Taxation, Monarchy, Historic Events, Politics, Kitchen Sinks

[barnabas1969]

[ Moderator Edit: Split from the London 2012 Olympics thread http://www.thegreenbutton.tv/forums/vie ... =28&t=1836 ]

This may be a little off topic, but the queen's big celebration has me wondering... how do you Brits feel about your tax dollars (pounds) going to support the rich lifestyle of the royals? Every time I see some big celebration or royal wedding on TV, it looks like all you Brits just love your royals so much. Do you really enjoy paying for them to live the high life?

[duncane]

@barnabas1969 No! Royal Wedding Security bill alone... 20million. We need to get a grip.

[mark1234]

It's a bit controversial, and is an easy stick for republicans to beat the Monarchy with, but the reality is that they cost next to nothing to run.

The Civil List, the income given to the senior Royals by the Government, is funded by profits from the Duchy of Lancaster, which the Monarch actually owns. The day to day costs of staff and so on are covered by the Civil List. The rather nice buildings like Buck Palace, Windsor Castle etc would probably still require state support to maintain such historic structures. One off events like last year's wedding and the Jubilee this year aren't cheap, true, but in the grand scheme of things don't cost that much. There are smaller costs, like policing and so on, but those costs are lost amongst bigger budgets.

If you add in business and tourism benefits that we can leverage them for, I believe that we actually run the Royals at a profit. Even Blair has admitted that getting rid of HMY Britannia was a mistake because of the benefits that it brought.

If we switched to a republic and had a president, would we actually save any money? Nah, not a chance. I bet we already spend a fraction of what the US President costs to run.

In other news, the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be coming to Nottingham on Wednesday and I intend to go and try to see them. The Duke of Edinburgh is supposed to be coming as well, but I'm assuming he won't be now for health reasons.

[barnabas1969]

Mark,

I did some searching and reading after reading your post above. After everything I read, I still don't understand exactly where the "profit" comes from in the Duchy. Is it from farms, tourism, rental property, etc?

In regard to your comment about the expense of the US President, I have no idea how much he and his staff cost. But, don't you have the same expenses with your Prime Minister? He/she has a staff, transportation, security, and other expenses, doesn't he?

It just seems that the expense of the royals is a big waste of money... they don't have any real, official duties in your government, correct? In other words, they can't pass legislation or direct the affairs of the government.

[mark1234]

I was wrong about a couple of things earlier. The funding for the Royals comes from the Crown Estates. I think the Duchy of Lancaster is part of this. Also, and this is brand new, the Civil List is being replaced with a Sovereign Grant from next year. This grant is being pegged at 15% of the income from the Crown Estates. Last year the Crown Estates handed over £230m to the Treasury, so paying out only 15% of that actually gives a very nice return to the taxpayer.

Yes we have the Prime Minister and an assortment of Ministers and MPs to fund. But you also have a VP and all those Senators and Congressmen as well. I don't have figures, but I'd still suspect we run government on the cheap over here.

It's absolutely fine to hold republican views regarding the Monarchy. It is hard to defend a system of privilege based on birthright in this day and age. Eight hundred years of history since Magna Carta has also removed their actual powers, though everything the Government does is in the name of the Crown, so they are just figure heads of the state. It must actually be quite a lonely position. However, whatever reasons one has for republican views, cost isn't a grounded justification.

Some relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-u ... formation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15345351

[WarrenH]

Remove the monarchy and loose the tourists and GB's international prestige? We should rather be concerned with those who don't pay their taxes.

[STC]

Queenie rocks !

[lithium630]

I'm not from GB but I kind of like the tradition. Monarchies are disappearing, not too many left.

[mark1234]

How many Americans (or anyone else for that matter) realise that Liz is also the Head of State and Queen of Canada? Supposedly she likes the place, though I've never asked her.

[STC]

How many Americans (or anyone else for that matter) realise that Liz is also the Head of State and Queen of Canada? Supposedly she likes the place, though I've never asked her.

Taylor?

[STC]

I'm not from GB but I kind of like the tradition. Monarchies are disappearing, not too many left.

Think of the Royal System to be a lot like Vegas.- A money making machine, except as Mark points out, a heck of a lot of that cash is funneled back to the people as compared to lining the pockets of the private sector.

We wouldn't want to get rid of Vegas now would we?

[mark1234]

How many Americans (or anyone else for that matter) realise that Liz is also the Head of State and Queen of Canada? Supposedly she likes the place, though I've never asked her.

Taylor?

[barnabas1969]

Mark, thanks for the links. I had read the one from Wikipedia, and I already found one about the new legislation that goes into effect next year.

The financial report from the Crown Estate makes it clear where the income is derived. It's an interesting concept... public land given to the Monarchy, with 85% of profits returned to the people. I think 15% is a reasonable sum to be paid to what are essentially property managers. This gives them an incentive to maximize profit... the more they earn, the more they are paid. It seems like it is a win-win scenario.

In the US, our public land typically does not earn any profit. The US government is not in the business of being a land lord. I'm not sure if it would be a good thing or bad thing here.

I did not know that Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada (and 15 other countries). Also, I don't follow British politics... so I'm not sure what you would define as a "republican", but I am definitely not a Republican in the American sense of the word.

[mark1234]

Ahhh, I was quite careful to put small 'r' republican, knowing that big 'R' Republican in the US means something completely different. I meant it in terms of wishing that the UK, which could no longer be called the UK, was a republic, not a monarchy.

Generalising, I'd say that most republicans here are on the left politically, but that is in no way saying that most on the left are also republicans. Republican feeling in the other realms (particularly Australia and Jamaica) is generally, and understandably, much higher than it is in the UK.

[barnabas1969]

I understand, and thanks for the lesson. It's funny that you refer to "left" and "right". That came about in the US because the Democrats sit on the left side of the House and Senate, and the Republicans sit on the right. But I think I understand your meaning... your "republicans" are more liberal, or want more rights/power for the people, correct?

If I understand the situation with the royals correctly now, it really seems like a good thing. That is, of course, if they are in fact maximizing the profits from their land. I would think they have a financial incentive to make the most of the land, so I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.

[mark1234]

Always happy to educate!

In UK terminology I wouldn't say that republicans are necessarily more liberal, I think it's more simple in that being a republican means you are in favour of abolishing the Monarchy, regardless of whatever other political views you hold.

It's perfectly possible to be liberal, in favour of small government and individual responsibility, and still be a monarchist. Me for example! But then we don't treat the word "liberal" in quite the same way as you do, where it's worse than a 4-letter word for some.

[bobbob]

absolutely, i would totally disagree, that:

in favour of small government and individual responsibility, and still be a monarchist

would be my definition of a Conservative, whereas liberals are more thought to be Labour or Liberal Party voters.

[mark1234]

It's fair to say that none of the parties adequately represent my views.



But given that my MP has been the MP here since before I was born, my vote is pointless anyway.

[barnabas1969]

I'm not sure what "MP" stands for. Ahh... Member of Parliament. I get it now.

I agree that "liberal" has become a 4-letter word for some here in the US. It's a shame, really. They don't think about the fact that the word "liberal" comes from the word "liberty", which means freedom.

I would agree with bobbob that liberals in the US would probably more closely align with your Labour Party. Also, in terms of US politics, a conservative would be in favor of "small government" and "individual responsibility".

I put quotes around those phrases because in US politics, the real meaning of "small government" is "less regulation of business", and "individual responsibility" is a term that means "less taxes for the rich". Both accomplish the same goal... allow the rich people to do whatever they want, whenever they want... including plundering from the poor, and polluting our environment. Their argument against regulation of business is that it has driven business overseas to China and other places. I disagree. I believe the thing that has driven business overseas is simple... greed. Why pay an American worker $15.00 per hour to make pairs of shoes that retail for $100.00/pair, when you can pay someone overseas $0.15 per hour?

I would imagine that you've seen the same thing happening to your products in the UK.

[mark1234]

I'm not sure what "MP" stands for. Ahh... Member of Parliament. I get it now.

Yup, Members of Parliamant are the elected members of the House of Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_C ... ed_Kingdom

I put quotes around those phrases because in US politics, the real meaning of "small government" is "less regulation of business", and "individual responsibility" is a term that means "less taxes for the rich". Both accomplish the same goal... allow the rich people to do whatever they want, whenever they want... including plundering from the poor, and polluting our environment. Their argument against regulation of business is that it has driven business overseas to China and other places. I disagree. I believe the thing that has driven business overseas is simple... greed. Why pay an American worker $15.00 per hour to make pairs of shoes that retail for $100.00/pair, when you can pay someone overseas $0.15 per hour?

I would imagine that you've seen the same thing happening to your products in the UK.

I completely share in your disappointment here.