If you want the royal family, you pay for them

Tthings like the NHS are different, as it's logical for people to pay for it even if they don't necessarily use it. However, if you want the royal family, you pay for them. If person A wants something, and person B doesn't want something, then person B shouldn't have to pay something he gets no enjoyment out of.

On one side, you have the following:

I want a really big house. Everyone should pay for it, because it would give me enjoyment and I would benefit. (virtually everyone would disagree)

On the other side, you have the following:

I'm a young guy coming from a poor family and need a little bit of money to pay for school equipment. Everyone should chip in and help me out. (virtually everyone would agree)

So as you can see, there is a line we draw somewhere when it comes to the government forcing us to pay for things. Generally necessary things such as defence, healthcare, and education are paid for collectively. I, and all those other millions of republicans out there, clearly do not need the royal family, and we also get no enjoyment out of them. So only the people who want them should pay for them. If 50 people opted out, then at the same rates it is now, the price would be less than £1 a year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-and-royals-cost-66p-per-person-855744.html

Everyone in the country, on average, is forced to pay 66p a year.

Obviously posting a thread like this on TSR is like internet-suicide, as TSR is a breeding ground for the privileged middle classes. Regardless, maybe some of them can see past their Tory upbringings and see that forcing people to pay for something they don't want is wrong. I'm pretty sure that many get more enjoyment out of the royalty than 66p, so they should pay more to cover the fact that others simply don't want to pay anything for something they don't want.

I can only hope the current rates of Islam's expansion continue, if Muslims became a majority in this country I'm pretty sure the parasitic scum known as the monarchy would be otherthrew.

Edit: LOL at all the people telling me that a Muslim majority wouldn't otherthrow a non-Muslim monarchy:

The idea and concept of a monarchy is a complete anathema to Islam and Muslims who believe that the right to legislate belongs to God alone, who believe that Allah is sovereign and not a man or woman and who believe that all Human beings are created equal and slaves to their creator not to a family.

(edited 13 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Smilingsam

This is basically economics 101 "free market" which is basically what you are saying is if someone doesnt get a use out of something they shouldnt have to pay for it..

That is like making everyone pay for a streetlight which would never happen because you would never buy a street light just to use outside your own garden when you cant take it with you....
anyway the monarch brings in enough income to cover there selves so it doesnt really matter, we dont really pay for them... also dont really care about them there all a waste of time even prince charles with his own scheme that failed (princes trust).

Reply 2

gladders

Original post by Selkarn

Tell you what, if you want Party X to govern the UK, you pay for the salaries of all their MPs and local councillors. If person A wants something, and person B doesn't want something, then person B shouldn't have to pay something he gts no enjoyment out of.

Reply 3

Fusilero

Or we go to a presidential system and then we elect the Royal Family in. Solve two problems with one stone, satisfy the Republicans and the Monarchists :smile:

Reply 4

Keckers

The royal family are actually a profitable enterprise.

They cost 7.8 million pounds a year and create about 5 million pounds profit from tourism etc.

Reply 5

gladders

Original post by Fusilero

Or we go to a presidential system and then we elect the Royal Family in. Solve two problems with one stone, satisfy the Republicans and the Monarchists :smile:

I actually consider the presidential system to be less effective than our parliamentary system.

Reply 6

Fusilero

Original post by gladders

I actually consider the presidential system to be less effective than our parliamentary system.

There are a lot of presidential systems. 'Presidential System' is a very, very broad term.

Reply 7

rmanoj

Original post by Selkarn

"Different" is a cop-out. How would it be any more logical to make person B pay for the NHS if he doesn't want it? :facepalm:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 8

Tefhel

Welcome to the UK. Everyone is paying for things they don't want to.

The majority of the country doesn't want to be paying for students, so how about everyone pays the full costs of the education, with no government loans or grants?

If Person A wants to do a media studies degree at Thames Valley, and Person B doesn't want to do a degree, why should Person B be paying for something they don't get enjoyment out of.

Hey, I'm just using your logic.

Reply 9

gladders

Original post by Fusilero

There are a lot of presidential systems. 'Presidential System' is a very, very broad term.

True, and I still consider the parliamentary system to do better :smile:

Reply 10

CurlyBen

Original post by Selkarn

How about social security? Should we be able to opt out of paying for that as well? It's a more obvious place to start than the Royal family.

Reply 11

Fusilero

Original post by gladders

True, and I still consider the parliamentary system to do better :smile:

What about Parliamentary Republics?

(edited 13 years ago)

what a stupid thread

Original post by Fusilero

What about Parliamentary Republics?

Horses for courses in most cases, as long as the president is not elected and only chosen through parliament, IMO. That's the only real difference from here.

Reply 14

bishbash72

This is such a TSR thread

Reply 15

Fusilero

Original post by gladders

Horses for courses in most cases, as long as the president is not elected and only chosen through parliament, IMO. That's the only real difference from here.

Several of them have elected Presidents as Head of State but relatively powerless with a Prime Minister chosen through Parliament.

Reply 16

gladders

Original post by Fusilero

Several of them have elected Presidents as Head of State but relatively powerless with a Prime Minister chosen through Parliament.

They do, but I can't think of very many examples...most countries keep them unelected precisely to prevent it happening, particularly in the big rich countries like Germany and Italy.

Reply 17

Miss_Scarlett

Original post by Tefhel

You made me lol, Im not sure why though....none of that is untrue or funny ! :p:

Reply 18

Aj12

Original post by Selkarn

Ok. and the hundreds of millions they bring in will not go to people who do not pay for them.

Reply 19

Wednesday Bass

For gods sake, I'm sick of how many times I have to point this out.

The government pays the Royal family for official head of state duties - nothing else, most of their income comes from the royal duchies. With regards to security at the Royal wedding we'd be in the same situation if it was the presidents grandchildren getting married.