AIBU Taxed at 75% and people are having a go because of Newspaper.

[Mummmy2017]

Along time ago one of the english kings gave all his property to the govenment in return for an income from the profits...

We don't pay for the Queen we gain millions from the Crown Estate each year, ncluding the Houses of Paliment for free, yet it's so easy for the Newspapers to pretend it's the other way round....

If the crown got 6 Million in profit more this year it means they paid an extra 18 Million to the Govenment.

I agree that the surrender of the income of the Crown Estates is not well known.

Nor is the amount that the current monarch has run down the Crown Reserves.

YANBU.
I'm not a royalist but this is often forgotten.

Agreed. The kudos and wealth the royal family creates for the country through commerce and tourism is not pointed out either. Very one sided. Always the negatives.

It's unreasonable to think of the crown estates as though they are the personal property of the monarch. The purpose of the crown estates is and was to fund the government and running of the country, that used to be through the monarch, but it hasn't really been that way for centuries.

The question for the UK as a whole is "How much of our money (from the crown estates or otherwise) do we want to spend on a monarchy, is the money being used wisely or could we put it to better use?", not "ohh look, aren't they nice letting us have some of the assets that are supposed to run the country for, err, running the country?"

The whole thing is just madness. One day I hope (for their sake too) we abandon this worship of one family - it's just crazy!

Crown estate / whatever, it all belongs in the history books.

Yabu. They are not taxed at 75% for a start.

The Crown Estate is supposedly owned by the Sovereign, but arguably belongs to the estate.

It does not cover all expenses as these are picked up elsewhere, such as security costs covered by The Met and visits covered by local councils. That would make quite a dent in that supposed 75% tax rate. In addition, the Queen has her own personal estate and wealth that is tax exempt, further meaning a reduction on that 75% in real terms.

The real cost of having a Royal Family is thought to be significantly in excess of the Sovereign Estate income.

The bottom line is, are we as a nation happy to pay for one family and their hangers on to have such a luxurious life subsidised by us, when firefighters and nurses go without a payrise, people live in dangerous council tower blocks and funding is being cut to essential services?

The Royal Family has a place in my view, but the hangers on need to be cut, all their expenses should be covered by their own incomes and they should pay tax in the same way we do.

I meant the Crown Estate is owned by the state as its purpose was to fund the government whilst being administered by the ruling monarch, so its not owned by the monrch as such.

It's Managed by the Govenment to fund the Govenment.

But owned by the Crown... that's why it's called the crown estates.

Wasn't it call me Dave who decided to link the amount give to the Monarch to the amount of profit it made? So they got an annual increase instead of having to be debated each year, cost time and money that is now saved and used on other items.

He was bankrupt, he had no option other than to surrender his estates in return for an income.

Nonetheless, every English/British monarch since has voluntarily given up the income from Crown Estates in return for having all of their expenses paid by the country.

YANBU. I wish that people would do their research before they assume that the royals rip the food out of the arms of babes to kit their palace (which isn't even their palace) out in Laura Ashley furniture. So much unnecessary frothing over the royals

It depends on your view on how they got the land in the first place. The UK had people here in waves and each ice age drove us out. We used to be attached to France - Doggerland is a very interesting area to investigate under the Channel now but used to be dry land!
So we came and went and came and went and no one owned land. We did not start leaving any mark on it until we started to settle down and grow crops around 5000 years ago - see stonehenge etc. It was growing crops that led to the ability to sit around more, steal and keep extra women/wives, keep land to yourself, start talking about mine and yours. I am sure before that there was plenty of killing although there were few people so probably enough go around.

I was reading yesterday about one of my great grandmother's grand parents. They left Ireland with a baby in about 1849 (during the famine) for the promised land of NE England digging coal (and it was indeed a much better life). I had not realised until yesterday that so many hungry desperate Irish came to England that Liverpool forced 15,000 of them back to Ireland on a ship. So many parallels to the immigration today! Mine were not shipped back. What I was reading about I had not read since school (where we did tons of history about the Act of Union, English rule in Ireland etc) and the driving from the land of Irish peasants who could not pay rent, by rich English landowners and then the potato crop failed.

..I came on the thread because it was talking about 75% tax. If you are over the £100k income mark but not much over you can lose your personal tax allowance gradually now so no tax free income and your marginal upper tax rate is about 62%. If you also have student loans that is a 9% extra tax and you are paying 71% or so in upper tax at that band. You don't get child benefit either.

No one is going to weep for women lawyers with £30k childcare costs and paying London rents paying up to 71% tax on their upper earnings but it is a very high rate of tax in our weird UK tax system.

The ancestors of kings and queens seized common land through force and violence. This has been passed down across the generations, modified by a constitutional governmental process. It's fatuous and naive to think that monarchs kindly donate "their" property so us poor plebs can run a government.

It's owned by the Crown, which is an entity of the state embodied by the Queen, it's not owned by the Queen personally. And it used to pay for far more than the maintenance of the Royal family, so them only using 25% of the profits for that isn't some kind of amazing deal for the country.

If the Queen decided to not "give up" the other 75% and instead used the full 100% to cover all the expenses traditionally covered by the Crown before they did a deal to get bailed out, they would have to find a lot more money from somewhere and probably cut back on the amount they spend on maintaining the Royal family.