Sorry Beanz but the money the royal family receive from the civil list is NOT a salary that a CEO of a top company would receive. It is a GRANT!! The money itself comes from revenues generated from the the crown estates, so you are right in that the some of the money comes from a royal organisation, but you are wrong in that you are thinking on purely business lines, The queen doesn't not decide how much to pay herself, the way a CEO does.
Huh?? of course they receive money! as you do if you work a job. Should we stop paying all civil servants too then, stop paying the guys building roads?
The point is they EARN it by generating MORE than they receive, it's not a hand out its a profit share.... its pretty basic math! I'd suggest you go look up how much the directly bring to the economy vs how much they cost the tax payer.
..clue, they generate more....
It doesnt matter what they generate they should NOT get a penny of the country. They have leached money off this country for 100s of years. If there was a vote put to the country their days would be numbered. As time goes on there are more and more people saying get rid of them. Look at how the street party's have dropped the last few weddings. The days of bull s**t that the country was told in the past is less believed now. Even our National anthem doesnt mention the country like the rest of the worlds anthems do. I will never see the day when they are finally got rid of but good day when they go. Germany would be a good place to settle for them. And by the way was it a coincidence that Hitler got married the same day as today. I doubt it. Wills a chip off his uncles block.
Rubbish.....the estimates are $200 million into RETAIL alone....retail = wages/jobs.
'Professional' estimates are always wrong, at least partly due to the fact that the figures are always manipulated to appear more acceptable to the public (who pay the real figures).
But even if correct, my point is that we shouldn't have to pay a penny for it, since they are so wealthy anyway, whilst we are having our essential services cut all around because we lack the cash to pay for them.
I bought a mug for someone here (who wanted one) for $24....that went into the pocket of the seller.
Fine. But that doesn't alter my point at all.
There were an additional 600,000 visitors to London for the wedding week...that's a lot of moola right there alone going into the hands of retail/hotel/restaurants etc etc...real people real money real jobs.
Yes, but those same people who benefited by the extra business also suffer from lower standards of public service now than they did in the past few years. Do you think that the tax revenue generated by those 600,000 visitors (which must be huge) will be put back into the police, the hospitals, mental health care, etc? No chance.
How do we know it's not...even if the taxpayer pays 100%..it's still a money maker.
Not necessarily, as the equation depends on how much in total is spent on the wedding, and I don't trust anyone in authority where figures are concerned.
So? Do you think they should live rent free????
Why not?
Look at it this way. Say you and I were on a ship somewhere, and it sank, and everyone drowns apart from me and you. We float on the wreckage for days, and finally wash up on a deserted island no one's ever seen before. If I said to you "Right, you have to pay me rent to live on this island" would you accept that? Of course not. And if one hundred people already live on that island, is it right that ninety-nine of them should pay rent to one of them? Of course not. So why should Charles (or anyone) get rent for someone else living on land?
It's not right.
Well only the legal ownership matters :)
By that logic slavery is OK (I know you're not advocating slavery, of course, I'm just pointing out that your above reasoning is how slavery was legal).
I think you are letting your feelings on the royal family influence the FACT they bring more money into the economy than they cost.
I've never seen that proven anywhere. But even if true, why can't we stop paying for them, since they can afford to pay for everything themselves without noticing the cost?
They are a business and a successful one at that..would be a bit stupid to get rid of a revenue earning business that EVERYONE (not just the top dogs) benefits from. All the little tourist stores and memorabilia sellers are not multimillionaires you know.
A bloke I know owns an (indoor) market stall selling computer games, and in January a pipe burst damaging most of his stock. He's still waiting on the insurance company (of course...), so why hasn't the government given him any money? He needs it far more than the business of the Royal family.
And no one's suggesting getting rid of them. I might detest them personally (I do), but I like the idea of a royal family, but I think that they should be morally uplifting to the nation, and set a good example. Instead we've got a bunch of self centered hedonists who show no concern for their subjects at all.
