THIRTY EIGHT ( Point ) TWO...MILLION, English Pounds!!!!!

daviesee

cee wrote:

38.2 million is nothing.

as said...revenue generated by the royals is estimated at £200million....

the highland midge reportedly costs the scottish tourism industry £286million a year!

in that context...the royal family are a bargain!

But how much does it bring in to the DEET/Avon industry? :twisted:

It can't actually cost them anything. Reduce potential profits probably, but not actual cost.

cee

daviesee wrote:

cee wrote:

38.2 million is nothing.

as said...revenue generated by the royals is estimated at £200million....

the highland midge reportedly costs the scottish tourism industry £286million a year!

in that context...the royal family are a bargain!

But how much does it bring in to the DEET/Avon industry? :twisted:

It can't actually cost them anything. Reduce potential profits probably, but not actual cost.

you reckon the deet/avon industry is £286 million a year in scotland? not convinced.

also...of course its a reduction in revenue. income not generated if you will.....alongside all of the other stuff that are true costs...midge killing machines at hotels etc, leaflets and pamplets, info....lots of it


think of the record indutry and how much they 'lose' every year because people download music.....if someone was never going to buy the teletubbies album, but downloaded it because...well because they could....how did the record indusrty lose a single penny. they didn't.. it wasn't even a potential sale that was lost. they only lose the profit if someone who would have bought the music...downlaoded it for free instead. but you could argue that again..it didn't cost them anything...it was simply a reduction in profits...semantics. thats how business describes loss!

the £286milion are actually potential sales which were lost. people who would have come back to scotland, but didn't citing the midge pest problem as the reason!

And by your very own logic...the royal family doesn't cost us a penny. they generate net profit of 162million a year!

I am not a monarchist...but 38 million is small chips in the scheme of things...

I mean...jebus...there was a story in the beeb today that we collectively waste 800 millions pounds worth of free minutes on our contract mobile phones every year!

if everyone halfed their included minutes, reducing their onthly mobile bill, then gave the saved amount to the government....we'd be out of this recession right ricky tick!

I have just noticed I am ranting but I am fed up of all the piddly amounts of cash being worked through in fine detail...38 million is nothing in the scheme of things...the mps expenses scandle was tiny tatties too.

cee

Splottboy wrote:

Try telling someone who needs expensive cancer drugs - refused by NICE/NHS due to the cost - that £38.2 Million, "is nothing..."

obviously to one individual 38 million could be life or death....but the NHS caters for everyone in the country...not just a handful of people.

if that sounds harsh, it was not meant to...I have every sympathy for people who can't get the best medicine technically available. The NHS is awesome in general, but the fact that it is free, means that it has to have compromise.

For that reason. I pay for my own health insurance. That is a choice everyone has.

Squillinossett

I would gladly pay twice that and an annual basis..

EKIMIKE

Splottboy wrote:

Try telling someone who needs expensive cancer drugs - refused by NICE/NHS due to the cost - that £38.2 Million, "is nothing..."

So 38.2million pays for 10,000 peoples expensive cancer drugs. What do you tell the 10,001st person?

I think the issue with expensive cancer drugs is with the Drugs Industry and drugs companies. Not the royal family.

Moreover the millions who die each year from such things as starvation, water-born diseases (from a dirty water source), and treatable illnesses in the developing world is, for me, a more important issue than the price of a specific drug.

It's all relative. It's just my opinion.

Ollieda

Where exactly have these figures come from? The first reference I can find on google for "£38m to run the Royal Family" is this forum!

Also if this is in reference to the civil list costs then you should take into account that this list covers staffing costs and building upkeep. If you were to get rid of the royal family then these costs would remain - building costs would still be there and the staff (as effectively government employees) would work for the state in some other role.

Removing the royal family would mean the taxpayers aren't covering the costs directly for the "civil list" but this money would just be paid out under different names and departments, the vast bulk of the paymet would still be there. Then there is likely to be a drop in toursim income, the vast majority of tourists I've met whenever I've been to London are there to see something like chaniging of the guard or hope to get a glimpse of the Queen or some other royal. Without them our tourism trade would loose part of its appeal.

