plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by 45% from 2025.

Freefaller said:
that's touted a lot, but that money could be spent on infrastructure, renewable energy, and reforming rail etc... oh and perhaps even helping the NHS from disappearing.
Click to expand...

the money they cost would have little to no impact in those areas plus the loss of tourism revenue - sounds like politics of envy but then you are a leftie lol..
 
Last edited:
n111ck said:
the money they cost would have little to no impact in those areas plus the loss of tourism revenue - sounds like politics of envy but then you are a leftie lol..
Click to expand...

I'm not envious. I just don't believe in anyone being born into privilege or being the subject of someone that I didn't choose or elect.

I think the money could be used elsewhere. Unlike the current system that just promotes wealth for the wealthy
 
But without them you would be down money, not have it spare. The fact they bring in more than they cost, means there is additional money for the treasury, not less.
 
Nutty667 said:
But without them you would be down money, not have it spare. The fact they bring in more than they cost, means there is additional money for the treasury, not less.
Click to expand...
The assets and revenue they generate would not cease to exist if we didnt have a royal family, plenty of examples around the world and many with higher tourist numbers. The argument doesnt hold.
 
200sols said:
The assets and revenue they generate would not cease to exist if we didnt have a royal family, plenty of examples around the world and many with higher tourist numbers. The argument doesnt hold.
Click to expand...
The assets generate revenue because of the royal family.
Sure, but many other cities have additional qualities, like better weather, romanticism (paris, milan).
 
Never quite understand the fascination with how much the Royal family "cost"

Even if we ignore how much money they generate through tourism they cost roughly £4 per tax payer per year...
 
Chris Wilson said:
I can't stand Charlie, a wet liberal, who I am not entirely sure is a full shilling, but the Royal Family as an institution gets my full support, it's the envy of millions across the world.
Click to expand...

It's not the envy. It's the "ain't it quaint" for millions across the world.

The UK wouldn't cease to have good tourism. And if it did it says more about what the UK has to offer the world if that's the only reason people come to visit....
 
Chris Wilson said:
I can't stand Charlie, a wet liberal, who I am not entirely sure is a full shilling, but the Royal Family as an institution gets my full support, it's the envy of millions across the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah but how many celebrate their independence from it? Think it's safely in the billion+ range by this point.
 
fez said:
I think some people massively underestimate how good the monarchy is for this country and how large a part it plays in peoples desire to come to England from a tourist perspective. You can get rid of the monarchy but the family would keep all of the assets that are theirs and you will probably find that they contribute far less to the country and we will get little in benefit.
Click to expand...

You mean people massively underestimate how good the monarchy is for London. Therefore all the profits are kept in London, while the rest of the cities suffer.

Tourists don't know there is more to England outside the M25.
 
Last edited:
Nutty667 said:
The assets generate revenue because of the royal family.
Sure, but many other cities have additional qualities, like better weather, romanticism (paris, milan).
Click to expand...
No, the assets don't generate money because some dude has a crown on his head. You only need to look at France to see how wrong you are.
 
My issue with the monarchy is that it is an unelected family receiving money from the public, I have no choice but to pay for them. I wouldn't pay for Mr.Smith down the road, why should I pay for them? If you like the monarchy then good for you, fund it out of your own pocket, but it should be a choice. I think similar of the BBC and the tv license, it should be optional depending on if you watch the BBC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom