Britain - The Official Thread

[homeforsummer]

I will continue the financial contribution argument if you wish but I think you'll find that the rate of taxation on money spent on lodging and goods and services does not compare to the overall rate of taxation on citizens who pay those same taxes after they've already paid their income tax, property tax etc.

Well obviously UK residents contribute more than visitors, but I'd have thought that logical. My point is that tourism and tourists contribute hugely to the economy as a whole - and in a more intangible way, that the UK should seem welcoming to tourists, and free entry to museums is a nice way of doing that.

You should also check your source. Your numbers are faulty.

Apologies - more accurate figures here. £16 billion in actual spending and £3 billion in tax. And as above, my point still stands - tourists contribute enough to the economy that we can probably avoid charging them even a nominal amount for something like a museum. About 1.6% of UK public expenditure goes on "Culture", which includes museums. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm quite happy that less than 2% of what I pay in my taxes can go towards things like museums which in turn contribute to education, leisure and the tourism industry.

Over in Canada and the United States as well, we routinely charge foreign students much more money to attend out state subsidized universities and colleges. In Canada it's as much as 4x what a Canadian would pay. Would you be incredibly uneasy with that as well?

Not the same situation.

The UK also charges foreign students more to attend university, but coming to the UK to attain qualifications that you might then use elsewhere is rather different from coming to the UK for a week or two for pleasure. Not just because of the implications of each, but because one requires a long application process and the other involves everyone walking through the doors of a museum to be ID'd and then either let through or having to pay accordingly.

Or to put it another way, if someone from China chooses to study in the UK I don't need to submit my identification for them to do so. I would have to do so if museums had to selectively charge based on nationality.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well obviously UK residents contribute more than visitors, but I'd have thought that logical. My point is that tourism and tourists contribute hugely to the economy as a whole - and in a more intangible way, that the UK should seem welcoming to tourists, and free entry to museums is a nice way of doing that.

Apologies - more accurate figures here. £16 billion in actual spending and £3 billion in tax. And as above, my point still stands - tourists contribute enough to the economy that we can probably avoid charging them even a nominal amount for something like a museum. About 1.6% of UK public expenditure goes on "Culture", which includes museums. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm quite happy that less than 2% of what I pay in my taxes can go towards things like museums which in turn contribute to education, leisure and the tourism industry.

Not the same situation.

The UK also charges foreign students more to attend university, but coming to the UK to attain qualifications that you might then use elsewhere is rather different from coming to the UK for a week or two for pleasure. Not just because of the implications of each, but because one requires a long application process and the other involves everyone walking through the doors of a museum to be ID'd and then either let through or having to pay accordingly.

Or to put it another way, if someone from China chooses to study in the UK I don't need to submit my identification for them to do so. I would have to do so if museums had to selectively charge based on nationality.

$3Billion in tax is economic justification for tourists getting into museums for free the same as natives that contribute $Hundreds of billions? Surely it's enough then to let them ride the Metro for free. How about free cabs? The more they get around the more they spend right? How about free healthcare while they are there as well?

I can make the same argument about tuition fees that you are making about free museums. Anyone choosing to come to a Canadian university must also pay for 4+ years of lodging, food, supplies, air travel and general spending. Relatives might come to visit as tourists as well. Easily worth a minimum of $100k+ and likely a lot more. That's at least 200x more than your average tourist spends according to your stats. There are over 350k foreign students here and traditionally, most of them are post secondary. That's an economic impact of $10s of billions. Surely they deserve a break on their tuition?

 

[ExigeEvan]

$3Billion in tax is economic justification for tourists getting into museums for free the same as natives that contribute $Hundreds of billions?

That's direct tax. That's not the additional value of employment in the industry to support those 37.6 million overseas visitors and the £22.5Bn they spend. That's the hoteliers, the chef's, taxi drivers etc etc.

People don't visit the UK to use a taxi, or to stay in a hotel, they do that as a consequence of visiting tourist destinations like museums.

Source and latest figures - https://www.visitbritain.org/visitor-economy-facts

 

[homeforsummer]

$3Billion in tax is economic justification for tourists getting into museums for free the same as natives that contribute $Hundreds of billions? Surely it's enough then to let them ride the Metro for free. How about free cabs? The more they get around the more they spend right? How about free healthcare while they are there as well?

The museums are provided free to everyone, regardless of residential status.

Public transport, private taxis, and everything else that people already pay for would likewise be paid for by those visiting.

I can make the same argument about tuition fees that you are making about free museums. Anyone choosing to come to a Canadian university must also pay for 4+ years of lodging, food, supplies, air travel and general spending. Relatives might come to visit as tourists as well. Easily worth a minimum of $100k+ and likely a lot more. That's at least 200x more than your average tourist spends according to your stats. There are over 350k foreign students here and traditionally, most of them are post secondary. That's an economic impact of $10s of billions. Surely they deserve a break on their tuition?

Charging only overseas visitors for museums: Every visitor must be identified at point of entry to see whether they're required to pay or not. That is not something I like - wherever I'm from, I don't want to be ID'd just to visit a museum, whether I have to pay for that museum or not. I'd prefer we simply didn't charge anyone, I'll contribute the figure of one-point-bugger-all percent of my taxes for something that benefits a wide range of people (including residents), and nobody has to be segregated unnecessarily when they're trying to learn about dinosaurs or the second world war.

Charging overseas students more: They've made the choice to study at that institution rather than one in their own country or elsewhere. Those higher tuition fees are an acceptable part of that study, given those students may well return to their own countries to get a job rather than continuing to contribute to the economy of the country in which they studied.

Also, universities are private rather than national institutions and they can charge whatever they wish up to an amount capped by the government. Whether overseas students are charged more or less doesn't affect how much I pay in my taxes - or at least, not directly enough for it to make a blind bit of difference. Though given they're paying so much to study here, both in fees and by directly contributing to the economy by buying products and services, the least we can do is let them visit museums for free...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Charging only overseas visitors for museums: Every visitor must be identified at point of entry to see whether they're required to pay or not. That is not something I like - wherever I'm from, I don't want to be ID'd just to visit a museum, whether I have to pay for that museum or not.

That's how it is now - if I want a student discount or an OAP discount when I enter a museum in the UK (only a minority are free) then I have to show some sort of relevant ID.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's how it is now - if I want a student discount or an OAP discount when I enter a museum in the UK (only a minority are free) then I have to show some sort of relevant ID.

Slightly different situation though - since clearly, the majority of people don't have to show ID to enter museums and the like. And showing your student card is opt-in - you choose to show it to take advantage of lower prices. You aren't obliged to, and you could happily access that service, albeit for a higher price, were you not to show your ID.

Bottom line, I don't like the idea of something like the National History Museum (which is free, and a massive tourist attraction) being free for some people and not for others, regardless of where those "others" come from. Either charge everybody, or charge nobody.

And on balance - since making national museums free has increased visitor numbers (and on a more intangible level, benefitted civilisation by making important historical artefacts more accessible to everybody) yet is funded by something that effectively costs us bugger-all in taxes - I don't see any real benefit to taking a few extra quid from foreign visitors and foreign visitors alone for the privilege. The benefits of the current situation outweigh the costs in other words.

 

[Sprite]

Just to add my 2p

We (my partner and I) visited Yorkshire Museum in York. It was pretty bad in terms of what was on show. It's also pretty small. Now this costs (I'm not a student or OAP) £6 ish each. It's not a bad cost but it certainly wasn't worth it in terms of exhibitions.

It was also poorly kept. Some of the exhibitions were past their best. It's a shame because York is a historically rich city and has a lot to offer.

On the fipside. Two close to me are donation based. The Yorkshire Sculpture Park (I haven't been in the last 12 months) & The Hepworth Gallery (just won an award) both have good exhibitions and are kept up to date and in good order. Where this is because they get more funding from the government compared to the one in York I'm not sure.

I feel our heritage and culture along with traveling exhibitions should be free for all to enjoy. The funding should come from Government with suplimentation from Donations and fundraising by the insitutions, possibly in conjunction with local education.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Slightly different situation though - since clearly, the majority of people don't have to show ID to enter museums and the like. And showing your student card is opt-in - you choose to show it to take advantage of lower prices. You aren't obliged to, and you could happily access that service, albeit for a higher price, were you not to show your ID.

So it's exactly the same thing - everybody pays the higher price unless they identify themselves in eligibility for a discount.

 

[homeforsummer]

So it's exactly the same thing - everybody pays the higher price unless they identify themselves in eligibility for a discount.

It'd only be exactly the same thing if the museums were currently charging people - which they aren't - and you had to then opt-in for it to be free. For it to be the same as the scenario you mention, those museums would have to introduce fees once again, which you could then opt out of - but only if you showed an ID. Which as I've already mentioned, isn't an ideal situation.

What I thought was a fairly simple thing is going on far too long, so I'll make this clear once again: I prefer the status quo. Nobody has to pay (or pay directly; as before, it's funded by a not-very-big slice of our taxes), nobody experiences the service differently based on their nationality. Free museums are something to be celebrated, and everyone, whether natives or overseas visitors, should be able to enjoy them as such. That's it. It is no more complicated than that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It'd only be exactly the same thing if the museums were currently charging people - which they aren't - and you had to then opt-in for it to be free.

Very many are.

 

[homeforsummer]

Very many are.

I'm aware! That doesn't mean the free ones should join them. Jesus wept.

I'll make this a question instead: Do you think the museums that are free (and in London alone it's a fairly significant list) should charge for entry (regardless of whether they're charging citizens or overseas visitors)?

If your answer is no, we actually have no disagreement here and I have nothing more to add. If your answer is yes, then I've already laid out my argument in previous posts*... and I still have nothing more to add.


* Summary: free museums are a good thing, tourists are a good thing, and I don't object to paying <2% of my income tax towards the broad UK "culture" expenditure of which an even smaller fraction goes towards the upkeep of free museums

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm aware! That doesn't mean the free ones should join them. Jesus wept.

I was replying to your point about some visitors having to show ID.

I'll make this a question instead: Do you think the museums that are free (and in London alone it's a fairly significant list) should charge for entry (regardless of whether they're charging citizens or overseas visitors)?

I don't know... I think I'd like to see the accreditation scheme extended so that many more are free but I don't want to see that become a process where a particular type or view of history is forced on settings or interpretations.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm aware! That doesn't mean the free ones should join them. Jesus wept.

I'll make this a question instead: Do you think the museums that are free (and in London alone it's a fairly significant list) should charge for entry (regardless of whether they're charging citizens or overseas visitors)?

If your answer is no, we actually have no disagreement here and I have nothing more to add. If your answer is yes, then I've already laid out my argument in previous posts*... and I still have nothing more to add.


* Summary: free museums are a good thing, tourists are a good thing, and I don't object to paying <2% of my income tax towards the broad UK "culture" expenditure of which an even smaller fraction goes towards the upkeep of free museums

Free anything is a good thing and not really an argument for this specific government program. And again, it isn't free, it's paid for in the vast, vast majority, from the tax revenues of the citizens that inhabit the country. The vast majority of the benefit is likely in the urban areas where tourists congregate and museums tend to operate, so in some ways it's a transfer of wealth from citizen paying taxes in remote or rural areas to the big cities where the tourists spend most of their time.

I'm not a fan of "free" stuff so yeah, if it were up to me I'd charge everyone with the possible exception of schoolkids there on school trips since it's just one government agency putting money into another government agency. I adore user fees for many government provided services, including health care.

Charging overseas students more: They've made the choice to study at that institution rather than one in their own country or elsewhere. Those higher tuition fees are an acceptable part of that study, given those students may well return to their own countries to get a job rather than continuing to contribute to the economy of the country in which they studied.

Also, universities are private rather than national institutions and they can charge whatever they wish up to an amount capped by the government. Whether overseas students are charged more or less doesn't affect how much I pay in my taxes - or at least, not directly enough for it to make a blind bit of difference. Though given they're paying so much to study here, both in fees and by directly contributing to the economy by buying products and services, the least we can do is let them visit museums for free...

Most universities and colleges in in Canada are publicly funded and tuition rates are massively subsidized by the government. Their tuition fees absolutely affect how much I pay in taxes just as free museum entry affects how much you pay in taxes. Say someone made the choice to study there so higher fees are ok isn't an argument though. Someone makes the choice to be a tourist as well.

 

[homeforsummer]

I was replying to your point about some visitors having to show ID.

Unclear from the line of text you quoted, but thanks for clarifying.

I don't know... I think I'd like to see the accreditation scheme extended so that many more are free but I don't want to see that become a process where a particular type or view of history is forced on settings or interpretations.

For others to be "free" (now putting in quotation marks to approve Johnny, since it's a synonym for publicly funded in this instance) they too would have to be publicly funded. I can only assume, but I expect most museums that currently charge for entry are privately funded, and therefore charging makes sense as that's where they get their revenue from.

And again, it isn't free, it's paid for in the vast, vast majority, from the tax revenues of the citizens that inhabit the country.

Something I have repeatedly agreed with.

And something I've repeatedly said I see as being worth it, given the proportion that goes to funding museums is a fraction of less than 2% of my taxes.

The vast majority of the benefit is likely in the urban areas where tourists congregate and museums tend to operate, so in some ways it's a transfer of wealth from citizen paying taxes in remote or rural areas to the big cities where the tourists spend most of their time.

Economic lines are a bit hazy in the UK so the concept of richer urban areas and poorer rural areas doesn't really exist, and therefore the transfer of wealth you describe doesn't really take place. At least around where I live - and this is by no means unusual in the UK - rural areas tend to be more well-off than (certain areas of) urban ones. As of 2014, 83% of the UK population lived in urban areas, so the vast majority of the population are within easy reach of museums and the like anyway. (Also, probably worth pointing out that the UK is relatively small and has decent public transport, so nobody is really that far from a museum anyway).

I'm not a fan of "free" stuff so yeah, if it were up to me I'd charge everyone with the possible exception of schoolkids there on school trips since it's just one government agency putting money into another government agency. I adore user fees for many government provided services, including health care.

Noted - and since we disagree and I've already laid out my argument, I have nothing more to add on the matter.

Most universities and colleges in in Canada are publicly funded and tuition rates are massively subsidized by the government.

Different situation then - public funding is nearer a quarter here, and that's just on average (the university I attended made a huge amount of its money from property, rather than fees). The upshot is that around three quarters of university revenue is privately generated, and for overseas students who pay vastly more for their tuition, the percentage curve swings even further away from public funding and therefore makes even less difference to how much I pay in tax.

Education, for reference from the link I posted earlier, makes up around 12% of public expenditure in the UK. For avoidance of doubt, I'm perfectly fine with my taxes going towards that too.

Say someone made the choice to study there so higher fees are ok isn't an argument though.

Only if you ignore that the long-term financial benefits of education may not go back into the country that educated that person. Something I've now mentioned three times.

In contrast, while someone is a tourist, their tourism expenditure all goes (with the exception possibly of transport (flights, boats etc) to and from wherever they're visiting) to the country they're visiting.

 

[Famine]

Everyone in Britain confused simultaneously by a classic British dish that seems to have been retconned onto us by a foodie site:

 

[Liquid]

I mean, it does sound nice but it's something I have never, ever encountered.

Is Eater a North American website?

 

[TheCracker]

Ummm making me hungry. Not a delicacy i've come across before either.

Minced meat (in gravy, British not that weird American excuse for gravy) in a Yorkshire pud or in a pie crust, but not on toasted bread.

 

[Northstar]

Is Eater a North American website?

It would appear they are, they also seem to do a lot of clickbait articles and have apparently just launched a London site. So they probably did it on purpose in the hopes it would get attention and clicks.

 

[Liquid]

It would appear they are, they also seem to do a lot of clickbait articles and have apparently just launched a London site. So they probably did it on purpose in the hopes it would get attention and clicks.

It seems like they've slapped the meal together and called it "British" to pander to ignorant Britophiles in the US and Canada.

 

[Touring Mars]

On a related note, I discovered a few years ago that bolognese with toast is a real winner. I usually make enough for two dinners with some left over which I used to have for lunch the next day, but after two nights of spaghetti it called for something else, and hot buttered toast works a treat.

In other news, I am now officially a Krispy Kreme Konsumer.... no, wait...

