When people talk about the cost of

[Connect3]

Things like the Coronation, Royal funeral or Royal wedding, don't they realise most of that has gone in wages/labour to (fairly) ordinary people?

Yes, it's a hugely expensive number and hard to justify but it's money that's gone to pay police and security, the Armed forces, caterers, drivers, dress designers, travel providers etc etc all of whom then spend that in shops and other businesses.

I'm not particularly a Royal fan, but I don't object to big events that support the economy.

It's a big part of our country's history, it's great. I have no objections to it.

Agree with you. It’s the same weird argument people use against big business - which is made up of thousands of individuals who benefit from having stable jobs!

Regardless of whether it's going towards wages, it's still coming from our pocket.

I do think it's obscene given the current cost of living crisis but your way of thinking does make me feel a bit better about it

Yes! I hate the meme about how supporting a small business pays for a little girl's dance lessons. What do people think the staff in big businesses spend their money on and small businesses are often terrible employers

I does but it comes out of our pockets and back in somewhere along the line. We'd all be in a terrible situation if no one ever spent anything.

Yes, because what comes out of the coffers also ends up going back in. A group of friends and I watched the coronation, for example, in a big sports bar with a billion TV screens in a part of London which usually doesn’t get a lot of weekend footfall. But that Saturday they were heaving all day with people parking themselves at a table for the whole show and buying loads of food and drink, they must have been taking in several thousand pounds an hour - which I imagine was replicated across many pubs all over the U.K. So that’s more money in the pockets of the pubs’ staff doing extra shifts, more paid in tax, more money for the booze and food suppliers - who in turn are also paying more tax and paying their own staff more money.

It's also good to remember that it's only a few quid each, and even if they did X, Y or Z with it instead, it won't solve that particular problem either.

eg it's only a few hours worth of what it costs to run the NHS, so won't significantly change anything if it was given to the NHS instead.

If you gave the money to the 10 million lowest income households instead, they'd all get £16 each (based on the Coronation costing £162 million or whatever people are currently complaining about. So they might be able to buy themselves a takeaway or a couple of day's worth of groceries but it won't have a meaningful impact on their lives.

Etc etc.

It's almost like people who make a show out of their objections havent fully assessed the wider picture. Hugely unusual in todays culture. ;-)

So presumably some of it comes out of the tax I pay, yet I don’t get anything back, even if businesses do.

You do though because everyone benefits from that money going back into the economy. Businesses employ more people, who in turn spend in businesses, creating more jobs elsewhere. And they all pay tax on it.

good points, OP

It's people who don't understand how economics and policies work.

They think it's like a household budget where if you save in one area you have that money to spene on a different area.

I sort of agree. I presume that the 'cost' means that things were bought and paid for, leaning that it’s gone back into the economy.

Maybe I’m wrong?

We had numerous local events on over the Coronation weekend and lots of small businesses (selling ice cream, cream teas, hot food, etc) had queues I’d never seen before, because so many people had come out to Celebrate the Coronation. It was lovely to see!

I'd rather not have the coronation cost and use the money for something else, that could also benefit the economy and pay wages.

All public spending is about choices.

Included in the cost is the transportation and accommodation of the Armed Forces but not on wages as they don't get paid any extra.

Those people you mention are largely in short supply and could be paid to do something more useful with their time. Arguably. Depending on your point of view as to what is "most useful".

It depends on whether you think the problem with the economy is a shortage of demand or shortage of supply. In many areas it is shortage of supply. Your argument assumes there is a shortage of demand. And while in the short run demand maybe an issue, in the long run it is always supply (skilled people who are motivated to work, investment, technology, good management, effective matching of people to jobs, prouctivity generally).

We can't fix the economy by the government paying for lots of parties. If only life was that simple!

That's exactly what does happen with regeneration projects, for example. Government creates a project (which could be a party, but is more often a building project)for the purposes of creating work where the workforce will spend it's income in the local economy.

It's gone on forever. There are roads built in the 1700s by landowners who wanted to create work so their tenants could feed themselves.

Obviously it's not the only answer to a struggling economy, but the money's not wasted as in gone forever.

Yes, but in the long run you really need the project to be something useful. You can pay money for people to make daisy chains, or do handstands, or do absolutely nothing at all and in the short run you will stimulate demand (and hence grow the economy if there is spare capacity to produce more goods and services). But in the long run (and sooner rather than later if you overdo it) then you will most likely only get inflation. If you think big parties are the most useful way to stimulate the economy in the short run, then so be it. I happen to think there are more useful ways. Building roads is quite different as it is an investment that increases the long run productive capacity of the economy, as well as providing short run demand stimulation.

It's ok to spend cash on things that make people happy and for no other reason even as a country.

Don't get me wrong we are a republican household but for the time being big public events are going to either be sport or royalty.

If we get to host the world cup there will be the same arguments. We spend loads each year policing football games generally, or Wimbledon.

Not everything spent has to have a social conscience.

Also the Coronation would have boosted tourism and helped our hospitality sector in London.

Well then why don't you give me a quarter of a billion instead? I'll find plenty of ways to spend it, and that will boost the economy won't it?

Personally I'd rather tax money went to pay a living wage to people who do necessary, everyday work like nurses, teachers etc than to pay for a party for a strange man in a gold hat.

Your arguments are for us having a coronation not for us paying for the coronation. If the fancy hat man wants a ceremony, the fancy hat family should pay for it.