FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

2.4 million

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is it OK to spend 2.4 million on Harry and Meghan's new pad x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

No it’s fucking not

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Could not agree plus I love the queen but should they be paid 87million a year from tax payers not forgetting all the travel allowance. Just think how that money could be used for NHS or education and public sevices x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"No it’s fucking not "

Why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Could not agree plus I love the queen but should they be paid 87million a year from tax payers not forgetting all the travel allowance. Just think how that money could be used for NHS or education and public sevices x"

As you say they should not get the Royal Settlement I take it you are happy for the Treasury to return the Crown Estates to the Crown. After all the Royal Settlement is paid by the Treasury to the Crown in return for income raised by the Crown Estates.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

If ever you needed evidence that austerity is for poor people, this is it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Technically it's not their house. It belongs to the Crown Estate and money would have had to be spent on the building's renovation anyway.

The couple paid for all their own fixtures and fittings.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The house belongs to the country they merely live there it’s also a heritage building and they pay for the fixtures and fittings they want.

67million is something like a 5th of what the royal estates put into the exchequer so where does the tax payer come into it ?

They are the tax payers too ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville

Yes it is. Their wedding alone probably brought 10x that amount in tourism alone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah, I just see Royalty as a cash cow, as long as they bring more into the economy than they use up then I really don't have a problem with them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

These arguments sound eerily familiar . . . spending taxpayers money so that business can generate a lot more in trade.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"These arguments sound eerily familiar . . . spending taxpayers money so that business can generate a lot more in trade.

"

Indeed, you need to spend money to make money and unfortunately money makes the world go round

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"These arguments sound eerily familiar . . . spending taxpayers money so that business can generate a lot more in trade.

"

Not quite, unless you are suggesting that because the King of the day signed over the majority of Crown lands to the Exchequer in return for the Crown Settlement that the state can now break that contract by no longer paying the Crown Settlement (which is calculated as a percentage of the Crown Estate income) and keep the Crown Estate portfolio.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top