Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Its a sad day when the british government prefer to look after randomers rather than their own.

    They are here to look after the british people not fartin about givin millions to yemenis and other randomers

    The significance of the TA goes a lot further back than the first world war, think along the lines of Militia

    Anyway.. look at how good the US National guard are equiped and supported and compare it to the the shabby TA that brown and his darling have created it into
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    and an annual profit of £211 million. This pays for this supposed £150 million (40 mill + security) and some more.
    Fabulous. So you agree that we can stop subsidising them. According to your calculations, they don't need taxpayer money at all.

    (Original post by Renner)
    And with a president you only have one guy; with the Royals you get a whole family available to perform duties around the country.
    Great, a whole load of rich people to provide what amounts to a meet and greet service. No thanks.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Its typical of the BNP and other people who have feeble arguments and policies to pick a false dichotomy and then use it to critise with it.

    They make out money is taken directly from training soldiers to giving it to refugees when it is not the case.

    They could also equate giving money to overwieght opera singers and taking it away from soldiers, or giving money to former terrorists and taking it away from soldiers or even giving money to released convicts and taking it away from soldiers. All of which any government does.

    Its just a false way to try to stir up a so called debate on the issue when the basis of the debate is fatuos.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StraightDrive)
    Fabulous. So you agree that we can stop subsidising them. According to your calculations, they don't need taxpayer money at all.
    The top estimate of the cost is £150 million, the crown estate gives £211 million to the treasury. Scrap the deal if you want, it would make the Windsor’s one hell of a lot richer and the treasury worse off. Can’t you understand the treasury makes a profit from the Monarchy which it would not make if the Windsor’s funded the institution themselves.

    Great, a whole load of rich people to provide what amounts to a meet and greet service. No thanks.
    Well thankfully the majority disagree with you, the work varies royals do completely voluntarily and unpaid is a valuable service to the nation. If you think otherwise just check out the crowds anytime there is a Royal visit.

    David Cameron and George Osborne are wealthy men, should they have to fund there jobs themselves.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Vote New Labour... this is the kind of thing you should expect, constantly paying lip service to our troops, but the reality is very different. They'll prioritise foreign aid over our own national interests, despite the fact that this country is technically bankrupt (partly due to their own ridiculus spending).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The top estimate of the cost is £150 million, the crown estate gives £211 million to the treasury. Scrap the deal if you want, it would make the Windsor’s one hell of a lot richer and the treasury worse off. Can’t you understand the treasury makes a profit from the Monarchy which it would not make if the Windsor’s funded the institution themselves.
    If, as you claim, there's a net profit, then there is absolutely no need for taxpayer money to go to Windsor in the first place. There is no 'deal' - they must pay taxes just like everyone else. So they can pay for their own security and transport and pay tax on the net proceeds. Fundamental law of economics: taxpayer funds should be a last resort, because there's precious little transparency, and there are few incentives not to waste the money.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Well thankfully the majority disagree with you, the work varies royals do completely voluntarily and unpaid is a valuable service to the nation. If you think otherwise just check out the crowds anytime there is a Royal visit.
    I'm not doubting there are millions of foolish people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    this country is technically bankrupt
    No its not. Last I checked, the government hadn't defaulted on its debt.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StraightDrive)
    If, as you claim, there's a net profit, then there is absolutely no need for taxpayer money to go to Windsor in the first place. There is no 'deal' - they must pay taxes just like everyone else. So they can pay for their own security and transport and pay tax on the net proceeds. Fundamental law of economics: taxpayer funds should be a last resort, because there's precious little transparency, and there are few incentives not to waste the money.
    There is a deal, the government gets the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the civil list. To scrap the deal would cause the treasury to lose money, why do you want this?

