Why don't the Brits just lay off the Queen?

[LiberalEsto]

Instead of cutting jobs and public assistance with the Conservatives' new end-the-deficit plan, they could save a hell of a lot of money by giving the Queen a pink slip. And I don;t mean a diamond-encrusted silk designer slip. I'm sure the Royals cost the British taxpayers far more than what the new "austerity" measures are supposed to save.

We could do something similar here by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and taxing corporations at a realistic level.

But it isn't going to happen,so I'm not going to hold my breath.

[malaise]

1. They should abolish the fugging monarchy

period

[Turbineguy]

2. The ones who will

get the chop would scream the loudest about dumping the royals.

[meegbear]

3. Holy No Future, No Future, No Future For You Batman!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

[raccoon]

4. A-fricking men! nt

[FSogol]

5. Evict the witch and her dopey sons. Let her pay to keep the heat on. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

6. I say keep her around

but have a yard sale for the "royal" stuff they've piled up over the centuries. Jewels, paintings, tapestries, other historical objects...probably could fetch a pretty price on eBay.

[LiberalEsto]

8. Sotheby's might fetch higher prices

although the image of HRH standing in the palace garage, sticking price tags on her thousands of hideous hats has a certain charm to it.

[blueamy66]

10. Yep. Amen.

Can you imagine how much money the UK could make?

Holy crap!

[JaneQPublic]

7. They should take Mark Twain's advice...

...I believe it was in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Aurthur's Court" that Twain suggested the Brits would do well to replace their monarchy with a family of cats.

Obviously, cats could perform the duties of the royals perfectly well, while needing only a fraction of the food and clothing allowance.

[jpljr77]

9. An interesting sentiment, but...

I'm sure the Royals cost the British taxpayers far more than what the new "austerity" measures are supposed to save.

The austerity measures are supposed to save $128 billion over the next four years. I hardly think the royals cost UK taxpayers $32 billion per year.

As for your suggestions, corporations in the U.S. are taxed at a "realistic level." But corporate taxes aren't the problem. In an ideal world, corporations would pay no tax at all, so that they could hire as many people as possible. In order to get there, we have to address our individual taxing system.

There are two major problems with our current individual tax scheme:

1) Income from gains in investment is treated differently than ordinary income, and
2) The top bracket tax rate is two low.

Fix those two things (recognize ALL income the same and tax accordingly, and move the top tax bracket rate up -- or better yet, create another one on top of the current one) and things get a lot better very quickly.

[upi402]

11. Even many Dems wont end the FICA cap for the rich

If you make more than $106,800 a year, you pay no more FICA tax. But all I hear -even from Dems- is that we need to work until 67 or 70 years old to pay for shortfalls.

"...some hard choices ...ain't it a shame..." <- Gawd save the Queens?

kick/rec!

[LiberalEsto]

12. IF we can find jobs at that age.

I'm 58, and I've been out of work for two years. No luck finding anything.

[truebrit71]

13. Because she brings in more money than she costs...

..and as pointed out elsewhere the royals don't cost the UK 32 billion quid a year...

How about you Yanks focus on getting corporations to pay their taxes and leave Liz and Phil alone, yes?