Sorry Beanz but the money the royal family receive from the civil list is NOT a salary that a CEO of a top company would receive. It is a GRANT!! The money itself comes from revenues generated from the the crown estates, so you are right in that the money comes from some a royal organisation, but you are wrong in that you are thinking on purely business lines, The queen doesn't not decide how much to pay herself, the way a CEO does.
Sorry neither do CEOs...the board decides how much the CEO gets...and often fire them when they don't perform. Grant/wage/hand out..whatever you want to call it....it's an investment that EARNS more than the cost of the grant. Playing naming games with the payment does not change the fact that everyone wins.
As for the purely business lines..that's the ONLY way to think about it when you are discussing their 'value for money'. Personal feeling about them as individuals is irrelevant as to their monetary value to the economy.
Are they massively profitable vs their cost? YES.
Should we therefore stop paying them out of the coffers? NO not unless we are idiots.
So your saying stop tax payers money and we will loose out? How do you work that out? The country would gain from not giving them a hand out and also people would still come here to see them and day dream.
But even if correct, my point is that we shouldn't have to pay a penny for it, since they are so wealthy anyway, whilst we are having our essential services cut all around because we lack the cash to pay for them.
Now, try to think.....if the economy was short 400 million pounds a year (around about what the royal family generate directly INTO the economy)..do you think your services would be increased or cut......???
Fine. But that doesn't alter my point at all.
Yes it does, the person that directly profited from the sale is not a fat cat.....the cash went in THEIR pocket.
Yes, but those same people who benefited by the extra business also suffer from lower standards of public service now than they did in the past few years. Do you think that the tax revenue generated by those 600,000 visitors (which must be huge) will be put back into the police, the hospitals, mental health care, etc? No chance.
More money in the economy means more money for services...its basic logic.
If you have $100 for services or $500 for services....which would you sooner have? the mishandling of how it is spend is NOTHING to do with the royal family, that would be the government. Royal family BRINGS the money in...Government spends it....I think you are confusing the 2.
Not necessarily, as the equation depends on how much in total is spent on the wedding, and I don't trust anyone in authority where figures are concerned.
Doesn't really matter....Charles and Di wedding is estimated to have cost 30-60 mil...so lets be very generous to your argument and say this one cost $300....it's still going to generate more than that....AND lets not forget the billions they royal family has already generated. So the wedding itself COULD be a loser and they would still be ahead on the books.
Why not?
Are you serious? if so next time I come to England clear a room out, I'm staying with you....I like weetabix btw so have some in.
Look at it this way. Say you and I were on a ship somewhere, and it sank, and everyone drowns apart from me and you. We float on the wreckage for days, and finally wash up on a deserted island no one's ever seen before. If I said to you "Right, you have to pay me rent to live on this island" would you accept that? Of course not. And if one hundred people already live on that island, is it right that ninety-nine of them should pay rent to one of them? Of course not. So why should Charles (or anyone) get rent for someone else living on land?
It's not right.
Your analogy has nothing to do with the situation...let me rewrite if for you to be more accurate.
We wash up on a desert island...
You say to me Ok you have to pay me 10 coconuts a week to live here but I'll give you 100 coconuts in return....would you pay me?
By that logic slavery is OK (I know you're not advocating slavery, of course, I'm just pointing out that your above reasoning is how slavery was legal).
HUH?? last time I check slavery is not legal..land ownership is...so I think you might need to check your logic chip...maybe the M1 line is bad.
I've never seen that proven anywhere. But even if true, why can't we stop paying for them, since they can afford to pay for everything themselves without noticing the cost?
Because it is in our interests to pay them....see the analogies I have given..they bring more in than they cost....is it really that difficult to figure out it is therefore in our interests to keep paying them? Do you think they would be public figures if they were not getting paid? Do you think they would do the royal tours that generate millions in foreign orders?
WOULD YOU?
And no one's suggesting getting rid of them. I might detest them personally (I do), but I like the idea of a royal family, but I think that they should be morally uplifting to the nation, and set a good example. Instead we've got a bunch of self centered hedonists who show no concern for their subjects at all.
