[djrobstep]

This is very misleading.

Of course it costs the taxpayer. The government could simply stop handing over millions of pounds a year to these people if it wanted to. But it doesn't. This decision costs the taxpayer.

Taking the logic further - all privately owned property and revenue "costs the taxpayer", relative to the public owning it instead.

[mjburgess]

The state could, by force, take anything from anyone. That it doesnt is your definition of a "cost" ?

What people are concerned about is whether it is taxed income which funds this, and it isnt.

[djrobstep]

Taxed income does fund this - the sovereign grant payment is paid from government treasury, and is thus a cost to taxpayers.

[ponker]

The UK treasury is formally Her Majesty's Treasury, and the sovereign grant paid to her is actually a small portion of the money she puts in through the Crown Estate. So she is a net donor to the treasury, although she gets a major out in that the Crown Estate is not subject to inheritance tax.

[djrobstep]

The Queen does not "put in" the Crown Estate revenue, that revenue belongs to the government all along.

The law is quite clear on this.