3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoTaxed income does fund this - the sovereign grant payment is paid from government treasury, and is thus a cost to taxpayers.
- ponker 6y agoThe UK treasury is formally Her Majesty's Treasury, and the sovereign grant paid to her is actually a small portion of the money she puts in through the Crown Estate. So she is a net donor to the treasury, although she gets a major out in that the Crown Estate is not subject to inheritance tax.
- djrobstep 6y agoThe Queen does not "put in" the Crown Estate revenue, that revenue belongs to the government all along. The law is quite clear on this.