 

[Sprite]

While I wouldn't eat that myself. I do eat Heinz tinned Spagbol on toast.

 

[mistersafeway]

On a related note, I discovered a few years ago that bolognese with toast is a real winner.

Huh, I've never tried it on toast. In a sandwich, though... so it definitely makes sense.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Different situation then - public funding is nearer a quarter here, and that's just on average (the university I attended made a huge amount of its money from property, rather than fees). The upshot is that around three quarters of university revenue is privately generated, and for overseas students who pay vastly more for their tuition, the percentage curve swings even further away from public funding and therefore makes even less difference to how much I pay in tax.

And that makes it exactly the same as the situation with museums, not different. Both are publicly funded institutions in this case but you're ok with foreigners paying dramatically higher prices for education in Canada for no logical reason I can see.

Education, for reference from the link I posted earlier, makes up around 12% of public expenditure in the UK. For avoidance of doubt, I'm perfectly fine with my taxes going towards that too. Only if you ignore that the long-term financial benefits of education may not go back into the country that educated that person. Something I've now mentioned three times. In contrast, while someone is a tourist, their tourism expenditure all goes (with the exception possibly of transport (flights, boats etc) to and from wherever they're visiting) to the country they're visiting.

In contrast, someone is a tourist for a day to a couple of weeks at most. Someone attending university is spending 4 entire years of their life making all their expenditures in a foreign country. It's hundreds of times more money than spent by a typical tourist. But you're ok with charging them dramatically higher tuition fees because after their education is over they might return to their home country? Don't tourists return to their home country as well? There's literally zero difference.

 

[TheCracker]

Someone attending university is spending 4 entire years of their life making all their expenditures in a foreign country. It's hundreds of times more money than spent by a typical tourist.

This does bring in a lot of money, even if a majority of students leave again after finishing their studies. In my city alone, the 8000 international students (mostly Chinese) bring in £204m per year (2013 figures). £105m from tuition fees and £99m from living costs. When adjusted to figure in the costs to the city - the increase on public services - it still comes to approximately £120m in additional income per year, which equates to £60,000 per student for a 4-year course. Not an insignificant amount at all.

 

[homeforsummer]

Don't tourists return to their home country as well? There's literally zero difference.

Tourists return to their home country with happy memories.

Overseas students (typically) return to their home country with qualifications that then go on to benefit that home country to a far greater degree than the few years of financial benefit for the country in which they studied.

If you can't see the difference in that, then I can't help you. Either way, we're done here.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Tourists return to their home country with happy memories.

Overseas students (typically) return to their home country with qualifications that then go on to benefit that home country to a far greater degree than the few years of financial benefit for the country in which they studied.

If you can't see the difference in that, then I can't help you. Either way, we're done here.

I can see the difference, I just don't think it's relevant. It really sounds like you're manipulating the economics and introducing irrelevancies to justify what boils down to, "I like this one I don't like that one".

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ummm making me hungry. Not a delicacy i've come across before either.

Minced meat (in gravy, British not that weird American excuse for gravy) in a Yorkshire pud or in a pie crust, but not on toasted bread.

Mince meat doesn't have meat in it, mince does.

And should be in a pud as tha reetly sez. If tha's got t'brass forrit.

 

[TheCracker]

Mince meat doesn't have meat in it, mince does.

And should be in a pud as tha reetly sez. If tha's got t'brass forrit.

If it was the mince pies version it would have said mincemeat

The picture in the original tweet clearly shows mince (meat minced) in a sauce.



...and now i'm hungry again.

 

[DK]

Am I the only one thinking of how much more hassle mince on toast must be to prepare compared to actual traditional options like beans?

I mean, I guess you could re-heat leftover mince from last night's spaghetti bolognese.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Overnight, Malcolm Turnbull met with the Queen. He's a staunch republican, but he has also described himself as an Elizabethan and says that he thinks most of us are.

Naturally, this has triggered the question back home: if we are Elizabethans under Elizabeth's reign, what will we be when Charles takes the throne? Charlesites? Chuckians? Chazists? Or will it be something completely different? When James I was king, his reign was referred to as Jacobean.