Tweet
Originally posted by flounderbout
View Post
Some perspective.
£41.5 million. That was the cost to the state of the Royal Family in 2008-09, down from £87m odd in 1991 - 1992. Its about 69p per year a head per annum. Not an amount that would drive me to want to have them killed or arrested, but there we go - perhaps 69p is worth more in the North.
Of course that doesn't take into account any benefit to tourism etc. You may not like them, but by god the Yanks do. Just see how nuts they have gone over there about this wedding. Hey ho.
Of course if they were replaced by another head of state (and they would be - probably Simon Cowell or Tony Blair), we would have to pay for him. The cost of the Royals is actually fairly favourable compared to the average cost of a head of state in non monarchist countries. But then I suppose he would bring that undefinable Blair/Cowell charm.
As for the idea of "inbred people" producing yet more people who "leech" off the state, well yes that does sound bad.
And if we are going to deal in hackneyed cliches...
£164.7 BILLION. That was the level of welfare benefits in 2009 - 2010. Up from £140 billion the year before. More than the entire income tax take for the year. Presumably you would advocate a law preventing welfare claimants from reproducing? Not wanting to invoke Goodwin's law or anything, but err...
There are many good reasons for not wanting a monarchy (although suggesting that they should be shot or arrested does betray a certain level of irrationality). But cost isn't really one of them.
£41.5 million. That was the cost to the state of the Royal Family in 2008-09, down from £87m odd in 1991 - 1992. Its about 69p per year a head per annum. Not an amount that would drive me to want to have them killed or arrested, but there we go - perhaps 69p is worth more in the North.
Of course that doesn't take into account any benefit to tourism etc. You may not like them, but by god the Yanks do. Just see how nuts they have gone over there about this wedding. Hey ho.
Of course if they were replaced by another head of state (and they would be - probably Simon Cowell or Tony Blair), we would have to pay for him. The cost of the Royals is actually fairly favourable compared to the average cost of a head of state in non monarchist countries. But then I suppose he would bring that undefinable Blair/Cowell charm.
As for the idea of "inbred people" producing yet more people who "leech" off the state, well yes that does sound bad.
And if we are going to deal in hackneyed cliches...
£164.7 BILLION. That was the level of welfare benefits in 2009 - 2010. Up from £140 billion the year before. More than the entire income tax take for the year. Presumably you would advocate a law preventing welfare claimants from reproducing? Not wanting to invoke Goodwin's law or anything, but err...
There are many good reasons for not wanting a monarchy (although suggesting that they should be shot or arrested does betray a certain level of irrationality). But cost isn't really one of them.
Don't let facts get in the way of opinion.
Comment