British taxpayers just gave the Queen of England a boost of 5 million pounds, or $7.56 million, in the amount of money available to her to carry out her duties, the Guardian reports.
Meanwhile, the UK is considering freezing or even cutting its minimum wage at the same time, the Financial Times reports. In addition, the British government is embarking on a dramatic pullback of its famed welfare state, which includes cuts to subsidized housing, caps on welfare benefits and changes to the system so that benefits and tax credits no longer rise with inflation, according to a separate Guardian report.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I'm sure the royal household generates a return on that money 100 times over in tourism and related economic activity. Its money well spent, governments spend $50M on much more wasteful things.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
Something which needs to be posted if you post part of the article:
Quote:
Under the new grant the Queen receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate, but from funds two years in arrears. The Crown Estate's 2011-12 accounts revealed profits of £240.2m and the final figure for the grant was rounded up to £36.1m – very close to the estimated amount – by the royal trustees in December.
And I really don't fall on either side of this issue just thought this number needs to be posted.
Also, the expenses don't cover security costs
The Following User Says Thank You to Kavvy For This Useful Post:
The whole notion of royalty is so outdated and archaic, I hope we see an abolishment of the monarchy, and all monarchies, in the Western world during my life time.
Someone centuries ago procliamed devine right to rule, and those families have been living in the lap of luxury since then. It's absolutely ridiculous. Makes my blood boil.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I'm sure the royal household generates a return on that money 100 times over in tourism and related economic activity. Its money well spent, governments spend $50M on much more wasteful things.
I agree there is an argument there that the Royal Family pays for itself in reciprocal benefits. Its at least a reasonable conversation and not completely one-sided.
Given the popularity of William and Kate these days among the British public, there's no chance royalty is going to be abolished in that country anytime soon. Or in Canada. Maybe Australia or New Zealand.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The whole notion of royalty is so outdated and archaic, I hope we see an abolishment of the monarchy, and all monarchies, in the Western world during my life time.
Someone centuries ago procliamed devine right to rule, and those families have been living in the lap of luxury since then. It's absolutely ridiculous. Makes my blood boil.
I agree with that notion, but abolishing the Monarchy is not going to change people's lives for the better - it is essentially a publicly-owned tourist mechanism, one many people are still willing to support).
Every country has their weird investments when it comes to publically-funded ventures. Two I can think of off the top of my head are the U.S. spending $2 million of public funds on other countries's great apes conversation efforts, and spent $2.6 million on studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes.
Government's waste money all the time, unfortunately.
Given the popularity of William and Kate these days among the British public, there's no chance royalty is going to be abolished in that country anytime soon. Or in Canada. Maybe Australia or New Zealand.
Cowperson
Are there facts for these two countries? I have spent alot of time in both Aus and NZ, and it appears their street-level support for the monarchy is definitely higher than Canada's. Even a quick search of poll results for monarchy support is still in the majority for Australia (although I think Will and Kate have something to do with it).
Seems like they have more of a connection with the British motherland than we do. Hell, even English people have special visa privileges in Aus and NZ that they definitely don't enjoy here.
I agree with that notion, but abolishing the Monarchy is not going to change people's lives for the better - it is essentially a publicly-owned tourist mechanism, one many people are still willing to support).
Every country has their weird investments when it comes to publically-funded ventures. Two I can think of off the top of my head are the U.S. spending $2 million of public funds on other countries's great apes conversation efforts, and spent $2.6 million on studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes.
Government's waste money all the time, unfortunately.
Couple of things:
Just because waste happens, doesn't mean it should be accepted.
People still flock to the pyraminds and the palace of versialles, and those royal families no longer exist.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Sad statement that the number one tourist attraction is sweaty betty.
I would have said, Stonehenge or Hadrians Wall, York Cathedal
I don't know what that is, but it sounds suspiciously similar to a catheter, and I can absolutely guarantee I don't want to see that. Especially if it belongs to some dude named York.
The Queen no longer just getting by....