Cleat Eastwood

We fund them when they can clearly fund themselves. They are the epitome of greed.

"The Prince of Wales' private income increased by more than 4% last year but his taxpayer funding was almost halved, Clarence House accounts show.

Sir Michael Peat, Prince Charles's principal private secretary, said the reason for the fall in taxpayer funding was lower spending on overseas travel.

The main long-haul trip last year to Canada was paid for by the prince's hosts, Sir Michael added.

The figures showed official expenditure fell from £12.5m to £10.7m.

Funding from government departments and grants-in-aid amounted to £1.66m, down from almost £3m the previous year.

Private income from the Duchy of Cornwall amounted to more than £17.1m."

And the guy can't even dress himself.

Coach H

If it were possible, someone from the Forum should ask the Saudi's how much money they would spend on UK contracts (particularly defence spending) if they were not negotiated by a member of the Royal Family. Compare it to how much they spend now and I would bet an awful lot of money that £38m would look like a very small amount.

Oh you didn't know that happened? What do you think Randy Andy does in his role of Ecconomic Ambassador (or whatever it is called), just get free golf rounds in??

I speak not as a Royalist or a Republican but as someone who can see past the end of my nose. As others have said, its not worth talking about. Now the money spent on Quango's :x

mcj78

Coach H wrote:

Oh you didn't know that happened? What do you think Randy Andy does in his role of Ecconomic Ambassador (or whatever it is called), just get free golf rounds in??

Yep, pretty much

shouldbeinbed

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Without the Queen/King we would have a political upper house filled with failed politicians or "retired" politicians or lawyers and the same 3 political parties squabbling just like the parliamentarians. And, how much is that going to cost?

Take Floella Benjamin out of the equation and don't we have that now?????

£300 attendance allowance a day - less than a weeks 'work' a month and they're earning more than me on that one alone without the rest added on.

---

the tourist industry would get a boost from all of the palaces and private 'houses' suddenly fully opened up to the public. Dissolve the monarchy and they're not going to tear down Buckingham Palace and put up a Lidl.

Coach H

mcj78 wrote:

Coach H wrote:

Oh you didn't know that happened? What do you think Randy Andy does in his role of Ecconomic Ambassador (or whatever it is called), just get free golf rounds in??

Yep, pretty much

Well OK he does that most of the time!!

bompington

cee wrote:

the highland midge reportedly costs the scottish tourism industry £286million a year!

Nice link to the "blood-sucking vampires" theme. None of the royals have ever actually bitten me...

daviesee

cee wrote:

daviesee wrote:

cee wrote:

38.2 million is nothing.

as said...revenue generated by the royals is estimated at £200million....

the highland midge reportedly costs the scottish tourism industry £286million a year!

in that context...the royal family are a bargain!

But how much does it bring in to the DEET/Avon industry? :twisted:

It can't actually cost them anything. Reduce potential profits probably, but not actual cost.

I have just noticed I am ranting but I am fed up of all the piddly amounts of cash being worked through in fine detail...38 million is nothing in the scheme of things...the mps expenses scandle was tiny tatties too.

Just ranting a tad.

Methinks you took my post just a wee bit seriously

el_presidente

verylonglegs wrote:

A couple of them have served in a combat zone have they not? If you want to debate something sensibly avoid catch all statements like 'blood sucking vampires'. imo

Oh come off it, ponced around the desert for a few weeks to get some photo opps.

If they are an active member of the armed service then good luck to them, they can get the same wage as every other brave serviceman / woman.

Sirius631

Splottboy wrote:

Why doesn't everyone give one pence a week to Cancer Research?

Much better course of action all-round.

I'd rather have the royals than cancer.

Sirius631

Splottboy wrote:

France, the USA and many other countries have flourishing tourism businesses,
BUT have NO ROYALS!!

France has good weather in the south, good cuisine and wine. USA has good weather and Disney World. What does Britain have to compare? FFS, they even built Harry Potter World in the States instead of England.

