Poll: Royal Engagement

[Theophany]

Especially as they're only given £7.9M (not £40M) and most of that £7.9M pays other people's wages.

The £40M might be an estimate of total cost including building maintainence, travel costs, hospitality for visiting foreign politicians, etc, i.e. running costs that would be incurred with or without a monarchy. Or it might just be made up.

Where has this figure of £40m come from, i'm sure it's only around the £8m mark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7477222.stm

The Queen's share of that cost is estimated to be £7.9M. The cost of the entire royal family is certainly not that low. Again, this figure does not include security costs, which are estimated to be as high as the US President's (figures of €7m were cited for her state visit to Ireland this year whilst the cost of her 10-day cruise holiday in Scotland was estimated to be £1m)

How many state visits and holidays do the royal family make a year? Well according to this, the Queen made a total of three, but this does not include visits or holidays made or taken by other members of the family, who'll all have their own security and travel costs to be paid for.

This is, for me, where cost of the royal family starts to take the Michael.

According to the Crown Estate report for 2010, holdings of the estate made a profit of £200 million. Not £500 million as has been claimed.

So you have a base operating cost of around £40 million, which results in a net £160 million to the treasury after the Crown Estate's annual takings. But what of these enormous security costs for all these little trips? Each one diminishing the returns made for the year. I daren't hazard a guess at what the final net benefit of the royal family is, but it cannot be anywhere near as high as those Crown Estate profits suggest.

For the sake of argument, if we were to assume annual security costs of the whole royal family to be £60m (a very modest estimate, given the previous evidence on costs imo) that's a net gain of £100m at the end of the year to the treasury. In context, in 2010 total income tax receipts for HMRC totalled £137 billion. Jesus Christ, tobacco duties amounted to £8.7 billion. And I'm supposed to be grateful for a family who have contributed three fifths of sweet FA to the greater pot of tax revenue? Their contributions are peanuts.

Do me a favour.

 

[RDM]

This is, for me, where cost of the royal family starts to take the Michael.

And would probably be pretty much identical to an elected head of state. Or do we just ignore that as it doesn't support your view?

According to the Crown Estate report for 2010, holdings of the estate made a profit of £200 million. Not £500 million as has been claimed.

I believe the £500m was entry fees to royal related tourist sites and nothing at all to do with the Crown Estates.

For the sake of argument, if we were to assume annual security costs of the whole royal family to be £60m (a very modest estimate, given the previous evidence on costs imo) that's a net gain of £100m at the end of the year to the treasury. In context, in 2010 total income tax receipts for HMRC totalled £137 billion. Jesus Christ, tobacco duties amounted to £8.7 billion.

It does however put paid to the lie that they cost us money. So I assume you are going to stop using that argument?

And I'm supposed to be grateful for a family who have contributed three fifths of sweet FA to the greater pot of tax revenue? Their contributions are peanuts.

Do me a favour.

Remind me again how much you contributed to the treasury last year? I am going to hazard a guess considerably less...

 

[Craig1981]

And would probably be pretty much identical to an elected head of state. Or do we just ignore that as it doesn't support your view?

I think the key difference there is those heads of state are elected. I never cast any vote for having a royal family and neither did anyone else. They were born into their lives of pampered luxury and have done NOTHING to deserve it.

 

[RDM]

I think the key difference there is those heads of state are elected. I never cast any vote for having a royal family and neither did anyone else. They were born into their lives of pampered luxury and have done NOTHING to deserve it.

Pretty immaterial to the argument with regards to their cost. They would also still have lives of pampered luxury, unless you also advocate stripping them of all their property?

 

[DAIR]

Couldnt care less about them to be honest!

 

[toon_mad]

Couldnt care less about them to be honest!

+ 5000000000

 

[Theophany]

And would probably be pretty much identical to an elected head of state. Or do we just ignore that as it doesn't support your view?

Erm, we have an elected Head of Government whose remit includes pretty similar duties. Why double up on cost for the sake of having a face to put on our coinage? Since when have head of state and government needed to be separate entities?

I believe the £500m was entry fees to royal related tourist sites and nothing at all to do with the Crown Estates.

How convenient for your argument. Have you any figures or solid fact to back this up?

It does however put paid to the lie that they cost us money. So I assume you are going to stop using that argument?

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where the taxpayer contributes their cost yet receives no tangible benefit, or did you ignore it?

Remind me again how much you contributed to the treasury last year? I am going to hazard a guess considerably less...

Wow, didn't see this retarded argument coming a mile off. Let's not forget that I don't have £6 billion of assets to generate income with, let alone am I head of state. Apples and oranges?

What next? The value of an individual's vote is linked to their annual tax contributions?

 

[Craig1981]

Pretty immaterial to the argument with regards to their cost. They would also still have lives of pampered luxury, unless you also advocate stripping them of all their property?

I'd advocate a lot more than that, given half a chance.

 

[Andrew_McP]

I'm amazed so many people are in the first group. They're a lovely couple, no doubt about that. I wish them well. But I also wish they'd eloped and got it out of the way at Gretna Green. Then Asda wouldn't have put union jack bunting up inside its stores to try and generate some artificial retail opportunit... I mean, selfless patriotic ambience.

FWIW I am in favour of nationalising the Royal Family, then putting the job (of human zoo and crown hanger) out to tender, like all those PFI contracts. We'd end up with something smaller and more cost effective, albeit a bit grubby at the edges.

Oh, and it'd probably be staffed by Poles instead of Germans.

Of course it'd end up re-privatised and in the hands of Goldman Sachs'/JP Morgan's best mates. But at least then our real rulers would be more obviously in charge instead of the pretend ones.

Andrew McP

 

[kalvindeane]

I'm waiting for a reporter to find this thread and for OcUK to be on the news. "11% of all people prefer a pancake to watching the royal wedding."

 

[deuse]

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

 

[Cosimo]

I'm waiting for a reporter to find this thread and for OcUK to be on the news. "11% of all people prefer a pancake to watching the royal wedding."

They won't be interested in the views of 112 members of the UK population.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

tbh while he is getting married to a stunner he's still getting married poor bloke!

 

[RDM]

Erm, we have an elected Head of Government whose remit includes pretty similar duties. Why double up on cost for the sake of having a face to put on our coinage? Since when have head of state and government needed to be separate entities?

Head of Government and Head of state are different roles in the UK and very many other countries. So rather than the PM dealing with being head of government you would want him to do all of the head of state engagements too? Or would we go down the route of so many other countries and just have two elected heads? How do you envisage the UK political system working without a monarch?

How convenient for your argument. Have you any figures or solid fact to back this up?

The figures from the Crown Estates are online, the £500m was mentioned by another poster, it was you that was clueless enough to get them mixed up.

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where the taxpayer contributes their cost yet receives no tangible benefit, or did you ignore it?

Crown Estates - Costs of Monarchy = Money to Treasury. NO COST TO TAXPAYER. TAXPAYER MAKE MONEY FROM QUEEN. Thought I would try caps and simple words to see if the message actually goes in. There are plenty of valid arguments against the monarchy, cost just isn't one of them.

Wow, didn't see this retarded argument coming a mile off. Let's not forget that I don't have £6 billion of assets to generate income with, let alone am I head of state. Apples and oranges?

What next? The value of an individual's vote is linked to their annual tax contributions?

Hey, it was you that was dumb enough to bring up how little £100m pounds was (again, your made up figures) so I was wondering what your personal contributions were. I thought the £100m might have been chickenfeed the way you were dismissing it...

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'm amazed so many people are in the first group. They're a lovely couple, no doubt about that. I wish them well. But I also wish they'd eloped and got it out of the way at Gretna Green. Then Asda wouldn't have put union jack bunting up inside its stores to try and generate some artificial retail opportunit... I mean, selfless patriotic ambience.

FWIW I am in favour of nationalising the Royal Family, then putting the job (of human zoo and crown hanger) out to tender, like all those PFI contracts. We'd end up with something smaller and more cost effective, albeit a bit grubby at the edges.

Oh, and it'd probably be staffed by Poles instead of Germans.

Of course it'd end up re-privatised and in the hands of Goldman Sachs'/JP Morgan's best mates. But at least then our real rulers would be more obviously in charge instead of the pretend ones.

Andrew McP

Now that's some incoherent balls you're talking, son.

 

[Theophany]

Head of Government and Head of state are different roles in the UK and very many other countries. So rather than the PM dealing with being head of government you would want him to do all of the head of state engagements too? Or would we go down the route of so many other countries and just have two elected heads? How do you envisage the UK political system working without a monarch?

The political system works with a monarch as a symbol, you honestly believe she has any serious involvement in government? You do realise this country has been a republic before, right? The monarch's role in governance is purely ceremonial.

What is this fixation on having separated roles for the head of state and government? Heck, what is the necessity for it?

The figures from the Crown Estates are online, the £500m was mentioned by another poster, it was you that was clueless enough to get them mixed up.

I believe the £500m was entry fees to royal related tourist sites and nothing at all to do with the Crown Estates.

And your point is what? If it's fair game you'll use the figure, but as soon as it is disproven you palm it off as somebody else's poor quality evidence?

Crown Estates - Costs of Monarchy = Money to Treasury. NO COST TO TAXPAYER. TAXPAYER MAKE MONEY FROM QUEEN. Thought I would try caps and simple words to see if the message actually goes in. There are plenty of valid arguments against the monarchy, cost just isn't one of them.

The taxpayer does not make money from the monarchy you putz, the Treasury does. Money from taxation funds the monarchy, profits go direct to the treasury and are spent on outstanding expenditure. That's like saying you'll buy a bond with the profits you will make on it in the future.

Hey, it was you that was dumb enough to bring up how little £100m pounds was (again, your made up figures) so I was wondering what your personal contributions were. I thought the £100m might have been chickenfeed the way you were dismissing it...

Total tax receipts to HM Treasury in 2010: £397 billion.
My estimate of royal family's contribution: £100 million.

You're telling me in that context £100m is a lot of money? Why not grab a can of perspective and come back with some solid figures or evidence next time. Your argument is in disregard of reality and how the government works, let alone devoid of any factual evidence to back up your claims. You're boring me senseless now, so unless you can bring something other than 'he said it not me, so I'm not wrong' to the table I'm done here.

 

[lookitsjonno]

i'll be watching out for some unexpected drama, she doesn't turn up, he forgets his words or something.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The political system works with a monarch as a symbol, you honestly believe she has any serious involvement in government? You do realise this country has been a republic before, right? The monarch's role in governance is purely ceremonial.

What is this fixation on having separated roles for the head of state and government? Heck, what is the necessity for it?

Put simply because having all power vested in one individual (or even small group of people) is a very bad idea - checks and balances is the usual phrase used. This is also part of the reason why we've got a House of Commons and a House of Lords.

The Queen could still choose to not give Royal Assent to any bill that she so fancied to deny - the odds against her doing so are exceptionally slim but it's a possibility so it's not purely ceremonial.

Total tax receipts to HM Treasury in 2010: £397 billion.
My estimate of royal family's contribution: £100 million.

You're telling me in that context £100m is a lot of money? Why not grab a can of perspective and come back with some solid figures or evidence next time. Your argument is in disregard of reality and how the government works, let alone devoid of any factual evidence to back up your claims. You're boring me senseless now, so unless you can bring something other than 'he said it not me, so I'm not wrong' to the table I'm done here.

You're asking if £100 million is a lot compared to £397 billion? Well, no, it's not but that is £100m that we probably wouldn't have except for the Royal Family. A slightly more accurate question would be "do you want the income and costs associated with a Royal Family or do you just want the costs associated with having an elected head of state?". I'm assuming that we're unlikely to elect a head of state who is as much of a draw to tourists as a Royal Family.

As for the question of whether I'll be watching the wedding - it seems likely now that I'll be driving back to Scotland on Friday so chances are I won't be watching it.

 

[RDM]

And your point is what? If it's fair game you'll use the figure, but as soon as it is disproven you palm it off as somebody else's poor quality evidence?

No dear, keep up. You were the one who confused the £500m with the income from the Crown Estates, I never mentioned it. The £500m was from gate reciepts from Royal related tourist attractions. So if we discount that figure then the royals still come out well ahead on a cost argument.

The taxpayer does not make money from the monarchy you putz, the Treasury does. Money from taxation funds the monarchy, profits go direct to the treasury and are spent on outstanding expenditure. That's like saying you'll buy a bond with the profits you will make on it in the future.

This is amusing. So the money paid to the royals from the treasury is a cost to the taxpayer but the money paid to the treasury from the royals is not a gain for the taxpayer? You can have it one way or the other, not both.

Total tax receipts to HM Treasury in 2010: £397 billion.
My estimate of royal family's contribution: £100 million.

You're telling me in that context £100m is a lot of money? Why not grab a can of perspective and come back with some solid figures or evidence next time. Your argument is in disregard of reality and how the government works, let alone devoid of any factual evidence to back up your claims. You're boring me senseless now, so unless you can bring something other than 'he said it not me, so I'm not wrong' to the table I'm done here.

Well, it is £100m less that has to be found from other sources...

 

[Hellsmk2]

I'm not getting a holiday from work, so I have no reason to care.

Never liked the royal family. Dont see why we dont get rid of them.

Because they generate an immense amount of money for the country from tourism... far far more than it costs to keep them.