Home Categories About
argument top image
Should the monarchy be abolished? Should the monarchy be abolished?
Yes, we should abolish the monarchy Yes, we should abolish the monarchy
We should reform the monarchy We should reform the monarchy
No, we should keep the monarchy No, we should keep the monarchy
Commonwealth countries should become republics or have their own monarchy Commonwealth countries should become republics or have their own monarchy
The monarchy is wasting valuable taxpayer money The monarchy is wasting valuable taxpayer money
The monarchy is undemocratic The monarchy is undemocratic
The monarchy reinforces the class system in Britain The monarchy reinforces the class system in Britain
The monarchy is an embarrassment and should go The monarchy is an embarrassment and should go
The monarchy must sustainably self-fund The monarchy must sustainably self-fund
The monarchy is a key source of soft power The monarchy is a key source of soft power
The Royals bring in tourists The Royals bring in tourists
The monarchy has cultural value that is worthwhile The monarchy has cultural value that is worthwhile
Commonwealth countries shouldn't have a British monarch as their head of state Commonwealth countries shouldn't have a British monarch as their head of state
Debate Mini Map

Should the monarchy be abolished?
Back to question

We should reform the monarchy

< (2 of 4) Next position >

The monarchy must sustainably self-fund

While important, the monarchy cannot continue to be funded by public coffers. Allow them to use the money they generate to sustain themselves.
Public Funding Sustainability
Emma Dent Coad
< (1 of 1) Next argument >

Context

The UK government subsidizes the Monarchy with tax payer money each year. This is estimated at £300 million per annum and is greater than any tourism revenue generated. Royals do not pay tax nor have to insure their properties. When there was a major fire at Windsor castle, the Queen expected taxpayers to pay for repairs.

The Argument

In a survey commissioned by Republic, 76% of British citizens stated that they did not want their taxes spent on Meghan Markle's and Prince Harry's wedding. The royal family should self-fund than rely on taxpayers as many people in the country can't even afford to pay for their rent or food. The taxes should instead be spent on British citizens. [1] In England, people find it unreasonable that their taxes are funding royal ceremonies and the refurbishment of the Buckingham Palace when the family has immense wealth available to cover the funds themselves. [2] The monarchy should be reformed, if not abolished, to protect the welfare of taxpaying citizens.

Counter arguments

In Britain, the funds that come from Queen's Crown Estate are taxed at 75%, which makes the monarchy self-funded. [3] In 2018, the British royal family brought £595 million in the country through tourism, merchandise, and the arts, while costing £165m. They make much more profit than other European monarchies. The family spends generously on the country's taxpayers and supports them through self-funded events and projects. [4]

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2018/05/18/goodbye-monarchy
  2. https://news.sky.com/story/kensington-mp-emma-dent-coad-says-queen-should-move-out-of-buckingham-palace-for-public-11397929
  3. https://norepublic.com.au/self-funded-monarchy/#:~:text=The%20monarchy%20is%20self%2Dfunded.&text=(%20That%20reform%20did%20occur%2C%20but,taxpayers%20are%20funding%20our%20monarchy.)
  4. https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/#:~:text=The%20truth%2C%20it%20would%20seem,Belgian%20ones%20lagging%20far%20behind.
This page was last edited on Monday, 26 Oct 2020 at 15:14 UTC