We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Could people REALLY lose all their savings?
Comments
-
The Queen cost £38.2 million for 2009/10:
I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but I have to draw the line somewhere so cannot believe that.
The cost of their security alone has been estimated at over £100 million. But, like so many things, that is simply ignored.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, but I have to draw the line somewhere so cannot believe that.
The cost of their security alone has been estimated at over £100 million. But, like so many things, that is simply ignored.
You would have to incur these costs to support any head of state in a country like this. That's not the issue, it's about whether it's preferable to have people who devote their life to the service of the country, and who can rise above any internecine issues in its best interests, or on the other hand grubby politicians on the the make and in search of kudos. Left-wing dogma and posturing will have it that no wealth and privilege must be hereditary so its proponents would probably prefer the latter.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
That sounds like a good idea George. Is there anyone like that available?GeorgeHowell wrote: »That's not the issue, it's about whether it's preferable to have people who devote their life to the service of the country, and who can rise above any internecine issues in its best interests,0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »You would have to incur these costs to support any head of state in a country like this. .
How many palaces? how many hangers on?
Britains Royal Family costs more than all the other European Royal Families put together
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands cycles round TheHaigue to a supermarket to do her own shopping.
Can you imagine Her Unelected Majesty ever doing that?“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »How many palaces? how many hangers on?
Britains Royal Family costs more than all the other European Royal Families put together
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands cycles round TheHaigue to a supermarket to do her own shopping.
Can you imagine Her Unelected Majesty ever doing that?
The royal families of countries like the Netherlands do not attract tourists to anything like the extent ours does. This will of course be poo-pooed by the republicans and the class warriors, but it is a fact especially where Americans are concerned. I don't want a head of state who does her own shopping at Tesco Express. I want one who can deal on equal terms with anyone in the world, who remains aloof of grubby politics, and who provides an impartial ultimate focus of loyalty for our armed forces should anyone get really saucy.
And I repeat, the total cost of the royal family is peanuts compared to what is thrown down the drain in welfare payments to layabouts, from which issue we seem to have been conveniently side-tracked by those fighting a losing battle to defend the indefensible.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Actually France attracts more foreign tourists than Britain. Perhaps because their Royal Palaces are genuinely open to the public.
Why would standing outside like uninvited spectators at a feast, be more likely to attract tourists than going inside?
As for meeting other Heads of State, well Queen Beatrix doesn't roll out the red carpet for Saudi Arabian Dictators like the ones we have forced on to us, but she seems to do very well with others.
Again you still refuse to say what these over generous welfare payments are. Yet this is publicly available information, unlike the amount of money taken from us to pay for the Windsors.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Actually France attracts more foreign tourists than Britain. Perhaps because their Royal Palaces are genuinely open to the public.
Why would standing outside like uninvited spectators at a feast, be more likely to attract tourists than going inside?
As for meeting other Heads of State, well Queen Beatrix doesn't roll out the red carpet for Saudi Arabian Dictators like the ones we have forced on to us, but she seems to do very well with others.
Again you still refuse to say what these over generous welfare payments are. Yet this is publicly available information, unlike the amount of money taken from us to pay for the Windsors.
France has all sorts of tourism advantages over us. We need to nurture the interest that the Royal family generates for the UK in order to help compensate for the poor climate, overcrowded roads, expensive public transport etc. In case you had not noticed, of the two state funded royal residences in England one is open to the public all year round, and the other is open for a long period in the summer, when its position as the administrative headquarters of the UK head of state does not render a large and ubiquitous presence of the general public impractical.
Our monarch ranks in status, kudos, and international recognition alongside the Pope and the President of the USA. With the greatest respect to Queen Beatrix, she does not.
I'm not refusing to state what welfare payments are because I simply don't know, or care, in monetary terms. As you indicate, anyone interested enough can probably trawl the internet for the data if they so wish, but presumably you are as disinclined to waste your time doing that as I am. It's irrelevant, because the point has been made over and over again by me and others that the amounts doled out are self-evidently too generous because they are not meagre enough to force large numbers of those receiving them to urgently seek work in order to enjoy any kind of reasonable standard of living.
Harping on about what the actual amounts involved might be is completely irrelevant, and it savours of another tactic to avoid facing up to the main issue -- as irrelevant as bringing the royal family into this discussion. I am aware that seditious attitudes towards the royal family are all part and parcel of the class warrior mentality. But on a personal finances forum they are hardly relevant in the way that the vast amount of tax that we all pay to support layabouts on welfare is.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Indeed George, possibly almost as widely-recognised as David Beckham, and presumably in your world Britannia still rules the waves.GeorgeHowell wrote: »Our monarch ranks in status, kudos, and international recognition alongside the Pope and the President of the USA.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »France has all sorts of tourism advantages over us. We need to nurture the interest that the Royal family generates for the UK in order to help compensate for the poor climate, overcrowded roads, expensive public transport etc. In case you had not noticed, of the two state funded royal residences in England one is open to the public all year round, and the other is open for a long period in the summer, when its position as the administrative headquarters of the UK head of state does not render a large and ubiquitous presence of the general public impractical.
Our monarch ranks in status, kudos, and international recognition alongside the Pope and the President of the USA. With the greatest respect to Queen Beatrix, she does not.
I'm not refusing to state what welfare payments are because I simply don't know, or care, in monetary terms. As you indicate, anyone interested enough can probably trawl the internet for the data if they so wish, but presumably you are as disinclined to waste your time doing that as I am. It's irrelevant, because the point has been made over and over again by me and others that the amounts doled out are self-evidently too generous because they are not meagre enough to force large numbers of those receiving them to urgently seek work in order to enjoy any kind of reasonable standard of living.
Harping on about what the actual amounts involved might be is completely irrelevant, and it savours of another tactic to avoid facing up to the main issue -- as irrelevant as bringing the royal family into this discussion. I am aware that seditious attitudes towards the royal family are all part and parcel of the class warrior mentality. But on a personal finances forum they are hardly relevant in the way that the vast amount of tax that we all pay to support layabouts on welfare is.
So you don't know what the benefits you describe as 'hugely over generous' are. You just say they are 'hugely over generous' because they don't force ALL the unemployed to find non existant jobs.
You obviously don't know how 'open' the Royal Palaces are either. Ask someone who has actually been as a visitor, and you will get an idea of what a sham it is.
And from someone who has lived in France for several years I can tell you the climate is not better than here. Britain being surrounded by water and the Gulf Stream gives us more even temperatures throughout the year than most other countries, and certainly France.
Italy too, gets more Foreign Tourists than Britain, again with more extremes of climate.
You must be just repeating what you have heard from vested interests.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »So you don't know what the benefits you describe as 'hugely over generous' are. You just say they are 'hugely over generous' because they don't force ALL the unemployed to find non existant jobs.
You obviously don't know how 'open' the Royal Palaces are either. Ask someone who has actually been as a visitor, and you will get an idea of what a sham it is.
And from someone who has lived in France for several years I can tell you the climate is not better than here. Britain being surrounded by water and the Gulf Stream gives us more even temperatures throughout the year than most other countries, and certainly France.
Italy too, gets more Foreign Tourists than Britain, again with more extremes of climate.
You must be just repeating what you have heard from vested interests.
More repetitive, left-wing irrelevance, and getting very boring now. Time for me to stop engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man and move on to something interesting. Whatever riposte may come next, readers who know which end is up will draw their own conclusions.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards