Post 574470 by hashtaggrammar@qoto.org
(DIR) More posts by hashtaggrammar@qoto.org
(DIR) Post #554636 by neverfadingwood@qoto.org
2018-10-15T17:40:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Anyone else up for sterilising the British Royal Family. They breed like chuffing rabbits and the British taxpayers can't afford them.
(DIR) Post #554639 by Surasanji@qoto.org
2018-10-15T17:48:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neverfadingwood How much does a royal family cost? How much money does it make?
(DIR) Post #554640 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-15T18:08:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Surasanji They cost a lot no doubt. But how would we quantify the amount of money they make for a country accurately? Most of the money they make for a country would come from tourism and morale. I would have no idea how to quantify that but I suspect its in the millions.@neverfadingwood
(DIR) Post #555090 by Surasanji@qoto.org
2018-10-15T18:39:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @neverfadingwood Well, we can figure out how much tax payer money goes into the Royal family easily enough. It looks like 43 Million GBP is the 'Soverign Grant' paid from taxpayer pockets to the House of Windsor. Which is a lot of money, but it isn't jaw dropping for an entire family of 'Royalty'. This comes from their official website.How much of that is true to fact- there are always hidden expenses tucked away in situations like that- I couldn't say.There is another number I was able to find from a group called 'Republic' that puts the cost of the Royal Family at 345 million GBP a year, which is quite a bit more.I'm not sure how they came to that number, though.All very interesting stuff for someone who's never had a royal family. The politics and part and parcel of all that nonsense is fascinating.
(DIR) Post #555110 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-15T18:40:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SurasanjiFiguring out how much they cost is the easy part. The hard part is figuring out how much they make for the country. @neverfadingwood
(DIR) Post #555661 by Surasanji@qoto.org
2018-10-15T19:17:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @neverfadingwood There are also the functions they serve for the government and the people. Diplomatic functions and such. One would need to weigh the general cost of those services from other agencies versus those provided by the royalty. It's kind of a mess and I can't find many numbers.
(DIR) Post #571373 by neverfadingwood@qoto.org
2018-10-16T15:02:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Surasanji @freemo Sorry for the delay in responding - busy busy day. All the diplomatic functions performed by the Royal Family would be performed by an elected President instead, so this argument isn't valid as those costs would have to be borne in any case.As for the tourism, this is always used by Royalists as a reason for keeping them, but I can't say that I've noticed countries without royals losing out on tourism, so I don't think that's valid either.
(DIR) Post #571374 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-16T15:11:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neverfadingwood I wouldnt say its moot at all. The discussion is trying to determine if the royal family costs the country money net or not. To do that you must weigh the cost vs savings. So within that context it is equally as relevant whether it is easily replaced or not. Though if we expand the conversation beyond just cost analysis then this point can be relevant in other ways (such that an elected official is held accountable).The argument against tourism is weak. No one is claiming that the royals make up 100% of tourism or even a significant portion. But even if they are responsible for just 2% of all tourism it is possible the income from this 2% significantly outweighs any costs.@Surasanji
(DIR) Post #572804 by neverfadingwood@qoto.org
2018-10-16T16:32:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Even if I accept that the Royals do bring in tourist money, as a republican I'd be willing to forgo that sum to be a citizen instead of a subject. @Surasanji
(DIR) Post #573249 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-16T17:05:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neverfadingwood I can understand your stance politically for sure. No one should have political influence bestowed by a government as a matter of birthright.@Surasanji
(DIR) Post #574470 by hashtaggrammar@qoto.org
2018-10-16T18:29:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @neverfadingwood @Surasanji Reconfiguring the way they get their income, that's understandable. "Sterilising" them, though? Have you...learned history?
(DIR) Post #574488 by freemo@qoto.org
2018-10-16T18:31:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hashtaggrammar My hope would be that he didnt actually mean it, just a way of him showing his dislike. I hope im not wrong though.@neverfadingwood @Surasanji
(DIR) Post #574511 by hashtaggrammar@qoto.org
2018-10-16T18:32:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @neverfadingwood @Surasanji I know how you mean this, and I'm sure you're right... but that's still how this all starts.