So now William and Catherine won't be working, will they be subject to the bedroom tax?(102 Posts)
Indeed. The 'Royal' Family are not needed for tourism. It is a myth that they are.
I am a republican, of course. You make the very good point that France is the most popular tourist destination in europe, and it has no 'Royal' family.
In fact, the Republic website states this:
"Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.
The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.
The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue. "
How do France and Italy manage their tourist industry? I'm not a republican btw, but it just struck me that when I visited the Loire valley people seemed pretty keen to see those chateaux. Has anyone calculated how many more visitors you would get at Versailles if there was a real royal family around somewhere? Isn't the French revolution a bit of a draw too? (not making any suggestions here, no really not)
Regardless, they've made it horribly difficult for those who are affected though. They have the option of:
- paying more rent, as they get less housing benefits, which they often can't afford as their money is stretched as it is
- moving to private rental, which most cannot afford to do or cannot find one that allows them to continue in their (low paying) job or keep their children at the same school - or they simply don't have the money to pay for a move (expenses, deposit, etc)
- downgrade to a smaller council property - but oh wait, in most areas, there aren't any. And then there's the consideration that many have spent what little money they have on upkeep on the property they are in - they can ill afford to move into another smaller property and then put carpets and such in there as well!!! The days that a council property is newly painted and all fixed up for a new tenant are well gone!
So basically, they'll be stuck paying more rent. The elderly council tenants in bigger properties (because their children have left home) are exempt. So precisely where do they think the movement to open up properties will come from??
It's done nothing but make things worse for those who are the most vulnerable and at their lowest.
It's not an extra charge. If you don't claim benefits but you do rent a council home, then you are just paying the rent that has been decided as accurate for the property you live in.
There won't be any extra charge for people who already pay their own rent.
People will just be given less money in housing benefit, if they claim it.
People will no longer be able to claim enough money to cover the rent in a three bedroom house if they only need a two bedroom house.
Housing benefit will still pay for what people actually need in the vast majority of cases.
So actually Strokethecat, it is only people who claim benefits that will be affected by this.
Those who rent will pay for the size of the property they rent, just the same as people who buy will pay for the size of property they buy, even if the smallest bedroom is tiny.
Well said strokethecat. The 'spare room subsidy' is one of the most insidious, ill thought out pieces of legislation. Whether I agree or disagree with it, anyone with even basic project planning and management experience would know that more social housing stock needed to be created before contemplating a policy like this. I'm being kind by saying it's incompetent.
As for W & K, I'm just not that interested in drawing comparisons. They're not on my ' this is pissing me off' radar currently.
Might get 'hard working person' tattooed on my forehead though .
You're right of course. The Civil List payments run to millions every year; benefits would only pay out £71 for them.
Anyone, C & W included, can do nothing if they want to as long as they don't expect the tax payer to pay for them.
I hardly think they'll be claiming benefits so up to them what they do. There's loads of 'trustafarians' who can chose what to do - lucky them!
It is not only those on benefits that have to pay this extra charge if they rent a home off the council. We pay full rent and we have to pay for the spare room we have which is frankly, the size of a fecking cupboard.
For the record, it's not a "bedroom tax" ffs - it's been a bedroom supplement - the only people being taxed are the tax-payers!
It is attitudes like this which makes life intolerable for the majority of people in social housing.
You'll find that the majority of people residing in social housing work and pay their rent fairly and squarely.
Not everybody in this God forsaken country can get or afford to get a mortgage. Social housing was introduced to house those who wanted security and a fair rent. It was a means of income to councils and when the conservatives decided to raise more cash with their right to buy back in the early 80 they screwed over the general public. It is the same Party today that has introduced the 'bedroom tax' - they sold off the housing and what is left today? They charge a rent on plus tax for a spare bedroom. A working person in social housing gets to pay their taxes - I know, shocking news, eh? Plus their rent plus, lets call it a 'supplement' if it makes you feel superior, on any extra room they may have in that house. Plus their council tax...
This Government have also manipulated people into thinking that those in social housing are feckless non tax payers who are out for an easy ride at the cost of other 'hard working people'
Well, OP, I don't work anymore and I have a spare bedroom but certainly won't be paying bedroom "tax"!!
Bowie can tax me in the bedroom any old time he likes.
Can't be bothered to read the thread.
Of course they won't, because it isn't a tax, it's a reduction in Housing Benefit.
Labour did no one any favours by dubbing it by this stupid name, I spend far too much time at work explaining it to people who wouldn't have been confused in the first place if it just been called what it is.
David Bowie for King. King of the Solar system. I'd worship him.
Not him w/ the layabout wife.
To be fair, many people I know in the states are fascinated or at least interested in the royals and do think a castle/palace is more interesting because it's currently inhabited by royalty.
Well thank God I obviously moved here to the UK before you mad your rounds, Wallison. I'll consider that a narrow escape. Although I'm reasonably certain you've missed a few, none of my friends and family in the states have heard of you, much less slept with you.
Sometimes I wonder at my sanity getting involved in remarkably stupid arguments! Time to get back to work I think.
And yes, all America. I have personally made love to every man, woman and person of transgender in that country.
I'm not misunderstanding the answer. You cannot prove that people go to palaces and castles just because the royal family exists when tourists do not, in fact, meet any royals while they are looking around said castles and palaces.
I really can't be bothered. You asked the question and then you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the answer.
And I'll have you know that I am very well thought of in America.
Who is offering tickets for dinner with them? What does that have to do with what actually happens?
Given the choice of meeting you or Kate I think that most, if not all, tourists would opt for Kate! Certainly the Americans would.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.