I see the Queen is getting a 5% rise in pay... So much for "We're all in this together "
Since the rise is coming from profits from the Crown Estate, it is coming at no cost to the taxpayer. Anyway, since the rest of the profits go to the Treasury then the taxpayer is benefiting too.
What does sho do to earn the money from the Crown Estates? She and her family are just leeches on society (apart from a couple of them in the army, but they seem to have a lot more holidays than anyone else in the army I've heard about)
i don't understand what actually warrants the amount of money the Royals receive. Absolute greed. If the people that sort the finances cannot make do with over £35million a year budget, then I suggest they take a short term investment in a finance course and learn!
Since the rise is coming from profits from the Crown Estate, it is coming at no cost to the taxpayer. Anyway, since the rest of the profits go to the Treasury then the taxpayer is benefiting too.
The Queen successfully claims in excess of £5 million a year in set aside grants on the Crown Estates. This money comes from the EU into which the UK taxpayer and taxpayer's across the EU pay substantially to.
Hence we are not all in it together, as others with vacant rooms have to pay a tax, but substantial landowners are subsidised to do nothing with their landholding assets. Set aside does not mean they are obliged to spend the set aside grants on encouraging biological diversity or otherwise improving the natural habitat.
i don't understand what actually warrants the amount of money the Royals receive. Absolute greed. If the people that sort the finances cannot make do with over £35million a year budget, then I suggest they take a short term investment in a finance course and learn!
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, like the Crown Jewels it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. Each monarch since the accession of George III in 1760 surrendered to the HM Treasury the revenues of the Crown Estate, in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List. However, from 1 April 2012, under terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Civil List was abolished, and in future the monarch will receive from the Treasury a stipulated percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenues (currently set at 15%).
And the nation pockets the rest.
As for what she does with the money. about £10m covers staff cost in the Palaces, the rest covers transport for engagements, building maintenance (does HM use B&Q?). Then she may have some herself, but the majority of what she 'lives' on is from investment funds.
The Queen successfully claims in excess of £5 million a year in set aside grants on the Crown Estates. This money comes from the EU into which the UK taxpayer and taxpayer's across the EU pay substantially to.
Hence we are not all in it together, as others with vacant rooms have to pay a tax, but substantial landowners are subsidised to do nothing with their landholding assets. Set aside does not mean they are obliged to spend the set aside grants on encouraging biological diversity or otherwise improving the natural habitat.
Since the rise is coming from profits from the Crown Estate, it is coming at no cost to the taxpayer. Anyway, since the rest of the profits go to the Treasury then the taxpayer is benefiting too.
If the monarchy didn't exist, the Crown Estates would revert to the state, and the nation would get ALL of the profits. Wouldn't that be better for the taxpayer?
So don't give us the 'at no cost to the taxpayer' line, it's been rumbled.
The Queen successfully claims in excess of £5 million a year in set aside grants on the Crown Estates. This money comes from the EU into which the UK taxpayer and taxpayer's across the EU pay substantially to
The Crown Estates own 144,000 ha of agricultural and forestry land (source: Wikipedia). They are just as entitled to get EU grants as much as any other landowner.
If the monarchy didn't exist, the Crown Estates would revert to the state, and the nation would get ALL of the profits. Wouldn't that be better for the taxpayer
It depends on what you propose replacing the monarchy with and whether it would be any cheaper.
Our monarchy is the most expensive in Europe. The Presidencies of Ireland and Germany (not to mention the other European royal houses) cost their countries far less.
This isn't the Queen's personal money, it covers staff wages, maintenance of all the Royal buildings which belong to the nation, and all other overheads. It is aprox 50 pence per head of the population per annum. I don't begrudge it but I do begrudge a penny of my money going on overseas aid.
Just done a quick calulation and it looks like the office of the Presidency costs US citizens £2.97. The British Monarch costs £2.93
The Office of the Presidency is elected and not inherited. It is political and not aristocratic and pompus. The office of the Presidency is not for just ceremonial purposes, it carries weight over and above being chauffered about whilst wearing a crown for the member of an extremely if not the most extremely priveleged family alive on the planet today.
If the monarchy didn't exist, the Crown Estates would revert to the state, and the nation would get ALL of the profits. Wouldn't that be better for the taxpayer?
So don't give us the 'at no cost to the taxpayer' line, it's been rumbled.
Why would Crown Estate/Property go to the State?
Anyway knowing the State they would sell it to chums of whichever party was in power at below market prices.
So if you anti royals want to hit her hard don't shop along Regent Street!
Tens of Thousands of people work on land owned by Crown Estates. So again want to hurt the Queen avoid all those businesses maybe?
I don't think you understand the concept of a corporation sole. The Crown Estates belong to the Crown, not the Windsors. If the Windsors were no longer the royal family (either because a new royal family was parachuted in, as has happened before, or because we became a republic) then the Crown (i.e. the state) would still use the revenue to fund the running of the country. There's a reason Edward VIII didn't waltz off with the Crown Estates as personal property when he gave up the throne.
This isn't the Queen's personal money, it covers staff wages, maintenance of all the Royal buildings which belong to the nation, and all other overheads. It is aprox 50 pence per head of the population per annum. I don't begrudge it but I do begrudge a penny of my money going on overseas aid.
