ChatterBank3 mins ago
new baby
32 Answers
so price edward and his wife have had another baby.....another royal mouth for us hard pressed tax payers to feed.banish the lot of them to a desert island and we would save ourselves millions..........
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stokemaveric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
stokemaveric , I Agree With You Entirly ! Just Like Religeon , They Are Out Of Date. We Should Pay Them Off, A President We Be Far Cheaper. A Bit Of Useless Information, The Spanish Royal Family Manage On 1/3rd Of What Our Greedy Royal's Get. I Personaly , Loath The Lot Of Them Big Time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Actually, the monarchy saves more money than it costs. The money that is paid up by royal estates, plus all the indirect cash that it attracts through tourism at least makes up for - and probably surpasses - the cost.
Plus the only real constitutional alternative to the monarch is to have a president. Which is actually far more expensive (and would create a big consititutional mess due to the disparaties of power between the head of state and the PM).
Plus the only real constitutional alternative to the monarch is to have a president. Which is actually far more expensive (and would create a big consititutional mess due to the disparaties of power between the head of state and the PM).
Another total plonker shooting off mouth before engaging Brain. The civil list is 67m the Queen paid 124m in tax last year I make that 57m up. I just tire of this anti royal twaddle based on zero knowledge, when are people like you going to do a bit of reasearch before running off at the mouth? what a t1t!
Yes but that's not the full story is it Loosehead?
The civil list only pays a small proportion of royal costs - things like security are huge bills and are met out of public coffers and not from the civil list.
The economics are beside the point. - It's like the tired old argument about the tourist money the monarch brings in - we don't and shouldn't decide constitutional affairs based on tourist revenue, nor should we on the few million to support the royals.
The real point is that having a hereditary monarch with the vestages of power should be unacceptable ( the right to appoint invite leaders to form governments needs to go ).
The subsiduary point is that their existance as head of a class system is damaging and divisive.
However nothing's going to change while we have an OK monarch and they keep reproducing.
Should we get to a point where there is no direct line of descent we might well not continue, especially if the last one is unpopular.
In the meantime they'll continue to exisist to feed the fantasies of little girls with princess syndromes and social snobs
The civil list only pays a small proportion of royal costs - things like security are huge bills and are met out of public coffers and not from the civil list.
The economics are beside the point. - It's like the tired old argument about the tourist money the monarch brings in - we don't and shouldn't decide constitutional affairs based on tourist revenue, nor should we on the few million to support the royals.
The real point is that having a hereditary monarch with the vestages of power should be unacceptable ( the right to appoint invite leaders to form governments needs to go ).
The subsiduary point is that their existance as head of a class system is damaging and divisive.
However nothing's going to change while we have an OK monarch and they keep reproducing.
Should we get to a point where there is no direct line of descent we might well not continue, especially if the last one is unpopular.
In the meantime they'll continue to exisist to feed the fantasies of little girls with princess syndromes and social snobs
the trouble is, jake, it is hard to say what constitutional affairs are improperly decided at present. The monarch's right to appoint a prime minister the public don't want seems to be purely theoretical. The only abuse of the power I can remember was the removal of Gough Whitlam in Australia, and even the Australians went along with it, though I wouldn't have. Different countries require different things of their heads of state, from the strong executive in the USA and France to the largely decorative one in the UK. If she's without real power apart from the ability to get the odd BBC controller sacked, then it doesn't seem to me to matter how the role is filled, and an economic argument is as good as any other; a hereditary monarch is no better or worse at opening supermarkets than Jade Goody, but is ore likely to attract American tourists.
There's certainly a case to be made for having an elected head of state, but it requires me to say with a straight face that the Americans under Bush are better off than we are under the queen.
There's certainly a case to be made for having an elected head of state, but it requires me to say with a straight face that the Americans under Bush are better off than we are under the queen.
Loosehead said -
The civil list is 67m the Queen paid 124m in tax last year I make that 57m up.
Ermmmm can I just ask - if I pay �12,400 in tax in a year, do I get a refund of �6,700? No of course not. Does anyone else? So the Royals pay tax on their income (just like everyone else in this country) - why should they get a refund?
There is no "57m up". If they were not receiving the civil list of �67m they would still have to pay the tax. And why not? People who use this argument to justify the obscene amount of money they get are not really thinking about it are they - they are not paying the �124m out of choice because they're just so nice are they.
And am I remembering this correctly, did they get away with not having to pay inheritance tax on the queen mother's estate?
I can't see how the Royal Family justify it to themselves taking this money from the taxpayer when they don't need it or deserve it - it's disgusting.
The civil list is 67m the Queen paid 124m in tax last year I make that 57m up.
Ermmmm can I just ask - if I pay �12,400 in tax in a year, do I get a refund of �6,700? No of course not. Does anyone else? So the Royals pay tax on their income (just like everyone else in this country) - why should they get a refund?
There is no "57m up". If they were not receiving the civil list of �67m they would still have to pay the tax. And why not? People who use this argument to justify the obscene amount of money they get are not really thinking about it are they - they are not paying the �124m out of choice because they're just so nice are they.
And am I remembering this correctly, did they get away with not having to pay inheritance tax on the queen mother's estate?
I can't see how the Royal Family justify it to themselves taking this money from the taxpayer when they don't need it or deserve it - it's disgusting.
Who bloody cares the royals cost sod all in real terms. For christ sake i'd rather spend it on Her Maj than the bloody NHS so they can pi55 it away on trendy artwork and management consultants. I doubt the royals actually cost anything at all anyway. I just get totally pi55ed off with all these bloody "chip on shoulder" anti monarchists. If you don't like it move to bloody France or some other god awful republic, try the USA, you'd love the President there! If we where a republic and HM stood for President she'd pi55 it any way!
I seem to recall that Mrs T was actually somewhat ambivilent about the royals and there was actually a bit of conflict there.
Anyway the point is that in this country people tend to be quite happy muddling along until something bad happens and then run around like headless chickens blaming everyone for it.
Right now there's not often an issue about who the monarch invites to form a government but should we have a hung parliament the issue could get to be a problem.
In 1974 Heath didn't resign but tried to reach an accomodation with the Liberals which failed and so Wilson (who had most seats) ended up PM.
But we'll probably not fix anything until it's a crisis - It's the British way!
Anyway the point is that in this country people tend to be quite happy muddling along until something bad happens and then run around like headless chickens blaming everyone for it.
Right now there's not often an issue about who the monarch invites to form a government but should we have a hung parliament the issue could get to be a problem.
In 1974 Heath didn't resign but tried to reach an accomodation with the Liberals which failed and so Wilson (who had most seats) ended up PM.
But we'll probably not fix anything until it's a crisis - It's the British way!
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
