Public funding of the royal family should be optional

[FuckinghamPalace]

Not sure if this has been duscussed before but…

What if the tax payer could opt out of funding the royal family? And opt in if they want to contribute?

It should be optional

Why not?

Isn’t this is the same stupid argument as the childless saying they don’t want their taxes to go towards a schools.

I’m childless and happy for my taxes to go towards schools. Don’t know any childless people who think otherwise.

I’d rather the money spent on the royals went towards schools, hospitals,decent public transport infrastructure. Ours are an embarrassment compared with other European countries and it’s us who have to use them, not the royals.

@DragonGypsyDoris no it's not a valid argument at all. It's not even an argument. People are allowed to disagree with how their country is run - we live in a democracy.

There are strong arguments for keeping this system of head of state; look at Trump. The late queen was very good at being head of state, even many republicans think so..

It’s the Irish or German model we should be looking at, not the US. It’s a poor show when the only argument monarchists can come up with is “but Trump/Blair…”

No, I'm fairly convinced they bring in more money to the economy than they cost. Maybe if you opt of the 77p - you'll need to pay £1.50 instead to compensate? Who knows.

This is a myth though isn't it. Their security costs the tax payer millions.

That is a very good point.

Yeah the reason we get so many tourists in the uk is because of the royal family. That’s why they don’t get many tourists in France or the USA or Australia…

I know their security costs millions. It is hard to quantify exactly how much they add to the economy, I get that, but it must be substantial - it can't just be disregarded.

We were in the centre of London last week. We were planning to walk passed Buckingham Palace but the Changing of the Guard plus some rehearsal for Trooping the Colour was taking place.there were literally thousands of tourists there watching. They had all come to England drawn by the spectacle of the Royal Family - the funeral of the late Queen and the coronation. They will be spending millions in hotels, cafes, shops and hotels. The Royal family also present stability and are above politics - something that an elected Head of State would not be.

How do you know that they had all come to England just for the royal family? They were probably here on holiday anyway and just decided to watch the trooping of the colour as they were here anyway. They’d still come without a royal family

Whereas the Palace of Versailles doesn't attract tourism?(!)

It would cost more than your 77p in administration

How do you estimate your share of the monies they generated?

How do you opt out of receiving any benefit you may receive?

If the monarchy is abolished who pays for the upkeep of the properties they give to the State?

I'm betting it would cost each individual more than 77p a year

Also the Queen's funeral was quite some time ago. I doubt people stayed here for years so they could bask in its aftermath

they do pay their own way

I’ve got no skin in this game - but I often wonder if the people who don’t want the RF to be funded still expect them to work? Are they willing to fork out the money (and security costs, housing etc) for whatever replacement you end up with? Every country needs someone to do all those annoying things that the RF does - we have people employed (not democratically btw) and paid wages for that - and they generate zero financial return from tourism, media etc. Will the terrorism threats disappear if you don’t have a RF or will they persist? I’m guessing there’s be some drop in sector threats cause RF are targets - but it’s not a trivial exercise to forecast just how much you’d save in security by shifting to being a republic. I presume you’d still be opposed to terrorist attacks on your ex-RF, but I guess after a s couple generations you’d not care about them?

Oh - and everyone saying that tourists don’t visit the UK because of the RF they do! How much tourism would change no clue, but the simple existence of your RF does motivate some people to visit the UK, and to do tourism in a certain way. While the RF was never my primary motivation for travelling to the UK I met others where that was the case (one trip coincided with a royal wedding - lots of people were there for that!), and I certainly spent money on things solely because of your RF. For some tourists there’s a difference between a recreation of history and a current practice in terms of willingness to pay. But without becoming a republic you’ll not know if there’s any net difference in tourism income.

I also suspect that outside violent revolution many of the financial benefits of removing the RF don’t materialise. How much land do they own? How much art? How many places that are opened to the public are actually owned by the RF? If you simply remove the monarchy but don’t confiscate their wealth - what are you left with? Presumably you’ll also remove all other titles - but does that take their lands and wealth? Other than the 77p what do you feet back financially?

(there’s certainly non-monetary reasons for becoming a republic - and for me these are stronger arguments, but if the argument is going to be financial you need to consider detailed financial impacts. Being a republic definitely doesn’t stop your citizens from starving, or ensures fair distribution of wealth, or stops your taxes going to things you don’t support).

Or Italy. Hardly anybody goes to Rome or Venice or Florence. They’d get far more tourists if only they’d kept the Medicis.

I think if you're booted out of the RF or choose to leave, you should then pay the taxpayer back.
Not constantly demand more. Not expect us to pay for your security. I'm looking at you Andrew, Harry and Meghan.

@Onomatofear Fo you have any evidence that this is a myth? My understanding is that the royal estates bring in much more revenue that is is returned by either the sovereign grant or security costs. The Crown Estates pay 100% of their revenue to the treasury and they get a small portion back as the sovereign grant.

These estates are managed by the monarch and involve property that is both the property of the crown and the personal property of the current incumbent- High Grove and Sandringham are both part of the Crown Estates and managed by them but were bought by previous members of the RF with private money. Also see half the painting in the royal collection.

There is a lot of other public spending of taxpayers' money with which I disagree, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

How could something like this be administered? Tick a box if you don't want to pay tax to fund X,Y or Z? Totally unworkable.

But you can't get 'booted out'. That's the whole point. Either you agree with unearned privilege or you don't.

This panel discussion 'cost of the crown' (linked below) illustrates how the wealth of the royal family is hidden by statute. They have almost total financial privacy unlike the rest of us. They are not subject to public information requests and the royal wills are sealed.

The obvious question is: why not be completely transparent if there is nothing to hide?

We are a bunch of credulous chumps when we fall for their PR.

I predict that, if this came in, of the 31.7 million taxpayers in the UK, roughly 1 person might opt to pay extra tax to fund the royal family.

If they really cared about the public and all the hospitals and hospices they visited the could really prove they cared by
Paying tax on their private wealth
Paying death duties
Most of us can't use legal loopholes and tax havens to dodge our taxes and then have it hidden by the state in a big golden secret box

I am really shocked at how many people have no idea how funding the Royal Family really works.

The Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy that covers the work of the Royal Family in support of the King, including expenses to maintain their official residences and workspaces. In this exchange, the King surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate and in return, 12% of the profits from the Crown Estates are granted back to him for official expenditure.

They GIVE us money, not TAKE from us.

Sure, and i also think centuries of all aristocratic estates/assets should be given back to the state save for maybe £5m to allow them to adjust to an ordinary upper/middle middle class lifestyle.

Royal family will also say they fund themselves and bring in tourists.

Can have all the opinions but will never be enforceable...