Ah and so we get to it....that's fine if you dislike them on a personal level...I dislike my boss...It's still in my interests to do as he directs me though if I want to continue receiving income from him. The royal family bring income to the country, more than they cost..best not to bite your own nose off to spite your face.
So your saying stop tax payers money and we will loose out? How do you work that out? The country would gain from not giving them a hand out and also people would still come here to see them and day dream.
Modge, seriously think about what you are saying...
look at the question I asked you...that you didn't respond too.
Let me put it another way...your house is a country and you have the option of installing a royal family or not.
Cost to run household is $110
Your income without royal family is $90
Your income with royal family is $150
Cost of royal family from tax is $30
Your Net tax income with family $120.
Difference, your economy is $30 better off with royal family. That money you give to the government (the wife) who then decides how it is spent.
Looking at the figures...which is the better choice?
Sorry neither do CEOs...the board decides how much the CEO gets...and often fire them when they don't perform.
But seeing as the CEO and the board are part of the same 'old boys network'/fraternity they are pretty much the same person and they aren't going to vote to take a pay cut- after all turkeys don't vote for christmas/thanksgiving.
CEO's aren't fired as in they're not thrown out with nothing like a blue collar worker would be, they're given 'lucrative severance packages' - google RBS and Sir Fred Goodwin for an example of being rewarded for gross mismanagement
The royals hardly cost me a thing and generate a lot if money. Would rather pay them anyway than my tax paying for the millions of chavvy kids on the dole and 4 kids
Actually enjoyed the wedding and loved having the day off
But seeing as the CEO and the board are part of the same 'old boys network'/fraternity they are pretty much the same person and they aren't going to vote to take a pay cut- after all turkeys don't vote for christmas/thanksgiving.
CEO's aren't fired as in they're not thrown out with nothing like a blue collar worker would be, they're given 'lucrative severance packages' - google RBS and Sir Fred Goodwin for an example of being rewarded for gross mismanagement
Might want to check your history...the 'severance' packages of several royals isn't one you'd want :lol:
Modge, seriously think about what you are saying...
look at the question I asked you...that you didn't respond too.
Let me put it another way...your house is a country and you have the option of installing a royal family or not.
Your income without royal family is $90
Your income with royal family is $150
Cost of royal family from tax is $30
Your Net tax income with family $120.
Difference, your economy is $30 better off with royal family. That money you give to the government (the wife) who then decides how it is spent.
Looking at the figures...which is the better choice?
Better choice Get rid of them. The world isnt all money and profit Im afraid. Theres a little thing called look after your fellow man that's easily forgot by a few. The Nazi sorry Royal family and their hanger ons don't give a toss about this country. Say what you like they shouldnt leach off the country. Let them have their weddings but make them pay for everything. Its not that they cant afford it. Sod um.
Better choice Get rid of them. The world isnt all money and profit Im afraid. Theres a little thing called look after your fellow man that's easily forgot by a few. The Nazi sorry Royal family and their hanger ons don't give a toss about this country. Say what you like they shouldnt leach off the country. Let them have their weddings but make them pay for everything. Its not that they cant afford it. Sod um.
To leach is to take something without returning anything. They clearly don't leach.
So...you feel that anyone that leaches should go huh! I agree...lets start with all those on government benefits... :lol:
Better choice Get rid of them. The world isnt all money and profit Im afraid. Theres a little thing called look after your fellow man that's easily forgot by a few. The Nazi sorry Royal family and their hanger ons don't give a toss about this country. Say what you like they shouldnt leach off the country. Let them have their weddings but make them pay for everything. Its not that they cant afford it. Sod um.
Nah there are more at the bottom sucking up social/dole/grants/hand outs/rent subsidies etc......we'd save more by getting rid of those.
I have to agree with you on getting rid of the leaches...lets get rid of anyone that takes more than they contribute to the economy. :)
/cue hitler photo.
