UK royal finances to be investigated by Public Accounts Committee - Polidicks

[t]http://imgkk.com/i/yftm.jpg[/t] [t]http://imgkk.com/i/eqxi.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9859194/The-Queens-finances-to-be-investigated-by-powerful-Westminster-committee.html[/url] [quote]The Queen is facing a tough inquiry into her finances and expenses by the most powerful watchdog in government, it emerged last night. The Public Accounts Committee is expected to launch an investigation into whether the monarch and the Royal Family provide value for money to the taxpayer. The inquiry, which will look at every aspect of the Queen’s expenditure including the cost of transport, is likely to cause concern in Buckingham Palace because of the PAC’s reputation for grilling civil servants if it deems they have misused public funds.[/quote]

The only people that want this are Republicans and they just want to get dirt on the monarchy, they should be investigating business's and banks, the Queen's cool.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39528889]The only people that want this are Republicans and they just want to get dirt on the monarchy, they should be investigating business's and banks, the Queen's cool.[/QUOTE] I think the government is quite capable of investigating both.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39529057]I think the government is quite capable of investigating both.[/QUOTE] Seeing as though the country profits from the monarchy I don't see any reason for this investigation beyond "Hey look plebs, your government is doing something" while actually getting nothing important done.

[url]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family-explained.html[/url] Cog Grey explains.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39529057]I think the government is quite capable of investigating both.[/QUOTE] Could've fooled me, the government seems barely capable of doing something as simple as saying it's chill if gays marry.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39529335]Seeing as though the country profits from the monarchy[/QUOTE] How exactly does monarchy generate money for the country? Tourism and personal business practices aside, the tourism explanation is overstepping it (suggesting people come to see the queen is absurd) while the annual ritual of the Queen “surrendering” the money to parliament is nothing more than a formality - Crown Estate argument is invalid as the land is property of the nation, not the royals. The cost for monarchy is roughly [URL="http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf"]£200 million more [/URL] For a time we could not continue to actually calculate how much the monarchy costs properly because the government would not respond to the freedom of information request on the subject of Royal security costs, though again that is also estimated to be £101m (Prince Andrew taxed 1 million out of the public alone for his personal protection and the rest of the family can go into the tens of millions). So its my belief that monarchy doesn't really pay for itself - we do.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39530998]How exactly does monarchy generate money for the country? Tourism and personal business practices aside, the tourism explanation is overstepping it (suggesting people come to see the queen is absurd) while the annual ritual of the Queen “surrendering” the money to parliament is nothing more than a formality - Crown Estate argument is invalid as the land is property of the nation, not the royals. The cost for monarchy is roughly [URL="http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf"]£200 million more [/URL] For a time we could not continue to actually calculate how much the monarchy costs properly because the government would not respond to the freedom of information request on the subject of Royal security costs, though again that is also estimated to be £101m (Prince Andrew taxed 1 million out of the public alone for his personal protection and the rest of the family can go into the tens of millions). So its my belief that monarchy doesn't really pay for itself - we do.[/QUOTE] The monarchy pays the government, the land is property of the royals not the state. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=SPqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=27[/media]

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39531025]The monarchy pays the government, the land is property of the royals not the state. -stupid yippy dogs-[/QUOTE] Was there not a follow up video which very clearly explained the inaccuracies in this video and gave a far more accurate representation?

[QUOTE=Dysgalt;39531255]Was there not a follow up video which very clearly explained the inaccuracies in this video and gave a far more accurate representation?[/QUOTE] The main retorts iirc were that the royal family got their land through power (which is irrelevant, they still make money off it, so while it might not be morally sound, it is fiscally), and that the royals don't pay tax (which isn't an actual loss only a theoretical one, and there is still profit).

[QUOTE=Hellduck;39531341]The main retorts iirc were that the royal family got their land through power (which is irrelevant, they still make money off it, so while it might not be morally sound, it is fiscally), and that the royals don't pay tax (which isn't an actual loss only a theoretical one, and there is still profit).[/QUOTE] It was a crappy video, for two reasons: 1. You can't pass judgement on the right to status or ownership of property based what has happened hundreds of years ago. By that stupid logic, US citizens should decamp and return Europe since their homes are built on land which originally belonged to someone else. 2. The only valid point the video raised in regards to tax was that the Royals do not pay inheritence tax. However, it conveniently failed to mention that they do pay VAT and income tax.

