Talent Talk asked: ? s? of It? that time of year again. The upper part has submitted its annual reports that have indicated the deal at 5.3% and the cost of the royal family now the UK taxpayer a huge 66 pence a year. At a time when everything from mp to Russian tycoons are tightening their belts, you can imagine the chorus of disapproval from Hoxton issue to the Houses of Parliament when they learn that the cost of leading this company? now above £ 40m a year. However, we wonder if those responsible are being a po'duro. After all, the press has focused on only one side of the story, what? the cost of travel of the Royals. Ci? Franco gets them nowhere. Every company believes that its staff are paid more? and each considers the employee? of? the they? with reference to invariably worth more? their monthly paycheque. ? cos? here to talk to talent, we did a back of? of? of? of human capital? of? the envelope? BRITISH royal family, to see whether, from a financial perspective at least, the complaints are justified. On the one hand you have a column defined? of? the cost? of? of? of?. As we have seen, this comes at £ 40m a year. On this we should add some future costs of current that the figure did not take into account (for example urgent renovation work, most we never know quite how long will? Before there was another addition to the family, or the most defective, a divorce). What? i do not split the hair? s? the let? (no pun intended) and say that the real cost of travel of the Royals? ? 50 M Fr . a di?. Then we must consider the column of the intangible? of? the cost? of? of? of?. The intangible things are deceptive things, so bear with me, but there? without doubt that an institution that seems to glorify the past, an accident of birth, cos? as being synonymous with the numerous wars, massacres and injustice, carries with it an additional cost. The mark of shame on issue at that cost can be counted as missed opportunities, cos? as (most significantly) a feudal superstructure that some economists discuss destroy mobility? Social in the United Kingdom and creating wealth and assets? business. Tricky to measure, I mentioned, so that movement of ll? of? the we? rapidly above the defined benefit. The defined benefit include the income on goods that the royal family has spent over the condition (the Royals in turn gets paid by the civil list, above the famous). Il? t of? of doesn? media seems to mention this much, but the income passed on the Treasury by UK property the top? came to over £ 200m during the fiscal year of 2006/2007. Now, there? one or two people say that the? of? of? hey, il? s? of that? our land! il? of? of? but the legal situation? it? T. of? the isn?. And, if anyone let a discussion for the seizure of evidence of ownership? on behalf of the UK taxpayer, is open to doing this with hundreds of others that are hereditary, an action that would lead to a pi? great grab the land that the modern-day right Zimbabwe.So l? we can see from the first set, the royal family cost less than one quarter of what it is earning. Look? s? Let the? Articles of intangible income. Some of these are most defined than others, but at the top to sell their income to the condition in exchange for a guaranteed annual income, the royal family makes about 3,000 a year commitment. Some of these calls include commercial drivers to sign contracts (either earning the income tax requirement). The value of these deals can be followed by? s? of it? rather too takes time for the purpose of this blog. The real also open their living spaces for guests and arguably more attractive? tourists who reject the United Kingdom in addition to this, the tip of the spear of Royals a number of caritate?, making the caritate? established in Great Britain are particularly effective all'affrontare problems conservation poverty? and amplify their efforts to fundraising. In return, personal income of £ 700,000, the Queen gets all the way intrusion from Lunatics who breaks into his bedroom to smoke a cigarette rapidly to more attention? earlier that the tabloids have the pop to a casual look that as a branch in the entertainment industry. The phalanx of correpsondents and experts in the real card? certainly another thing intangible, bench? not sure if they have been counted as lle activity? or liabilities?. The human capital, since? I find them in future articles, are a fascinating subject and in many cases help to see people simply in pi? size that their cost. If we can be most effective intangible things, I hope this aids the ability? of? s? of people? to form perceptions and make decisions more? effective.
Powered by HI-RanK
Promotion 
No comments:
Post a Comment