As Rachel Reeves struggles to balance the books, the Royal Family should forgo a £46 million increase in their funding. AIBU?

[User198174]

Due to an increase in Crown Estate profits, the government is set to increase its grant to the Royal Family from £ 86.3 million to £132.1 million.
As the Royal Family appear to be getting by at present on an £86.3 million grant, AIBU to say that they should share in the pain of the national squeeze on finances?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5lzq94gqo.amp

Its not bailing out a government, its chipping in to support the society they are part of. And in the case of the Royals, justify their own roles by a claim of care and service towards.
Its all well and good hoarding wealth beyond the level you could ever need, provided you're content to live in a bubble, closing your eyes and holding your nose in the face of the poverty of those around you.
If the problems caused by deprivation, the crime, the sickness, the ugliness of it never has to cross your radar, you can sit in your luxury and keep your fingers crossed there won't be a revolution.
But the whole point of the Royal family is to be of service to the people, and to be seen to be, and I'm frankly amazed that people don't see the glaring hypocrisy in all their performative charity, while they contine a life of obscene excess on public money.

Just stop foreign aid that is much more than 46 m

Omg
What the hell are we giving them money for
Which political party is going to do away with this

Oh look, Peasants! They're so cute with their little opinions! Now run along and get me some gin.

If they really care about all the charities they claim to support and early years education, they should offer to forgo their raise or refuse it.

We could pay them 500 million a year, and they would still be cheaper than having a Trump as head of State :-)

But seriously, I think it is worth it because having a King is the ultimate check and balance on our elected Parliament.

In theory, the King can sack Parliament, and Parliament can sack the King.

Untested in modern history of course ( but the late Queen did sack the Ozz guv in '75). Hopefully it's a system that means we don't get a Trump.

Any increase in profit they get goes 75% to the Treasury and 25% to them.

The sovereign grant is only 12% of the crown estate profits (raised at the moment to 25% to cover repairs to Buckingham Palace) and is used for (according to chat)

What is the Sovereign Grant used for
The Sovereign Grant is funded from general taxation / public finances, based on the formula tied to the Crown Estate’s profits. It is used for:

• The official work of the monarch (as Head of State). GOV.UK+1
• Running and maintenance of the occupied Royal Palaces used for official purposes. Research Briefings+1
• Costs of official travel (UK and overseas) by the King and members of the Royal Family when acting on his behalf. Research Briefings+1
• Staff employment in the Royal Household supporting those duties. Research Briefings+1

and as the RF do a lot of work behind the scene, as the behest of the Foreign Office to help with various matters, trade deals etc and brings in tourism to the country I don’t begrudge them getting it

But my question would actually be what to the Government do with the rest which is a really considerable amount that gets shared across across different things

Surely Reeves is planning a Royal family tax raid, be rude not to. Why not create a Royal tax? Make them pay 85p on £1.

But the balance of the Crown Estates money goes to the Treasury. If the Crown Estates was say owned by Duke of Westminster the taxpayer wouldn't see any of it, apart from any tax paid on the income

£46 million increase? They bring massive interest and tourism. People all over the world are interested in that part of our culture. They come, spend money etc.

That increase is approx 0.01% of our welfare costs - and the welfare costs are the problem. The royal family is a net financial positive and not the problem here.

What do you mean, what would the Government do with the rest ? The rest of what ? I honestly do not know what you mean :-)

It's a strange thing to me, that as the Tories and Reform yell that if the rich folk leave the UK, the entire economy will collapse. Something to do with the fabled trickle down economics.

But the Royals might actually be an example of a rich UK institution that does result in trickle down. The list you provided above show that instead of the Royals stashing their cash in financial mechanisms to make more cash, they really do have to spend it.

That grant money is not lost to the system, it goes straight back into it.

Either the power of the king over parliament is theoretical, in which case entirely meaningless, or its actual. If the latter, does it not worry you that a person could weild such power in a democracy, for no other reason than an accident if birth? No requirement for a certain level of intelligence, capacity, experience or academic achievement, just who his parents were? Because frankly, if I thought the power was more than theoretical that would worry me greatly, as I have seen no indication at all of the inate superiority of this family, intellectually, morally or in any other way. Delivery of pre written speeches with varying levels of articulacy, shaking hands, waving and watching things doesn't evidence the skill set required to check a government.

True. But as I said, it is untested. And it has worked so far.

The Military, Police, courts, civil service etc all pledge allegiance to the King, but it's Parliament that fund them. To me, that's a great way to stop coups. How would a coup even happen in such a situation?

The US though, they swear to the Constitution. And as we have seen with Trump, he appears to consider himself above the Constitution. There has been, and is, a real worry about a coup with Trump. Jan 6th, it really was a thing that if the National Guard had been called out, who would they have supported.

Our system makes us a coup free zone. Could anyone honestly say the same about the USA ?

That's my logic anyway.

Yup. I totally get you re accident of birth, but what you are saying above is actually half of my pro RF argument I am making.

If the King goes power mad, Parliament can sack him.

Completely agree. Even the theoretical possibility that an unelected by anyone individual can be in a position to wield the aforementioned level of power is crazy and doesn't do much for the so called checks and balances.

I am also interested in finding out what it is that they do for us and don't really want to hear "they bring in a lot of tourists" in response as I am not that convinced that we have more tourists because of them or would have fewer without them.

That may be but £46M could still build a small hospital in, let's say, one community which could make a lot of positive difference to that community, even if not the whole country. In another year, another £46M could build another hospital. Year after a year, a lot of difference could be made. Every little helps as they say. I'd rather spend my <£1 in taxes that way than on people who can live well with their own money.

For all other people, benefits are means tested. Maybe it's time for that rule to apply to the privileged too.

I'd love to see a reputable source that actually proves they bring in more than they cost.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, the Crown Estates have massively increased their profits this year.

Of that massive increase, the majority will go to the government- to be spent on what?
The rest will go to the RF to be spent on all the things listed by a PP- transport, maintaining the various buildings etc. All sound future proofing, and improving the local economy as well. Presumably the current increase will help hugely with the Buckingham Palace repairs, so the additional award can be stepped down more quickly.

Do you have a reputable and current source that they bring in more money than they cost the UK tax payer?

Or just pay appropriate taxes. What they have saved through their 'voluntary' payment of tax ( In Williams case, that he has refused to disclose so we can only assume its less than the amount his father paid) is more that £46m I would imagine!

But as there are fewer of them doing less work, why do they need an increase in their money? Do these things cost £46m more than they did last year, despite having far fewer personnel?

It's the nature of the deal that was agreed. If the profits go down, so do their earnings. If they go up, so do their earnings. Replaced the previous civil list arrangement.

Chicken feed anyway, so a waste of time for the government to revisit the deal. YABU.

First poster nailed it

Get rid of the royal family altogether

Why are they still there??

Why are they still idiolized??