequality and zilch mobility. These people have no shame. They believe themselves to be the deserving rich. So put your hands in your pockets to mend the ancient boilers of billionaires. And feel thankful. Yes, this really is “beyond explanation”.

“Despite misleading headlines this week about a possible “pay cut,” the British taxpayer continues to fork over millions to fund the lifestyles of the queen and 15 ‘working’ royals? The monarchy seems to be a corrupt institution that fails to live up to the highest standards of integrity or accountability.”

“Royal funding is shrouded in obfuscation, spin and denial so it’s not always easy to get a clear answer to how much it really costs the taxpayer. Last year, the “official” figure was £35.7 million (about $55 million). This is made up of a single “sovereign grant” that the government gives the palace. That figure is expected to go up to £40 million this year, a 29% increase from when the grant was introduced three years ago. At the same time, taxpayers in the UK are experiencing massive public sector cuts to jobs and essential services.”

“Yet that £40 million is only the tip of the iceberg. A report that I’m publishing later this month puts the real annual cost of the monarchy— when you count security, lost income from property assets and costs met by local government—at more than £300 million. That’s more than Britain spends on the Cancer Drugs Fund.”

“Why is the British monarchy so expensive? It’s unaccountable, lacks transparency, and has access to government ministers and the opportunity to defend its interests with impunity. Much of the £300 million is not being spent on official duties. The travel bill alone is bloated by personal trips around the country—such as when Prince Charles spent £30,000 on a chartered plane for a four-day holiday in Scotland, just 400 miles from his London home. That’s more than many people earn in a whole year. We don’t know all the details because the royals refuse to publish fully itemized accounts.”

“I object to the monarchy for a number of reasons, and cost isn’t really one of them. If there were no cost, I would still call for its abolition on the grounds of good politics and democratic principle. But the extravagant cost raises serious questions about the accountability of the institution and about the morals of those who occupy it and support it. I would welcome the opportunity to ask Prince Charles to meet a public sector worker who has lost his job, to look him in the eye and justify why his publicly funded holiday is more important than another man’s livelihood. I would also ask government ministers why they continue to allow the royals to get away with such blatant abuse of public funds when at the same time those same ministers are telling voters we all need to tighten our belts and make sacrifices.”

The monarchy is a fundamental part of the British constitution, but it shouldn’t be and it’s not something I want to be paying for, no matter how much it costs.

“If monarchy did not exist, nobody would invent it today. Its legitimacy stems from ancient ritual and childish stories, not from a system based on reason and intended to achieve good governance. It transfers power through a mechanism which promotes congenital defects rather than intelligence. It is sexist, classiest, racist and designed specifically to prevent diversity, equality and personal merit from creeping into its inbred ranks.”https://www.economist.com/international/2019/04/27/how-monarchies-survive-modernity

The Prince of Wales has been branded a “serial hypocrite” after it emerged that the heir to the throne– who prides himself on his green credentials – used a helicopter to fly less than 70 miles in order to attend a polo match. The flight would have burned around 200 gallons of aviation fuel, compared with four gallons of petrol.

“In 2010 the Prince embarked on a tour of the UK to promote sustainable living and emphasise the importance of walking and cycling. Green groups attacked the £50,000 tax-payer-funded on a nine-carriage royal train.”

“There is persuasive evidence for this in a new book, What the Royal Family Don’t Want You to Know…And What Do You Do? (Biteback Publishing, UK) by Norman Baker, a former government minister and long-time Member of Parliament who has become a zealous auditor of the royal firm’s accounts and travel habits. Among the red flags that Baker raises are:

  • Charles has turned his vast personal fief, the Duchy of Cornwall, into a brand of high-end supermarket foods that makes an annual profit of more than £21 million ($27.1 million) on which he pays no corporate taxes.
  • Although he pays income tax (albeit “voluntarily”) he is allowed to make huge deductions for expenses including the costs of a personal staff of 28, including butlers, valets and gardeners—as well as those of the Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla, including her jewels, clothes and stabling for horses.
  • He pays market price rent to the Duchy on Highgrove, his sprawling country estate, but all that money comes straight back to him in the Duchy’s profits without any deductions for tax—amounting, in fact, to self-dealing.
  • The Duchy audits its own accounts and gives no right of access to the government watchdog, the National Audit Office.
  • When Charles made a tour of Europe to promote awareness of climate change he flew to Rome, Berlin and Venice on a private jet, leaving a carbon footprint of 52.95 tonnes—using commercial flights would have reduced emissions by 95 percent.
  • The latest available annual travel costs (2018/19) for Charles and Camilla were £1.3 million ($1.68 million) and in that one year the carbon emissions generated by travel by the whole royal family doubled to 3,344 tonnes.

“The Daily Beast reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment, and did not receive a response.”

“Indeed, the royal family has obviously had some good tax advice. When Elizabeth the Queen Mother died in 2002 her estate avoided death duties because her most valuable personal possessions, mostly jewels, had been passed to her grandchildren nine years earlier. After her death the jewels were found still stashed away in her home—but the tax man allowed the dodge.”

“The family is also very adept at concealing the frequent excesses of its travel habits. Twenty years ago all trips that cost more than £500 ($646) had to be publicly disclosed. By 2010 the threshold was £10,000 ($13,000) and by 2016 £15,000 ($19.4 million). Baker says that allowed 202 helicopter flights to go unlisted in that year, as well as 43 charter flights.”

Charles becomes very testy when it is suggested that there should be more transparency about his finances. In 2005, after a government watchdog said of the Duchy’s accounts “More information and explanation need to be given to readers of the accounts, not the least of which is Parliament” he snapped that the report was “a travesty” and “fundamentally wrong.”

And, forewarning about his attitude to becoming King he said, “I think it of absolute importance that the monarch should have a degree of financial independence from the state… I am not prepared to take on the position of sovereign on any other basis.”

“The Queen has a net worth of around £20 billion (around $26 billion). This is able to accumulate partly because there is no inheritance tax on bequests from monarch to monarch. The Queen is believed to have received a tax-free bequest from her mother’s estate of between £20 and £25 million ($26 and $32 million). Royal wills are never published and no government has wanted to change that.”

“The Royal accounts for 2018-19, the latest available, show that Charles tops the list for travel extravagance once again, burning through £1.13 million in a year.”

“They show that even a simple trip to France and Greece cost £159,820 – but then the RAF Voyager does not come cheap.”

Global warming has increased global economic inequality
“We find that global warming has very likely exacerbated global economic inequality, including ∼25% increase in population-weighted between-country inequality over the past half century. This increase results from the impact of warming on annual economic growth, which over the course of decades has accumulated robust and substantial declines in economic output in hotter, poorer countries—and increases in many cooler, wealthier countries—relative to a world without anthropogenic warming. Thus, the global warming caused by fossil fuel use has likely exacerbated the economic inequality associated with historical disparities in energy consumption. Our results suggest that low-carbon energy sources have the potential to provide a substantial secondary development benefit, in addition to the primary benefits of increased energy access.”

Climate change has worsened global economic inequality
“The gap between the economic output of the world’s richest and poorest countries is 25 percent larger today than it would have been without global warming, according to new research from Stanford University.”

Climate Change and Social Inequality
“This paper offers a unifying conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between climate change and “within-country inequalities,” referred here collectively as “social inequality.” Available evidence indicates that this relationship is characterized by a vicious cycle, whereby initial inequality causes the disadvantaged groups to suffer disproportionately from the adverse effects of climate change, resulting in greater subsequent inequality. The paper identifies three main channels through which the inequality-aggravating effect of climate change materializes, namely (a) increase in the exposure of the disadvantaged groups to the adverse effects of climate change; (b) increase in their susceptibility to damage caused by climate change; and (c) decrease in their ability to cope and recover from the damage suffered. The paper presents evidence to illustrate each of the processes above. It also notes that the same analytical framework can be used to discuss the relationship between climate change and inequality across countries. Finally, it points to the ways in which the analysis can be helpful in making relevant policy decisions.”

Posted in Tourist Deathtrap | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »