Fabulous Value

[crodonilson]

Albion will do well to find better value than this during their summer purchases.............

Queen costs her subjects just 56p per year

56p is magnificent value in anyones book. What can you buy for 56p nowadays?? And being British we get a Royal Family who bring so much joy and happiness across the land.

 

[Seasidesage]

I'll have my 56p back thanks

 

[spring hall convert]

56p each is c. £40m. That's a few schools/hospitals isn't it?

 

[seagullmouse]

The 56p is before security costs which I assume makes it more like £2.

Either way its not a lot of money, if we didn't have them we would have to have a president and buy him a fancy house.

My guess is that they bring in more than they cost via tourism and world esteem.

So despite being an antiquated idea and being a bunch of tw*ts I can't see why its worth getting rid of them.

I just think they should be more quiet, i.e. shut up Charles

 

[amexee]

No problem keeping them as probably a good earner for the country, I would love to get rid of "God save the queen" as a national anthem though. I find it cringeworthy that a modern country is asking God to look after one person, so we can be ruled by them.

 

[Mr Smggles]

They may cost us that, but they bring in far more than that in tourism.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

No problem keeping them as probably a good earner for the country, I would love to get rid of "God save the queen" as a national anthem though. I find it cringeworthy that a modern country is asking God to look after one person, so we can be ruled by them.

Dull

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

I don't understand the logic behind maintaining a royal family, and I find it even worse when it's presented as 'only' costing 1p per adult, per week.

I know there's always the tourism argument but I find myself thinking that if we got rid and opened up Buckingham Palace for tours then the income would probably be even higher...plus would keep the royal employees in work. Happy days. Sort of.

 

[supaseagull]

Actually, this figure of 56p is factually incorrect and is the usual twaddle that's published by the Royal Household.

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “sovereign support grant”. This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014.

However, the sovereign support grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, so the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £299m annually.

 

[n1 gull]

They may cost us that, but they bring in far more than that in tourism.

I don't agree. If we sacked them all then did tours etc round all of 'their'palaces and castles we would make bundles more.

'Their' art collections alone would make fantastic viewing

 

[Mr Smggles]

I don't agree. If we sacked them all then did tours etc round all of 'their'palaces and castles we would make bundles more.

'Their' art collections alone would make fantastic viewing

Purely having a monarchy is what attracts hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to our country each year.

Its such a foreign concept to Americans etc. that its a bit of a novelty.

 

[GreersElbow]

Tourists come to see the Queen? How much is it to see the Queen? I was under the impression they came to see the big fancy buildings they live in.

The U.S doesn't have a monarchy, and people flock to see the white house....

Actually, this figure of 56p is factually incorrect and is the usual twaddle that's published by the Royal Household..

Much like the section on the royals paying tax. "As of 1993, the Royals voluntarily pay tax" Ain't that nice, if one year they don't fancy paying it, they don't have to! We wouldn't even know if they did or not.

 

[Pavilionaire]

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £299m annually.

So about a £5 per person as worst? It's worth that purely NOT to have an elected president and all the political bollocks and electioneering that goes with it.

 

[ditchy]

I don't agree. If we sacked them all then did tours etc round all of 'their'palaces and castles we would make bundles more.

'Their' art collections alone would make fantastic viewing

So as many people would go then as do now ? i would love to see the comparison with say versailles

 

[Albumen]

It's £7.49 a year, based on those aged 16 to 64 who can pay taxes, and the real figures below.

Did you get your £7.50's worth? Didn't think so.


Cost of monarchy report published: £300m lost to taxpayer last year
June 24 2014

Campaign group Republic has published its fully revised report on royal finances, "Worth Every Penny?", detailing the hidden costs that include Duchy income, costs met by local councils and the sovereign support grant.

The total comes to £299.4m for 2013/14, around 9 times higher than the official figure due to be published on Wednesday.

The report can be downloaded at www.republic.org.uk/wortheverypenny.pdf.

Included in the hidden costs are Lord Lieutenants which set the taxpayer back more than £2m a year - despite most people having never heard of them. The report also includes lost profits from the Duchy of Cornwall, an estate that should be sending its revenue to the taxpayer rather than Prince Charles.

Local authorities are estimated to have spent over £21m last year on royal visits.

Republic's chief executive officer, Graham Smith, said today:

"These figures point to a royal household out of control and beyond proper scrutiny. This is what happens when public figures can't be challenged and when they are protected by official secrecy."

"Far from being good value the British monarchy is one of the most expensive institutions of its kind in Europe. Despite dubious claims about tourism the monarchy is all cost and no gain."

"When public services, flood defences and jobs are being cut, this kind of spending on the royals is a scandal."

"A key point here is that the total cost is hidden - it shouldn't be down to us to work this out, all these costs should be properly accounted for and reported independently of Buckingham palace. This week we'll see another official report that ignores tens of millions of pounds and which is couched in spin and fantasy."

"MPs need to urgently investigate these hidden costs and look at radically changing the way the royals are funded. These figures shouldn't be a surprise when we see millions wasted on travel and refurbished palaces. Drastic action is needed to stop this abuse of public money."

"All we need is an annual salary for the head of state and a modest budget for managing official duties. The British taxpayer does not owe the Windsor family a living."

The report will say that the annual cost of the monarchy is equivalent to 14,000 new nurses or 13,000 police officers. The cost is more than the amount cut from flood defence spending over recent years.

Claims about tourism and Crown Estate revenue are also taken to task in the report. There is no evidence that the monarchy generates any revenue for the country - even the bogus £500m tourism figure often quoted in the press represents 0.03% of GDP, less than the margin of error of 0.7
- See more at: http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/n...-lost-taxpayer-last-year#sthash.n1LbpUTt.dpuf

 

[8ace]

Worth every penny.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Tourists come to see the Queen? How much is it to see the Queen? I was under the impression they came to see the big fancy buildings they live in.

The U.S doesn't have a monarchy, and people flock to see the white house....

Other countries have fancy buildings, why would they chose an empty property here in the Uk to fly to and view when they can go to another country with a better climate and look at fancy buildings. Having a monarchy adds prestiege to them and that helps attract foreigners hoping to catch a glimpse of them.

The White House is home to their head of state, without them and if it was just a private residency, would people still flock to it or do they go because it is significant because the President lives there in the same way that people flock to Royal residencies because the royals live there.

 

[Don Quixote]

It would be nice to have an elected head of state, but I suppose that will never happen.

 

[GreersElbow]

Having a monarchy adds prestiege to them and that helps attract foreigners hoping to catch a glimpse of them.

The White House is home to their head of state, without them and if it was just a private residency, would people still flock to it or do they go because it is significant because the President lives there in the same way that people flock to Royal residencies because the royals live there.

I don't buy this argument, there's no real rationale behind it. If a tourist could visit the palaces and actually view them, you don't think that's a more attractive proposition than standing outside some gates HOPING to catch a glimpse?

And why would it be an empty property? Could we not turn it into a museum of British history? There's a lot more we can do with it, it's essentially an empty property now.

 

[seagullmouse]

It would be nice to have an elected head of state, but I suppose that will never happen.

Because we all love politicians so much?
Would this new elected head of state be free of cost to tax payer?
Where would they live?
Would they attract any tourists?