What planet do you live on? There are millions of ?s that the top few do not pay tax dodging. And yes why not get rid of those you are talking about. You live in a perfect society ( so they keep telling everyone) to see it going on there. The oldest trick in the book in this country is keep the bottom fighting while we cream off the top.
what is it with the sudden Nazism accusations? The Windsors are descendants of German kings, not racist National Socialists who went around killing Jews.
What planet do you live on? There are millions of ?s that the top few do not pay tax dodging. And yes why not get rid of those you are talking about. You live in a perfect society ( so they keep telling everyone) to see it going on there. The oldest trick in the book in this country is keep the bottom fighting while we cream off the top.
Here is your flaw..
You are complaining about those at the top not paying in....
You are ignoring those at the bottom who TAKE OUT.
If you have a piggy bank...would you sooner someone not contribute, or someone empty it every day for you? Who is the most guilty when at the end of the year your piggy is empty??
Modge start to think please.
The leeches are all at the bottom...the top CEOs etc get paid from PRIVATELY raised revenues...not taxes (and those that do, do so for a reason and still don't come close to the cost of the leaches at the bottom ).
The leeches are the poor at the bottom taking it without contribution....that was your complaint about the royals...so I agree..lets get rid of ALL the leeches....not just selective ones ;)
what is it with the sudden Nazism accusations? The Windsors are descendants of German kings, not racist National Socialists who went around killing Jews.
Windsors now perhaps but not before the second world war. And what about Edward 8th visits to see his friend Adolf? Look it up.
You are complaining about those at the top not paying in....
You are ignoring those at the bottom who TAKE OUT.
If you have a piggy bank...would you sooner someone not contribute, or someone empty it every day for you? Who is the most guilty when at the end of the year your piggy is empty??
Modge start to think please.
The leeches are all at the bottom...the top CEOs etc get paid from PRIVATELY raised revenues...not taxes (and those that do, do so for a reason and still don't come close to the cost of the leaches at the bottom ).
The leeches are the poor at the bottom taking it without contribution....that was your complaint about the royals...so I agree..lets get rid of ALL the leeches....not just selective ones ;)
You havnt a clue. The Benefits payed out here isnt nothing to the tax dodging rich. And Im not complaining just saying about it.
You havnt a clue. The Benefits payed out here isnt nothing to the tax dodging rich. And Im not complaining just saying about it.
Umm re-read I didn't say they were.
I said the leeches ARE at the bottom..those that RECEIVE the benefits...that is leaching is it not?
You suggested we get rid of the leachers..I am agreeing with you.
The top dogs not contributing does not = leaching....they are not taking from the pot, they are not adding to the pot...(even though they contribute I'm being generous).
Modge,
It's amusing that you bring up Nazism and in the same breathe talk about getting rid of a demographic of society.
Comments
'Professional' estimates are always wrong, at least partly due to the fact that the figures are always manipulated to appear more acceptable to the public (who pay the real figures).
But even if correct, my point is that we shouldn't have to pay a penny for it, since they are so wealthy anyway, whilst we are having our essential services cut all around because we lack the cash to pay for them.
Fine. But that doesn't alter my point at all.
Yes, but those same people who benefited by the extra business also suffer from lower standards of public service now than they did in the past few years. Do you think that the tax revenue generated by those 600,000 visitors (which must be huge) will be put back into the police, the hospitals, mental health care, etc? No chance.
Not necessarily, as the equation depends on how much in total is spent on the wedding, and I don't trust anyone in authority where figures are concerned.
Why not?
Look at it this way. Say you and I were on a ship somewhere, and it sank, and everyone drowns apart from me and you. We float on the wreckage for days, and finally wash up on a deserted island no one's ever seen before. If I said to you "Right, you have to pay me rent to live on this island" would you accept that? Of course not. And if one hundred people already live on that island, is it right that ninety-nine of them should pay rent to one of them? Of course not. So why should Charles (or anyone) get rent for someone else living on land?
It's not right.
By that logic slavery is OK (I know you're not advocating slavery, of course, I'm just pointing out that your above reasoning is how slavery was legal).
