King Charles To Get A 45% Pay Rise

[BuxFizz]

“The review of the Royal funding settlement was heavily spun by the Treasury to give the impression that the King would be taking a pay cut so the Crown Estates funds could instead be spent on public services.

In fact, the report reveals the Monarchy is due to receive a huge pay increase.

In 2025, the King’s public funding will increase by a projected £38.5 million.

Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary and Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, who was involved in the official discussions accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the Monarchy was funded.

He said that linking the Royal finances to the profits of the Crown Estates was “silly” and motivated by a desire to promote the idea that the King was paying for himself and was reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

The complicated formula used to determine the Sovereign Grant was introduced in 2011 by then Prime Minister David Cameron, and his Chancellor George Osborne. Removing Parliament’s centuries old control over Royal funding. They created a new formula that tied the Monarch’s funding to a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estates.”

I’m surprised that this formula to calculate the Sovereign Grant was so recent, does anyone know how it was calculated before?

Also, the irony isn’t lost on me that this new formula was proposed by George Osborne, one the chief architects of Austerity.

King Charles Set To Receive A Huge Pay Rise From UK Taxpayers

The fact a will is sealed has nothing to do with calculating IHT.

As you were an executor, you should know that the IHT due was calculated from the inventory of assets & their market value as of the day of death- which is not part of a will.

So what was the value of the assets then @MillicentBystandr ?

Where are all these sums 'equal to' these taxes he supposedly paid? There is nothing to prove that claim

Well of course not, where are all your tax returns proving to us you paid your taxes? They’re with HMRC. They’re not in the public domain. They can’t be published without your permission and you have the right to keep it private.

But wills aren’t secret are they ?

So why are the ‘royals ‘ wills secret

because ‘ royal’ and that will do for the public in terms of an answer

When you can link me to the inventory of any deceased British national, showing total value of their assets on the day they died and the IHT due, then you’d have a point.

Wills are not unless they are sealed, but again wills do not show the total value of assets subject to IHT.

Gaslit by media ,

want to believe in a surrogate ‘family’

don’t care to think for themselves ,

but yes I agree.

I think those who see through it all are in the majority now which is why we see finely modulated civil service speak from posters like @MillicentBystandr

Hmmm .

Very very slippery @MillicentBystandr

Ok I’ll spell it out for you .

All wills are publicly available ( apart from those v special instances where individuals have a court order )

From that will we can see how much was gifted and have an idea of the wealth of that individual

Hence no doubt why current royal wills are secret .
Royal wills weren’t always secret.
That was another modern change .

The plebs we’re getting too nosy eh?

@MillicentBystandr

And what exactly do you mean by ‘unless they are sealed’?.

Are you trying to say unless ‘royal’wills are sealed they are not secret ?
What upside down pretend logic is that ??

’Royal’ wills ARE sealed .

They are secret

( are you going to quote a second cousin , class them as ‘royal’ and say their wills aren’t sealed ? )

Hmm. Not necessarily. Most wills have no £ amounts in them other than small bequests like £10k to a cancer charity or £5k to a servant. Most wills do not list specific assets by name either- they might specify in general terms my farm to my daughter and my holiday home to my son. The vast majority of wills, you cannot tell the wealth of the individual with any degree of certainty. The will of a millionaire will read the same as a will of a multimillionaire. Tons of wills are very simple, they simply say what share each beneficiary gets in terms of a fraction or % and then there is a standard blurb that says all property, moveable and immovable, blah blah.

I don’t really care what their wills say tbh. It isn’t going to tell you how rich they are or are not.

You didn't say where you got the info from he paid inheritance tax voluntarily. Don't you think its outrageous he is exempt in the first place?

@MillicentBystandr

”Yes the royals send in what they will pay in voluntary tax and the HMRC checks that’

As I said , the ‘royals’ decide

And no, it isn’t the government who decide on ‘royal ‘ tax /wills - the ‘royals’ negate how little they can get away with and Tories I particular, go along with it.

