The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #141  
Old 11-29-2017, 03:51 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post
Was Beatrix taxed on it after her abdication?

(I know there was a lot of talk just upthread about taxation, but I admit my head is swimming from all the detail and I didn't retain much of it)
The members of thr royal family all fall under the normal taxation regime for two exceptions:

- the state incomes to the present, the future and the former King (and their spouses) is a netto income, so no taxation

- inheritances by the King and gifts to the King are excluded from taxation

On itself there was no reason for Princess Beatrix to donate the Royal Domain De Horsten to her eldest son. Like Beatrix herself, or like her mother, or her grandmother, or her great-grandfather, etc. also her son Willem-Alexander could have inherited De Horsten without any taxation.

The lawmaker has thought that the private properties of the King are often "subservient to a proper functioning of the kingship and for the exection of the royal dignity". When generation after generation the art collection, the jewels, the carriages, the palace inventories are taxed, and taxed, and taxed, this would damaging the functioning of the monarchy.

That danger is actually prevented by Queen Juliana when she placed all historic and/or important valuables of the House Orange-Nassau in special foundations. As a foundation is no natural person, it can not die and it has no heirs. So inheritance rules and succession taxes are avoided and the valuable historic collections are kept together for generation after generation. Princess Catharina-Amalia knows that she will have the use all jewels of her great-grandmother Queen Wilhelmina already used: nothing is lost, nothing is diverted to uncles or nephews or cousins.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-29-2017, 06:29 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 19,022
Thanks for the update, I missed the news.

The press says that the value of the land is estimated at 25 million euros. But on further reading it seems they used the average price of land in the province of Zuid Holland to calculate the total value. The price in Wassenaar -one of the poshest areas of the country- must be much higher. They also did not include the value of the buildings that are located on the estate.

The press has not speculated about the reasons. I suppose the princess may think that in today's volatile political climate the tax/inheritance laws of the king are not set in stone?
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-29-2017, 07:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
Thanks for the update, I missed the news.

The press says that the value of the land is estimated at 25 million euros. But on further reading it seems they used the average price of land in the province of Zuid Holland to calculate the total value. The price in Wassenaar -one of the poshest areas of the country- must be much higher. They also did not include the value of the buildings that are located on the estate.

The press has not speculated about the reasons. I suppose the princess may think that in today's volatile political climate the tax/inheritance laws of the king are not set in stone?
If they are written in the constitution though, it should be rather difficult to change them, shouldn't it
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-29-2017, 11:31 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Yes, the exemption is written in the Constitution and indeed for sensible reasons. When King after King after King, again and again is taxed for something like a Glass State Carriage (picture), then the reflex is to sell it and put it away in a museum, as they are eating away private fortune (while it is only used for the execution of a public function).

Even when Parliamentarians are guests at at State Banquet in the Royal Palace Amsterdam (state owned), they can sit on furniture which is owned by the family, or eat from fabulous gold-, silver, porcelain- and crystalware privately owned by the family (and safely placed in a foundation). It is -for all parties- the best that this exemption exists for the head of state since he is in the unique circumstance to be born into a public office anyway and has no other choice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-29-2017, 12:05 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Now that the King privately owns the Royal Domain De Horsten (picture), we may be fairly sure that the Princess of Orange will have her future private house in Villa De Eikenhorst (picture) on that domain indeed.

Maybe this means that Drakensteyn, the privately owned estate of Princess Beatrix near Utrecht (picture), will become the future residence of Prince Constantijn.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-30-2017, 04:19 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Now that the King privately owns the Royal Domain De Horsten (picture), we may be fairly sure that the Princess of Orange will have her future private house in Villa De Eikenhorst (picture) on that domain indeed.

Maybe this means that Drakensteyn, the privately owned estate of Princess Beatrix near Utrecht (picture), will become the future residence of Prince Constantijn.
Fantasy,not sure yet at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-30-2017, 05:23 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
Fantasy,not sure yet at all.
I used the word "maybe". And it is not so far-fetched. The Princess has two sons. We may assume she loves both to bits, equally. The one son gets the Royal Domain De Horsten in Wassenaar. So maybe (there is the word again) Prince Constantijn will get the lush, green and romantic estate Drakensteyn in the province Utrecht?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-02-2017, 05:38 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 19,022
In October 2016 RTL reported that there was a 'secret' tax deal between the royal family and the state in the 1970s. It was agreed that the monarch would not have to pay tax over his/her private fortune. The deal was reached as the funding for the RF had been insufficient and for years the RF had to use money from their private fortune to meet the functional costs of the monarchy.

On the request of the prime minister a commission of historians was set up to research the matter and yesterday they published their findings in a report of 296 pages.

The chairwoman of the committee, Carla van Baalen denied that the deal was secret. The matter was discussed in parliament by prime minister de Jong. The state wanted to prevent that the royal family had to pay for functional costs from their own fortune. This had the benefit of giving the state more control of the expenditures of the head of state. Van Baalen noted that there was little interest in parliament for the deal.

The prime minister has called the research 'thorough'. Political parties have responded positively, though some used the opportunity to stress that they would like to see the king pay tax over his income.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2205444-geen-...belasting.html
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-02-2017, 05:51 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807


I think there is a fault in your post: in the 1970's it was actually agreed that the monarch and the members of the royal family would pay taxes over their private income.

Yesterday I was irritated because the reporter of the NOS Journaal stated that "de Oranjes" pay no income taxes (wrong: the King, his spouse and Princess Beatrix get netto incomes from the State, all other members of the royal family pay normal taxes) and that "de Oranjes" pay no inheritance- and gift taxes (wrong: only inheritances by the King and gifts to the King are free of taxes, all other members of the royal family fall under normal tax regime).

It is this sloppy reporting that confirms the widespread idea that "alle Oranjes" (including the De Bourbon de Parmes, the Van Vollenhovens and the Guillermos) receive a state income, live for free and pay no taxes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-20-2017, 03:58 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Yesterday, in the Second Chamber (Lower House) there was a reading and a debate about Chapter 1 of the State Budget 2018: "The King".

- Recently a commission has deeply investigated how -in the end of the 1960's and the first years of the 1970's- the State agreed with the current Financial Statute for the Royal House, which regulates the financial arrangements. There were rumours that the royal family would have made secret deals, like a compensation, for the fact that they had to pay taxes on their private wealth. The Commission came to the conclusion, in a 300-pages long report, that there was no ground for these rumours: the royal family pays taxes and there are no "deals" with the Tax Revenue Service. So the Second Chamber had no more questions about that.

- the restoration of Huis ten Bosch Palace (see picture) has -again- become more expensive. It is now apporoaching the mark of 70 million Euro (and that while the already expensively restored Oranjesael, is no part of this restoration). The Prime Minister directed the questions to the Minister who has the State Real Estate Agency in his portfolio and remarked "that lessons will be learned for the coming massive restoration of the Inner Court complex" (which houses the Parliament - see picture).

- For years the Socialist Party and D66 (progressive liberals) have requested the Government that the King, Queen Máxima and Princess Beatrix should pay income tax over their state income. (They get a netto income, without taxation, as is regulated in the Constitution). Now D66, who is part of the majority coalition, has ended their attempts to change this. Reason: it needs a change of the Constitution (2/3rd majority in two different elected Parliaments) and there is no any realistic prospect to obtain that majority.

- for the rest no upheaval over the costs for the De Groene Draeck, the royal airplane, the King's properties in Greece and Argentina or the future income of Princess Amalia (who will get 1,5 million Euro a year in 4 years time).

All by all an easy ride for the Prime Minister.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-20-2017, 04:38 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 19,022
Although I am not a great fan of the prime minister, I have to admit that he has the rare gift of making any ride seem easy. But this one seems to be genuinely easy now D66 changed its tune.