I've never seen that proven anywhere. But even if true, why can't we stop paying for them, since they can afford to pay for everything themselves without noticing the cost?
A bloke I know owns an (indoor) market stall selling computer games, and in January a pipe burst damaging most of his stock. He's still waiting on the insurance company (of course...), so why hasn't the government given him any money? He needs it far more than the business of the Royal family.
And no one's suggesting getting rid of them. I might detest them personally (I do), but I like the idea of a royal family, but I think that they should be morally uplifting to the nation, and set a good example. Instead we've got a bunch of self centered hedonists who show no concern for their subjects at all.
Sorry neither do CEOs...the board decides how much the CEO gets...and often fire them when they don't perform. Grant/wage/hand out..whatever you want to call it....it's an investment that EARNS more than the cost of the grant. Playing naming games with the payment does not change the fact that everyone wins.
As for the purely business lines..that's the ONLY way to think about it when you are discussing their 'value for money'. Personal feeling about them as individuals is irrelevant as to their monetary value to the economy.
Are they massively profitable vs their cost? YES.
Should we therefore stop paying them out of the coffers? NO not unless we are idiots.
But even if correct, my point is that we shouldn't have to pay a penny for it, since they are so wealthy anyway, whilst we are having our essential services cut all around because we lack the cash to pay for them.
Now, try to think.....if the economy was short 400 million pounds a year (around about what the royal family generate directly INTO the economy)..do you think your services would be increased or cut......???
Fine. But that doesn't alter my point at all.
Yes it does, the person that directly profited from the sale is not a fat cat.....the cash went in THEIR pocket.
Yes, but those same people who benefited by the extra business also suffer from lower standards of public service now than they did in the past few years. Do you think that the tax revenue generated by those 600,000 visitors (which must be huge) will be put back into the police, the hospitals, mental health care, etc? No chance.
More money in the economy means more money for services...its basic logic.
If you have $100 for services or $500 for services....which would you sooner have? the mishandling of how it is spend is NOTHING to do with the royal family, that would be the government. Royal family BRINGS the money in...Government spends it....I think you are confusing the 2.
Not necessarily, as the equation depends on how much in total is spent on the wedding, and I don't trust anyone in authority where figures are concerned.
Doesn't really matter....Charles and Di wedding is estimated to have cost 30-60 mil...so lets be very generous to your argument and say this one cost $300....it's still going to generate more than that....AND lets not forget the billions they royal family has already generated. So the wedding itself COULD be a loser and they would still be ahead on the books.
Why not?
Are you serious? if so next time I come to England clear a room out, I'm staying with you....I like weetabix btw so have some in.
Look at it this way. Say you and I were on a ship somewhere, and it sank, and everyone drowns apart from me and you. We float on the wreckage for days, and finally wash up on a deserted island no one's ever seen before. If I said to you "Right, you have to pay me rent to live on this island" would you accept that? Of course not. And if one hundred people already live on that island, is it right that ninety-nine of them should pay rent to one of them? Of course not. So why should Charles (or anyone) get rent for someone else living on land?
It's not right.
Your analogy has nothing to do with the situation...let me rewrite if for you to be more accurate.
We wash up on a desert island...
You say to me Ok you have to pay me 10 coconuts a week to live here but I'll give you 100 coconuts in return....would you pay me?
By that logic slavery is OK (I know you're not advocating slavery, of course, I'm just pointing out that your above reasoning is how slavery was legal).
HUH?? last time I check slavery is not legal..land ownership is...so I think you might need to check your logic chip...maybe the M1 line is bad.
I've never seen that proven anywhere. But even if true, why can't we stop paying for them, since they can afford to pay for everything themselves without noticing the cost?
Because it is in our interests to pay them....see the analogies I have given..they bring more in than they cost....is it really that difficult to figure out it is therefore in our interests to keep paying them? Do you think they would be public figures if they were not getting paid? Do you think they would do the royal tours that generate millions in foreign orders?
WOULD YOU?
