Turn on thread page Beta

If you want the royal family, you pay for them watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    I don't want unemployment benifit, or a myriad of others. Does that mean I don't have to pay for them?

    Also, I don't want Labour MP's to be paid, so I don;t have to pay for them right? I don't really ever use the Underground, so I don;t have to pay for that right? Hmm,...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If we all only paid for things we want, there would literally be people dying on the streets.

    I don't particularly care for the Royal family, but their cost is minor, something like 60p per taxpayer every year. 60p, that's a Mars bar, you wouldn't notice it if it was gone. If you mention the UK to a foreigner and ask them what the first thing that comes to mind is, I bet they'd say the Royal Family, we must make s***loads of money from Americans buying pointless souveneirs in London gift shops, I'm fairly sure they benefit the economy more than they harm it.

    When it comes to politics, the politicians should always make the informed decisions, not The Queen, but that's what happens in this country anyway, so I really don't see the problem so many people have with them. No-one is making you watch the Royal wedding, or visit Buckingham Palace, so if you don't care, then stop complaining.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    If we all only paid for things we want, there would literally be people dying on the streets.

    I don't particularly care for the Royal family, but their cost is minor, something like 60p per taxpayer every year. 60p, that's a Mars bar, you wouldn't notice it if it was gone. If you mention the UK to a foreigner and ask them what the first thing that comes to mind is, I bet they'd say the Royal Family, we must make s***loads of money from Americans buying pointless souveneirs in London gift shops, I'm fairly sure they benefit the economy more than they harm it.

    When it comes to politics, the politicians should always make the informed decisions, not The Queen, but that's what happens in this country anyway, so I really don't see the problem so many people have with them. No-one is making you watch the Royal wedding, or visit Buckingham Palace, so if you don't care, then stop complaining.
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    (Original post by rmanoj)
    "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:.
    (Original post by 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.
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    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.
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I don't want unemployment benifit, or a myriad of others. Does that mean I don't have to pay for them?

    Also, I don't want Labour MP's to be paid, so I don;t have to pay for them right? I don't really ever use the Underground, so I don;t have to pay for that right? Hmm,...
    You're all making the exact same point so I'll just address them all in one post.

    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.

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukas1051)
    No-one is making you watch the Royal wedding, or visit Buckingham Palace, so if you don't care, then stop complaining.
    Did I say they were? Fool :rofl:, the issue is that we are being forced to pay for the royal family.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    You're all making the exact same point so I'll just address them all in one post.

    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)
    The Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and myriad other ministers also get such houses to carry out their work, as does the Queen. You're practising double standards.

    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.
    The monarchy performs a public service equal to those of presidents in countries in Europe. You don't see people complaining about their presidents not providing a service for them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and myriad other ministers also get such houses to carry out their work, as does the Queen. You're practising double standards.
    All elected, queen isn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    And how much money goes towards them from us?
    If they are so profitable tell them to pay for their own wedding, because frankly I couldn't give a **** if they got married or not.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.


    ... Goddammit.


    (Original post by SAK.A)
    And how much money goes towards them from us?
    If they are so profitable tell them to pay for their own wedding, because frankly I couldn't give a **** if they got married or not.
    They generate money for the country more so than for themselves you stupid ****. That and they're fairly effective diplomats.


    I strongly dislike the idea of some family having a position of prosperity simply because they're born into it but the fact is that the royal family generate money for the country as a whole. If you can't get your simple ****ing mind around that you should be shot, for treason or some bull****.


    Hell, the vast majority of our politicians are only capable of attaining their positions because they come from wealthy backgrounds, when you take that into consideration the fact that they're elected doesn't really mean ****. So **** that retard argument too. If anything it goes to support the monarchy. It's not like they ****ing chose to take the roles that they're in, yet they still do it and it benefits us all in the end.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How did you even manage to shoehorn in Islam to a post about the royal family? :rofl:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    All elected, queen isn't.
    No, they're not.

    Anyway, the issue raised is the notion of 'paying' for their lifestyle.

    Regardless of the basis of their appointment, we are emphatically not paying for the lifestyle - we are expressly paying for the functions of Head of State that they carry out. The cost would remain regardless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    No, they're not.
    Which one isn't elected? :rofl:

    The level of intelligence of these shandy-drinking Tory middle classes is beyond me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mm_Minty)
    How did you even manage to shoehorn in Islam to a post about the royal family? :rofl:
    What's the problem?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SAK.A)
    And how much money goes towards them from us?
    If they are so profitable tell them to pay for their own wedding, because frankly I couldn't give a **** if they got married or not.
    They are paying for the wedding. What they're not paying for is the security. As it is a public event (not by their choice, but by fact).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    A generalisation- massive one at that.

    I am Muslim, half the time I am not fussed about the royal family but I wouldn't want them gone. I like the royal family being in the UK.
    Plus they make good business- Fergie and the rich Arab investor.
    So you're happy with being ruled over by a non-Muslim?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Which one isn't elected? :rofl:

    The level of intelligence of these shandy-drinking Tory middle classes is beyond me.
    Up yours, mate - I'm not a Tory. Don't be so prejudicial.

    MPs are elected to be MPs - they are not directly elected to occupy ministerial posts. The winning party gets to make that choice.

    Anyway, if you assume election is the only way in which someone should occupy an office then you're quite wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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...on-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.
    Why would Muslims want to overthrow the Monarchy? When many countries with a majority of it's population being Muslims have royal families. My best friend is a Muslim and her family loves the royals, so I don't understand your logic of Islam's spread means the Monarchy would be overthrown.

    Shouldn't you be more concerned with paying taxes which only provide benefits for the thousands of lazy, jobless people who stay home with their baby machine girlfriends/wives who drain the economy? At least the royal family support charities and perform formal events/meet international figures on behalf of the state. The Queen puts gives millions back to the government and only keeps what she needs to maintain royal estates, which are important to English hertiage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    MPs are elected to be MPs - they are not directly elected to occupy ministerial posts. The winning party gets to make that choice.
    Damn you're intelligence baffles me. MPs are elected. If they were not elected then they wouldn't be able to be ministers. They are only able to be ministers because they are elected. And some ministers are ministers from past experience e.g. Peter Mandelson.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    As I said, I am not fussed. Anyway, it is a non-Muslim country.
    So if there was an 80% Muslim majority in this country, you'd be happy with having a non-Muslim monarchy ruling over you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KJane)
    Why would Muslims want to overthrow the Monarchy? When many countries with a majority of it's population being Muslims have royal families. My best friend is a Muslim and her family loves the royals, so I don't understand your logic of Islam's spread means the Monarchy would be overthrown.

    Shouldn't you be more concerned with paying taxes which only provide benefits for the thousands of lazy, jobless people who stay home with their baby machine girlfriends/wives who drain the economy? At least the royal family support charities and perform formal events/meet international figures on behalf of the state. The Queen puts gives millions back to the government and only keeps what she needs to maintain royal estates, which are important to English hertiage.
    Typical middle class TSR Tory-voter. If the Queen makes so much money, then she doesn't need my money to supplement her luxury lifestyle. End of story.
 
 
 
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: April 20, 2011
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.