Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjjdjdjdjdjdj | Hacker News Reader

As you can see from the photo of the bones in the ground, kings look no different than peasants when they're eaten by the earth. Still, the hard working people of the UK are happy to sponsor their "princes" and their Vegas expenses.

View on HN

That's technically not correct. The UK royal house is paid an annuity that was given in exchange for them surrendering the revenues from their private holdings. These revenues are much larger than the annuity they are paid -- by some 5 times. Even if you take the most broad definition of the costs of the royal house, including the security provided to them and the lost revenues from the official properties they use, they still surrender more than £80M more to the state than they cost in upkeep.

There are many good arguments against the British royalty -- cost is not one of them. Were they a private family with private holdings, the people of the UK would pay more taxes than they do now.

The only way you can argue that abolishing the monarchy would save money is if you argue that they should be stripped from their private property. But if you start such land redistribution, just where should you end? Most of the land in the UK is held by aristocrats. And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.

>And the US is not much better -- in the wealthy areas in the east, most of the land was originally acquired by means that would be less than reputable today.

You could kind of argue that all of the land in the US was acquired by less than reputable means. :P

You could say that about pretty much anywhere - certainly most of Europe. Just chain back through land ownership transfers until you find the last person who got it by cheating/stealing/killing.

Except in Sweden.

All land is stolen. What in your opinion is different in Sweden?

The land was re-distributed to the populace over 100 years ago when the ruling class feared that the revolutions sweeping Russia would reach Sweden. They chose to give up land rather than their lives.

No, we quite reputably bought about 1/4 of it from France. They acquired it from the Spanish, who conquered it from the original owners in a quite disreputable way. But while we trafficked in stolen goods, we did so quite above board :)

Outside of the Eastern USA, the "less than reputable means" were employed by the state, not the people living there.

"Were they a private family with private holdings, the people of the UK would pay more taxes than they do now."

Death duties? Capital gains tax?

Actually I have no strong feelings either way and tend to view the monarchy as part of the tourism industry.

If memory serves, the Vegas expenses were paid for by the (American) owner of the casino.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2192974/Prince-Har...

Thanks guys!

However, given Britain's often lousy climate, the royals probably pay for themselves in the value of the additional tourism dollars generated alone.

If there was nobody living at Buckingham Palace, far fewer people would go see it.

Which is funny to mention

The Dutch royal family moved from Amsterdam to The Hague, still, their old palace is still a big tourist attraction.

what do you mean lousy climate? some of us quite like a nice bit of drizzle.

better than living in a 40c desert.

Should one pay taxes based on how different the rulers look once they are dead? 'Cos if so, I don't think elected rulers look much different from peasants either.

I believe the current propaganda term used for this sort of thing is "hard working families".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com