    Besides, there is every need for the Head of State to have there expenses paid, especially when they are carrying out duties the government asks them too. Do you think civil servants, ministers etc should have to pay out of there own pocket when there doing there job.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLandOfNorwegia)
    When you value resources over human life you have lost your humanity.
    Wow you really missed the point didn't you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    There is a deal, the government gets the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the civil list. To scrap the deal would cause the treasury to lose money, why do you want this?
    Treat it as private property. Crown estate keeps revenues, pays its own costs and pays tax on the net. This way, the treasury does not lose money. If the Crown has to pay its own expenses, it will tighten its belt, like any efficient private organisation.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Besides, there is every need for the Head of State to have there expenses paid, especially when they are carrying out duties the government asks them too. Do you think civil servants, ministers etc should have to pay out of there own pocket when there doing there job.
    The arrangement for royals is different since its a straight exchange of revenues for costs. Basically, no transparency, and hence no incentive to keep costs low. Not surprisingly, costs have risen in the year. This is not including 'estimated' security costs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StraightDrive)
    Treat it as private property. Crown estate keeps revenues, pays its own costs and pays tax on the net. This way, the treasury does not lose money. If the Crown has to pay its own expenses, it will tighten its belt, like any efficient private organisation.
    That way, the treasury would stop paying the supposed £150 mill costs of the Monarchy and lose the £200-odd mill from the Crown Estate. This puts the treasury down £50-odd mill on the present situation.

    The arrangement for royals is different since its a straight exchange of revenues for costs. Basically, no transparency, and hence no incentive to keep costs low. Not surprisingly, costs have risen in the year. This is not including 'estimated' security costs.
    Costs have risen because the Princes William & Harry are taking on more royal engagements & the price of transport has risen. And it’s up to the government how much they get. Due to the Queens skimping there has been a surplus on the civil list for years which has grown into quite a savings pot. However this will be gone within a few years if the government is not prepared to release more cash, especially for the restoration of the palaces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    That way, the treasury would stop paying the supposed £150 mill costs of the Monarchy and lose the £200-odd mill from the Crown Estate. This puts the treasury down £50-odd mill on the present situation.
    Firstly, it wouldn't be £50m down, since the net revenues would be taxable. 'Estimated' costs - it could be a whole lot more for all anyone knows. I'm betting the crown would reduce these costs if it actually ate into their bottom line rather than the taxpayers.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Costs have risen because the Princes William & Harry are taking on more royal engagements & the price of transport has risen. And it’s up to the government how much they get. Due to the Queens skimping there has been a surplus on the civil list for years which has grown into quite a savings pot. However this will be gone within a few years if the government is not prepared to release more cash, especially for the restoration of the palaces.
    Great for all those inner city kids they go and 'gee up'. Two kids who've never had to earn their living. What a great example.
    And the Queen should skimp some more. She should make do with a fixed salary instead of dipping her hand in the public purse every time.

    Essentially, there is no reason for them to have special treatment. To save me time, google throws this up http://www.republic.org.uk/financescampaign/index.php. (I can't say I unconditionally support any other pages, just that financial one).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StraightDrive)
    Firstly, it wouldn't be £50m down, since the net revenues would be taxable. 'Estimated' costs - it could be a whole lot more for all anyone knows. I'm betting the crown would reduce these costs if it actually ate into their bottom line rather than the taxpayers.
    The rather dubious Republic group has the cost at £183 mill, you believe taxing the income of the crown estate would bring in more money to the government than them simply getting the income? I still stand that public servants should not be expected to pay there own expenses, especially the Monarch who is expected to remain impartial on all matters.

    Great for all those inner city kids they go and 'gee up'. Two kids who've never had to earn their living. What a great example.
    And the Queen should skimp some more. She should make do with a fixed salary instead of dipping her hand in the public purse every time.

    Essentially, there is no reason for them to have special treatment. To save me time, google throws this up http://www.republic.org.uk/financescampaign/index.php. (I can't say I unconditionally support any other pages, just that financial one).
    The Princes doing there duty has no negative impact on any inner city kid. And would you class a tour of Afghanistan a ‘gee up’? The Queen should not be paid a salary, parliament works for her not the other way round. The civil list meets the cost of official duties and I do not see the republican desire to change it.