IMHO it was a discussion "voor de bühne" as the whole proposal made no sense. I suppose the topic was also conveniently eclipsed by two other small scandals of yesterday: the D66 leader receiving an apartment from a diplomat and Wilders & his troubles in Rotterdam.

Thanks for providing a summary, Duc.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-20-2017, 05:53 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 10,341
Has the restoration of the palace been left for too long or have there been problems?

I think it's a silly demand that the royals should pay income tax. Of their private investments and personal fortune, that's fair enough. But are they suggesting the royals should pay income tax of the money they get from the state? - Because that only means that amount will have to be increased proportionally.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-20-2017, 06:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Has the restoration of the palace been left for too long or have there been problems?

I think it's a silly demand that the royals should pay income tax. Of their private investments and personal fortune, that's fair enough. But are they suggesting the royals should pay income tax of the money they get from the state? - Because that only means that amount will have to be increased proportionally.
That is indeed what the Prime Minister says: at the one had the State gives a bruto amount and then it takes back taxes but then there will be endless hassling about taxt deductions: "Are the costs for Princess Beatrix' hairdresser deductible or not?" Etc.

Add to this: the King, Queen Máxima, Princess Beatrix and Princess Amalia can not get disability benefits, unemployment benefits, sick leave, a pension, name it all. They are simply incomparable with "normal" Dutch women and men.

The argument of the Socialist Party and D66 always was: "Everyone has to pay income taxes. To stress that, it would be a symbolic statement that also the King pays taxes, like everyone."

I must say, the idea is good, but the practical consequences are complicated. Another problem is that the general public thinks that "the royal family" (the brother of the King, his aunts, his cousins, etc.) "do not pay taxes" which is really not true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-20-2017, 06:55 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 10,341
Thank you for your reply.

And you are right. The various tax-deductions would IMO cause only more criticism. It's better as is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-20-2017, 10:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
The almost 300 pages long report "Het inkomen van de Koning" (the King's income) is in Dutch, via this link.

A summary:

1795
The Orange-Nassaus were forced into exile after the shockwaves of the French Revolution also reached the United Provinces. The new "Batavian Republic" confisquated the palaces and domains Het Loo, Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch and other domains and properties of the princely family.

1813
Prince Willem-Frederik of Orange-Nassau, the son of the last Stadtholder, became the Soeverein Vorst (Sovereign Prince) of the Netherlands.

1814
The "Constitutional Assembly" wanted to establish in the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the King should get an annual income of 1 million guilders "to maintain the resplendance of the Crown".

The Sovereign Prince however wanted to see an arrangement in which the domains, palaces and other properties which were confisquated in 1795 were involved.

For some reasons it was not practical to return the confisquated properties immediately and the "Constitutional Assembly" agreed that the King then would receive 1,5 million guilders as an annual income plus the right to request for a return of confisquated properties, which then would be re-calculated in the annual income.

(1,5 million guilders in 1814 contributes with 11,3 million Euro today - caculator).

1815
The Southern Netherlands and the Northern Netherlands were united. The King also became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Because of this the arrangement was raised to 2,4 million guilders. This corresponds with 17,7 million Euro today.

1822
King Willem I lifted the option for a return of the confisquated properties. The King accepted the return of certain domains in private ownership, as a result his annual state income was re-calculated with 500.000 guilders lower (to 1,9 million guilders). The income which these returned properties would generate formed the King's private income. The King used this new private income to invest heavily in new upcoming industries, at one side to improve the country's economy and at the other side in hoping to make good rendements on his investments.

1830
The rebellion of the Southern Netherlands led to the foundation of Belgium. (The Netherlands would only recognize the new state in 1839). By his own initiative the King lowered the annual income to 1,5 million guilders. This corresponds with 14 million Euro today).

1840
The Constitution was adapted after the definitive loss of the Southern Netherlands. The annual income of 1,5 million guilders, as set by the King in 1830, was now also written in the Constitution.

