Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on June 28, 2017, 07:51:07 AM
-
Hi everyone,
The Queen gets a 78% raise.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/27/news/queen-pay-uk/index.html
Not bad at her age!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Bad at any age >:(
-
It's a back door method of funding an increase in Labour's vote. Keep it coming.
-
Bad at any age >:(
Simplistic.
The queen is not getting a rise, the amount of money used to maintain the monarchy is getting a rise - and since this money derives from surpluses made by the Crown Estates it is not costing anything other than the amount that would otherwise be shunted into Treasury coffers. In this sense, the monarchy is self-funding.
The "rise" will actually go into the pockets of others - contractors etc who will be employed to repair and restore buildings like Buckingham Palace (which belongs to the state, not the monarch.
Were we a republic (which would be my preference) Buckingham Palace would still require reparation and restoration.
-
I was reading that's 65p each.
Which as has been pointed out, goes towards the upkeep of historic buildings.
It costs a lot to maintain those big houses.
A lot of people have had to give up family mansions when the maintenance outstripped their ability to pay.
A lot of people open them to the public or hold open days on the garden to raise money.
They can be a bit of a ball and chain if you feel it's part of your family history and you have to foot the bill.
Maintenance on Buckingham palace doesn't bear thinking about.
-
Buck House is a HUGE tourist attraction; the state rooms are open to the public.
-
While HH is correct that this isn't a pay raise, and while Buckingham Palace would be maintained if there was no monarchy, it still runs alongside the public sector pay cap, and looks like an odd priority from the perspective of a firefighter rushing into Grenfell Tower
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052
-
From what I gather the electrics and plumbing need urgent attention.
-
From what I gather the electrics and plumbing need urgent attention.
They could combine the two and save us a stack of cash.
-
Wot Shaker says. Lizzie and her clan occupy umpteen historic piles. One less won't hurt them.
-
Unless though we 'redevelop' Buckinghan Palace into flats for Russian oligarchs and football players, we are still going to paying for its upkeep. The cost of the royal family and the various piles isn't much of an argument for their abolition.
-
While HH is correct that this isn't a pay raise, and while Buckingham Palace would be maintained if there was no monarchy, it still runs alongside the public sector pay cap, and looks like an odd priority from the perspective of a firefighter rushing into Grenfell Tower
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40423052
Not really, imo we need both.
Buckingham Palace is our history.
-
Unless though we 'redevelop' Buckinghan Palace into flats for Russian oligarchs and football players, we are still going to paying for its upkeep. The cost of the royal family and the various piles isn't much of an argument for their abolition.
Hopefully it will never be turned into flats, that's a horrible idea.
Far worse than my 65p I'm paying.
Isn't much of an argument for their abolition?
😉Glad you have decided to support them 😜
-
Not really, imo we need both.
Buckingham Palace is our history.
Didn't say otherwise. But But spending on a building is a lesser priority to me than paying firefighters a decent wage. And currently the govt has that priority round the other way.
-
Hopefully it will never be turned into flats, that's a horrible idea.
Far worse than my 65p I'm paying.
Isn't much of an argument for their abolition?
😉Glad you have decided to support them 😜
NI, I'm firmly opposed to the idea of monarchy. But some arguments for getting rid of them are bad ones.
-
Didn't say otherwise. But But spending on a building is a lesser priority to me than paying firefighters a decent wage. And currently the govt has that priority round the other way.
There are lots of other things I would attack before I started on Buckingham palace, MP expenses would be a start.
Civil service pay rises and bonuses for those at the top would be another.
After Grenville, council expenses and costs would be another, as well as their wage rises.
The ones at the top of councils get a lot of perks, ordinary workers less so.
I'd hit those, before I went for cuts to Buckingham Palace.
-
Buckingham Palace is a horrendous building. Somr historic places really aren't worth shoring up.
Flats and shops is the way to go with it.
-
Buckingham Palace is a horrendous building. Somr historic places really aren't worth shoring up.
Flats and shops is the way to go with it.
:o :o :o Noooooooo! :o :o :o
There are enough flats and shops.
Flats have been the demise of many an interesting building :'(
-
Buckingham Palace is a horrendous building. Somr historic places really aren't worth shoring up.
Flats and shops is the way to go with it.
I don't think it even reaches the height of horribilosity. It's just deeply dull.
-
This is deeply dull?
Take a look inside Buckingham Palace with Google's virtual reality tour
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/take-look-inside-buckingham-palace-7209703
Dull isn't a word I'd use.
I could spend hours looking at old historical houses with a history.
Even the ceilings are very beautiful in many cases.
-
There are lots of other things I would attack before I started on Buckingham palace, MP expenses would be a start.
Civil service pay rises and bonuses for those at the top would be another.
After Grenville, council expenses and costs would be another, as well as their wage rises.
The ones at the top of councils get a lot of perks, ordinary workers less so.
I'd hit those, before I went for cuts to Buckingham Palace.
There are many things I would hit before renovations to BP, nuclear weapons being first, but that is entirely irrelevant to my opinion that paying firefighters a decent wage is way more imporatant than the upkeep of BP.
-
Yep, it's a very dull building with some art tat that isn't very good. It's the Trump Tower of its day.
-
Yep, it's a very dull building with some art tat that isn't very good. It's the Trump Tower of its day.
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
Do you dislike historical buildings in Scotland too?
Are they all dull as well?
???
-
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
Do you dislike historical buildings in Scotland too?
Are they all dull as well?
???
Rhiannon is English and dislikes BP. So am I and so do I.
-
Rhiannon is English and dislikes BP. So am I and so do I.
I wasn't referring to you or Rhiannon.
But I guess some people just find big historical houses, boring.
Not much point in you being a member of the National Trust then, I guess.
We are always visiting places of interest, Roman ruins, Pompeii, museums, historical houses, churches, Egyptian temples, palaces various........
I know others prefer to visit Debenhams shopping even when abroad, but it's not our scene.
I like old buildings, they had have atmosphere.
They also have interesting architecture which is lost if they become flats.
-
Yep, it's a very dull building with some art tat that isn't very good. It's the Trump Tower of its day.
Exactly. I've been inside it and it's almost a pastiche. At least the Houses of Parliament are interesting.
-
I wasn't referring to you or Rhiannon.
But I guess some people just find big historical houses, boring.
Not much point in you being a member of the National Trust then, I guess.
We are always visiting places of interest, Roman ruins, Pompeii, museums, historical houses, churches, Egyptian temples, palaces various........
I know others prefer to visit Debenhams shopping even when abroad, but it's not our scene.
I like old buildings, they had have atmosphere.
They also have interesting architecture which is lost if they become flats.
Age doesn't mean interest or quality. There are numerous old buildings in this country that are more worthy of investment than BP. A good architect might actually be able to make the place interesting if it was redeveloped.
-
I wasn't referring to you or Rhiannon.
No - you implied that NS dislikes BP because he's a Scot, viz.:
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
*
They also have interesting architecture which is lost if they become flats.
Interesting architecture? Gosh, the homeless will be beside themselves with joy.
-
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
Do you dislike historical buildings in Scotland too?
Are they all dull as well?
???
The only building with designated royal apartments in Scotland is Holyrood House.
It's more of a museum than anything else - and has been for well over a century.
We wouldn't miss the clan if they weren't there, really.
-
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
Do you dislike historical buildings in Scotland too?
Are they all dull as well?
???
Eh?
What a bizarre post.
Please cite any evidence you have for making this accusation.
-
NI, I'm firmly opposed to the idea of monarchy. But some arguments for getting rid of them are bad ones.
Wouldn't it be more that there are no really sensible reasons to keep this kind of establishment any more, (I have no quarrel with the individuals concerned).
Yes restore the royal buildings of course in the same spirit as maintaining our historic churches.
ippy
-
Buck House .....what about turning it into a home for old Conservatives?
This is Michael...Michael likes nothing more than wearing outrageously loud shirts and Jackets and going about on trains and will talk to anybody whereas his friend Norman likes to get on his bike...and of course we have bingo and the inevitable whip round for Harvey Proctor.
-
Rose
I write in support of your posts - there are, as I mentioned a while ago on another thread, some real kiljoys around here!! :D
-
Why pour money into a building of little architectural merit just because it is old? There are many better and more interesting buildings that are worth more attention. The same applies to churches, incidentally. Some are of very little merit. Others are breathtaking gems.
-
Why pour money into a building of little architectural merit just because it is old? There are many better and more interesting buildings that are worth more attention. The same applies to churches, incidentally. Some are of very little merit. Others are breathtaking gems.
With you on both counts.
-
Why pour money into a building of little architectural merit just because it is old? There are many better and more interesting buildings that are worth more attention. The same applies to churches, incidentally. Some are of very little merit. Others are breathtaking gems.
Everybody seems to have got their knickers well and truly twisted in this thread.
Back to first principles. Sriram talks about the queen getting a pay rise. He lives a long way away and there is no reason why he should be aware of how the monarchy is funded. It does not come out of government expenditure - except in a roundabout way. George V (I believe) came to an arrangement with the government. All Crown property should be merged into the Crown Estate and the costs of the monarchy would be funded from the Crown Estate not the Treasury. So the monarchy is not paid for out of taxation.
Last year, the Crown Estate had a surplus of about £300million. This not just from Scottish castles and their farms but commercial property management (Regents Street, apparently, is owned by the Crown Estate as is a shopping arcade in Worcester). The costs of running the monarchy are taken from this surplus and the remainder given to the Treasury. All that this "pay rise" amounts to is that the amount given to the Treasury is about £5million less than would otherwise have been the case.
The fact that the money is being spent on modernising a rather dowdy building at the bottom end of The Mall should be of little interest to taxpayers because it hasn't come from collected taxes. OK, Treasury income would have been a little higher otherwise, but then so it might be after the ultimate stupidity of Brexit had resulted in wholesale insolvency in flagship London shops.
-
I haven't mentioned 'tax payers money.' For my part the discussion has been about the merits or otherwise of restoring this particular national building. Churches aren't maintained from tax take either and I have argued against maintaining all of those unquestioningly too.
-
Everybody seems to have got their knickers well and truly twisted in this thread.
Back to first principles. Sriram talks about the queen getting a pay rise. He lives a long way away and there is no reason why he should be aware of how the monarchy is funded. It does not come out of government expenditure - except in a roundabout way. George V (I believe) came to an arrangement with the government. All Crown property should be merged into the Crown Estate and the costs of the monarchy would be funded from the Crown Estate not the Treasury. So the monarchy is not paid for out of taxation.
Last year, the Crown Estate had a surplus of about £300million. This not just from Scottish castles and their farms but commercial property management (Regents Street, apparently, is owned by the Crown Estate as is a shopping arcade in Worcester). The costs of running the monarchy are taken from this surplus and the remainder given to the Treasury. All that this "pay rise" amounts to is that the amount given to the Treasury is about £5million less than would otherwise have been the case.
The fact that the money is being spent on modernising a rather dowdy building at the bottom end of The Mall should be of little interest to taxpayers because it hasn't come from collected taxes. OK, Treasury income would have been a little higher otherwise, but then so it might be after the ultimate stupidity of Brexit had resulted in wholesale insolvency in flagship London shops.
Well...the CNN article called it a raise....not me! :)
-
Well...the CNN article called it a raise....not me! :)
There's no reason, Sriram, why you should have considered it anything else. You weren't getting it from a UK source.
-
I suspect you don't like it because it's part of English heritage.
Do you dislike historical buildings in Scotland too?
Are they all dull as well?
???
You seem to be accusing NS of being anti-English and I can't see how your accusation is justified: suggest you explain or apologise.
Favouring the UK being a republic isn't anti-English, since there are no doubt English people who are republicans.