Dissolve the monarchy, you dissolve the commonwealth and with it probably a signficant amount of overseas aid.
Why would Crown Estate/Property go to the State?
Anyway knowing the State they would sell it to chums of whichever party was in power at below market prices.
Nonsense - that's just more politician-bashing. A decent constitution would prevent that from happening.
Just done a quick calulation and it looks like the office of the Presidency costs US citizens £2.97. The British Monarch costs £2.93
The Office of the Presidency is elected and not inherited. It is political and not aristocratic and pompus. The office of the Presidency is not for just ceremonial purposes, it carries weight over and above being chauffered about whilst wearing a crown for the member of an extremely if not the most extremely priveleged family alive on the planet today.
Plus, just because we wouldn't have a monarch it doesn't mean we'd have to have a President. We don't, we don't need one at all. So the argument is false logic.
This isn't the Queen's personal money, it covers staff wages, maintenance of all the Royal buildings which belong to the nation, and all other overheads. It is aprox 50 pence per head of the population per annum. I don't begrudge it but I do begrudge a penny of my money going on overseas aid.
I wonder how many people defending this were carping in the thread about MPs getting £15 dinners.
Comments
Since the rise is coming from profits from the Crown Estate, it is coming at no cost to the taxpayer. Anyway, since the rest of the profits go to the Treasury then the taxpayer is benefiting too.
She's Queen. That's what she does.
Surely that should be "One's all in this together"?
I didn't vote for her
History shows that.
The Queen successfully claims in excess of £5 million a year in set aside grants on the Crown Estates. This money comes from the EU into which the UK taxpayer and taxpayer's across the EU pay substantially to.
Hence we are not all in it together, as others with vacant rooms have to pay a tax, but substantial landowners are subsidised to do nothing with their landholding assets. Set aside does not mean they are obliged to spend the set aside grants on encouraging biological diversity or otherwise improving the natural habitat.
This is what the money is spent on
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Financial%20reports%202012-13/Sovereign%20Grant%202012-13%20-%20web.pdf
Property maintenance, staff, travel, official events... it all adds up. Even if you had an elected Head of State then those things still need paying for. The US Presidency costs $1.4bn a year: http://now.msn.com/president-obamas-family-costs-the-us-20-times-what-royal-family-costs-the-uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, like the Crown Jewels it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. Each monarch since the accession of George III in 1760 surrendered to the HM Treasury the revenues of the Crown Estate, in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List. However, from 1 April 2012, under terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Civil List was abolished, and in future the monarch will receive from the Treasury a stipulated percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenues (currently set at 15%).
And the nation pockets the rest.
As for what she does with the money. about £10m covers staff cost in the Palaces, the rest covers transport for engagements, building maintenance (does HM use B&Q?). Then she may have some herself, but the majority of what she 'lives' on is from investment funds.
She is a frugal lady.
what the heck is the EU got to do with it?
Anyone ever heard of Regent Street in London? Guess who owns the building all those shops are in?
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/urban/regent-street/
So if you anti royals want to hit her hard don't shop along Regent Street!
Tens of Thousands of people work on land owned by Crown Estates. So again want to hurt the Queen avoid all those businesses maybe?
If the monarchy didn't exist, the Crown Estates would revert to the state, and the nation would get ALL of the profits. Wouldn't that be better for the taxpayer?
So don't give us the 'at no cost to the taxpayer' line, it's been rumbled.
The Crown Estates own 144,000 ha of agricultural and forestry land (source: Wikipedia). They are just as entitled to get EU grants as much as any other landowner.
It depends on what you propose replacing the monarchy with and whether it would be any cheaper.
Our monarchy is the most expensive in Europe. The Presidencies of Ireland and Germany (not to mention the other European royal houses) cost their countries far less.
The Office of the Presidency is elected and not inherited. It is political and not aristocratic and pompus. The office of the Presidency is not for just ceremonial purposes, it carries weight over and above being chauffered about whilst wearing a crown for the member of an extremely if not the most extremely priveleged family alive on the planet today.
Why would Crown Estate/Property go to the State?
Anyway knowing the State they would sell it to chums of whichever party was in power at below market prices.
I don't think you understand the concept of a corporation sole. The Crown Estates belong to the Crown, not the Windsors. If the Windsors were no longer the royal family (either because a new royal family was parachuted in, as has happened before, or because we became a republic) then the Crown (i.e. the state) would still use the revenue to fund the running of the country. There's a reason Edward VIII didn't waltz off with the Crown Estates as personal property when he gave up the throne.
Dissolve the monarchy, you dissolve the commonwealth and with it probably a signficant amount of overseas aid.
Nonsense - that's just more politician-bashing. A decent constitution would prevent that from happening.
Plus, just because we wouldn't have a monarch it doesn't mean we'd have to have a President. We don't, we don't need one at all. So the argument is false logic.
I wonder how many people defending this were carping in the thread about MPs getting £15 dinners.
oh so I may be politician bashing, but you feel the need for a safety net...like your style.
Enough to make me want to keep her