BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Buckingham Palace 369m refurbishment ~, but who should pay for it?
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
HausofBallBalls
post Nov 22 2016, 05:41 PM
Post #1
Henrietta R Hippo
*******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 26,109
Member No.: 13,007
Joined: 17-February 11
 




Buckingham Palace is in need of refurbishment apparently costing a sum of 369 million.. to be funded by the tax payers.

But now a petition is gathering wind, demanding that the royals themselves should be made to fund the project rather than taxpayers. Do you agree?

"There is a national housing crisis, the NHS is in crisis, austerity is forcing cuts in many front line services. Now the Royals expect us to dig deeper to refurbish Buckingham Palace.

"The Crown's wealth is inestimable. This is, in a word, outrageous."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/735062...petition-royals



Lmao is it even a question of what should be done and who should be paying for this? Would be ridiculous in my opinion if taxpayers still have to pay the sum despite this outrage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CHOCOLATE BANTA
post Nov 22 2016, 05:48 PM
Post #2
Prefer not to sleigh
******
Group: Members
Posts: 17,623
Member No.: 21,005
Joined: 20-June 14
 


Oh what, the government making us pay for things we don't want or ask for? What else is new laugh.gif

Rich and greedy bast*rds tbh
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Flatcap
post Nov 22 2016, 06:35 PM
Post #3
Scrooge!
******
Group: Members
Posts: 13,701
Member No.: 27
Joined: 7-March 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Buckingham Palace is a major tourist attraction and it needs to be preserved for London's economic well being according to the media reports I have read on this subject.

Should we be paying for all of it? I don't think so, think the Royal Family should perhaps pay for their private apartments as a minimum contribution towards the costs. I think Buckingham Palace should be open all year round to make more money to ease the burden on the taxpayer as well.

I love reading about British Royal History and I am in favour of preservation, but please find another way to fund this.

Westminster (Houses of Parliament) are due to be refurbished as well in the next decade and the cost of that will make 369m seem a miserly sum in comparison also according to the media reports I have read.

With reference to the spending cuts, remember the International Aid was set at a percentage and we couldn't lower it. I wasn't a fan of that at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crazy christmas
post Nov 22 2016, 06:35 PM
Post #4
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 9,354
Member No.: 53
Joined: 7-March 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Taxpayers should pay. It doesn't belong to the Monarch but to the country.

Also it's not practical to have it open all year for security reasons amongst others. It's only open when the Queen and most other Royals are up in Balmoral.

I'd much rather we pay for this and Parliament rather than send foreign aid.


This post has been edited by Common Sense: Nov 22 2016, 06:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dancember
post Nov 22 2016, 06:39 PM
Post #5
future bass fisherman in a tropical house
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 35,197
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


the royals have more than enough money to fund it themselves, so the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it especially when The NHS could really use that kind of money. mad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HausofBallBalls
post Nov 22 2016, 06:52 PM
Post #6
Henrietta R Hippo
*******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 26,109
Member No.: 13,007
Joined: 17-February 11
 


QUOTE(Common Sense @ Nov 22 2016, 06:35 PM) *
I'd much rather we pay for this and Parliament rather than send foreign aid.

Why is it one or the other? Sounds like you'd rather be done with foreign aid Buckingham Palace or not ;o if foreign is used for that exact reason, aid to foreign countries I fail to see how forking out 369m to refurbish the palace is a better use of our money.

Or I wonder if we could spend 368million on the palace and send 1 million to countries across the globe that need it? thinking.gif that seems fairer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Taylor Jago
post Nov 22 2016, 06:56 PM
Post #7
My mother said, to get things done, you better not mess with Maj
******
Group: Members
Posts: 5,516
Member No.: 21,319
Joined: 28-October 14
   No Gallery Pics
 


That's 369 million that could and should be used for more important issues like the NHS, or national housing, etc.

QUOTE(Common Sense @ Nov 22 2016, 07:35 PM) *
I'd much rather we pay for this and Parliament rather than send foreign aid.


Yes, f*** all those less developped countries where people can't even get drinkable water! We're gonna use all that money on refurbishing old buildings for people who have more than enough money to pay for it themselves!

