The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 06-27-2008, 08:18 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odette View Post
On one hand 66p a year is nothing, on the other hand one wonders why they dip in the taxpayers' pockets if they have all those fortunes.
And this is the niggle here. Those of us not endowed with a palace or two are feeling the pinch and struggling to make ends meet, it doesn't look good for the Royals to be spending more than usual.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 06-27-2008, 08:34 AM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
That doesn't look very good for the Royals. Even more when the UN started questioning their position.
__________________

__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 06-27-2008, 10:02 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,372
Quotes from the press release:

"The money provided by the taxpayer to enable The Queen to fulfil her role as Head of State is equivalent to 66 pence per person in the country. This is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost and is 3.1% lower in real terms than it was in 2001.

Expenditure on Royal Travel, which will vary from year to year, also increased in response to the number of overseas visits undertaken at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and UK Trade & Investment.

Head of State Expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury's gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were 200 million in 2006-07."
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 06-27-2008, 11:00 AM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
I do not argue that they perform their official duties and the State should absorb their expenses for representing their respective countries. (This is not unique of course to the BRF.) However I wonder sometimes. The Royals and nobles amassed their fortunes by draining the resources of their countries and its possessions without paying any taxes of course. How did it come now that they expect their citizens to fund any part of their activities?
It is a purely rhetorical question since I do not pay a penny for any of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 06-27-2008, 11:09 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
For my own intrest I've worked out that the Prime Minster's office and work costs 29pence per person. This is based on the following article in the Times in 2007 which placed the cost of running the PM's office at 17.8million. I think its worth looking at to get a sense of comparison in some way.

The Times article Blair seeks a butler as taxpayers' bill for running No 10 trebles - Times Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 06-27-2008, 11:12 AM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
I would have loved it if I could get my hands on some statistics to tell me how much politicians in the US are costing each person in this country......
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 06-27-2008, 12:02 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Okay, I guess this needs to be explained again.

The Royal Family doesn't actually 'cost' the British taxpayer anything.

Back in the 18th century, it became clear that government spending--which came from the tresury of the Sovereign--was quickly outstripping what the sovereign could afford to spend. Accordingly, George gave the revenues from what is now known as the Crown Estate to the government, in return for payments (the Civil List) which supported the monarchy's official activities and expenditures.

This arrangement is renewed by convention at the Accession of every sovereign.

So: the Crown Estate is actually the property of the sovereign, but the revenues are turned over to the government, and Civil List (and Grant-in-Aid) payments are provided for the sovereign's official expenditures.

The Crown Estate turns over somewhere north of 100 million pounds annually, while the Civil List payments total around 20 million. Net cost to British taxpayers: zero.

For a starting point, I suggest reading the wiki page on the Civil List.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 06-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Well for the UK, using this article from the UK's Telegraph Cost of MPs' pay and expenses soars by 13m - Telegraph
I've worked out that in 2006 every person in the UK paid 2.16 to pay the costs of MPs' salaries and expenses.
On top of this one has to take into account the additional costs of MEP's and the cost of Welsh and Scottish AM's and MPs.
I know what id rather be paying for
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 06-27-2008, 04:31 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
A request by the Queen for millions of pounds for repairs to Buckingham Palace has been turned down by ministers because of the soaring costs of the 2012 Olympic Games.

Queen refused government grant because of 2012 Olympic Games - Telegraph
----------------------
I don't think 66p is a huge amount of my tax going to support HM, I do object to payments to Andrew, who doesn't appear to earn it, IMO!
----------------
It is worth reading the comments posted by taxpayers.
Do we get value for money from the Royal family?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 06-27-2008, 04:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Aparently the Royal Household is the only government department that has to pay VAT, the most recent accounts show that 2.6million is paid back to the Treasury.

The Queen costs every person in Britain 66 pence a year - Telegraph

Hardly seems fair to me
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 06-27-2008, 05:41 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy1716 View Post
Apparently the Royal Household is the only government department that has to pay VAT, the most recent accounts show that 2.6million is paid back to the Treasury.

The Queen costs every person in Britain 66 pence a year - Telegraph

Hardly seems fair to me
I get slightly annoyed about the cost of ceremonials, which HM does not pay for. I think the money would be better spent on the service men/women and their accommodation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 06-27-2008, 07:59 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
So: the Crown Estate is actually the property of the sovereign, but the revenues are turned over to the government, and Civil List (and Grant-in-Aid) payments are provided for the sovereign's official expenditures.