I think the wheels are falling off your carefully worded your argument

Yes the royals send in what they will pay in voluntary tax and the HMRC checks that it is correct as that info isn’t kept secret from the Government, it is just not free for the public to see

As I said before he could be "voluntarily" paying 0.5% tax. Unlike we the people.

Your post doesn't make sense

Yeah, they paid it back. I’m not disputing that.

They paid it back but it somehow magically got to include eighteen months market rent without increasing and even more magically freed them of any future rental obligations in a weasel deal based on the increased 'market value' of a property only royals will ever use.

'Course in the process the profits from the CE and hence the take to the taxpayer would have been reduced by that unpaid figure while the SG remains the same which means in effect the taxpayer picked up their rental bill.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'struck deal to pay no more rent' at Frogmore Cottage - Mirror Online

Neat dodge.

Where are all these sums 'equal to' these taxes he supposedly paid? There is nothing to prove that claim

You saved me typing it, Roussette, and while we're at it, why would Charles voluntarily pay a sum equivalent to what the Corporation Tax would have been, if - as claimed - the Duchies aren't corporations?

The whole thing just doesn't stand up to even the briefest examination, which probably explains why they work so damned hard to avoid such things

It says it here as well.
”The King pays tax.
In 1992, Queen Elizabeth II volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 the Monarch's personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer.

The King is subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis.”
https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances

And again per the MOU on Royal Taxation, it says he pays income and CGT tax to same extent as any taxpayer would. It also reiterates he gets the same privacy as any taxpayer would too.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1172709/Memorandum_of_Understanding_on_Royal_Taxation__008_.pdf

It’s there in black and white published on the U.K. Treasury webpage that Charles III pays taxes on the income from the Duchies (as his mum did) and William pays taxes on his income from his Duchy (as Charles III when he was Prince of Wales).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1172709/Memorandum_of_Understanding_on_Royal_Taxation__008_.pdf
This is an official U.K. Gov document. It’s not some scurrilous opinion in a newspaper.

It says it here as well
The King pays tax

I'm aware of what it says, MillicentBystandr; what I was asking about is proof, which of course we'll never get because as you rightly say tax affairs are private - and even if they weren't the RF can refuse disclosure under their exemption from the FoI Act

So what we're left with is believing it or not, and with this particular institution that's not something I'd automatically do

Which institution? The RF or the Treasury Dept of the U.K. Government? Or both?

In this case both, MillicentBystandr - when it comes to the RF there've been just too many incidents of authorities bending or overlooking rules to ignore, so I take very little on trust

The King....pays local rates on a voluntary basis.

I wouldn't set too much store by the local rates puff when the late queen succeeded in getting tax on shooting at Balmoral reduced to a rate less than that paid by local hospitality businesses and claimed thousands in tax payer funded subsidies for the estate :

Queen gets tax bill on shooting sports at Balmoral estate slashed to lower than village pub | The National

Queen handed tens of thousands in taxpayer subsidies for her Balmoral estate | The National

Fair enough, I can see how neither is exactly trustworthy (not being sarcastic).

@CathyorClaire I had not read what you just posted! How the fuck could the queen get subsidies with her wealth and how could she possibly have the nerve to do it? Horrible, greedy family.

*Information published yesterday by the Scottish Government, following a freedom of information request, showed that the monarch’s property in Aberdeenshire was given more than £34,614 in grants between 2018 and 2020.
During the three-year period it received £17,029 under the forestry grant scheme, £8183 under the less favoured area support scheme and £9400 under the Scottish suckler beef support scheme.

Responding to the freedom of information request which had sought details of grants to Balmoral since 2020, the Scottish Government also pointed out that Balmoral was in receipt of subsidy scheme from 2005 to 2020 managed by an agency in England. It did not give details of how much the estate benefited.
“Please also be aware that Balmoral Estates also claimed under the single farm payment scheme in 2005 to 2014, and the basic payment scheme in 2015 to 2020, as part of a cross-border business which had land in different parts of the UK. However, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) in England were the paying agency, and were responsible for assessing and paying the UK claim.”*

Honestly, how can anyone support this greed?