Turn on thread page Beta

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

    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by gladders)
    That's what happens now. They get money from the Department of Transport for carrying out Head of State duties, including costs travelling to and from such locations where they're doing something.

    Perhaps it could be a little bit more stringent I'll grant you, but as the bill is specifically only for things the government considers to be Head of State related, I don't see how by any substantive margin.
    Are you sure about that?
    The cost of Royal travel, which is also paid by the taxpayer, increased by £300,000 from £6.2m to £6.5m
    - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

    Doesn't seem to suggest that this is specific 'head of state' duties.

    Also, why do we need so many head of state duties anyway? Sure, some are important, but I expect that we could save some significant money with minor negative effects, which could be more than made up for with much more cost-efficient measures
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Richard Branson probably brings in (at an arbitrary guess) about £10 billion into the UK economy. Do we have a law in which everyone in the country must pay him, because he does this? No, because he's not parasitic scum.
    How exactly is it parasitic to be performing Head of State duties?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LtCommanderData)
    Are you sure about that? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm

    Doesn't seem to suggest that this is specific 'head of state' duties.

    Also, why do we need so many head of state duties anyway? Sure, some are important, but I expect that we could save some significant money with minor negative effects, which could be more than made up for with much more cost-efficient measures
    £6.5m accounts for road, rail and air. That's not bad really - some countries, for example, France, has shockingly high travel bills. Count yourself lucky!

    Can you give an example of a Head of State duty that could be done away with? Given the Queen is 80, I doubt there any many she does which are non-essential...
    Offline

    14
    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.
    I also dont really understand why you think Muslims would want to over throw the Monarchy.
    99% of muslims in this country are like the average person and dont give a **** two ways about the Royals.
    If you are trying to imply that Islamic culture doesn't accept a monarchy, then you might want to take a look at some of the most powerful Islamic countries...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I don't pander to being slotted into any class groups, but that's probably me, yes. Why?
    nothing.......I just thought thats why you added that random Islam v monarchy comment at the end.




    no offence x
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by selkarn)
    richard branson probably brings in (at an arbitrary guess) about £10 billion into the uk economy. Do we have a law in which everyone in the country must pay him, because he does this? No, because he's not parasitic scum.
    stop getting the freddo fatty!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    Seems a bit attractive to me. Why don't you elaborate
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think 66p is a small price to pay to know that the government don't have all out control over the country.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Will you forfeit the revenue the royal family bring in? Thought not.....
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucklefiend)
    Indirectly, person B benefits from funding students' degrees. Graduates are beneficial to society as a whole; they provide skills and knowledge which contribute towards the growth in the economy in the future. In your example, you've chosen to highlight a somewhat devalued degree at a somewhat disrespected institution, but there are of course, many students that contribute a great deal and are, consequently, a good investment.
    Then that argument applies to the Royal Family also.

    People receive a marginal, indirect benefit from graduates, like they receive a marginal, indirect benefit from the Royal Family. The Royal Family bring in more money than is spent on them after all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If the tax system suddenly becomes divided by those who want to pay and those who don't, then prepare for the most complicated system of all time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tefhel)
    Then that argument applies to the Royal Family also.

    People receive a marginal, indirect benefit from graduates, like they receive a marginal, indirect benefit from the Royal Family. The Royal Family bring in more money than is spent on them after all.
    I wouldn't describe the benefit people receive from graduates as "marginal". Our society utterly depends on them. Without graduates, we'd have no doctors, no engineers, no scientists, no research, no technology and no progress. This would not only have huge financial implications, but serious negative consequences for everybodies' quality of life.

    The few extra million the royal family (possibly) bring in through tourism revenue is hardly on the same scale.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    We all benefit from the Royal Family, purely from an economical point of view.

    The Monarchy are a big draw for tourists to come to England and spend money here, people make a lot more income from that stuff than they lose from supporting the Royal family.

    And if you complain about how you personally don't make any money from tourists, you are probably still earning more than 66p indirectly from people in the tourist business spending money elsewhere
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone in the country, on average, is forced to pay 66p a year.
    Bargain.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Where did you get those figures from exactly?
    or are they part of the 69% of statistics that are made up on the spot?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Can I make an assumption here and be slightly racist at the same time. You said about how muslims would over throw the monarchy because they know whats best and you also asked someone else if they were happy being ruled by a non-muslim (suggesting that you are not happy).
    1. That last point is very racist in itself saying that a non-muslim is not as good as a muslim.

    2. I am going to assume that as you are muslim you or your parents are immigrants. To this point I am going to say if you hate the way our country is run so much why do you continue living here, you said that if you lived in a majority muslim country everything would be done correctly so therefore why do you not move to a majority muslim country.

    I would also like to pose a few questions:
    1.What is your job?

    2. Were you educated in this country?

    3. Have you ever used the NHS?

    4. Do you like this country?

    5. What do you think would be the best country in the world for you to live in?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by johndoranglasgow)
    Where did you get those figures from exactly?
    or are they part of the 69% of statistics that are made up on the spot?
    Telegraph.

    In fact other sources which have been quoted in this thread suggest they are far more profitable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    What's the problem?
    It had nothing to do with the main point. It's like starting a thread about gardening and then suddenly talking about cheese at the end...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Telegraph.

    In fact other sources which have been quoted in this thread suggest they are far more profitable.
    Most of their personal belongings, the roughly £6.2 billion valued total they 'own', belong to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom but NOT the individual in office. The Crown Estates are not the private property of Queen Elizabeth II and she can not sell, rent or otherwise modify the land and it is instead ran by the Crown Estate Commissioner on behalf of the Sovereign and accountable to parliament. If we were to remove the office of the monarchy it would presumably be merged into the Houses of Parliament giving it de jure sovereignty (although ultimate Parliamentary Sovereignty is already a de facto reality) and they would gain formal ownership of the crown estate although I doubt it's running would change much if such an event to occur.

    I believe the Duchy of Lancaster is the private property of the Royal Family though so they would keep that.
    Offline

    15
    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)


    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.
    People don't need child benifit. They don't need EMA. They don't need lots of things they get. And I resent paying for them. Hell, I resent paying for your average person on JSA. I'd happily pay for the Royal family over them anyday.
 
 
 
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
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.