The Crown Estate turns over somewhere north of 100 million pounds annually, while the Civil List payments total around 20 million. Net cost to British taxpayers: zero.
The Crown Estate was only the property of the sovereign because the sovereign's ancestors had taken it from its previous owners, by "right of conquest" or other means. When William of Normandy defeated Harold in battle at Hastings and persuaded the witan to elect him king, he confiscated, for himself, the lands of all those who had fought against him and who were, therefore, in his eyes, guilty of treason. His acquisition of land did not occur all at once but eventually, with these confiscations and the introduction of the feudal system, William (before Hastings apparently known as William the Bastard) became supreme landowner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 06-27-2008, 08:42 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
I fail to see the point. Manhattan is only the property of the USA because the natives were cheated out of it. At some point, all property is theft, so you kind of have to give up going on about it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 06-27-2008, 08:54 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,468
The royal figures are shuffled about, so it looks cheap. There is plenty spent on pomp and circumstance, which come from the public coffers. The queen cried when the Britannia was retired, but she could well afford a yacht from her own pocket, yet she has never dipped in to buy one. When the public paid it was okay. The bigger issue than the land, is that that didn't pay taxes on any of their property real or monetary, until recently, which, of course, was the biggest "rip off". Even this soverign to soverign inhertiance, sloughs off any tax, from the people who can most afford it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 06-27-2008, 09:01 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
I do not know if I get off topic here but I remember reading that in contrast to the Queen Mum, the Duchess of Gloucester did not transfer her estate to her son while she was still alive, so he had to sell off some of his inheritance to pay off the tax man.
From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 06-28-2008, 01:10 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Even this soverign to soverign inhertiance, sloughs off any tax, from the people who can most afford it.
Actually, without tax-free sovereign-to-sovereign bequests, it's likely that it wouldn't be too long before the Royal Family was forced to sell off their properties. Death duties in the UK are astonishingly high, as you can see from how many aristocratic families have had to sell off their homes as soon as they inherit.

Quote:
From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.
Actually, the only people who receive any payments from the Civil list are HM and Prince Philip. The few others who receive payments (Anne, e.g.) have their payments repaid to Parliament by the Queen from her own private funds.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 06-28-2008, 03:03 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
The queen cried when the Britannia was retired, but she could well afford a yacht from her own pocket, yet she has never dipped in to buy one.
A yacht the size of Britannia would cost around 80 million pounds. Forbes estimates her net worth as being around 280 million pounds, and I doubt most of it is easily spendable, so I don't think she could easily afford one even if she did want to spend that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Okay, I guess this needs to be explained again.

The Royal Family doesn't actually 'cost' the British taxpayer anything.
The problem with that argument is that the Crown Estate is about as much the Queen's personal property as Buckingham Palace is. It's the property of Elizabeth the Sovereign, not Elizabeth the woman. In a republic, she wouldn't likely get either (as opposed to things like Balmoral, Sandringham, and the Duchy of Lancaster.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odette View Post
How did it come now that they expect their citizens to fund any part of their activities?
At least for the Queen, since she is a constitutional monarch, many of her activities are done on the advice of the government. Since they're sending her out to places like Slovenia to do their bidding (it's not really that sinister), it makes sense that things like that should be paid for by the state.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 06-28-2008, 03:19 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odette View Post
I do not know if I get off topic here but I remember reading that in contrast to the Queen Mum, the Duchess of Gloucester did not transfer her estate to her son while she was still alive, so he had to sell off some of his inheritance to pay off the tax man.
From what I know the only one who does not collect any civil list is the Prince of Wales who has the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. However I am not sure whether he pays any taxes on the income or not.
He does pay tax on his income, although the only people at the moment who are paid by the Civil List are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Prince of Wales - Does The Prince of Wales pay tax?

The Duchess of Gloucester's case was somewhat different; I believe the tax was levied on the Duke's estate but was postponed until the death of his widow, which is why the present Duke had to pay the tax after his mother's death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-28-2008, 05:46 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
The Duchess of Gloucester's case was somewhat different; I believe the tax was levied on the Duke's estate but was postponed until the death of his widow, which is why the present Duke had to pay the tax after his mother's death.
It is worked the same way for all spouses, the unfortunate thing is that it normally falls to the children to pay the IT and it is not cheap!
Quote:
"if your estate passes to your husband, wife or civil partner and you are both domiciled in the UK there is no Inheritance Tax to pay even if it's above the 312,000 nil rate band"
Inheritance Tax : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits
----------------------
The Queen is said to be furious at being forced to live a 'patch and mend' existence as her palaces crumble around her

On one's uppers! Down to her last 320m, a Palace official complains that the Queen has to 'patch and mend' | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-28-2008, 06:16 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
The reason for allowing tax free inheritances from soverign to soverign is to ensure that the monarchy can have independant wealth of their own so they do not have to come to rely on the State more, remeber that the Royal Family, unlike some other European Royals do not recive personal allowances with which they can do with as they wish. If, for example, there were two or three new soverign one after the other in rapid succession then the wealth of the royal family would dissapear given the high inheritance tax levels in the UK. Its for this reason that many of Britains great country houses have been goven over to the National trust or made into hotels etc. Without soverign to soverign tax exemption the monarch would need a personal allowance from the state and Sandringham and Balmoral would have to be sold off.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, 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
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 109 02-06-2014 06:00 AM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 64 07-27-2013 05:49 AM
Royals and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 384 09-28-2012 02:27 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Germany and Austria 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]