Queen Costs Brits 62 Pence Each Per Year...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Queen Elizabeth costs each UK taxpayer 62 pence a year ($1.13), with the overall cost of running the royal family increasing above the rate of inflation, Buckingham Palace said on Wednesday.

    The Royal Public Finances report said the queen's family and household spending was £37.4 million ($68.2 million), a 4.2 percent increase from the previous year, costing the taxpayer an extra 1 pence more a year.

    The queen's accountants said the expenditure figure represented a decrease in real terms of 2.5 percent since 2001.

    "The annual cost per person in the country, in funding the Head of State, amounts to 62 pence," said Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse.

    "This is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost. We are pleased that the total cost of the monarchy is lower in real terms than it was in 2001.

    "The reduction in the amount of Head of State expenditure reflects the continuous attention the Royal Household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure."

    The death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997 marked a turning point in public opinion and led to attacks on the monarchy's wealth and demands that it become more open and accountable.

    Shortly afterwards, the queen agreed to scrap her beloved royal yacht Britannia rather than ask the public to pay 60 million pounds for a replacement.
     
  2. kretzy macrumors 604

    kretzy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    They still bring in a **** load of money in tourism. Personally, I have no problem with the small cost (each) of keeping the inbreds up and running.
     
  4. Kardashian macrumors 68020

    Kardashian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Location:
    Britain.
    #4
    May be me being stupid.. but what do the Royal Family do?

    Why do we need them? America and Canada don't have them, do they?

    They can chuck away money to the Queen for her dogs, her new Rolls Royce, and possibly a yacht.. but leave hospital patients who have worked all their lives without beds after opertations.

    Yes. Lets fund the Queen over the NHS. Thats a good idea.
     
  5. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
  6. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    I agree. Too bad our inbred leader costs us a LOT more.
     
  7. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #7
    he brings in lots of tourism too... he's taking the japanese prime minister (my hero by the way) on a tour of elvis's house!
     
  8. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #8
    I suspect that if the Royals weren't there, people would still pay to go round Buckingham Palace/Windsor Castle (except they could be open year-round so bring it more cash and people could be nosier getting into all rooms and viewing the Royal bedchamber which currently you can't unless you scale the wall) just as they pay to go round the Tower of London and Hampton Court which haven't been Royal residences for centuries.

    So we'd all save our 62p per year, the money that the Crown Estates collect (which is why it only costs us 62p a year) would end up going into normal government revenue which might reduce our tax bill.
     
  9. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    Canada's queen is our queen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Realm

    She's a symbol, 62 pence a year is more than worth it. The royalty and their palaces is probably Britain's leading source of tourism. People go to London to see the Houses of Parliament, London Bridge and... Buckingham Palace. Each tourist probably gets on at least one bus in their time here which puts about £1 into the economy. There are a lot of tourists. 62 pence is rather cheap for all that benefit if you ask me, I thought it would have been a lot more!! I drop more than that down drains in a month!!
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    62 pence? If she was selling the Big Issue, I'd give her a massive £1.40.

    She's missing out ;)

    BTW, Spanky Deluxe, if we scrapped the Monarchy tomorrow, Buckingham Palace et al. wouldn't suddenly crumble into dust. The tourists come here for the history, not the royals.
     
  11. Applespider macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #11
    And they stand outside staring at it wide-eyed at the Changing of the Guard and don't pay a penny...so where did that benefit go? Sure the postcard sellers and mobile hotdog stands would be upset.

    The only time they get to 'see' Buck House is during July/August when the Queen's in Scotland so people can't go round Holyrood etc and even then, they don't get to see much of it for their £20. As I said, just as tourists still pay to see the Tower of London and Hampton Court, they'd still pay to go round another ex-Royal residence... but they could do it year-round and charge more to see the 'hidden' intimacies of Royal life.
     
  12. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #12
    Clearly all the tourist money in London goes to Starbucks or Pret-a-Manger. :)
     
  13. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #13
    Better that than Aberdeen Steak House <insert vomit smilie here>

    BTW, what's so interesting about London Bridge? Not worth travelling half the world to see IMO.
     
  14. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    Sure that'd hold for a while but the royal family would fade and foreigners wouldn't be as interested anymore. I'm half German and one thing you wouldn't believe is how much they're interested in our royalty, seriously. If our royalty didn't exist anymore they wouldn't be nearly as interested.

    Also, there's a lot to be said about the good that a lot of the royalty do, they raise awareness of a lot of charities. When they stand up and talk about something people tend to listen because, well, they're the royalty, whether they like them or not. If a member of the royal family announces something in regards to a charity they will get that charity way more news time and public attention than a regular spokes person for the charity.

    By the way I've heard people rant on about the royalty I would have expected them to cost us a huge amount more than 62p a year. If that's all it costs then what's the big deal?!!
     
  15. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Didn't you hear? It's falling down! Falling down!
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    That makes a lot of sense considering the Royals are German themselves ;)

    So getting rid of the Royals means we see more of Jade Goody effectively. For a charity, any celeb will do, providing they raise awareness. And the good thing about celebs is they don't cost me a penny :cool:

    Don't be so naive. That figure is just for the running of the Royal Households. You add in all the security and other costs that get hidden in the Home Office budget and the figure will likely triple.
     
  17. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #17
    Quick!! Everyone to the river!! And bring your wood and clay!!
     
  18. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #18
    Sold to the nice american!
     
  19. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #19
    London Bridge? The large concrete structure? Maybe you mean Tower Bridge. Most of an older version of London Bridge is in Arizona!

    Anyway I personally do not think I get 62p work of value from the Queen!
     
  20. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #20
    That'll leave a nice hole in the Jubilee Line :D
     
  21. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #21
    I resent every penny of it. I also don't believe that is the full cost.
     
  22. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #22
    Isn't the story that they thought they were buying Tower Bridge?
     
  23. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #23
    Perhaps. Robert P. McCulloch who bought it always claimed he knew what he was buying...
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    can someone explain why taxes are collected on their behalf in the first place? could the tax be eliminated, instead of hanging all the royals in the public square?
     
  25. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #25
    Not that simple. All UK tax is collected in the Queen's name by Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, and whoever's in power is Her Majesty's Government. So the establishment argues that the money assigned to the Crown is their's in the first place.

    Although we pretend to be a democracy, the Queen has all sorts of special Queenly powers grouped under the term Royal Prerogative, which Governments of the day will also use to force something into law without running it past our elected representatives in Parliament. No doubt Bliar would have used this in 2003 to join Dubya's illegal invasion of Iraq had the House of Commons not backed him. The Crown also has the power to deny the granting of passports to British subjects (note: not citizens. There are no British citizens, only subjects).

    Personally I wouldn't hang them, but I would remove all executive powers from the Monarchy and pension the whole lot off to live up in Balmoral* whilst the rest of the Crown Estate becomes public property. I'd also disestablish the Church of England to remove any influence they have via that route, especially urgent now that Rowan Williams wants to side the Church with a bunch of bigoted medieval halfwits in Nigeria on policy issues rather than our more progressive cousins across the Atlantic.

    *Sorry to inflict them on Scotland Applespider, but the remoteness of Balmoral would keep them out the way.
     

Share This Page