4 ms·

The 20 million could have been used to help many more people than a single family though. But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money

• hilbert42 1y ago
  "But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money" How does that work (I'm not in the the UK)? Donations perhaps?
  • turbotim 1y ago
    From the article: “ The Virgin and Child with Saints Louis and Margaret and Two Angels was bought for just over $20m (around £16m at the time), funded by the American Friends of the National Gallery London.”
    • OJFord 1y ago
      Regardless of where it came from this time, it's a charity, not some sort state gallery department funded by the treasury.
• bruce511 1y ago
  It will be dispersed to more thsn a single family. That's the point. In this case specifically it's unlikely the family sold an asset simply to buy another asset. They've had it a few hundred years, and the gallery has had their eye on it for decades. It's likely they sold it cause they needed the cash, for a new roof or whatever. If they spend it, then those people providing the goods and services will prosper. If they invest it in a business, then that business has capital to grow, and all those employees will benefit.