6.8M views · Apr 19, 2011 · 4:31 · 1 HN recommender · 10 mentions · discussed 2013–2022
CGP Grey breaks down what the British Royal Family costs the UK versus what it brings in, including income from royal-owned land. He concludes the government nets a profit from the arrangement.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN commenters cite it in monarchy debates as the explainer claiming the royals make money for the UK, with some disputing it.
“CGP Grey did a video explaining the true cost of the monarchy.”HN comment, 2013
“CGP Grey did a video explaining the true cost of the monarchy.”
Explains the true cost of the monarchy.
Pretty interesting and i agree with all the points. One thing about the monarchy is the argument that they cost a lot. CGP Grey did a video explaining the true cost of the monarchy. this video Also, check out his channel, he does loads of amazing videos. link
“you'll see just how much money they make for the UK.”
Shows how much money the royals make for the UK.
I'm not sure that I agree. If you look at this video ( this video ) you'll see just how much money they make for the UK. I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.
“The monarchy actually saves the country money over all from just first layer income given to the country...”
Monarchy income saves the country money.
The monarchy actually saves the country money over all from just first layer income given to the country... this video
“the UK government currently makes a healthy profit from the Royal Family.”
Video form of the argument the royals are profitable.
For what it's worth, the UK government currently makes a healthy profit from the Royal Family. link In video form: this video
“There's a popular CGP Grey video which claims the opposite”
Claims the monarchy is a money spinner for the UK.
There's a popular CGP Grey video which claims the opposite, ie that the monarchy is a money spinner for the UK, and not just because of tourism Are you saying this is incorrect? - this video
“The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry”
Royals likely bring in far more than they cost.
The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained, video by CGP Grey: this video too long; didn't watch: The royal family likely contributes quite significantly to the popularity of the UK tourism industry, which brings in FAR more money to the country than the institution costs to maintain, even considering all the royal salaries to pay, the palaces to maintain, public events to produce, security, etc. They also lease out a great amount of land to the country - to the wide benefit of the entire populace - for pennies of what it would cost the nation to purchase such land and resources outright.
“profits from royal-owned land”
Royal-owned land profits go to Parliament in return for a salary.
It’s a good tourist attraction, to be entirely fair, it’s just that the extended royal family quickly descends into situations like these. You could also make the argument that profits from royal-owned land – which is handed over to Parliament in return for a fixed salary – saves each UK citizen over £2 in taxes per year [1]. [1] this video
“the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound”
Royal land revenue and tourism figures versus costs.
According to this video , the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism
“The crown as a private entity gives more money to the state than it receives”
Crown gives more money to the state than it receives.
The crown as a private entity gives more money to the state than it receives this video I do not have primary sources but according to GPC Grey in the video the royal family receives £45 millions and gives ~£200 millions In the same sense that the queen is the richest person in the UK it is also true that almost the entirety of her possession are handled (and profited) by the state. Quoting Wikipedia: link > On his accession, the Crown lands produced relatively little income; most revenue was generated through taxes and excise duties. George surrendered the Crown Estate to Parliamentary control in return for a civil list annuity for the support of his household and the expenses of civil government I have no opinion on the british royal family and honestly I don't see them keeping the title for more than two other generations, but it does not look like they are (currently) bleeding the country
“if the royal family was abolished, taxes would go up, not down according to this video.”
Abolishing the royals would raise taxes.
From what I understand, if the royal family was abolished, taxes would go up, not down according to this video. this video
