Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Thatcher's funeral cost taxpayer £3.6m

Scroll to see replies

Completely irrelevant.

Not at all. The government would have soon spent this money on something else, whether it be servicing the national debt, loans for new businesses or the NHS.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 41

forfrosne

I really don't care. £3.6mil is a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things.

Reply 42

Darkphilosopher

Original post by electriic_ink

Not at all. The government would have soon spent this money on something else, whether it be servicing the national debt, loans for new businesses or the NHS.

This situation is the "broken window fallacy" without the window being broken... In other words, a simple matter of opportunity cost. Therefore the video is irrelevant.

Reply 43

allthetime

Original post by MatureStudent36

You just come across as an angry person

This is an issue that makes me angry. That doesn't make me an angry person. :rolleyes:

Reply 44

MatureStudent36

Original post by allthetime

This is an issue that makes me angry. That doesn't make me an angry person. :rolleyes:

Funerals make you angry?

Reply 45

Guru Jason

Original post by MatureStudent36

Funerals make you angry?

I could be wrong but wasn't her response about being angry for the lack of help for her blind father?

Reply 46

Lord Harold

Where on earth did the £10 million come from? Plus if all those idiots hadn't have threatened protests at the funeral the taxpayer would be paying £1.1 million less for EXTRA policing due to the threats. It has just been one blunder after another for the left after Baroness Thatcher's death, first they throw money at the huge Tory who is Lloyd Webber, they then scaremonger by plucking up this £10 million sum of taxpayer money from nowhere and finally increase the bill by just under a third by making pathetic threats of mass riots that just did not happen. They look more foolish than ever!

Reply 47

username963570

Original post by MatureStudent36

Funerals make you angry?

don't think she's angry about the funeral..... :colonhash:

she's angry about the cutting of disability benefits , you utter eejit.

Reply 48

F1's Finest

Original post by Bulbasaur

So there you have it - the funeral actually cost barely over a third of what the media thought it would.

---
Mod Edit: Just adding a source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22299372

Do you even believe both quotes of 3.6 million and 10 million?

How do you know the bbc didn't pull random facts from their rear? It's easy to make up a break down of the costs. The power of the media :sigh:

No one knows the true costs, after all. Even Downing Street could have made it up.

Reply 49

allthetime

Original post by Guru Jason

I could be wrong but wasn't her response about being angry for the lack of help for her blind father?

Original post by Fas

don't think she's angry about the funeral..... :colonhash:

she's angry about the cutting of disability benefits , you utter eejit.

Phew, I'm glad that was obvious to some people at least! :rolleyes:

Reply 50

MasterSnake

Original post by alexh42

What! The Royal Family are probably the least lazy people in the country. The Queen at 87 attends many functions and meetings and travels the world. Price Harry was in Afghanistan. The Duke of Cambridge is/was a pilot in the Search and Rescue Force. And I'm certain the rest are doing many other things.

Must be so hard having been born into wealth! I can only imagine how tiring it must be to travel in first class luxury and make appearances to places only to wave at poor people. Talk about a hard life!

Prince Harry and William must be the least lazy people in the country! I mean imagine someone in their 20's having a job?? Shock Horror!

Reply 51

electriic_ink

Original post by Darkphilosopher

This situation is the "broken window fallacy" without the window being broken... In other words, a simple matter of opportunity cost. Therefore the video is irrelevant.

Actually, the point of the broken window fallacy is to highlight the unseen, not that property was destroyed. What would have happened if there was no ceremonial funeral? Thatcher's family would have paid for one instead and the government would have soon spent that money on something else. To claim, as you did, that this funeral is so wonderful because the government "pumped money into the economy" is ignoring the unseen.

Reply 52

ollyhal

Really don't understand why we had to pay for the funeral. I did not even get an invite. It's not like the tax payers are going to pay for my funeral, if they want security then pay for it themselves. I am sure that the inheritance would have been more than enough to cover it! Another example of how corrupt our government is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 53

419

Original post by electriic_ink

Are you being serious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls

Thank you for posting this. The logic of some people.

Reply 54

ed-

It's unbelievable how stubborn people can be... How can you still be moaning when it cost 6.4m less than was expected? :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 55

Hopple

Original post by ed-

It's unbelievable how stubborn people can be... How can you still be moaning when it cost 6.4m less than was expected? :rolleyes:

Presumably you see a can of [insert your favourite fizzy drink here] on sale for £3.60 and think it's a bargain because it was reduced from £10.

Reply 56

AverageExcellence

It doesn't take into account the thousands of people that actually came to london to see her as well which put money back into the local service industry and the transport industry. So by in large the fees were a very fraction of what they ever estimated.

Reply 57

ollyhal

And also all the people that wanted to get as far away as possible...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 58

Darkphilosopher

Original post by electriic_ink

The fallacy is only valid when there is a discrepancy between the amounts that would have otherwise been spent.

Say the government has £10m to spend and the Thatcher family has £100,000 to spend.

If the government spent £10m on the funeral, then the Thatcher family has an extra £100,000 to spend on whatever they want. The total amount spent here is £10.1m.

If the government had spent the £10m on something else, then the Thatcher family would have spent the £100,000 on the funeral. The total amount spent here is also £10.1m.

Either way, £10.1m is entering the economy (it would've done anyway but via different methods if spent differently).

Hence, like I said, it is merely a matter of opportunity cost. (What the money could have been spent on instead)

In the broken window fallacy, let's say that the window is of value £5, and the shop owner has £10 to spend.

The net value being £15.

If the window is broken, then the net value has fallen (the unseen) to £10.