I guess my question is specific to the british royal family.

I saw a post online that said “God save the King” and had a photo of the king. The idea of a monarch or reverence for any other type of leader simply because they are the leader is outside of my experience.

I’m not here to disagree or argue, please don’t feel like you need to justify or convince me. I can accept that people value different things.

I would like to understand the appeal the monarchy or even specifically King Charles has for people who respect and support the monarchy.

  • rmuk@feddit.ukEnglish
    23·
    1 day ago

    I don’t think this is true

    Actually, I think the links you provide back my points up pretty well. In fact, the Wikipedia articles you linked mentions that the Sovereign Grant is “15% to 25%” of the profits of the Royal Estate, not 25% to 35% as I thought. That’s means the Government keeps 75% to 85% of their income, which is the “effective tax rate of at least 60%” I was talking about.

    they own private residences… self sustaining not for profit…

    Aristocrats gonna aristocrat. There isn’t a stately home in the country that doesn’t generate income from just existing. The National Trust owns a lot of them and is a charity that is broadly laudable, but most of the rest don’t burden themselves with the notion of being “non-profit”.

    since 1993 the Monarch’s personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer

    And as you mentioned, the rest of their income is taxed as if they were normal humans rather than aristocrats. It may be on a “voluntary” and incredibly malleable basis, but that’s probably because they know they’d get crucified if they didn’t and, regardless, the income from non-Crown Estate concerns is basically negligible.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineOPEnglish
      6·
      1 day ago

      Look, I’m not saying this because I am assigning some moral or ethical judgement to paying taxes but calling the set up of the Royal Estate as tax is…flawed.

      That is like saying an individual who withdraws a salary from their corporation is taxed at the rate equivalent to what they didn’t withdraw.

      Further,

      The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of His Majesty’s Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government

      …

      In 1760, George III surrendered control over the estate’s revenues to the Treasury,[6] thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.

      I guess the revenues don’t fully cover the cost of the government? Seems like a good deal for the monarchy vs a tax?