6 ms·

Who pays for this? Is it the British tax payer?

• londons_explore 6y ago
  Through the royal grant, yes. But it's notable that the royal estate directly earns more money for the taxpayer than the royal grant, so effectively this didn't cost the taxpayer anything.
  • irrational 6y ago
    Except, if the royal family didn't exist, wouldn't the same amount of money still be coming in, only now 100% of it would by used for the taxpayer's benefit (supposedly)?
    • djrobstep 6y ago
      Yes, ideology really seems to confuse people with stuff like this. By way of illustration, consider two scenarios: A: The government sends the Royal Family 100 million pounds directly, every year. B: The government via property law enforces the Royal Family's ownership over a property portfolio, allowing them to collect 100 million pounds a year in rent. Which of these "costs the taxpaper" and which doesn't? Many people will insist that A does, and B doesn't. But in fact, both A and B do "cost the taxpaper" much the same.
      • mjburgess 6y ago
        That isnt what "cost the tax payer" means. And 'A' is false. The government does not 'send' the family anything, it takes £200m from the profits of their assets and leaves them with £100m. If the government ignores property rights and seizes assets arbitrarily, the whole economy would collapse. There is no cost to the taxpayer anywhere.
        • djrobstep 6y ago
          Sadly, you are afflicted with exactly the ideology I'm talking about, which prevents you from thinking clearly. > The government does not 'send' the family anything, it takes £200m from the profits of their assets and leaves them with £100m. You are obviously unfamiliar with how it actually works. The revenues of the Crown Estate belong to the Treasury (aka, the government). On a regular basis, the Treasury makes a payment to the monarch personally equal to 25% of these revenues, because a law says they must. The government literally sends money directly, exactly as I said, and this represents a direct cost to the taxpayer, as I said. If they did not send this money, the taxpayer would be better off.
          • mariuolo 6y ago
            > The revenues of the Crown Estate belong to the Treasury Would said revenues remain the same, were the monarch to be taken out of the equation?
            • djrobstep 6y ago
              Yes, the Crown Estate is already administered by a public body that would presumably continue to operate much the same should the UK become a republic. Of course, the public would benefit immensely by no longer having to send a quarter of the revenue to the Queen personally.
            • pmyteh 6y ago
              Yes; the Queen's own (extensive) property would remain hers, but the Crown Estate would almost certainly remain with the state. It's a holdover from the days when there was little separation between the King's own money and the government's, and the King paid the expenses of government himself.
          • mjburgess 6y ago
            Right, so you're talking about the new civil list system; vs. taxes on their private assets. From the way you were speaking it seemed like you were just calling the private assets of the monarch their estate. If you mean the income provided here, then it is for the execution of the sovereign's duties, ie., all the staff; diplomatic costs, building costs, etc. You may be able to argue it would be less if we had another head of state, but i'd imagine the whitehouse spends a similar amount. (Likely, much more so, given the cost of presidental travel).
• bobby_bob 6y ago
  Not really. It's explained in excruciating detail here in the Sovereign Grant Framework Agreement[0], it is a grant of £85.9 million from Treasury. However, this amount is proportional to the value of Government revenue received from Crown Estates. This is in keeping with the agreement between King George III and Parliament to give up revenue from the then unprofitable Crown Lands (now more precisely termed The Crown Estate[1]) in return for a Government stipend. The Crown Estate (which is still "owned by" The Crown[2]) now makes £345 million a year[3]. In contrast, The Duchy of Lancaster and The Duchy of Cornwall and the Royal Collection are not funded by Government, and are instead funded by the Royal Family, or admissions/donations, for the later. [0] https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_grant_framework_agreement_2020.pdf https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_gra... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate [2] https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/ https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/ [3] https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_grant_report_2019-20.pdf https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_gra...
  • djrobstep 6y ago
    This is very misleading. Of course it costs the taxpayer. The government could simply stop handing over millions of pounds a year to these people if it wanted to. But it doesn't. This decision costs the taxpayer. Taking the logic further - all privately owned property and revenue "costs the taxpayer", relative to the public owning it instead.
    • mjburgess 6y ago
      The state could, by force, take anything from anyone. That it doesnt is your definition of a "cost" ? What people are concerned about is whether it is taxed income which funds this, and it isnt.
      • djrobstep 6y ago
        Taxed income does fund this - the sovereign grant payment is paid from government treasury, and is thus a cost to taxpayers.