The Royal Finances

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by Odette

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.

[TheTruth]

That doesn't look very good for the Royals. Even more when the UN started questioning their position.

[Warren]

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."

[Odette]

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.

[tommy1716]

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

[Odette]

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......

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

[tommy1716]

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

[Skydragon]

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?

[tommy1716]

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

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

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.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

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.

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

[COUNTESS]

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.

[Odette]

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.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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.

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.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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.

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

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.)

Originally Posted by Odette

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.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Odette

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.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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!

"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

[tommy1716]

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.