• An 84-year-old British grandmother of 8 gets $57.5m a year from government handouts
    65 replies, posted
<3 ma queen
She actually does serve a governmental role. It's just her powers are only for times when the government is really incapable of running the country.
what the fuck is she going to do with the money, buy fifty million packages of adult diapers?
Wow, and I thought that the USA was notorious for handing out ridiculous amounts of money to lazy people.
Thread music. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJmouowPH5k[/media]
[QUOTE=faze;23148921]Wow, and I thought that the USA was notorious for handing out ridiculous amounts of money to lazy people.[/QUOTE] yeah because anyone receiving benefits is lazy they couldn't possibly have trouble finding a job or being going through financial difficulties. they've also never worked a day in their life. right?
iirc the Monarch actually makes the country money through tourism so it works to be a good idea to keep them around. Not to mention 100's of years of tradition, you cant just throw it out the window.
To be fair, considering the money she probably brings in from tourism, 62p a year per person isn't too bad. The article almost sounds like it's all money going to her own pocket, but places like Buckingham palace and Windsor castle will need constant upkeep, we can't just leave these buildings just because someone isn't living in them. Probably a lot of that money would still be spent even without the queen, since we'd still need a head of state, and they'd still go on state visits etc.
[QUOTE=Jsm;23150315]Not to mention 100's of years of tradition, you cant just throw it out the window.[/QUOTE] That's not a good reason. Slavery and no rights for women were tradition too.
[QUOTE=Paravin;23145414]Reading your comments makes me sad, guys. It's the culture of your country, how at least some decency! :smith:[/QUOTE] Fuck that noise. Tradition for tradition's sake is ridiculous. We don't need a monarchy, and they shouldn't be paid to live in palaces, give the occasional speech and otherwise do fuck all because "God put them there". If you'd like to give your money to them, fair enough - but it shouldn't come from taxes. I'd rather that money go towards hospitals or something. Something useful. [QUOTE=Nerts;23149421]Thread music. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJmouowPH5k[/media][/QUOTE] Surprised it took so long for someone to post that. Good man.
I thought the people loved the queen.
[QUOTE=JDK721;23149633]yeah because anyone receiving benefits is lazy they couldn't possibly have trouble finding a job or being going through financial difficulties. they've also never worked a day in their life. right?[/QUOTE] The government shouldn't be there to wipe your ass when you're having money woes. Everyone goes through that. Part of the reason we're in debt is these fucking bailouts. The government needs to stop trying to be the end all to people's problems, and let them deal with their problems by themselves. Trouble finding a job? Come on, if you can't find a job, go back to school. Can't afford it, well they have student loans. And at 84, go to a nursing home. You don't need millions of dollars to fucking live on.
Crapton of money.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23145160][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upm8z2nF5Ws[/media] [editline]11:53PM[/editline] thread music I suppose[/QUOTE] The fuck you on about.[B]This[/B] is the thread music. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk[/media] To be fair while i'm not exactly supportive of the monarchy it does rake in the money when it comes to Tourism and i like the traditions that come with the monarchy such as MBE's ECT.
[QUOTE=Jsm;23150315] Not to mention 100's of years of tradition, you cant just throw it out the window.[/QUOTE] Yeah lets keep slavery, and inequality, being tradition makes it OK, right?
The queen makes more money than she actually costs. How much do you think she generates alone through tourism?
[QUOTE=Deac;23151491]I thought the people loved the queen.[/QUOTE] lol no
I heard somewhere that the profit the royalty give the UK from tourists is more than these costs. Not sure, though. [editline]08:41PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BAZ;23156139]The queen makes more money than she actually costs. How much do you think she generates alone through tourism?[/QUOTE] Ninja :saddowns:
Yeah this old hags benefits are totally necassary, what we really need to do is cut public sector workers pay and increase VAT to 20%... Fuck this country. [editline]09:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721;23149633]yeah because anyone receiving benefits is lazy they couldn't possibly have trouble finding a job or being going through financial difficulties. they've also never worked a day in their life. right?[/QUOTE] Yeah because £57.5mil is really nesassary...
Like others have said, the Royal family actually makes more money than it costs - they are also excellent publicity for things such as charity events or use with politics. The Royal family does far more than people like to believe, you honestly think the government would keep them around just for tradition? Politics is smarter than that.
[QUOTE=Vasili;23158242]Like others have said, the Royal family actually makes more money than it costs - they are also excellent publicity for things such as charity events or use with politics. The Royal family does far more than people like to believe, you honestly think the government would keep them around just for tradition? Politics is smarter than that.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think she needs £57.5m?
If she pays back to the government what she is given and actually gains a profit, why is it a problem? Let me give you a example; The Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles owns much of the land of Cornwall; it's his primary source of income. Locals don't own the land; they pay rent to the prince for the privilege of working it. By all accounts, he's a fair landlord who cares passionately about farming; with that money he feeds it back to the government and also uses it for not only himself but for things like charities and funds. So even if you took away them 'Royal Family' - they'd still own much of British land through actually being rich [B]anyway[/B]. [editline]09:43PM[/editline] Oh and she gets 38.2 million pounds, not 57.5 million.
[QUOTE=Vasili;23158493]If she pays back to the government what she is given and actually gains a profit, why is it a problem? Let me give you a example; The Duke of Cornwall, Prince Charles owns much of the land of Cornwall; it's his primary source of income. Locals don't own the land; they pay rent to the prince for the privilege of working it. By all accounts, he's a fair landlord who cares passionately about farming; with that money he feeds it back to the government and also uses it for not only himself but for things like charities and funds. So even if you took away them 'Royal Family' - they'd still own much of British land through actually being rich [B]anyway[/B]. [editline]09:43PM[/editline] Oh and she gets 38.2 million pounds, not 57.5 million.[/QUOTE] I don't particularly want to take away the royal family, just significantly lower their handout.
Compared to the amount of millions we give to other countries (i.e the massive amount we gave to India's space program) I think its fair we actually spend our own money here.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Vasili;23160121]Compared to the amount of millions we give to other countries (i.e the massive amount we gave to India's space program) I think its fair we actually spend our own money here.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the only thing they didn't cut in the Budget was philanthropy. Call me selfish but surely that should be the first thing to go? Alongside that, I doubt that half of the workers in the palace are on £100,000/year salaries, so think about the number of jobs that the palace supports.
Personally I support philanthropy, greatly. Poverty still exists in Britain which I find frankly shocking.
[QUOTE=Vasili;23162177]Personally I support philanthropy, greatly. Poverty still exists in Britain which I find frankly shocking.[/QUOTE] I meant like international aid programs, government shouldn't abandon its own people
Well like I said earlier, our government borrowed money to actually give to India so it could fund it on its space program, even though India is actually a pretty wealthy nation and a nuclear power and is buying air carriers as we speak (and could actually have funded the program itself). We cannot afford over seas philanthropy at this moment while we're in massive debt and recession - we have to fix our own problems here before we even consider helping over nations agendas.
she dies in 2014
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.