"A president would require... a new Presidential Palace."

Submitted by LJ Holden on 15 February, 2011 - 16:44

Monarchists like to go on about the cost of a republic versus the monarchy, often claiming without any actual evidence that a republic would be more expensive. One of their favourite claims used to be that if we become a republic, the taxpayer would have to pick up the tab for a new "Presidential Palace".

Strangely, they dumped that claim, perhaps because it was just to ridiculous to sustain, particularly now that the Governor-General has moved back in to Government House Wellington, restored at a cost of $42 million to the taxpayer. Not that we're taking issue with that - the refurbishment was needed, and we supported the renovation when it was announced way back in May 2008.

Comments

Rich d Rich's picture
Submitted by Rich d Rich on 15 February, 2011 - 20:51.

Although if we had the PM as head of state, we wouldn't need Government House (given Premier House is there to entertain vistors).


That would leave a nice park in Newtown, and maybe a museum depicting the history of monarchical folly, with features on George III, Edward VIII, Prince Leopold of Belgium, King Khalid, etc.

Publius's picture
Submitted by Publius on 15 February, 2011 - 22:15.

Well, the monarchists first problem is to assume taxes actually fund government expenditure under a fiat currency system; they don't; the central bank merely debits and credits bank accounts totally independent of the governments' tax raising powers. If taxes funded government expenditure, it wouldn't be a fiat currency system, now would it.

The state only taxes to reduce inflation (controlling AG and purchasing power of the dollar) and for equitable social objectives.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Syndicate content