DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Queueftof** · 06-02-2009, 09:06 PM

As far as I know you only pay tax on a property if you buy it (stamp duty) or sell it (capitol gains, if it has increased in value) in this country, there is no 'real estate tax' as far as I know.

You might want to let HRH know that she's don't need to pay the bloody RE Tax ... seems she could use the cash (unless her loyal subjects have adjusted the laws to fit her trying circumstances).

A Salary Fit for a Queen

TIME Magazine
June 14, 1971

"They're very good value. What do they cost? A penny a month, a day . . . ? You won't even be able to pee for that when decimals come in."

—The Duke of Bedford
The Duke of Bedford has been proved right. Public toilets cost a new British penny (2.4¢), but maintaining the monarchy costs each of Britain's 55 million citizens less than that a year. Still, the value of the monarchy and how much it ought to cost was the hottest issue in Britain last week.

Regal Cheek. The controversy flared after an article by Richard Crossman, minister in the former Labor government and a member of the Queen's Privy Council, appeared in the New Statesman, a left-wing weekly. Headed THE ROYAL TAX AVOIDERS, the article with uncommon bile lashed out at Queen Elizabeth for requesting an increase in the $1,140,000 royal budget* while continuing to enjoy "a complex system of tax privileges and exemptions," many never fully disclosed, on her private fortune. "One has to admire her truly regal cheek," said the New Statesman article, questioning whether Britons ought to continue to maintain "the clutch of palaces, the powdered footmen, the racing stables and polo ponies, the fleets of luxury cars, the squadrons of aircraft and helicopters, the yachts, the elaborate apparatus of consumption at its most conspicuous level."

Crossman's lèse-majesté evoked a swift and stormy—but divided—response. The Daily Mirror polled its readers, then announced that they had given "a resounding 'no' to the Queen's pay claim." From Manchester a reader wrote: "If we can't afford free milk for our kiddies, we can't afford any increase to a very wealthy family." But Conservative M.P. Sir Stephen McAdden introduced a motion in the Commons deploring the New Statesman article. The Times editorially tut-tutted Grossman's "gratuitously offensive manner." The difficulty is that the royal budget, as presently constituted, is no longer able to support the Crown in the style to which it and its subjects have become accustomed. Of the overall $1,140,000 allotted annually, $444,000 goes for household salaries (319 full-time employees ranging from footmen to curators in the Royal Collections); $292,320 for household expenses (five royal palaces—Buckingham, Windsor, St. James's, Kensington and Holyrood-house—plus royal receptions and garden parties); $31,680 for the Royal Bounty, a fund from which the Queen contributes to charity; plus a $144,000 Privy Purse or salary from which she pays her personal expenses.

Wealthy Woman.

The Queen did not propose how much the increase should be, but she did offer to forgo her $144,000 Privy Purse in exchange for help on other royal expenses. The matter was discreetly referred to a 17-member Select Committee in the House of Commons. The Crossman article raised the question of just how rich the Queen of England is. Though Crossman "conservatively estimated" her fortune at $120 million, no one really knows, and many place it much higher. Surely she is the wealthiest woman in Britain, and in all likelihood one of the half-dozen wealthiest in the world.

A substantial chunk of her riches lies in the Duchy of Lancaster, a 50,000-acre, dairy-rich collection of commercial properties that has belonged to sovereigns since 1399. The Duchy, on which the Queen pays property taxes but not income tax, produced a net income in 1969 of more than $500,000. In addition, the Queen receives revenues from investments, inheritances and farming at Balmoral and Sandringham castles (the only two residences whose expenses the Queen meets from her private funds), and a string of race horses.

The Queen's pay increase is likely to come as much by farther lifting of expenses from her shoulders as by increasing her allowance. In recent years, the government has assumed the cost of royal tours, upkeep of the royal train, and the Queen's postal bills, as well as about $100,000 of the annual cost of state entertainment. Prince Philip, who receives a taxable annual stipend of $96,000, has recently induced the Treasury to pick up the laundry and cleaning bills he runs up on state business. He has not yet had to give up polo or move his family into smaller premises, as he jestingly threatened a couple of years ago on NBC's Meet the Press when he said that the family was "going into the red."

To judge from the outcry that followed the New Statesman's article, Britons will continue to insist on picking up the tab for their monarchy. Crossman himself said: "I am strongly pro-monarchy. The Queen is good at her job—she is better value for the money than the Church of England—and should get the rate for it." Better that, he went on, than "a Copenhagen monarchy cycling around the streets."

-The 1971 U.S. presidential budget, by comparison, is estimated at $11,344,000. This includes a taxable $200,000 for presidential salary, $50,000 (also taxable) for official expenses, $8,336,000 for salaries and expenses of some 500 White House staffers, $1,258,000 for operation of the White House and a special projects fund of $1,500,000.

Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

06-02-2009, 09:06 PM	#16
Queueftof Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 460 Senior Member	As far as I know you only pay tax on a property if you buy it (stamp duty) or sell it (capitol gains, if it has increased in value) in this country, there is no 'real estate tax' as far as I know. You might want to let HRH know that she's don't need to pay the bloody RE Tax ... seems she could use the cash (unless her loyal subjects have adjusted the laws to fit her trying circumstances). A Salary Fit for a Queen TIME Magazine June 14, 1971 "They're very good value. What do they cost? A penny a month, a day . . . ? You won't even be able to pee for that when decimals come in." —The Duke of Bedford The Duke of Bedford has been proved right. Public toilets cost a new British penny (2.4¢), but maintaining the monarchy costs each of Britain's 55 million citizens less than that a year. Still, the value of the monarchy and how much it ought to cost was the hottest issue in Britain last week. Regal Cheek. The controversy flared after an article by Richard Crossman, minister in the former Labor government and a member of the Queen's Privy Council, appeared in the New Statesman, a left-wing weekly. Headed THE ROYAL TAX AVOIDERS, the article with uncommon bile lashed out at Queen Elizabeth for requesting an increase in the $1,140,000 royal budget* while continuing to enjoy "a complex system of tax privileges and exemptions," many never fully disclosed, on her private fortune. "One has to admire her truly regal cheek," said the New Statesman article, questioning whether Britons ought to continue to maintain "the clutch of palaces, the powdered footmen, the racing stables and polo ponies, the fleets of luxury cars, the squadrons of aircraft and helicopters, the yachts, the elaborate apparatus of consumption at its most conspicuous level." Crossman's lèse-majesté evoked a swift and stormy—but divided—response. The Daily Mirror polled its readers, then announced that they had given "a resounding 'no' to the Queen's pay claim." From Manchester a reader wrote: "If we can't afford free milk for our kiddies, we can't afford any increase to a very wealthy family." But Conservative M.P. Sir Stephen McAdden introduced a motion in the Commons deploring the New Statesman article. The Times editorially tut-tutted Grossman's "gratuitously offensive manner." The difficulty is that the royal budget, as presently constituted, is no longer able to support the Crown in the style to which it and its subjects have become accustomed. Of the overall $1,140,000 allotted annually, $444,000 goes for household salaries (319 full-time employees ranging from footmen to curators in the Royal Collections); $292,320 for household expenses (five royal palaces—Buckingham, Windsor, St. James's, Kensington and Holyrood-house—plus royal receptions and garden parties); $31,680 for the Royal Bounty, a fund from which the Queen contributes to charity; plus a $144,000 Privy Purse or salary from which she pays her personal expenses. Wealthy Woman. The Queen did not propose how much the increase should be, but she did offer to forgo her $144,000 Privy Purse in exchange for help on other royal expenses. The matter was discreetly referred to a 17-member Select Committee in the House of Commons. The Crossman article raised the question of just how rich the Queen of England is. Though Crossman "conservatively estimated" her fortune at $120 million, no one really knows, and many place it much higher. Surely she is the wealthiest woman in Britain, and in all likelihood one of the half-dozen wealthiest in the world. A substantial chunk of her riches lies in the Duchy of Lancaster, a 50,000-acre, dairy-rich collection of commercial properties that has belonged to sovereigns since 1399. The Duchy, on which the Queen pays property taxes but not income tax, produced a net income in 1969 of more than $500,000. In addition, the Queen receives revenues from investments, inheritances and farming at Balmoral and Sandringham castles (the only two residences whose expenses the Queen meets from her private funds), and a string of race horses. The Queen's pay increase is likely to come as much by farther lifting of expenses from her shoulders as by increasing her allowance. In recent years, the government has assumed the cost of royal tours, upkeep of the royal train, and the Queen's postal bills, as well as about $100,000 of the annual cost of state entertainment. Prince Philip, who receives a taxable annual stipend of $96,000, has recently induced the Treasury to pick up the laundry and cleaning bills he runs up on state business. He has not yet had to give up polo or move his family into smaller premises, as he jestingly threatened a couple of years ago on NBC's Meet the Press when he said that the family was "going into the red." To judge from the outcry that followed the New Statesman's article, Britons will continue to insist on picking up the tab for their monarchy. Crossman himself said: "I am strongly pro-monarchy. The Queen is good at her job—she is better value for the money than the Church of England—and should get the rate for it." Better that, he went on, than "a Copenhagen monarchy cycling around the streets." -The 1971 U.S. presidential budget, by comparison, is estimated at $11,344,000. This includes a taxable $200,000 for presidential salary, $50,000 (also taxable) for official expenses, $8,336,000 for salaries and expenses of some 500 White House staffers, $1,258,000 for operation of the White House and a special projects fund of $1,500,000. Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
	Quote