[QUOTE=David29;39531401]It was a crappy video, for two reasons: 1. You can't pass judgement on the right to status or ownership of property based what has happened hundreds of years ago. By that stupid logic, US citizens should decamp and return Europe since their homes are built on land which originally belonged to someone else. 2. The only valid point the video raised in regards to tax was that the Royals do not pay inheritence tax. However, it conveniently failed to mention that they do pay VAT and income tax.[/QUOTE] It was also a crappy video because the guy narrating it was way to uncharasmatic to be as self-indulgently sarcastic as he was.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39531025]The monarchy pays the government, the land is property of the royals not the state. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&list=SPqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=27[/media][/QUOTE] yeah its been posted a thousand times, and its incorrect as listed above. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Dysgalt;39531255]Was there not a follow up video which very clearly explained the inaccuracies in this video and gave a far more accurate representation?[/QUOTE] yes [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] Crown Estate argument is rather redundant, the land the monarchy "surrenders" to parliament each year is nothing more then a formality and is rather in effect already the property of the nation, so we shouldn't see it as a benefit sacrificed by the monarchy for the good of the nation. If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow the income would stay in the hands of the Treasury, the annual ritual of the Queen surrendering the money to parliament is just a tradition. The land isn't even private property, and all income always goes to the government treasury. The trustees of the estate are ultimately subject to the will of parliament. When you actually add up the other costs including other small grants from government, the money spent by local councils on accommodating royal visits, the cost of security, and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The cost of royal protection officers etc is impossible to calculate, as government won’t respond to freedom of information requests on the subject of security. Now they are actually doing this we can shed some light on what its all costing though alone the jubilee bank holiday cost us 1.2 billion. Tax argument is again a formality, to keep up a good appearance. The Queen volunteered to start paying income tax and capital gains tax yes, that’s on her personal income, which includes 2 estates but doesn't include the Crown Estate or royal palaces. They're in effect given remarkable tax breaks.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]Crown Estate argument is rather redundant, the land the monarchy "surrenders" to parliament each year is nothing more then a formality and is rather in effect already the property of the nation, so we shouldn't see it as a benefit sacrificed by the monarchy for the good of the nation. If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow the income would stay in the hands of the Treasury, the annual ritual of the Queen surrendering the money to parliament is just a tradition.[/QUOTE] It's not a tradition, it is a legal act. The land is de jure owned by the Monarchy and you cannot simply right off the surrendering as 'redundant'. In effect, it is a legal agreement between the Government and the Monarchy in a similar manner to that of a tenant and a landlord - the landlord agrees to hand over control of the property in exchange for recurring payments. As a result, the Monarch still has every right to opt out of this and deny all the land to the Government. However, it would not be beneficial for either party. This has, therefore, led to a situation where it has become something we have come to accept as a given. But that is beside the point, because [b]it is still the property of the Monarchy.[/b] You cannot simply take property away from someone without good reason. [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]The land isn't even private property, and all income always goes to the government treasury.[/QUOTE] I think you need to learn what defines private and public property. Property is not public just because it is open to the public. All of the crown estate is private. Why? Because it is not owned by the Government. Take, for example, Chatsworth House - it is open to the public but is still owned by the Duke of Devonshire and even acts as his residence. The public can access 26 of it's 126 rooms, but it is not public property. [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]The trustees of the estate are ultimately subject to the will of parliament.[/QUOTE] As noted, only with the blessing of the Monarchy. [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]When you actually add up the other costs including other small grants from government, the money spent by local councils on accommodating royal visits, the cost of security, and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The cost of royal protection officers etc is impossible to calculate, as government won’t respond to freedom of information requests on the subject of security.[/QUOTE] You just shot yourself in the foot. If it is impossible to obtain accurate figures on the Monarchy's finances, how can that link you posted earlier on be considered accurate in any way? [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]Now they are actually doing this we can shed some light on what its all costing though alone the jubilee bank holiday cost us 1.2 billion. Tax argument is again a formality, to keep up a good appearance.[/QUOTE] First, stop calling everything a bloody 'formality'. In the case of taxes; if it generates money how can it be a damned 'formality'?! A formality implies that one is simply going through the motions for appearances sake and that it has not actually impact on anything. But taxes [b]do[/b] have an impact. [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]The Queen volunteered to start paying income tax and capital gains tax yes, that’s on her personal income, which includes 2 estates but doesn't include the Crown Estate or royal palaces.[/QUOTE] So are you admitting here then that the Monarchy [i] does[/i] own the Crown Estate? If not, then surely you should agree that the Government should cover the tax for that, right? [QUOTE=Vasili;39531463]They're in effect given remarkable tax breaks.[/QUOTE] What type of tax breaks? Source?

