4 ms·
You list that as two separate things. We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements. T
by lotsofcows 13y ago
You list that as two separate things.
We don't directly finance the royal family although various members get paid very well for various public engagements.
Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. The tax arrangements with the royal family reflect the unique position as de facto holders of much UK "public" property. This is being sorted out with the separation of Crown Property and the various family member's private property and the definition of state / private events. As this is resolved, the royal family take on a greater tax burden. The Queen has been paying income tax for decades.
People seem to separate the Royal Family from other rich and powerful people in the country. They all got there the same way, playing the game of capitalism (in which inheritance / nepotism is inherent)) better than us. If the UK dropped its monarchy, these people wouldn't just disappear. They would still be massively rich. They would still, fortunately, act as a tourist magnet (although probably to a lesser degree). They would still be plastered all over the papers.
And we'd probably end up replacing them with some voted in leader to the 2nd house. Cue more politicians and even worse media frenzy. Woot!
- shellac 13y agoNo, 'evasion' implies breaking the law. I think the parent was referring specifically to Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall's curious tax affairs. As you say, the rest of the rest pay tax.
- lotsofcows 13y agoI was going to say that in the UK the two are the same, however it seems we have adopted the USAian usages. Apparently, my knowledge of tax law is stuck in the 70s...
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Tax avoidance implies breaking the law. At least in US usage it doesn't. Tax avoidance specifically is not breaking the law, whereas tax evasion specifically is breaking the law.