Tax Payers to spend £369m on one family

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,768
Location
Victoria OZ /Germany/UK
one either bulldozes or keeps the place up. It is part of the social fabric of the country. The Queen only lives in a small part of BP in the winter it would need massive blowers to get the rooms up to a sitting temp. Here in Germany the cost of keeping Schwerin Castle's golden roofs glinting in the sun and otherwise maintaining has been over 200million and it aint about to finish - but then its the most beautiful castle in Germany and probably the World. Course the family does not live there but in 'umble abodes where they 'umbly go about their business. It would be difficult to envisage London without Buck House!
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
[..] Here in Germany the cost of keeping Schwerin Castle's golden roofs glinting in the sun and otherwise maintaining has been over 200million and it aint about to finish - but then its the most beautiful castle in Germany and probably the World. [..]

That is a remarkably beautiful building. From some angles I think it's in the same league as the Taj Mahal. It's not a castle, though. It's a palace. From my quick look at the history there used to be a castle there, but the current building isn't a castle. That's not a defensive building.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
[..]
If the crown estate paid tax it wouldn't change much, the income goes to the treasury regardless. [..]

The crown estate currently gives 85% of its profit to the treasury.

If it paid tax instead, it would pay much less than 85% of its profit to the treasury.

The amount paid would reduce by at least £130 million per year.

No, all income from the crown estate goes to the treasury anyway. If it was liable for tax then it wouldn't change much.

Who is dead and has been for quite some time. The agreement he made was for himself, not binding on all his heirs forever. Subsequent monarchs, including the current one, chose and choose to give the profits from the crown estate to the treasury. They were and are entitled to keep the profits instead and pay tax on them.

in reality no, in theory she also chooses the PM, can dissolve the government and refuse to sign new bills from parliament - in reality she adheres to the results of elections and signs in new legislation as parliament wishes

She receives a sovereign grant as a result of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, this is set at an amount equivalent to 15% of the income from the crown estate. It certainly isn't her personal property to do with as she pleases, it belongs to 'the crown' not her personally.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
No, all income from the crown estate goes to the treasury anyway. If it was liable for tax then it wouldn't change much.

By choice. It does not belong to the treasury. If it was liable for tax then only the tax would go to the treasury. Which would be a significant reduction, i.e. a significant change. "The crown" is a legal concept similar to a corporation. The owner of it is the monarch. It's essentially the monarch wearing different hats. Same person, different legal entities. The queen is half a dozen different legal entities.

in reality no, in theory she also chooses the PM, can dissolve the government and refuse to sign new bills from parliament - in reality she adheres to the results of elections and signs in new legislation as parliament wishes

True, but not directly relevant to her choice to give income from the crown estates (a legal entity that she is legally the sole member of) to the treasury.

She receives a sovereign grant as a result of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, this is set at an amount equivalent to 15% of the income from the crown estate. It certainly isn't her personal property to do with as she pleases, it belongs to 'the crown' not her personally.

The crown estate doesn't belong to the queen personally, but it does belong to the monarch of the UK. Different hats, same person. Legally speaking, she's entitled to the income from it (less tax) because it belongs to a legal entity of which she is the sole member ("the crown").
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,768
Location
Victoria OZ /Germany/UK
That is a remarkably beautiful building. From some angles I think it's in the same league as the Taj Mahal. It's not a castle, though. It's a palace. From my quick look at the history there used to be a castle there, but the current building isn't a castle. That's not a defensive building.
No it was never a defensive building at least not this one. In the middle ages there was a defensive building on the island. This building was built as a palace designed by Georg Adolph Demmler in the 19th century prior to this the family had largely been living at Ludwigslust - a palace that has had many millions spent on its restoration - which is ongoing. In the grounds of which is a Swiss Chalet rather in the style of the Osborne House Chalet on the Isle of Wight which was visited by the family in their yacht particularly for Cowes Week. Mecklenburg is now very popular with tourists particularly them as what likes messing about in boats of every which sort . In the summer dragon races ( the Chinese type ones) are held on the lake by the Palace- I have just put my boats away for the winter - still there is ice sailing if the lakes freeze suitably. Oh also check out the Redefin Stud which was rebuilt around 1800 -again subsidized with millions
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
By choice. It does not belong to the treasury. If it was liable for tax then only the tax would go to the treasury. Which would be a significant reduction, i.e. a significant change. "The crown" is a legal concept similar to a corporation. The owner of it is the monarch. It's essentially the monarch wearing different hats. Same person, different legal entities. The queen is half a dozen different legal entities.

by an act of parliament. I didn't say it belonged to the Treasury, I said all the income from it goes to the treasury.

again she also 'chooses' to appoint the prime minister - in reality the current PM is the leader of the party who gained the most seats in a democratic election and was voted for by party members, she chooses to sign in laws - in reality she signs what she is told to

an no, given that all income goes to the treasury and that tax would go to the treasury then paying tax would make no difference. What would make a differences is if the queen chose to ignore an act of parliament and demand the revenue be paid to her - but the idea of her actually using any of her powers in that way is very unrealistic and would trigger a constitutional crisis

True, but not directly relevant to her choice to give income from the crown estates (a legal entity that she is legally the sole member of) to the treasury.

The crown estate doesn't belong to the queen personally, but it does belong to the monarch of the UK. Different hats, same person. Legally speaking, she's entitled to the income from it (less tax) because it belongs to a legal entity of which she is the sole member ("the crown").

Legally speaking she isn't, I quoted the act of parliament for you - she's legally speaking entitled to the sovereign grant.

She could perhaps change this arrangement in the same way that she could perhaps sack the PM and call a new election on a whim but realistically.... no. However at the moment, 'legally speaking', it is the treasury that is entitled to crown estate income and the Queen is entitled to a sovereign grant equivalent to 15% of this.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Sep 2012
Posts
11,696
Location
Surrey
Whether it was the royal family or tourists in there, i dont think the price would change. It would also be considerably less prestigious if there was no royalty.

I think the standard line a parent says to a kid about the palace is: 'Thats BHK, the queen lives there'
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2007
Posts
4,137
Location
Newcastle
Which affects me how?

Just because someone hasn't physically knocked on your door and handed you a wedge of cash doesn't mean it hasn't affected you. The money they pay goes to fund things like the NHS, public services etc. Without the income we'd have to find the money elsewhere (ie higher taxes).
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Feb 2003
Posts
29,636
Location
Chelmsford
so does the rest of the world that come here to see them. 369 million over 10 yeas to sort out one of the most iconic and historical buildings in the lands to ensure that it doesn't get razed to the ground by a dodgy electrical fault is a relatively small price to pay.


I agree .. I'd rather £367M spent of an international attraction that spending £55 Billion on HS/2..
 
Back
Top Bottom