Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

[Biscuit]

I think the Queen is a bargain. The revenue she generates way exceeds what she costs. It's the lesser Royal Family members that I object to getting money.

100% this. Easilt worth that £6 million.

 

[Rod Marsh]

Not this again. You have absolutely NO IDEA what she generates, none of us do. Secondly, even if it were true, it comes at a cost of true democracy.

If she cost double what she does I still wouldn't grumble about it.

 

[Simster]

If she cost double what she does I still wouldn't grumble about it.

You don't even know what that figure is.

 

[Hereford Gull]

Queenie is worth a large letter stamp imo

 

[Rod Marsh]

You don't even know what that figure is.

I don't care what the figure is.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Prince Harry's last minute emotional blackmail comments about the constraints of being a Royal have worked a treat - good work, your Grace!

 

[maltaseagull]

Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

Not got that quite right

 

[SeagullinExile]

Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

Nail on head.

Nothing short of disgusting.

 

[gazingdown]

As I understand it, the queen (Crown estates) brought in an extra £24m profit and as the queen is effectively taxed at 75% that means she only gets £6m of it.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

We should send her to the tower, and lob of her head, and use Buckingham Palace for immigrants.

Send May and the tories there, and put JC in charge.

Obviously the money we lose from tourists and her estate, we could cover by putting up corporation tax!

Oh wait, putting up corporation tax doesn't increase revenue it decreases it, so to cover that we could put up the top rate of income tax for anyone earning over one million.

Oh Wait, they'll just leave the country and pay taxes elsewhere or use tax avoidance scheme set up by Labour like the one Linekar used, so the money we lose from that we can raise by the introduction a new wealth tax, and any with over hundred grand in their account or house, we will make a one of tax of 50% for that.

Oh wait, everything will crash, so we can raise the money by borrowing it of China.

Oh wait, we will be in so much debt that the Chinese will call in the loans, we will lose our triple A rating, the pound will become worthless, inflation will be rampant, there will be more unemployed than employed, and the country will be in ruins, but at least immigration will go down, and they'll all go elsewhere for work.....

Oh wait, we will be in the shit then with no where to turn, but never mind we can have a general election and the Tories will win it, and we can all blame those wankers for cutting services and borrowing more than we ever have done before!!! Scummy bloody Tories.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I have nothing personally against her as I think she manages to perform the role as well as anybody could. I also see problems with alternative ways of appointing a Head of State. However, I really don’t get the value for money argument. If you combine her income with the value of the land she owns she is already spectacularly wealthy and the argument that the Royal Family brings in millions of pounds of additional tourist income is frankly nonsense; think how much income would come in if we could open up the Royal residences. Bearing in mind the huge challenges faced by the NHS, social care, security plus the self- inflicted opportunity cost of Brexit, this is such an insensitive move.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Not got that quite right View attachment 86661

One of the biggest landowners though.

I think the point is that 6 million would be better spent on the Grenfell victims than her personal wealth.

Insensitive and poor timing if you ask me.

 

[Triggaaar]

Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

But the country earns more money because of the Royal Family than they cost. You must have gone to the Labour school of economics.

 

[beorhthelm]

One of the biggest landowners though.

I think the point is that 6 million would be better spent on the Grenfell victims than her personal wealth.

Insensitive and poor timing if you ask me.

not remotely one of the largest landowners (though the Monarch holds vast amounts of land across Canada and other countries).
its not personal wealth, its used to pay for the running of the monarchy (palaces, state occasions so on).
it is unfortunate timing, alas this is when the Crown Estate accounts are released.

we need to understand the difference between the person and the role of head of state.

and it would be a good gesture to spend on the Grenfell victims, though the running count for them must be over £30m, they dont need money they need housing.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

You don't even know what that figure is.

Not this again. You have absolutely NO IDEA what she generates, none of us do. Secondly, even if it were true, it comes at a cost of true democracy.

