How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year Watch

username537845
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by Quentin)
Some people are born with money, some aren't. Sure it's unfair. Life is unfair.
That doesn't really count as a valid arguement for keeping in place one of the institutions that causes it though, does it?

And I'd rather pay £2.60 in extra taxes if it meant we had a democratically elected head of state.
3
reply
Tesphena
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by joe3469)
Yes, especially if she didn't earn it.
Lots of people inherit. You can't just take their property from them.
0
reply
Chris_23
Badges: 2
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
Amazing video, loved all the little pop up pictures!
0
reply
Pn94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
Oh.

So I can buy a kebab with that.
0
reply
joe3469
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Tesphena)
Lots of people inherit. You can't just take their property from them.
You can especially when wealth and land are so maldistributed...
5
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
People hate them because they are born into wealth while they aren't. People hate them because they're jealous. People don't care how much they cost or how much benefit they bring to the UK.
3
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by joe3469)
Why not, why does changing ownership affect income? The only thing that would change is the £40 million that goes back to the people. Why should such a small elite group own most of the land?
Have you ever known anything run by our Government to make a profit!? Put them in the hands of large farming companies, then sure, they'd turn over the same profit, maybe even the same levels as they are know... but they'd still - effectively - be in private hands. And they'd take a cut of the profits for looking after them, sowing them, fertilizing them, reaping them, etc.. It basically wouldn't change a thing. So why bother?
0
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by sak-y)
Genuine question, how did they get that land in the first place? Did they just take it on the basis of being a monarch?
Back in the days when the Monarchy was more powerful and actually played a significant role in the UK and the British Empire, yes... probably. I have no idea.
0
reply
Tesphena
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by joe3469)
You can especially when wealth and land are so maldistributed...
Well that's just robbery. :rolleyes:
0
reply
joe3469
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by Drewski)
Have you ever known anything run by our Government to make a profit!? Put them in the hands of large farming companies, then sure, they'd turn over the same profit, maybe even the same levels as they are know... but they'd still - effectively - be in private hands. And they'd take a cut of the profits for looking after them, sowing them, fertilizing them, reaping them, etc.. It basically wouldn't change a thing. So why bother?
I'm just saying the 200m in rents could be given straight to parlialment (with some administration costs). Not 20% of it all to one family!
0
reply
Broderss
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by joe3469)
You can especially when wealth and land are so maldistributed...
You can't deprive others because you don't like what they have. My 23 year old neighbour drives a flash car because his dad is rich, can I go steal it?
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by sak-y)
Genuine question, how did they get that land in the first place? Did they just take it on the basis of being a monarch?
People who owned bits of land would turn it over to local chieftains/Sirs/whatevers in hope of favours... And it goes up the chain until one person holds all the monopoly money.
0
reply
joe3469
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by Tesphena)
Well that's just robbery. :rolleyes:
Problem, Robin Hood?
0
reply
Boom Boom Pow
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
It's not like the royal family do things in excess. Now if the queen started using tax payers money to buy male strippers and have a fleet of super cars just for the lulz, then I would have a problem.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by joe3469)
I'm just saying the 200m in rents could be given straight to parlialment (with some administration costs). Not 20% of it all to one family!
But why?

Sir Philip Green owns Topshop and keeps all the profits from that minus a chunk for owning it and taxes and he's just one guy... Why is this any different aside from the fact it's the Royal Family?


Forgive me, but it does seem like it boils to fairly petty jealousy :erm:
0
reply
JayTeeKay
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
The royal family doesn't technically own that land. Without the monarchy, we the taxpayers still benefit from that money. Whats more, the royals cost much more than the figure given by Buckingham palace -in reality they cost around £180m.
My iPod won't let me copy the information from the website, but take a look for yourself:
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...nces/index.php

The Royals cost us 100 times more than the Irish presidency and 10 times more than their German equivalent (despite the fact that the German equivalent has an extra 20 million people to represent). We certainly do not get value for money, and this nonsense about our taxes being cheaper because of them is nothing more than cavalier spin, because (rightly so) that land does not belong to the Queen, so she cannot "charitably donate" money she claims to earn on something that isn't hers.

I'm awaiting the neg rep from die hard royalists who detest anybody who dares question the status quo. I don't care what the law says. She is not my queen, and I am not her subject.
5
reply
joe3469
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by Drewski)
But why?

Sir Philip Green owns Topshop and keeps all the profits from that minus a chunk for owning it and taxes and he's just one guy... Why is this any different aside from the fact it's the Royal Family?


Forgive me, but it does seem like it boils to fairly petty jealousy :erm:
Exactly and that is wrong... it's not personal jealousy that's just an ad hominem you guys use to anti-capitalists.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
And then we end up spending £20 million on their wedding. I like the Royal family, I think they bring a lot of character to the nation and it really shows how great and noble a nation we are.

But in this economic climate and with our massive budget deficit, I'd rather have spent the money reducing it. Every little bit counts.

Arguably the Royal Wedding has given a boost to Britain's tourism industry, but surely it isn't going to generate £20 million in the short term alone? That's the job of the London Olympics in 2012.

National production also ceased for an entire additional public holiday. That cost the economy billions of pounds.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by joe3469)
You can especially when wealth and land are so maldistributed...
No you can't. We have property laws in this country. That land is owned by the Royal Family and will always be unless they and they alone decide otherwise. The state can no more just take their land than I can just take yours.
0
reply
Bulbasaur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
It's plain to see that the vast majority of people didn't watch the video, particularly the ones citing £2.60. Tourism anyone?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.6%
No - but I will (103)
7.72%
No - I don't want to (92)
6.89%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (638)
47.79%

Watched Threads

View All