And no one's suggesting getting rid of them. I might detest them personally (I do), but I like the idea of a royal family, but I think that they should be morally uplifting to the nation, and set a good example. Instead we've got a bunch of self centered hedonists who show no concern for their subjects at all.
Ah and so we get to it....that's fine if you dislike them on a personal level...I dislike my boss...It's still in my interests to do as he directs me though if I want to continue receiving income from him. The royal family bring income to the country, more than they cost..best not to bite your own nose off to spite your face.
Modge, seriously think about what you are saying...
look at the question I asked you...that you didn't respond too.
Let me put it another way...your house is a country and you have the option of installing a royal family or not.
Cost to run household is $110
Your income without royal family is $90
Your income with royal family is $150
Cost of royal family from tax is $30
Your Net tax income with family $120.
Difference, your economy is $30 better off with royal family. That money you give to the government (the wife) who then decides how it is spent.
Looking at the figures...which is the better choice?
CEO's aren't fired as in they're not thrown out with nothing like a blue collar worker would be, they're given 'lucrative severance packages' - google RBS and Sir Fred Goodwin for an example of being rewarded for gross mismanagement
Actually enjoyed the wedding and loved having the day off
Might want to check your history...the 'severance' packages of several royals isn't one you'd want :lol:
Better choice Get rid of them. The world isnt all money and profit Im afraid. Theres a little thing called look after your fellow man that's easily forgot by a few. The Nazi sorry Royal family and their hanger ons don't give a toss about this country. Say what you like they shouldnt leach off the country. Let them have their weddings but make them pay for everything. Its not that they cant afford it. Sod um.
To leach is to take something without returning anything. They clearly don't leach.
So...you feel that anyone that leaches should go huh! I agree...lets start with all those on government benefits... :lol:
And dont forget those at the top dodging TAX.
Nazi...?
Nah there are more at the bottom sucking up social/dole/grants/hand outs/rent subsidies etc......we'd save more by getting rid of those.
I have to agree with you on getting rid of the leaches...lets get rid of anyone that takes more than they contribute to the economy. :)
(it's going to be a lonely place)
/cue hitler photo.
What planet do you live on? There are millions of ?s that the top few do not pay tax dodging. And yes why not get rid of those you are talking about. You live in a perfect society ( so they keep telling everyone) to see it going on there. The oldest trick in the book in this country is keep the bottom fighting while we cream off the top.
Here is your flaw..
You are complaining about those at the top not paying in....
You are ignoring those at the bottom who TAKE OUT.
If you have a piggy bank...would you sooner someone not contribute, or someone empty it every day for you? Who is the most guilty when at the end of the year your piggy is empty??
Modge start to think please.
The leeches are all at the bottom...the top CEOs etc get paid from PRIVATELY raised revenues...not taxes (and those that do, do so for a reason and still don't come close to the cost of the leaches at the bottom ).
The leeches are the poor at the bottom taking it without contribution....that was your complaint about the royals...so I agree..lets get rid of ALL the leeches....not just selective ones ;)
Windsors now perhaps but not before the second world war. And what about Edward 8th visits to see his friend Adolf? Look it up.
You havnt a clue. The Benefits payed out here isnt nothing to the tax dodging rich. And Im not complaining just saying about it.
Well Elizabeth and her mother were there at the time and ares still here now.
Umm re-read I didn't say they were.
I said the leeches ARE at the bottom..those that RECEIVE the benefits...that is leaching is it not?
You suggested we get rid of the leachers..I am agreeing with you.
The top dogs not contributing does not = leaching....they are not taking from the pot, they are not adding to the pot...(even though they contribute I'm being generous).
Modge,
It's amusing that you bring up Nazism and in the same breathe talk about getting rid of a demographic of society.
he's right, all you need is one of your family members to talk to a nazi and for the rest of time every member of your faimily is a secret nazi. :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJTNOxV4Qghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4170083.stm
Thats a wrong link sent to a friend over in Ontario :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJTNOxV4Qghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4170083.stm