Jump to content
IGNORED

The death of Queen Elizabeth II


dunlopp9987

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Hafnia said:

That’s a hard read tbh. Break it up.

I’ll keep it short. 3rd biggest brand in the world, biggest source of income isn’t tourism - but trade.  You will find more out by quick Google searches vs typing contrary views. 

 

Now, if only your brevity were matched by clarity. Whose biggest source of income?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MikeO said:

That'd be a logistical nightmare surely, does it actually happen anywhere? Like the idea but don't see it being workable.

Exactly this, but I do like Steve’s idea more based on wouldn’t it be nice to allocate your tax burden into pots that you believe your tax deductions should go towards helping, but as you rightly say Mike more a dream than reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hafnia said:

The country. £6bn spent by the country in the jubilee alone massive economic stimulus

A brief check online - that figure appears to be a predicted stimulus. Not sure it reached it.

Whatever the amount, Forbes say:  

The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works (forbes.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

Exactly this, but I do like Steve’s idea more based on wouldn’t it be nice to allocate your tax burden into pots that you believe your tax deductions should go towards helping, but as you rightly say Mike more a dream than reality. 

I don't see why it would be a problem. Everyone could log in to their "tax" account and allocate percentages for their tax amount. Change it whenever you wish. These numbers would be used to assign your tax money with every paycheck. Technology-wise, it would be very simple. It's no different than assigning how your 401(k) deductions are assigned to stock funds here in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Formby said:

A brief check online - that figure appears to be a predicted stimulus. Not sure it reached it.

Whatever the amount, Forbes say:  

The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works (forbes.com)

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/
 

here is says the crown estate, but also says that trade deals are worth an absolute fortune.

 

either way, it puts pay to the notion that they are an unnecessary expense. They make us far more than they cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RPG said:

We elect a government which includes a Chancellor of the Exchequer to manage the country's financial affairs. We get to tell government what we want tax revenue spent on every 5 years or so via a general election. We have to work together as a United Kingdom and share (not be selective about) our tax burden.

They lie to you during the election campaign and pretty much ignore your priorities when in power. Giving citizens the right to control aspects of their spending would change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

Just think we could have had a Trump figure as our head of State, how inspirational would that have been, yet no we had Elizebeth R, one of if not the most inspirational people of my life time and head of state for over 70 years. For me there are not enough superlatives to describe all the good she has done in her illustrious life time has our head State and the Monarchy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hafnia said:

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/
 

here is says the crown estate, but also says that trade deals are worth an absolute fortune.

 

either way, it puts pay to the notion that they are an unnecessary expense. They make us far more than they cost

On the contary. If they're earning as much as you say, with such  huge revenue streams, why are they being funded by the UK tax payer at all? They clearly don't need it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

Not watching the BBC has spared me the worst of it, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

I don’t actually think people put much thought into a fair evaluation of the royals. For me most of it stinks of jealousy. 
 

for example the hypocrisy is startling.  We get uneducated nob heads who sit on their arses claiming benefits galore, watching tv all day, having 4-5 children who run amock and behave in an antisocial way, they in turn decide to do the “baby making, not work, stay at home”.   But I’m sure they have nothing but “sponge off tax payers money” shouts out of their pizza stained gobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Formby said:

On the contary. If they're earning as much as you say, with such  huge revenue streams, why are they being funded by the UK tax payer at all? They clearly don't need it. 

They are paid by the sovereign grant which is 15% of the profits of the crown estate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

Just think we could have had a Trump figure as our head of State, how inspirational would that have been, yet no we had Elizebeth R, one of if not the most inspirational people of my life time and head of state for over 70 years. For me there are not enough superlatives to describe all the good she has done in her illustrious life time has our head State and the Monarchy. 

Absolutely mate.  Scary isn’t it. A lady who absolutely smashed it in terms of devotion to her job and country is attracting all sorts of negativity in her death.  
 

we live in a country full of “whataboutery” experts who spend half their lives finding things to be offended about when they feel they don’t get their fair cut of things.  Pathetic really.  Half of them don’t realise the Queen and Charles voluntarily pay tax. 
 

im sure Liverpool fans will do a fine job representing those in the country who have become desktop republicans over the past week or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

It’s not over the top, it’s accurate in the sense that we have 70 years of service to convey in a relatively short space of time. The consequences of the Queens death also means that we need to see Charles do certain duties that are important but not been done in 70 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Formby said:

The sovereign grant is a taxpayer-funded payment.

I seen that quoted on the bbc page but it comes from the profits of crown estate, which is the royal families property business. 
 

Whether it’s taxpayers money, of which I’ve seen the quoted figure of £1.45 per year per person or another source - the reality is our economy is boosted by the royals not drained.  The amount we spend on them is a fraction of what we earn, whether that comes out of taxes, whether they themselves fund it from a proportion of money that is calculated from the income that they bring - I’m not arsed as it has literally no impact to the average person - other than the fact that we are better off financially  for having them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hafnia said:

I seen that quoted on the bbc page but it comes from the profits of crown estate, which is the royal families property business. 
 

Whether it’s taxpayers money, of which I’ve seen the quoted figure of £1.45 per year per person or another source - the reality is our economy is boosted by the royals not drained.  The amount we spend on them is a fraction of what we earn, whether that comes out of taxes, whether they themselves fund it from a proportion of money that is calculated from the income that they bring - I’m not arsed as it has literally no impact to the average person - other than the fact that we are better off financially  for having them. 

I think we've come full circle here. My view on how much benefit we get from them was dealt with in my OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

I’m an atheist but would never call God fearing people nauseating and the religious content which is continually broadcast on all forms of media as force fed, I respect millions of people get something from their beliefs, what I do is just avoid and ignore that sort of content and accept others like it , I would suggest you try to do the same and respect the millions of people around the world who enjoy our royal family instead of trying to belittle what they enjoy, because as I can see it offers no personal harm to you or anyone you know. Just show some respect for other people and pray that they respect you in the same way, and try to remember that this is a monumental moment in this country and the world, and to millions of people who held the queen and monarchy in high esteem, if it takes 1 or 2 months to settle down then so be it, it’s not going to kill you, and who knows if you let go of your prejudices you may see the good that millions of others see, after all doesn’t your religion try to teach you that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Formby said:

I think we've come full circle here. My view on how much benefit we get from them was dealt with in my OP.

If you want a finite figure putting on it you can’t, but it is certainly above £1bn. But let’s just agree….. it’s pisses all over the amount they cost which is the original argument 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hafnia said:

If you want a finite figure putting on it you can’t, but it is certainly above £1bn. But let’s just agree….. it’s pisses all over the amount they cost which is the original argument 

 

Whose original argument? This was my original post, which I stand by. 

I presume you mean the money they bring in through tourism? There is no reliable figure for that although huge sums are bandied around by supporters of the RF. The fact is, people come to the UK for many different reasons. I don't doubt that beautiful, old 'royal' buildings are part of the appeal. Hoping to see an actual living royal is probably not. The RF and the state has been particularly good in reminding us of their own inestimable worth. They're also very good at saying, yes but what would you replace them with? That is not an argument for keeping them. Ditto, institutions like the House of Lords. I have no animus against the Queen or the people who loved her, but Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward and the rest? Cmon, people, we can do a lot better than this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

Steve I respect your views about the monarchy and Kernow but out of interest are you ever likely to come back and live on this side of the pond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MikeO said:

"Non-urgent" hospital appointments and procedures, including cancer treatments, being put off for the funeral; try telling a cancer patient that their treatment isn't urgent.

Respect should go both ways; and I actually truly believe that if the queen was able to comment on it she'd be appalled at the idea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-funeral-nhs-hospital-appointment-cancelled-b2165958.html

I think she would as well as I would hope anyone with an ounce of decency would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gwlad all over said:

Steve I respect your views about the monarchy and Kernow but out of interest are you ever likely to come back and live on this side of the pond?

Much as I will always visit Cornwall (no Celt can ever forget their homeland - just look at the Irish in America!), it's highly unlikely I will return to Britain. The longer you live overseas, the less likely you are to return. Previous generations die and the next generation grows - meaning most of my family, at this point, are in the US.

I'll always remain a British citizen, though, and have chosen not to become a US citizen. This means I'm entitled to vote precisely nowhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...