I have nothing against people making money. It's a fact of life that people earn more than others.Life is not morally fair Bill. My gripe with yourself is that you go after this one area but not for the others or at least not as constant as you do with the Royals.
It's not morally right that the City players drive through the 1st, 3rd and 4th most deprived areas in Greater Manchester in cars worth more than the homes they are passing to get to their multi bedroom houses.
It's not morally right that our owner who is worth £20bn has fans organising food banks on his property.
But KDB, Pep, the Sheikh and the Royals cannot change anything, not on the scale that's needed to eradicate it anyway but you don't seem to attack them, in fact it's the opposite.
I'm not a royalist or pro monarch by the way, i find it interesting but there is enough history to keep me interested for the rest of my life.
If you believe that you're living in cloud cuckoo land.A quick search online says it's £1.29 per person to fund the Royal Family. A total of £102m per year.
Are we really quibbling over £1.29? I've just spent that in energy typing this post.
At least they are a part of capitalist culture.Ah i see, so it's now about how they've earned it now how much of it they have in this moral utopia world.
So families starving yet players on £350k a week is morally ok.
Yet families starving and Royal Family having lots of rooms and money is morally bad.
Glad that has been cleared up.
I have nothing against people making money. It's a fact of life that people earn more than others.
But City players are not funded by the taxpayer or government. The RF IS...you can't equate them.
The taxpayers dont buy KDB's car or pay Pep's salary.
Is it morally right that the government should fund their thousands of rooms and thousands of acres, servants, cars, train, helicopters ?
You haven't answered that question.
If you believe that you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
At least they are a part of capitalist culture.
You can debate who is worth what, but that then that delves you into mexico70 territiory.
The blame of the imbalance of society is squarely at the government and neoliberal principles.
Margins have tightened, so social thinking has been erased from corps to maximise shareholder dividends.
You can still boo KDB for earning too much tomorrow though if you want to.
One has been bought by a company as they are the best in the business. He can pick a lock past any form of inkwell defence.I've no need to boo KDB, he can be paid £700k a week for all i care, it has no effect on my life.
Just find it strange to bash one rich person yet laud another just because they play in sky blue but that's me and my football card.
Ah i see, so it's now about how they've earned it now how much of it they have in this moral utopia world.
So families starving yet players on £350k a week is morally ok.
Yet families starving and Royal Family having lots of rooms and money is morally bad.
Glad that has been cleared up.
I don't know what it is neither do you, but I don't believe 102 million, thats laughable. But if you googled it, well it must be true.What is it then? I'm interested to know. Considering you are so against having them due to moral financial issues, you must know what loss they cost the country?
If by funding that it brings in more money then yes i think it is morally right.
Do you know what the net profit/loss is of funding the royal family? I don't claim to know, but surely if it's a net profit for the country then why is that not morally right?
If it is a net profit then in your world the people sleeping under bridges, or starving families would be worse off.
A visit to a medium town cost millions in the 1980s, eg. every man hole on route was opened and checked, but it doesn't go onthe Royal budget it falls on other authoritries.Of which is?
I have no idea, but I’d surmise that the bill for these 10 days must be in the billions.I don't know what it is neither do you, but I don't believe 102 million, thats laughable. But if you googled it, well it must be true.
Anyway mate carry on defending your Royals. And what they represent.
I suspect the Republic isn't far away now Lizzie has gone.
Have to go out now, my dog is getting twitchy.
This is about the monarchy, their use, relevance and worth in a modern society.
I don't know what it is neither do you, but I don't believe 102 million, thats laughable. But if you googled it, well it must be true.
Anyway mate carry on defending your Royals. And what they represent.
I suspect the Republic isn't far away now Lizzie has gone.
Have to go out now, my dog is getting twitchy.
They have none. They keep our tourism relevant though.Which is what? No one is adding any facts regarding this to the debate. If you said that the monarchy costs British tax payers a net loss of £50m per year then their relevance and worth in a modern society would be none.
But until someone provides the fact on that then it's just shaking a fist in with an envious glare.
Depends where the money that’s generated goes to surely, at least for the economic argument. The “there’s other rich people” argument has other differences.
Which is what? No one is adding any facts regarding this to the debate. If you said that the monarchy costs British tax payers a net loss of £50m per year then their relevance and worth in a modern society would be none.
But until someone provides the fact on that then it's just shaking a fist in with an envious glare.
They have none. They keep our tourism relevant though.
How much is the cost of these 12 days?
Is it positive or negative financially?
If they were proven to be a drain on our finances, they’d be fucked off pretty damn quickly.They are relevant because it appears that people still want them. In these days of slebism they are the pinnacle of that cult.
It’s easier to keep everyone in the dark and keep them relevant.Who knows?
Surely all the anti monarchists would know otherwise looks a little stupid wanting to get rid of a business that generates millions in tax revenue for us plebs.