"Are the Royals worth the tax?" poll discussion

zagfles

Ernisius wrote: »

France probably has at least as much tourism as UK, and they got rid of their monarchy.

Yes but they have better weather

Gareth_Lazelle

zagfles wrote: »

If affects so few people. Princess Anne has a genuine gripe about where she is in the pecking order, but then it also favours the first born. Yes it's clearly unfair, but it's an unfairness that has no effect on 99.99999% of people, so who really cares? If Princess Anne isn't complaining, then why would anyone else?

Ah,

So unfairness is OK if it only affects a few then, right? ("I'm all right Jack...")

I respectfully disagree. And with something so high-profile are royalty you also have to consider that the effect of that "unfairness" is magnified by the attention paid to them, and perhaps has the power to subtly influence society at large,

zagfles wrote: »

As long as the "fix" doesn't make things worse. Putting lead in petrol was a "fix"!

So lets discuss alternatives - they can't all be worse (and I notice that many countries around the world do fine without, so there should be a few good alternatives on offer),

zagfles wrote: »

The police have power over you. Judges have power over you. Neither are elected.

Very true, but then I have some power over those that appoint and monitor them (via a vote). Sure it's indirect, but I can have some influence and make my voice heard (either by one of the bodies that ensures good practice, or by contact with my MP),

I don't have that power over the monarch.

As above the cost is trivial, and the cost of an elected head of state would be much greater.

Says you - that doesn't make it true,

Besides, isn't this the point to say something about cost and value (I know it has been used to defend the royal family, but it is just as appropriate here)?

craig86

Ernisius wrote: »

France probably has at least as much tourism as UK, and they got rid of their monarchy.

Apples and oranges.

sharrison01

Leaving it as it is is the option for me. The Royals have very little real power and if anything serve us by bringing in so much money to the economy. The Queen, at 85 years old, makes over 500 public appearances per year and in doing so attracts a huge amount of money to the UK that filters down to help everybody.

I would possibly suggest that a majority of people support the monarchy so cannot see why some people wish it to be removed. I personally cannot stand the Olympics, for example, but respect that a lot of people enjoy it and will simply ignore it next year rather than go out of my way to ruin it for people. Those that are against the royals should do the same but then it is often the case that if a few people do not like something themselves then they believe that nobody should like it. Typical traits of Socialists/Greens...

zagfles

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

Ah,

So unfairness is OK if it only affects a few then, right? ("I'm all right Jack...")

I would suggest it comes very low on the list of unfairness that exists in the world. It's not fair that a baby born in the UK has much better life chances than a baby born in a war torn African country to a mother with aids. When that sort of unfairness is fixed them maybe we can get onto Princess Anne.

I respectfully disagree. And with something so high-profile are royalty you also have to consider that the effect of that "unfairness" is magnified by the attention paid to them, and perhaps has the power to subtly influence society at large,

Ah yes, you mean like all those parents who leave everything to their first born son?

So lets discuss alternatives - they can't all be worse (and I notice that many countries around the world do fine without, so there should be a few good alternatives on offer),

Of course. You seem to want a change so suggest away...

Very true, but then I have some power over those that appoint and monitor them (via a vote). Sure it's indirect, but I can have some influence and make my voice heard (either by one of the bodies that ensures good practice, or by contact with my MP),

How about a "royal ombudsman "

I don't have that power over the monarch.

Why do you think Edward VIII abdicated?

Besides, isn't this the point to say something about cost and value (I know it has been used to defend the royal family, but it is just as appropriate here)?

Personally I think they're worth my 6p a month.

zagfles

sharrison01 wrote: »

Leaving it as it is is the option for me. The Royals have very little real power and if anything serve us by bringing in so much money to the economy. The Queen, at 85 years old, makes over 500 public appearances per year and in doing so attracts a huge amount of money to the UK that filters down to help everybody.

I would possibly suggest that a majority of people support the monarchy so cannot see why some people wish it to be removed. I personally cannot stand the Olympics, for example, but respect that a lot of people enjoy it and will simply ignore it next year rather than go out of my way to ruin it for people. Those that are against the royals should do the same but then it is often the case that if a few people do not like something themselves then they believe that nobody should like it. Typical traits of Socialists/Liberals...

Opinion polls on whether we should keep the monarchy or not usually get 70-80% in favour, which is a lot more than any govt has ever got! And which is why none of the major UK political parties oppose the monarchy.

sharrison01

Also, the question asks "Are the Royals worth the tax?" which should make the answer be given on a more financial basis. The Royals do very little morally or ethically wrong so on a financial basis they are certainly worth the tax. It is very difficult to quantify how much money they actually bring into the country but they certainly contribute to "Brand Britain" and help to attract tourists, particularly from those countries without a monarchy.

I can understand people not having a love affair with the Royals but I really cannot understand why they cannot appreciate and respect that having them is better for our country than not having them and then just leave us royalists to enjoy what they do. Apart from the odd wedding, funeral and annual ceremony we rarely see the Royals anyway. I'm not religious but would certainly not begrudge people enjoying Easter/Christmas/Ramadan/Yom Kippur etc etc just because I do not celebrate them...

Sirbob

The question should really be

'Are you prepared to pay more taxes to get rid of the Royal Family?'


For me the answer is a resounding NO.

GlynD

I'd say somebody is missing the point ok. A little bit of research is all it takes to discover that the royal family do not cost the taxpayer a penny.

The simple fact of the matter is: the money for the civil list comes from revenue generated from the Crown Estate. Surplus funds from the same source then go to the exchequer. The Queen then pays tax on her income and donates funds which are generated from the royal palaces which are open to the fee paying public.


I believe the exceptions to the are the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Rothsay whose reveneues are administered by Prince Charles' office, and it is evident that he is a very hands-on administrator and has created his own outlets for distribution of surplus funds such as the Princes Trust, a model town built on the outskirts of Greater Manchester (I think that's the location) and manifold other trusts and organisations his office contributes to on behalf of the Du

pollypenny

teddyco wrote: »

The Royal Family is an asset that costs a mere 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer. In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the unquantifiable, but enormous, tourist revenue it generates.

I voted 'No Change. It's fine as it is.'

That is such an old chestnut and erroneous!
It does not include the enormous costs of security.

People flock to Stratford-upon-Avon; Shakespeare is dead. Chester and York are full of tourists, the Romans are long gone.

We'd still have the tourists, without the implicit servility. It's time to be citizens, not subjects!