The King owns land called the crown estate. He surrenders the profit to the treasury who then pays him back a small fraction of, which he also pays tax on.
The King does not get funded by tax money, just a small portion of what his family’s land makes.
China is currently on track to beat the west at its own game, and this is post maoist land reform. So regardless of whether you believe China is communist or not, their land reform has functioned perfectly well and has produced a system that is at least as functional as what we have in the west.
Is it tax money, or money he was paid then he is paying out?
I mean its a technical difference and I am not really defending anything, I just don’t know how it works really.
The King owns land called the crown estate. He surrenders the profit to the treasury who then pays him back a small fraction of, which he also pays tax on.
The King does not get funded by tax money, just a small portion of what his family’s land makes.
Well he shouldn’t.
Such a proposition is unrealistic. It’s his family’s land, he’s the heir. At least he surrenders it to the government, unlike most land-owners.
His family has avoided inheritance tax for centuries. It’s totally realistic. Look at all the Republican countries.
Ah yes, the republican countries with great heads of states like Russia, Turkiye, The USA, etc
Those heads of state don’t have Intergenerational wealth built over centuries. Monarchy is corruption on a totally different scale.
Communist and anti-colonialist land reforms show that such a proposition is not unrealistic at all you are just a bootlicker monarchist.
It is unrealistic. Communism has never worked.
China is currently on track to beat the west at its own game, and this is post maoist land reform. So regardless of whether you believe China is communist or not, their land reform has functioned perfectly well and has produced a system that is at least as functional as what we have in the west.