I hope you're happy when all those people die due to a loss of aid!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Sleighs
post Nov 22 2016, 08:16 PM
Post #8
60% amazing
*****
Group: Artist Mod
Posts: 2,243
Member No.: 21,161
Joined: 24-August 14
 


I don't really agree with the Royal Family full stop (that's a different subject though) and this is ridiculous tbh. Why should we have to pay for them to get a better palace mellow.gif We give them enough of our f***ing money.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jonjo
post Nov 22 2016, 08:25 PM
Post #9
Together we are more.
********
Group: Artist Mod
Posts: 62,109
Member No.: 5,042
Joined: 13-December 07
 


Not sure how true it is, but it seems pretty reliable considering Forbes also issued a similar article, but this article is how I'm feeling atm.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-muc...the-government/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Sleighs
post Nov 22 2016, 08:29 PM
Post #10
60% amazing
*****
Group: Artist Mod
Posts: 2,243
Member No.: 21,161
Joined: 24-August 14
 


QUOTE(Jonjo @ Nov 22 2016, 08:25 PM) *
Not sure how true it is, but it seems pretty reliable considering Forbes also issued a similar article, but this article is how I'm feeling atm.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-muc...the-government/

Yeah but they still have more than enough money to pay for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacob Marley
post Nov 22 2016, 08:46 PM
Post #11
Jacob Alan
****
Group: Members
Posts: 1,102
Member No.: 21,664
Joined: 12-March 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


It's ok guys we've got 350m extra a week after brexit, I'm sure the NHS will be fine for a week and a bit.

In all seriousness thinking about the building itself it does attract tourism and has historical significance, whether the current royal family comes into it or not it should be maintained. That said if the royals have the money let them pay, after all their income is supported by the taxpayer already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weiss Schnee
post Nov 22 2016, 08:47 PM
Post #12
賞賛 涼宮ハルヒ
*******
Group: Global Mod
Posts: 22,960
Member No.: 12,929
Joined: 3-February 11
 


QUOTE(Jonjo @ Nov 22 2016, 08:25 PM) *
Not sure how true it is, but it seems pretty reliable considering Forbes also issued a similar article, but this article is how I'm feeling atm.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-muc...the-government/


I can confirm that, the Crown Estates are a thing, they take all of the profit from the royal lands, and give back what's basically an 'allowance' to the Royal Family, they've been doing this for 250 years. If the Windsors were going to pay for this alone then it'd take them 10 years of that grant. And if I'm reading that right, they're just increasing the amount that they get back from the profits of the estates for a decade so they still get their pocket money to host events and such.

Might it not be a priority? Perhaps. Probably almost certainly. But paying it out of the crown purse that just so happens due to our laws to mostly be taken by the government, that's the right procedure here if they're going to do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tinsel Boy
post Nov 22 2016, 08:55 PM
Post #13
Radical Pink Troll
******
Group: Members
Posts: 12,144
Member No.: 177
Joined: 11-March 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Why do we need to pay that much to fix an old lady's house?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weiss Schnee
post Nov 22 2016, 09:06 PM
Post #14
賞賛 涼宮ハルヒ
*******
Group: Global Mod
Posts: 22,960
Member No.: 12,929
Joined: 3-February 11
 


In fact, including 'taxpayers' in that headline at all is entirely incorrect, unless we're going to say that the royal family themselves are taxpayers.

The Express article doesn't say anything about where the money is coming from because it knows that it wouldn't be able to stir up outrage that way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crazy christmas
post Nov 22 2016, 11:44 PM
Post #15
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 9,354
Member No.: 53
Joined: 7-March 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(HausofHorrors @ Nov 22 2016, 06:52 PM) *
Why is it one or the other? Sounds like you'd rather be done with foreign aid Buckingham Palace or not ;o if foreign is used for that exact reason, aid to foreign countries I fail to see how forking out 369m to refurbish the palace is a better use of our money.

Or I wonder if we could spend 368million on the palace and send 1 million to countries across the globe that need it? thinking.gif that seems fairer



Yes I'd rather we paid zero foreign aid. Look after our own citizens first before other countries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Sleighs
post Nov 22 2016, 11:46 PM
Post #16
60% amazing
*****
Group: Artist Mod
Posts: 2,243
Member No.: 21,161
Joined: 24-August 14
 


QUOTE(Common Sense @ Nov 22 2016, 11:44 PM) *
Yes I'd rather we paid zero foreign aid. Look after our own citizens first before other countries.

Just 0.7% of spending is on foreign aid, so we obviously do look after our own citizens first :')
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th December 2016 - 10:16 PM