    Besides, this whole thing is a mute point seeing as presidencies are far more expensive and not as good as a Monarchy. Also despite the fact I will defend the Royal expenses I don’t really care about them, if were going to have a debate on the constitutional future of the country money should be fairly low down on the agenda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The rather dubious Republic group has the cost at £183 mill, you believe taxing the income of the crown estate would bring in more money to the government than them simply getting the income?
    Except they don't 'simply get the income', they pay the significant costs too. I'm looking at net figures. You're not. Stop constructing strawmen.
    If you see something dubious about those figures you can point it out. They would be less hazy if the crown were more transparent about how much exactly is spent.

    (Original post by Renner)
    I still stand that public servants should not be expected to pay there own expenses, especially the Monarch who is expected to remain impartial on all matters.
    And I stand by the fact that the incentives are all messed up. Paying their own expenses from a salary is incentive compatible. Giving them a dip (especially one that is by no means transparent) in the public purse is not. This does not compromise the impartiality on whatever matters you think the monarch is all of a sudden so important for.

    (Original post by Renner)
    The Princes doing there duty has no negative impact on any inner city kid. And would you class a tour of Afghanistan a ‘gee up’? The Queen should not be paid a salary, parliament works for her not the other way round. The civil list meets the cost of official duties and I do not see the republican desire to change it.
    It's entirely inefficient. The Queen has no effective power once we overlook the technicalities.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Besides, this whole thing is a mute point seeing as presidencies are far more expensive and not as good as a Monarchy.
    Maybe, but you have no numbers. And in any case, its far more transparent.

    (Original post by Renner)
    Also despite the fact I will defend the Royal expenses I don’t really care about them, if were going to have a debate on the constitutional future of the country money should be fairly low down on the agenda.
    Since they add very little of economic value, their funding becomes very relevant.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bigmo7)
    Yeah I understand that however the aid goes to helping thousands and thousands of people, £2 million pounds to help 150,000 Yeminis is hardly a waste of money is it?
    In ten years there will be 300,000 of them, and they will all need your money to sustain themselves. Rinse, double, and repeat every tenth year.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLandOfNorwegia)
    When you value resources over human life you have lost your humanity.
    Would you be willing to pay the entire British budget to save one Yemeni?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StraightDrive)
    Except they don't 'simply get the income', they pay the significant costs too. I'm looking at net figures. You're not. Stop constructing strawmen.
    If you see something dubious about those figures you can point it out. They would be less hazy if the crown were more transparent about how much exactly is spent.
    The official figure is £40 mill, tell me why I should trust an organisation with an anti-monarchy agenda on those figures.

    I fail to see what your problem is. £226.5 million this year went straight into the treasury, no strings attached pure profit from the crown estate. This dwarfs the high end estimate from republic of £183.2 million

    And I stand by the fact that the incentives are all messed up. Paying their own expenses from a salary is incentive compatible. Giving them a dip (especially one that is by no means transparent) in the public purse is not. This does not compromise the impartiality on whatever matters you think the monarch is all of a sudden so important for.
    The whole point of the monarchy is an impartial head of state, it is not the place of the Queens Ministers to decide what the monarch is ‘paid’. Your argument might stand if the monarch actually saw any of this money, and what are these incentives for?

    [QUOTE]It's entirely inefficient. The Queen has no effective power once we overlook the technicalities.[QUOTE] And how did you come to that conclusion?

    Maybe, but you have no numbers. And in any case, its far more transparent.
    Where impartiality is required so is a certain degree of secrecy, besides I think even if it turned out the Monarchy was extremely efficient you would still ***** and moan about it. Numbers

    Since they add very little of economic value, their funding becomes very relevant.
    Economics is irrelevant when deciding constitutional matters, as once again the alternatives to a monarchy have little to no economic value either. I say the monarchy helps maintain Britain’s good international standing in the world which certainly has economic advantages.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 12, 2009
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.