Saudi Arabia wouldn't buy weapon systems from us if it wasn't for the royals, and that is a big spend.

cee

daviesee

nah...didn't really take your post that seriously...just started typing...then realised it needed edited!

rake

pardon me if this has been covered, i cant be bothered to read the whole topic.
1. when the manufacturing argument comes up people say we can go into tourism, its worth 'X' amount of billions. never stood infront of buckingham palace, if you do note the amount of tourists.
2. the queen boosts export sales greatly as i was told because orders for british products go up after an official visit.
3. dont you think its a massive part of british culture and quite cheap at 1p per week? (all income from tourism ignored).

bearfraser

And what about the monies (millions) we as tax players are about to pay for the "Pope" to visit for a few days(Why dont the Catholic Church pay for iT)The Royal family is actually good value!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spen666

Splottboy wrote:

This what the Royals cost the UK last year.

38.2 Million Pounds...62p for EVERY person in the UK.
( Sounds quite "cheap" when you put it like that, sort of.)

Think of the all the Hospitals, Schools, Social Services and Aged people who could benefit from this sort of money???

This is SICK, Totally SICK...

And no, the "They bring tourist in" crap doesn't wash.
France, the USA and many other countries have flourishing tourism businesses,
BUT have NO ROYALS!!
Just get the blood sucking vampires off the throne anD deported to Germany/Greece.
NOW !!!

but the cost of the presidecy to France &usa exceeds the cost of the royal family to uk

But don't let facts get in the way of your rant

brin

Never read all the posts - yawn! so sorry if this has already been mentioned, but the £2.000.000+ paid to Tony Blairs security entourage by the tax payer, puts the argument into a different perspective.

Scrumple

This thread just empahsizes how stupid some people are.

Even if you are deluded enough to think they are expensive, do you really think a President (and all the ££££ spent on electing one) is a better option?

Engage brains, and explore the consequences of your comments. We need a Head of State, and I'm happy with the status quo.

Cleat Eastwood

Scrumple wrote:

This thread just empahsizes how stupid some people are.

We need a Head of State, and I'm happy with the status quo.

ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

Scrumple

your option??

the USA model? Pantomime, endless tv adverts, and money buying power???

well??

further

£38m is not a lot but to call it a bargain reminds me of two cheapkates in a restaurant...

Woman: This food is disgusting.
Man: I know, but you do get a lot.

your option??

the USA model? Pantomime, endless tv adverts, and money buying power???

Now there's an idea. What better symbol of the British Empire than pantomime? Personally, I'd go for John Terry as Widow Twanky.

snailracer

The short answer is, the royals are paid by Parliament because they actually own a lot of land and property that Parliament collects taxes on.

Splottboy

"Happy with the status quo".

Well, there's no accounting for some peoples taste in music...

PAUL THE PSYCHIC OCTOPUS FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Ollieda

snailracer wrote:

The short answer is, the royals are paid by Parliament because they actually own a lot of land and property that Parliament collects taxes on.

Isn't that land technically owned by "The Crown", through The Crown Estates, not "The Royals"?........very subtle difference, but I suppose it is only a technicality

snailracer

Ollieda wrote:

snailracer wrote:

The short answer is, the royals are paid by Parliament because they actually own a lot of land and property that Parliament collects taxes on.

Isn't that land technically owned by "The Crown", through The Crown Estates, not "The Royals"?........very subtle difference, but I suppose it is only a technicality

The Crown is a "corporation sole". In English law, a corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office, occupied by a single ('sole') man or woman. And guess who that is...

passout

Whatever we do, we need a head of State. If you don't have Royals then we'll need a President (like France?) or some sort of fundamental change to the system. None of this will be cheap. I read somewhere (forget where sorry) that the Royals don't cost much more than having a Presidential system anyway. If you then minus the money from 'Royal Tourism' (it does exist, not only in the UK either, and there has been research & books in this area), then you are presented with a very different picture. You may well hate the Royals for socio-political / moral reasons but you are on dodgy ground with the economics I would suggest.

In theory Royalty can provide a useful politically neutral powerful voice - look at the history of Thailand to see this. This is where Charles goes wrong as a 'King in waiting'. This is another reason to keep them although the need rarely arises in this country, I admit.

Personally I think a the Republic of Britain would be dull and we'd loose part of history/heritage which (good or bad) is part of who we are as a nation. I'm not un-critical but royalty seems like the best option to me.