1848
The Constitution was completely changed: the absolutist monarchy disappeared, the parliamentary democracy arrived. The arrangements for the income of the King were drastically changed:
- the annual income was lowered from 1,5 million to 1 million guilders (this corresponds to 10,5 million Euro today)
- the King handed over the in 1822 returned domains to the State to establish the "Crown Domains"
- however no longer the factual owner, the King would enjoy the ownership rights of the Crown Domains
- the revenues from the Crown Domains would be seen as an additional income next to the annual State income (that is why the King accepted the lowering of annual the State income).
- at every accession of a new King, the States-General (Parliament) would establish a new annual income. This annual income then would remain unchanged for the whole Reign, to prevent annual (inconvenient) discussions in Parliament.

1849
Only one year after the drastic changes in the Constitution, King Willem II died. According to the new rules in the Constitution, the States-General had to establish an annual income for King Willem III. Because of the country's financial problems, the annual amount was set to 600.000 guilders, much lower than the 1 million guilders set a year earlier. This corresponds to 6,6 million Euro today.

1890
King Willem III died. The annual income for the new (underaged) Queen Wilhelmina remained unchanged on the annual amount which was set in 1849, namely 600.000 guilders a year.

1918
A new Constitution was needed because all adult citizens, both male and female, were given the right to vote and to be elected. The Government took this opportunity to propose change in the annual income. This was 600.000 Euro since 1849, meaning it has not been changed for almost 70 years (!).

600.000 million guilders in 1849 corresponds with 6,6 million Euro today.
600.000 million guilders in 1918 corresponds with 4 million Euro today.

So effectively in 1918 Queen Wilhelmina was 2,6 million poorer in annual purchasing power than her father King Willem III in 1849.

The Government proposed an annual amount of 1,2 million guilders for Queen Wilhelmina. And indeed, after a lot of discussion, the annual income for the Queen was set on 1,2 million guilders. This corresponds with 7,8 million Euro today).

1938
The Government found it no longer workable that the annual income of the King could only be vested at the start of each Reign. King Willem III started in 1849 and would reign for 41 years. In 1938 Queen Wilhelmina was in the 48th year of her Reign.The general standard of living had drastically improved, the annual inflation and pay rises were high. All this time it was impossible to adapt the income of the King. The Government proposed that no longer the income of the King was set by the start of each Reign but would be set via the annual State Budget. The States-General agreed.

1949
It became clear that the costs of the pensions of the retired staff were "eating" into the private fortune of the Queen. The States-General agreed with a proposal of the government to donate 7 million guilders as a contribution into a Foundation Pensions for the retired staff of the royal household, part of the general pension fund for the civic service. Queen Juliana would also donate into that Pension Fund. Argument: the staff of the royal household could not be considered to be "private personnel" as they were also subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function, which is the kingship. It was "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of an office of state.

1945-1960
The same argument for the retired staff of the royal household, was also used for the current staff, for the costs of transportation, for the security, for foreign travels, for the reception of (foreign) dignitaries. All these costs were subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function. Also here it was seen as "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of her official duties. So more and more costs were diverted to various departments like Foreign Affairs, Defence, the Interior, etc.

1952

The annual amount was raised from 1,2 million to 1,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 5,4 million Euro today).

1961
The annual amount was raised from 1,5 million to 2,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 7,2 million Euro today).

1966
The annual amount was raised from 2,5 million to 5,2 million guilders (this corresponds to 12,3 million Euro today).


1966-1972
In the 1960's the Netherlands had it's own Wirtschaftswunder, an economic boom. The wages and the prices spiralled. The Welfare Society made it's entrance. A giant gas field was found in the North-East of the Netherlands, resulting in an immense cashflow of billions.

The royal finances, despite the regular raises, lagged behind. More and more the Queen had to fill the gaps in her budget with private money. This was "undesireable" and also not sustainable as this would erode end exhaust the private wealth of the Queen. The Queen was no "ordinary Mrs" it was generally expected that she would live in a certain state, that "the resplendance of the Crown" was maintained.

