The Royal Parasites get an extra £1.5M
Discussion
I believe that Prince Charles alone pays far more in Tax than he and many other royals combined get paid.
Also they bring in a huge amount of tourist money (billions) and actually keep alive some of the great traditions of this country that Nu-Labour, the PC brgade and the liberal do-gooders are doing there best to destroy.
Lastly it's the royal family that stop us from requiring a president... Hmmmmm, idiots like George Bush or the Queen? Not a tough question is it?
If you hate them that much i'll re-imberse you your 69p or you could emigrate?
Also they bring in a huge amount of tourist money (billions) and actually keep alive some of the great traditions of this country that Nu-Labour, the PC brgade and the liberal do-gooders are doing there best to destroy.
Lastly it's the royal family that stop us from requiring a president... Hmmmmm, idiots like George Bush or the Queen? Not a tough question is it?
If you hate them that much i'll re-imberse you your 69p or you could emigrate?
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
You sure about your facts $150m just for the inauguration; that's 2.5 years of the Royals' budget. Quota from a random google post, not had time to verify the facts but the numbers look about right.
"Air Force One: Costs of air travel by the President (provided by the
89th Airlift Wing of the United States Air Force) are difficult to
determine; this is in part intentional, for security reasons, and in
part because costs are spread over a number of agencies (Departments
of State and Defense, Air Force, General Services Administration). Two
new Boeing 747-200B's were purchased for presidential use in 1990, at
a cost of approximately $650 million, plus $140 for a "maintenance and
support complex" (an enormous hangar) at Andrews Air Force Base.
Columnist Hugh Sidey wrote at the time, ""Americans are spending the
better part of a billion dollars to get their President airborne, and
then it will cost around $6,000 an hour to keep him aloft. That's more
than the gross national product of Greenland." (Time, January 15,
1990.) In 1992, the Washington Post reported an estimated annual
travel cost of $185 million (Washington Post, October 19, 1992)."
Edited by plover on Monday 29th June 21:07
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual
And the first increase since 2000. 69p per year, a bargain I'd say.
nonegreen said:
very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Obahma costs that for a long weekend. The US election cost $5 billion alone.
Shaw Tarse said:
grumbledoak said:
At 69p per year they have cost me vastly less than that one-eyed Scottish 
. And, he doesn't bring in the tourists.
They are a bargain, IMO.
Seconded, I wonder how much the Royals bring in to the country? . And, he doesn't bring in the tourists.They are a bargain, IMO.
I am happier to pay for the Royal family than I am for all the f
kwit, stupid PC bks and asylum seekers.nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep theses?
If the cost of the Monachy were to be weighed against the cost of Parliament and all its associated costs, Her Maj would probably come on top in terms of value and popularity.Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?You do have the right to leave.
tubbystu said:
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual
And the first increase since 2000. 69p per year, a bargain I'd say.
nonegreen said:
very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Obahma costs that for a long weekend. The US election cost $5 billion alone.
$400 million on something that hasn't happened.
We give £200 billion on benefits a year. So yes the Royals are a bloody bargain.
nonegreen said:
The cost of the most wasteful has increased to £41.5M annual very very considerably less than the entire presidential cost for the largest economy in the world.
Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep theses?
You seriously think they aren't worth 69p per year of your money?Just how much longer are the terminally dimwitted in the UK going to continue to keep these
s?
Just so we're clear, I'm not actually a big fan of the royals and think we really did need a proper revolution in the past.
That said, I'm surprised we spend so little on them and that annoys me a lot less than the miss spending on things like the banks and all the other fkups in the last 2 years.
That said, I'm surprised we spend so little on them and that annoys me a lot less than the miss spending on things like the banks and all the other f
kups in the last 2 years.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff