[Closed] Pricing people out of national treasures to fund corporation tax cuts

Wheres the part about Wakehurst Place mostly being for trustees,

[i]101: In this context, the review team noted that Wakehurst Place, [u]excluding the Millennium Seed
Bank[/u], costs Kew about £2.2 million per annum. Given that Kew has to service some 375,000
National Trust Visitors who gain free admission, the National Trust’s annual payment of some
£80,000 represents a small contribution to Kew’s costs.

119: ...it is the review team’s view that it would be to both Kew’s
and to the National Trust’s advantage to negotiate now a new lease to replace the existing one.
Should such negotiations fail, then the review team believes that the costs to Kew of
maintaining a presence on the land it leases at Wakehurst Place cannot be justified, and that
Kew should mothball Wakehurst Place and plan an exit strategy[/i]

national trust members they must all be tories too.. add in the shot gun licence holders and all those who voted for them at the general election then theres precious few out there who arent tory..

and all those who voted for them at the general election then theres precious few out there who arent tory..

Doesn't mean we can't hunt them all down and kill them though.....

101: In this context, the review team noted that Wakehurst Place, excluding the Millennium Seed
Bank, costs Kew about £2.2 million per annum. Given that Kew has to service some 375,000
National Trust Visitors who gain free admission, the National Trust’s annual payment of some
£80,000 represents a small contribution to Kew’s costs.

119: ...it is the review team’s view that it would be to both Kew’s
and to the National Trust’s advantage to negotiate now a new lease to replace the existing one.
Should such negotiations fail, then the review team believes that the costs to Kew of
maintaining a presence on the land it leases at Wakehurst Place cannot be justified, and that
Kew should mothball Wakehurst Place and plan an exit strategy

It also says that Wakehurst is good value for money in terms of educational benefits. Renegotiating seems like a good idea - however that's not the main contributory factor that has led to the decline in Kews scientific output. Funding losses occured before Kew could renegotiate that contract.

scientific funding has taken a hammering in the last couple of years through direct cuts and the attack on universities, its no surprise that output is down

still at least cameron only has to pay 50 quid for his shotgun license so he can go and kill bambi etc

scientific funding has taken a hammering in the last couple of years through direct cuts and the attack on universities, its no surprise that output is down

Well, in the case of the DEFRA report linked above, it seems to suggest that the funding problem predates the last couple of years

[i]the quality of Kew’s substantial research base has diminished in recent years, largely because posts that have fallen vacant have remained unfilled through lack of funds. There has also been some diversion
of core research effort into income-generating activities[/i]

and that was in a DEFRA report dated [b]February 2010[/b] - before the election

Bastard Tories!

Which, the Tories are exasperating with even deeper cuts.

Typical tory politico =

[img] [/img]

we all know that nulabour were just torry-lite, just imagine the impact the coalition will have had now!

Lets remember that the period quoted is exactly when Kew found three million quid down the back of the sofa for an aerial walkway!

Maybe they could have spent their money more wisely?

For every £1 in tax collected by HMRC, 48p is spent in the collection of said tax.
I think savings could be made...

Where are you getting this from?

From [url= https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2012/05/cost-collecting-tax-barely-fallen-50-years.html ]the taxpayers alliance[/url] (who I wouldn't expect to be underestimating)...

[img] [/img]

which might be high from an international standpoint, but still...

[img] [/img]

Lets remember that the period quoted is exactly when Kew found three million quid down the back of the sofa for an aerial walkway!

Maybe they could have spent their money more wisely?

I should imagine they will need more of them when visitors start having to pay theme park prices to visit.

It's 20 odd quid already to get in, so they probably needed that to attract families looking at the brochure. If the government had properly funded the research and made the research the sole beneficiary of that funding, then they wouldn't have had to start looking for alternative income by turning into a shit theme park.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Which, the Tories are exasperating with even deeper cuts.

Typical tory politico =

Good, no visitors, more money for doing science

(I refer to the previous points about the lack of breakdown of costs/losses between science and provision of a tourist location)

Good to know you approach these things from a balanced standpoint.

It's right though. I went to private school, so I know the enemy from within. I can play a reactionary Tory or raging Marxist based on my experience of school and then university.

(I refer to the previous points about a breakdown of costs/losses between science and tourist facilities)

Do you not think that Kews original idea was to spend more on tourism so that it eventually recieved a boost in tourist based income. It might have been shortsighted but I doubt they should be blamed for trying, considering that the scientific world has been worried about substantial future cuts for a number of years.

I quite like the aerial walkway! must have had 100s of thousands if not millions of people on it by now, it seems like good value

It's right though. I went to private school, so I know the enemy from within.

No I'm not. I woz a token charity case (so that they could dodge tax).

If the budget for this area was cut, that could save close to £2bn. If funding to research councils was reduced by a similar proportion that could save an additional £1.5bn.

Similarly, if i didn't spend any money on food i'd save loads of money. But then i'd have no food.

Sorry assuming that the tradies would have had the sense to go limited (most I know have) any working together will do. I paid it for 4 years as a sole trader.

You either paid corporation tax, or you were a sole trader. If you were a sole trader you were paying income tax.

Sorry my bad it's been a few years, ltd company. It's sole trader over here in Oz where it's even more complicated