I suppose the only possible point of contention is that the monarchy gets 15% of crown estate profits. If profits are reduced by £37m per year due to this, does the monarchy's income go down by 15% of the £37m?It's best defined as a Landlord's tax deductible expense. The same as a buy to let landlord getting a tax deductible expense on capital expenditures such as rewiring and plumbing.
I was thinking that. I'd imagine the amount that could be written off for depreciation / wear and tear must be pretty large.It's best defined as a Landlord's tax deductible expense. The same as a buy to let landlord getting a tax deductible expense on capital expenditures such as rewiring and plumbing.
I suppose the only possible point of contention is that the monarchy gets 15% of crown estate profits. If profits are reduced by £37m per year due to this, does the monarchy's income go down by 15% of the £37m?
You're not understanding it mate.No it doesn't. It's a reduction in tax on the Crown Estate profits.
It's all Crown Estate money. Not a single tax payer's penny will go towards it.
You're not understanding this.
Is that the same White House that was built by slaves?If it does she best move the corgis onto pedigree chum, austerity and all of that jazz.
Leaving aside the crown estate, there is the matter of £1.4bn she alone brings into charities each year (Charlie is around £100m), there is all the tourist money as well, cant have her gaff looking shabby in front of Johnny Foreigner, it must be about 20 years since I went and it could have done with some work then, something the Americans we were with noted with the line "The white house is kept in a better state" bragging show offs that they were.
Is that the same White House that was built by slaves?
Wrong again. The civil list is to pay for running the monarchy not for the upkeep of crown estate properties of which Buckingham Palace is one of many.You're not understanding it mate.
A deal was done by the monarchy (George the third or whoever) that to settle his private debts and debts incurred by previous monarchs in foreign wars the profits from the crown estates would be paid to the Government. As part of this deal the Monarchy was also relieved of paying for the costs of the judiciary.
So the crown estates profits belong to the Government/ Taxpayer as part of this deal, NOT the monarch.
15 % of these profits were granted by the Government/Taxpayer to the Monarch to pay for things like repairs to the Palace.
Apparently we are told this 15% is not sufficient to pay for these repairs so the Sovereign is being given more funds from the Crown Estate i.e 22% of the crown profits.
It is up to the Monarch to manage the 15% grant to pay for repairs etc, not to come cap in hand to the Government and ask for more money.
Why not manage these funds better or get more revenue in by opening the palace more often to fee paying visitors.?
See all my previous posts in this thread.You're not understanding it mate.
A deal was done by the monarchy (George the third or whoever) that to settle his private debts and debts incurred by previous monarchs in foreign wars the profits from the crown estates would be paid to the Government. As part of this deal the Monarchy was also relieved of paying for the costs of the judiciary.
So the crown estates profits belong to the Government/ Taxpayer as part of this deal, NOT the monarch.
15 % of these profits were granted by the Government/Taxpayer to the Monarch to pay for things like repairs to the Palace.
Apparently we are told this 15% is not sufficient to pay for these repairs so the Sovereign is being given more funds from the Crown Estate i.e 22% of the crown profits.
It is up to the Monarch to manage the 15% grant to pay for repairs etc, not to come cap in hand to the Government and ask for more money.
Why not manage these funds better or get more revenue in by opening the palace more often to fee paying visitors.?
Sky news reporting it as taxpayer funding - so I suppose they got it wrong as well?BBC newsreader just got it wrong
"Belongs to" is a bit of a stretch. She can't sell it or profit from it and has no control over how it's run. People who bought a star on the internet have a similar experience of ownership.Exactly my point. Well found buddy.
It's not the taxpayers footing the bill but the Queen's Crown Estate ("the Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch")
Yes. They're making the same mistake as you. It's from the crown estate not the taxpayer.Sky news reporting it as taxpayer funding - so I suppose they got it wrong as well?
London will become this country's biggest financial asset over the next few decades. A huge part of its brand value arises from buildings like Buckingham Palace and other historical landmarks in our capital. Is there a city in the world with more globally iconic buildings and monuments than London? New York, Washington DC, maybe.
In practical terms, it's an absolute no-brainer.
I'd throw Amsterdam into that mix mate.London will become this country's biggest financial asset over the next few decades. A huge part of its brand value arises from buildings like Buckingham Palace and other historical landmarks in our capital. Is there a city in the world with more globally iconic buildings and monuments than London? New York, Washington DC, maybe.
In practical terms, it's an absolute no-brainer.
Yeah, because I'm sure this is the only cost involved in running Buckingham Palace.Buckingham Palace attracts half a million visitors per year and it has done for at least the past twenty years. At £40 per head that's 40x20x500000 = 400 Million.
Why do they need the money again?
Future tense?London will become this country's biggest financial asset over the next few decades.
"Belongs to..." is from your quote from their website mate."Belongs to" is a bit of a stretch. She can't sell it or profit from it and has no control over how it's run. People who bought a star on the internet have a similar experience of ownership.