I could say you were wrong. I've seen more than just al jazeera state similar claims.
plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by 45% from 2025.
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
I could say you were wrong. I've seen more than just al jazeera state similar claims.
Fortunately I can back up my statement:
Royal Finances
How is the work of The Queen funded? How much does the Royal Family cost the tax payer each year? Does The Queen pay tax – and if not, why not? And do the Crown...
Financial reports 2022-23
The Royal Household today published its annual financial statement, the Sovereign Grant Report, for the financial year 2022-23.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 4,136
Why should the Crown Estate get such big profits? It is from offshore windfarms.
That money should be going straight to the government to benefit everyone, and not to our hereditary rulers.
Soldato
They only got 25% of it. Treasury got to keep 75% of the profit.
Yes but that is an anomaly for a few years as they want more funding for the Buckingham Palace refurbishment, it's usually supposed to be 15%.
Given the Treasury is supposed to top up any shortfall then it does beg the question re: what happens with a surplus and will the % be reduced back to 15% earlier than planned (currently planned to be reduced after 27/28).
I think you're muddling different things here, this explains it perhaps:
The Crown - Wikipedia
The monarch in that capacity (as a corporation sole) doesn't pay any tax, that would make no sense after all His Majesty's Treasury and His Majesty's Government belong to the crown just as the Crown Estate does.... the crown *is* the state and is paying profits to itself.
The profits from the Crown Estate pass to His Majesty's Treasury, 25% of these currently (usually 15%) are passed to the Monarch in their private capacity to fund the Royal Household.
The monarch in their private capacity isn't legally obliged to pay any tax either, though does (only partially) so voluntarily, for example, no tax is paid on crown estate income as it's used to fund their household but they also have private sources of income such as investments in the stock market on which they voluntarily pay CGT and income tax... they don't however voluntarily pay IHT on these.
There is also an income from the Duchy of Lancaster that is a bit more complicated as some of that is used to fund an income for other members of the Royal family (except for the Prince of Wales' family which has a separate income from the Duchy of Cornwall) and those other members of the Royal family pay tax on that income themselves (and have no special exemptions from taxation). AFAIK it's only on income from the Duchy that isn't used for official purposes that the monarch in a private capacity voluntarily pays income tax.
Last edited:
Oh that's OK then.
Caporegime
This is the very part that I don’t understand what you are saying. They are not funded in any way shape or form by the tax payer. Angellion has tried to explain this a million times. If someone gives you £1000 and you give them back £150, you are not funding them. They are funding you.
You are simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Caporegime
It is owned by the ruling Monarch. They cannot sell them but they are not public property.
Caporegime
I imagine there would be very very expensive legal battles over it and in the end some law firm in London would own it all. I don't know honestly. There may be provision for this somewhere in law or the agreement over it all.
In this day and age though you cannot just seize assets because you don't like someone as many in this thread seem to be suggesting.
Caporegime
I would wager more to the Windsors as they are a family asset. It would be something like a trust for someone who was unable to access it. It would still be theirs even if they legally cannot access it. So these assets would legally be the Windsors even if they cannot legally sell them.
If the monarchy was abolished it would be a big big shake up to all of these things that are predicated on them being the ruling royal family. Definitely an interesting subject.
Permabanned
Unless they're the wrong sort of Russians, of course.
Would also be interesting if future generations of that family decided to follow Harry, and not be "working royals". Could they keep their estates and castles and residences, if they wanted to step back and not perform any/as many state duties? Even if that's not particularly likely.
Man of Honour
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your desired outcome happens and inheritance is made illegal but only for families you dislike enough. So the state seizes assets owned by some families but not yours or any family on your allow list.
The state now owns all the assets previously owned by families you dislike enough to put them on your block list.
First issue is that the country saves nothing anyway because the trivial pocket change amount you're so bothered by pays for the expenses of having a head of state and having some old buildings. Which would, obviously, still be true in your favoured scenario. So at best the country might save a trivial amount, maybe possibly as much as a couple of million a year.
Second issue is that the government would sell off the assets to the lowest bidder or whichever company pays the best bribes. So the country would get at most a fraction of what the assets are worth as a lump sum and then get nothing because the company that bought the assets would evade tax. It sure as hell wouldn't be paying 85% tax, which is what the monarch pays on it. The value of the assets would be diminished as the company that bought the assets would run then into the ground for maximum short term profit, asset-stripping as much as possible. When it all fell apart, the country would bail it out. Which would cost much more than the pittance that it was sold for.
So the country would definitely be much worse off financially.
Your objection is ideological, not financial.
Permabanned
It'll be quite the novelty to have some white English living prominently in London soon, so don't knock `em 
You know you could lead by example by moving there, but you wont.It'll be quite the novelty to have some white English living prominently in London soon, so don't knock `em