1972
After a long process the current Financial Statute for the Royal House was approved:
- the King
- the future King
- the former King
(and their eventual spouses) receive an individual income from the state

These annual incomes have two components:
- a private income
- a functional income (to cover the costs for the execution of the royal dignity)

These annual incomes are indexed with the general pay rise for civil servants.

The costs of the palaces would remain with the State.

The State pays for the royal household, for the transportation, for the security, for representation, for communication: with other words, the whole execution of the royal function is financed by the State.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-20-2017, 10:07 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,807
The Crown Domain
Kroondomein 1 belonged to the State (given by King Willem II in 1848) and existed in an investment portfolio as well 11.389 hectare of domains. Part of this domain included the Rentambt Het Loo (3.260 hectare, see Kroondomein 2). The King had the pleasure to receive the revenues.

Kroondomein 2 was given by Queen Wilhelmina to the State in 1959. It held the Rentambt Het Loo (3.260 hectare, already in use as part of Kroondomein 1) and 6.736 hectare of other lands bordering Kroondomein 1.

In 1959 Queen Wilhelmina donated Kroondomein 2 to the State under the stipulation that also here the King would have the pleasure to receive the revenues, alike for Kroondomein 1.Special remainder to this gift: in case of a republic, the State would return these domains to the royal family (or give a financial compensation).

These Crown Domains suffered losses in the 1960's, mainly because the royal forestry did cost more than it generated. Kroondomein 1 (the gift of Willem II) could compensate the losses with the revenues of their investment portfolio. Kroondomein 2 (the gift of Queen Wilhelmina) had no revenues from an investment portfolio to compensate for the losses. In fact Queen Juliana (in good times the reveiver of revenues) had to fill the gaps, year after year (around 500.000 guilders per year).

The State (the owner of the Crown Domains after all) was responsible. The Department of Finances suggested that the State would dissolve Kroondomein 1 and compensate the Queen for the loss of the revenues from that Domain. From the sources around Queen Juliana came the suggestion to dissolve Kroondomein II as well. The idea was that Staatsbosbeheer (the State Forestry Service) would purchase Kroondomein 1 and Kroondomein 2. It would become normal nature reserves under the management of Staatsbosbeheer. Queen Juliana would be compensated for the loss of the usufruct and revenues of these domains.

It was all more complicated than thought: it needed a change of the Constitution to get the Crown Domains out of the income of the King, which would require lenghty parliamentary readings and all the floodlights full on the incomes and wealth of the royal family. Inside the royal family there was also opposition against the willingness of Queen Juliana to dissolve Kroondomein 2 (opposition by Prince Bernhard).

Another complicated factor was that in Kroondomein 1 (the gift of Willem II in 1849) was the Rentambt Het Loo (a substantial part of that domain and included in the gift of Queen Wilhelmina of Kroondomein 2 in 1959) and it was all so entangled and complicated.

Finally in 1972 (together with the new Financial Statute of the Royal House) Kroondomein 1 became fully a "normal" State Domain (so no longer with revenues for the King). Kroondomein 2 (the gift of Queen Wilhelmina) was not sold, instead the management was optimalized, the processes were modernized and the perfomance improved. The revenues are used for the maintenance of the domain. Since then Kroondomein 2 is solid. (The resistance of Prince Bernhard against drastic plans by Queen Juliana worked here, we may say).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
finances


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Dutch Calendar purple_platinum Dutch Royals 143 01-28-2018 08:06 AM
Retrospective of the Dutch Royal Family Tina Dutch Royal History 79 01-08-2009 05:20 AM
The Royal Family of The Netherlands, Current Events 1 (June 2003 - May 2006) Alexandria Current Events Archive 213 05-05-2006 10:31 AM




Popular Tags
antony armstrong-jones birthday books british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess elisabeth crown princess victoria current events denmark emma family fascism general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín james bond kate king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy monarchy versus republic news prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar prince philip princessanne princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria pyrmont queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margerthe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen silvia queen sofia shaikh zayed bin hamdan bin zayed al nahyan spanish royal family events state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises