this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
38 points (97.5% liked)

UK Politics

3091 readers
107 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Given how old, the crown jewels are. IE when that Money was spent.

How much difference do you think selling them or even never having purchased them would make.

Selling them. Divided between 66m people. Pennies,

Never having purchased them. Remember money doesn't disappear. The people making them were paid. Hired others and spread the money through society.

Land purchases are less of an asset to society. But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation. Not somehow removing it from people I'd say the modern royal post George III spending deal. Where all crown land is managed by the government and its income goes towards the general tax fund, In exchange for (currently 20%) being used to maintain palaces and funding crown/royal family events etc.

Is under austerity governments. More harmful, in preventing that income, funding jobs for lower income people.

Corporate trickle-down economics argument to reduce taxation may be utter crap.

But the history of royal spending and more modern (1940s+) government spending def has a trickle down effect ignored by modern capitalism supporting governments.