You don't even know what that figure is.

You can tell the true ****wits on a thread, when they answer their own posts, with their own points further down the same thread. I love reading the lefties posts. Some of them are so thick and blinkered its hilarious!!!

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

Not this again. You have absolutely NO IDEA what she generates, none of us do. Secondly, even if it were true, it comes at a cost of true democracy.

By 'true democracy', I take you mean an elected head of State?

**** that, I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this country to wipe its own arse, let alone vote for a president.

 

[Seasidesage]

I think the Queen is a bargain. The revenue she generates way exceeds what she costs. It's the lesser Royal Family members that I object to getting money.

See this argument trotted out every time. Whether you agree with a hereditary monarchy or not and I'm a not. How can this be true? What revenue does she personally generate? If there was no Queen there would still be the castles, the history and if we chose to continue it the pageantry, are there millions of American tourists coming specifically to meet the Queen herself? Nothing against the women personally, but the kowtowing and establishment personified by her maj and the aristocracy represent an awful lot of what is wrong with this country IMO.

I'd end it when the Queen herself goes. A nice cut off point. Return the Crown Estates to the Gov't along with all of the land from the CoE. No doubt they would privatise it or something but at least it would be elected officials making the decisions. Had my ancestors been a bit more handy with a broadsword and I was the Duke of Brighton or something I might disagree of course...

 

[Clive Walker]

Prince Harry can always walk away: Republic
22 June 2017
Campaigners have today said reluctant royals should stand aside and make way for an effective head of state.

The comments come after an interview in which Prince Harry claimed no royal wants to be king.

Campaign group Republic said today that if Harry is right, we neeed a national debate about ending the monarchy.

Graham Smith, the group's CEO, said today:

"If this is true, that no royal really wants to be king, then I have some sympathy. But the honest truth is Harry can walk away whenever he likes."

"It's going to be hard for the royals to step back and see this objectively, but we don't need them to carry on. If they are reluctant royals then they should walk away - Britain will be fine without them."

"It seems they're reluctant to do the work, but happy to take the perks and privileges that come with the role. Harry is wrong to think that he should stay on, out of some duty to the country. The country can easily find others to take on the role of head of state."

"What Britain needs now more than ever is an effective, accountable head of state, one that's independent of the prime minister. There's a real job to do and it's not one the royals are willing to do or capable of doing."

"The monarchy isn't fit for purpose in the twenty first century - it isn't good for Britain. It seems it isn't good for the Windsor family either."

The story is reported on the BBC website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40363063

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

See this argument trotted out every time. Whether you agree with a hereditary monarchy or not and I'm a not. How can this be true? What revenue does she personally generate? If there was no Queen there would still be the castles, the history and if we chose to continue it the pageantry, are there millions of American tourists coming specifically to meet the Queen herself? Nothing against the women personally, but the kowtowing and establishment personified by her maj and the aristocracy represent an awful lot of what is wrong with this country IMO.

I'd end it when the Queen herself goes. A nice cut off point. Return the Crown Estates to the Gov't along with all of the land from the CoE. No doubt they would privatise it or something but at least it would be elected officials making the decisions. Had my ancestors been a bit more handy with a broadsword and I was the Duke of Brighton or something I might disagree of course...

Oh wait you're serious?? Oh shit!! Sorry I though you was mucking about!

 

[rippleman]

But the country earns more money because of the Royal Family than they cost. You must have gone to the Labour school of economics.

How do you quantify what money the Queen is personally responsible for bringing into the country? I don't think you can but I would be very interested to see the figures.

Personally, without interviewing every tourist, I don't see how you would know whether visitors are inspired to come here because of our rich history, our architecture, our museums, our glorious countryside...........and how many come because we have the Queen. But if you can prove that the Royal Family are earning more than they cost, I will have to think again.

But aside from that point, I think it is disgraceful that we give the Queen an 8% pay rise and 1% (if that) to our nurses.