Options
Royal Family Cost going up to "£40m" / £106m
brewer480
Posts: 1,680 Forum Member
✭✭✭
That right folks, the family that own all the land in the country and worth £330m are rising their royal budget up to £40m per year. Included in these cost is £4m for refurbishments at Kensington Palace so its comfortable and "large" for Harry & Kate, 6 train journeys cost £125,000 and a trip for Prince Charles to Mandela's funeral somehow cost £250,000. Not included in this cost is the huge cost of security a cost the family has kept secret for a long time (estimated at a whopping 46m). Also omitted are the cost to local councils arranging royal visits (estimated to cost £26m).
Isn't it time that this wealthy, non elected, sponging family pay for their own lifestyle. Think what a difference that money would make to a deprived area in Britain, or how much it would save us on interest alone if we just set the budget against the deficit. Don't forget that thanks to the bona vacantia law which means that all estates of duchy residents who die without leaving a will pass to the Queen or Charles, which is another nice earner for the family.
Before the royalists get on their high horse comparing the cost of the royal family to the cost of the USA presidency can I remind you that we are also paying for the cost of parliament, which cost us £391m in 2009 and is expected to have increased since. I also think this is a bit steep. But I wont go into that because this thread is about the needless cost of the royals.
Isn't it time to at last agree that times have changed we no longer need a royal family, to live in a diplomatic society we should have a head of state that is electable. Seeing as the Queen doesn't make any difference to the laws of the land and has no real power any more, other than turning up to prime events such as the Olympics and looking bored out of her mind. It's time to move on!
Isn't it time that this wealthy, non elected, sponging family pay for their own lifestyle. Think what a difference that money would make to a deprived area in Britain, or how much it would save us on interest alone if we just set the budget against the deficit. Don't forget that thanks to the bona vacantia law which means that all estates of duchy residents who die without leaving a will pass to the Queen or Charles, which is another nice earner for the family.
Before the royalists get on their high horse comparing the cost of the royal family to the cost of the USA presidency can I remind you that we are also paying for the cost of parliament, which cost us £391m in 2009 and is expected to have increased since. I also think this is a bit steep. But I wont go into that because this thread is about the needless cost of the royals.
Isn't it time to at last agree that times have changed we no longer need a royal family, to live in a diplomatic society we should have a head of state that is electable. Seeing as the Queen doesn't make any difference to the laws of the land and has no real power any more, other than turning up to prime events such as the Olympics and looking bored out of her mind. It's time to move on!
0
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28031425
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/18/britains-richest-people-sunday-time-rich-list_n_5346048.html
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8208590.stm
I deliberately ignored figures given from the republic campaign as people don't believe them as a reliable source, although its probably nearer the truth
Why is there a need to divide costs, we don't divide the cost of education or military to the cost of per "taxpayer" per day.
Its still £40m, a significant amount of money! It doesn't matter what stupid maths formula you use!
No problem, glad to see someone is checking the facts!
Well that's a mature response isn't it. Honestly as long as you are not paying the £40m yourself (I mean all of it) then a few pennies isn't really worth all this shenanigans is it?
So What would you do with this £40 as you seem an expert in economics.
It's a large amount of money taken on its own, however when you compared it to NHS spending, which is over 100 billion a year, it's small change. Even railway projects like the Thameslink Programme and Crossrail are going to cost the government in excess of £20 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thameslink_Programme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail
Even my local council has a budget of £550 million per year.
The same argument used against justifying Royal expenditure (and I'm no supporter of the Royals) was used to discredit the cost of the London Olympics, but in reality was a red herring, as a large chunk of the expenditure was used for transport infrastructure upgrades, still in use to this day, e.g. Victoria Line tube upgrades (brand new trains and signalling), London Overground (brand new trains and infrastructure upgrades), Docklands Light railway (brand new trains and line extension), Javelin Trains (new service and brand new trains). Etc. Besides, the Olympics expenditure was a one off cost and we all know how successful it all was, despite all the nay sayers on DS.
A lot of people on DS dismissed my views at the time, but once again I was proved right. One of the issues being the lack of understanding by many people of transport movements, i.e. most people going to the Olympics would be travelling in the opposite direction to commuters, both in the morning and evening.
To clarify its £40m we are talking about, not just £40. As suggested earlier it could help with the deficit of help regenerate a poor area of the country. Why do you think we should fork out £40m on royalty?
Sorry and101, only just saw this! Thanks!
* Not a thread about the Olympics
I agree with every penny spent on our NHS, schools, transport etc because they are vital to our society. But to see £40m (more like £106m as I've explained before) spent on one of the richest families in the country who are not elected, look down at us and call us subjects is just wrong.
So that would be £1.19 a week according to Google.
People want to count themselves lucky. The last thing we want is a President Michael Gove being head of state. ;-)
Jesus, what is it with everyone, its still 40 million pounds!!! More like over 100 million pounds! A huge amount of money
NO ONE CAN ANSWER WHY IT IS WORTH PAYING!!!
But it wouldn't be Michael Gove. It would be a pedophile serial killer who's done time for fraud. Married to Katie Price.
Thank you a valid answer at last!!! I respect your difference of opinion.
I agree with you about Mr Gove!
Why are you getting angry for? I was only giving the answer of how much that amounted to over a week.
TO PAY THE WAGES OF THE 100+ STAFF OF THE ROYAL HOUSEHOLD AND THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN DOING THEIR JOBS, RUNNING THEIR OFFICES AND KEEPING THEM IN GOOD REPAIR.
What did the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Equalities_Office do to justify it's £76m in 2010/11, £65m budget in 2011/12?
But why is that important when the royal family don't do anything good for society???
It probably isn't worth paying, but neither is the huge amount of wastage incurred by government departments and councils.
Governments are generally wasteful with money, whatever they are spending the money on, as it isn't their money.
As the expression goes. In order of getting value for money for any expenditure from best to worst.
When you spend your own money on yourself.
When you spend somebody else's money on yourself.
When you spend your own money on somebody else.
When you spend somebody's else's money on somebody else.
And government expenditure is generally in the last and also worst category.
Because it is simply another government department with another budget.
The Royal family, or more likely The Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles do what is asked of them by government.
One might as well ask what good do pensioners, the unemployed and disabled do for society?
From what I've read, The Crown Estate brought in £250m this year, the Sovereign Grant saw £37.9m given to the Queen out of that. We could just give her the £250m instead couldn't we?