It's no secret that many countries prefer a Monarchy as head of state vs something like a president. The same reason many countries actually brought back their monarchy (e. g spain).
Looking at the UK vs US head of State
The Queen Vs Obama
Which is more Cost effective?
- Obama costs more than all the previous presidents (Obama costs US tax payers 1.4 billion dollars a year vs 1 billion for Bush) but overall the US presidents have always cost more.
- Obama costs the US 20 times the amount of the British Royal Family at 1.4 billion vs the Royal family that costs UK tax payers $60 million a year
- Obama has a personal manned movie theatre with 24 hour workers there to provide cinema on demand
- Obam's dog "Bo" costs the US tax payer thousands of dollars a year. His personal dog handler alone receives $100,000 a year.
- Obama's election campaign cost upwards of 3 billion.
- Obama's personal caretaker receives $400,000 a year.
- OBama's personal Air force one aircraft costs 200,000 per hour (vs the British prime minister that takes regular flights amongst the passengers)
- The Queen brings in 1.1 billion USD a year into the UK economy meanwhile costing less than 0.56 pence a person to maintain.
Most Helpful Girl
Lol, the UK is not a monarchy. I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with this question.3
Most Helpful Guy
1. Don't forget about the fact, that Her Majesty Queen, owns land. She's making a lots of money by renting. All those money goes to the UK treasury. It's because of agreement between Royal Family and government.
2. All money she gets for representation etc from the government, aren't enough to cover all expenses. So part of that, she must cover by herself. Few years ago she made a request to get more money for representing. ( it's include wages for staff in Westminster and many other things). This request has been refused by the UK government.0