[QUOTE=David29;39533106]It's not a tradition, it is a legal act. The land is de jure owned by the Monarchy and you cannot simply right off the surrendering as 'redundant'. In effect, it is a legal agreement between the Government and the Monarchy in a similar manner to that of a tenant and a landlord - the landlord agrees to hand over control of the property in exchange for recurring payments. As a result, the Monarch still has every right to opt out of this and deny all the land to the Government. However, it would not be beneficial for either party. This has, therefore, led to a situation where it has become something we have come to accept as a given. But that is beside the point, because [B]it is still the property of the Monarchy.[/B] You cannot simply take property away from someone without good reason. I think you need to learn what defines private and public property. Property is not public just because it is open to the public. All of the crown estate is private. Why? Because it is not owned by the Government. Take, for example, Chatsworth House - it is open to the public but is still owned by the Duke of Devonshire and even acts as his residence. The public can access 26 of it's 126 rooms, but it is not public property. [/QUOTE] This common misconception about the relationship between the Windsors, the monarchy, the Crown, the state and the government. It’s a misconception fueled by the confusing way in which the government and the royal household describe the various property and ownership arrangements. Monarchy legitimacy claims of the land is about as strong as the City of Londons ceremony to recognize its independence from the rest of London and allowing the monarchy/mayor of London to enter. If monarchy tried to take back the land from parliament they would be overruled (not that its even allowed to anyway). This act is just a traditionalist law that has no real leg to stand on in today's democratic society. This monarchy handing over 'their' land doesn't really have any legitimate claim anymore, if she decided to take back the land the Queen would be forced to start shelling out for half the cost of running the government (the reason the whole process was set up as it almost bankrupted King George). Crown Estate is owned by the Queen ‘in right of the Crown’. She no more owns the Crown Estate personally than David Cameron owns the flat above 10 Downing Street. If she ceased to be Queen she ceases to ‘own’ the Crown Estate. The same is true of the royal palaces and the art collection, although in a slightly different way, of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. They are only the property of the Queen and the heir respectively so long as those individuals are Queen and heir. [QUOTE=David29;39533106]As noted, only with the blessing of the Monarchy.[/QUOTE] Formality. [QUOTE=David29;39533106]You just shot yourself in the foot. If it is impossible to obtain accurate figures on the Monarchy's finances, how can that link you posted earlier on be considered accurate in any way?[/QUOTE] Because I said its not possible to get accurate figures on their security costs, not their overall total. If this was the case there would be no argument either side, as the costs would be hidden and not able to come to a estimate if they are profits or losses. The point is this; the land is not private property of the monarchy, it cannot be sold by monarchy, the revenues it takes does not belong to the monarchy. Because of these points they don't really have any control over it and the "surrendering" of land to government/parliament is again - formality and tradition. The Crown does not ‘belong’ to the Queen. It is an institution of state and it belongs to the nation. Since 1689 parliament has had complete authority over who the Crown passes to and how its powers will be exercised. The problem with the argument is - as I said earlier - British laws and traditions are very complicated and confusing; it is parliament that has control over the Crown, not the government, this difference between parliament and government is often lost in this country because parliament is so often controlled by government. Parliament decides who the Crowned head of state is and whoever that person is ‘owns’ the property mentioned above only so long as they are in that official position. They have no personal claim to it were they to leave office. What happens if we abolish the monarchy? Parliament declares the throne to be vacant and passes the Crown to the people. The people’s parliament then has complete authority to determine what to do with all its assets and property. The monarch who is removed from office has no claim to any of the property as it was never theirs in the first place. The nation keeps the palaces, the art, the jewels and the land.