"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 17:14, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2015-05-02, Bod wrote:
On 02/05/2015 13:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 02/05/15 13:16, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Oh, more tax waste then?

Yes.



No - that tax waste was when Tony B Liar, elected no less, wasted
****
knows how much on 2 wars noone wanted.

Net benefit - everyone hates even more than you hate the South.

At least Buck House has arse loads of tourists swanning around
outside
paying into our economy.

Yup and it's a fact that our Royal family generate far more money for
the UK than it costs each person in the UK.
62p per person per year to fund our Royal family. A bargain.

62p wasted.

Income to the exchequer from royal estates is around £260M/year.
15% of this is paid back to the royal family to fund their official
duties, including upkeep of the buildings/estates. (This replaced the
civil list payments and payments from various government departments
for things like royal travel which were abolished a few years ago.)

Policing, security, and other costs for royals are around £300M/year.

A normal year brings in around £500M of foreign tourist revenue
for royal events. In a year with a royal wedding, jubilee, birth, etc,
this figure exceeds £1B.

So, they are always significantly profitable for the UK, and in special
years, they are extremely profitable for the UK.

Spot on.

A country that aspires to being a 21st C democracy should not
have a hereditary head of state. End of debate.

Only brain dead socialists think that.
Quite a few "republics" gone back to royals when they see what arseholes
virtually all presidents are.