4 ms·
The UK Queen (or her managers) invested in an offshore fund, which for UK tax purposes was tax transparent. That meant the fund itself did not pay taxes, but ta
by charlesdm 8y ago
The UK Queen (or her managers) invested in an offshore fund, which for UK tax purposes was tax transparent. That meant the fund itself did not pay taxes, but tax was paid "in personal name" on any gains.
This results in an outcome which would've been exactly the same as if she had directly made the investments in her personal name. Meaning: a whole lot of talk about nothing by people who are clueless about tax matters.
These kinds of arrangements are not the problem. Neither is Emma Watson purchasing a property through an offshore company for privacy reasons.
The problem is autocrats siphoning off billions from their local economy and hiding it through layers of shell corporations across the world, which are not limited to just companies based in offshore tax havens.
- mikekchar 8y agoDoes the UK queen pay taxes in the UK? I'm pretty sure the royal family was exempt at one point, but I haven't followed it for a long time. I think they actually receive funds from the tax payer.
- jhayward 8y agoShe voluntarily pays taxes on her personal income, although as Sovereign she is constitutionally exempt. She also donates all of the income from Crown holdings to government, as I recall. Most of the complainers about the royal family being taxpayer supported don't realize what a bargain the UK gets, they make a lot of money from HMTQ.
- jacobush 8y agoAlthough I expect some of them complain because they want the whole institution of monarchy abolished. Personally, I find it quite interesting how several European monarchies within themselves managed to "strike a bargain" between old vested interests (the Crown) and commoners such that probably revolution was averted - and that this "power balance" lives on to this day.
- bmer 8y agoWhere are you getting this from? Here's an article, from a reputable news organization: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-... More recently: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/queen-spend-mushrooming-pay-revenue-estate https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/queen-...
- jhayward 8y agoYou would do far better to just read the well-source Wiki page [1] rather than a couple of opinion screeds from anti-monarchists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
- bmer 8y agoThanks for pointing me to well sourced wiki article, as it mostly confirms the couple of opinion screeds from anti-monarchists. See reference 5 (I'll assume you know where it comes up): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5123580.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5123580.stm, for what was happening before the Sovereign Grant Act. See then the article on the Sovereign Grant, which carefully mentions that the Sovereign Grant is just a small part of the total cost of the monarchy. Note also that the same article mentions that the Royal Family also has private income which is undisclosed, separate from the Sovereign Grant. Here's another article from a source without a conflict of interest, as provided by the wiki article you linked me to: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/581000/Royal-family-financial-review https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/581000/Royal-family-fin... Note that: * the Royal Family was receiving increases in funding, when austerity measures were otherwise being implemented in the UK * the total annual cost of the Royal family is around £300m Russell Brand has a pretty good video on this shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyj_9sIOPzU&t=235s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyj_9sIOPzU&t=235s But I bet you consider him to be just another one of these godless anti-monarchists...
- charlesdm 8y ago