Advanced search

To think there should of been a proper debate about doubling the royal familys income

(14 Posts)
jdoe8 Fri 03-Mar-17 04:12:19

So a few people took 13 mins to decide to double someone income, while everyone else (apart from boomers) is having funding and resources cut to the bone? Doesn't seem right, at least not without a proper debate.

RedBullBlood Fri 03-Mar-17 05:21:26

It's the Sovereign Grant Act, not something done on a whim. (Not that I agree with it, it's just your op makes it sound like it just occurred out of the blue).

KC225 Fri 03-Mar-17 05:52:06

I agree. Years ago I remember reading the Queen was 'shocked' her subjects expected her to pay tax. At the time we didn't even have a minimum wage.

Housewife2010 Fri 03-Mar-17 05:55:30

Should have

AyeAmarok Fri 03-Mar-17 06:00:14

Wealthy pensioner gets disproportionately high amount from state coffers.


She's hardly alone there.

allthingsred Fri 03-Mar-17 06:04:57

Shouldn't even be a debate.
Nhs funding cut, social care funding cut, working people having to use food banks because no matter how much they budget & stretch their money out you can't turn a penny into a pound.
A family of multi millionaires who we already house & fund to basically live a life of holidays, should not be given more money. It's a disgrace

LellyMcKelly Fri 03-Mar-17 06:10:32

That's nuts.

EveOnline2016 Fri 03-Mar-17 06:17:23

The Palace needs the refurbishment, that's why the grant is doubled.

The refurbishment, the biggest undertaken on the property since the second world war, will renew the palace’s 33-year-old boilers, 100 miles of electrical cable, some of it 60 years old, and 20 miles of lead and cast iron pipework.

As the palace employs a vast amount of people and attracts visitors. Then the palace can't go into ruin.

Toadinthehole Fri 03-Mar-17 06:23:22

Historically the monarch didn't pay tax, because tax is (and remains) payable to the monarch. The Queen only pays "tax" to create a good impression.

SaucyJack Fri 03-Mar-17 06:28:26

I'm a bit meh about it.

She's the Queen, and this is a monarchy whether we like it or not. I don't understand why you would be surprised that she gets more than her fair share, or that nobody bothered to ask us commoners what we think.

Catlady1976 Fri 03-Mar-17 07:30:17

Not all baby boomers. Women born in the early 50's are baby boomers but they have seen their pension age rise far more than those born a year earlier without proper notice.
Yes they will still retire before us but at least we have had more notice.

EdithWeston Fri 03-Mar-17 07:33:59

There's a topic for the Royal Family.

The cost of repairs to the head of state's official properties is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of repairs to the HofP.

They're still pretty cheap for a HofS (if you compare say the other P5 members)

None of the sovereign grant goes on personal spending.

There are a lot of myths/misunderstandings about how the funding for the Head of State actually works.

DrivingMeBonkers Fri 03-Mar-17 07:35:55

Information is the key, whilst wiki isn't the best source, in this instance it is factually correct and a concise read.

PhilODox Fri 03-Mar-17 07:53:12

Meh- I don't see why in a monarchy the monarch should pay tax. That's just ridiculous- taxes are technically paid to them.
And yes, Buckingham Palace needs upgrading.
Even if there were no more monarchs, it's still an important historical site.
Her Majesty does not make any decisions on government spending, even you're not stupid enough to think that politroll.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: