Should the monarchy be abolished?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the monarchy be abolished?
Position‹2 of 4›: We should reform the monarchy
Argument: The monarchy must sustainably self-fund

While important, the monarchy cannot continue to be funded by public coffers. Allow them to use the money they generate to sustain themselves.

The argument

In a survey commissioned by Republic, 76% of British citizens stated that they did not want their taxes spent on Meghan Markle's and Prince Harry's wedding. The royal family should self-fund than rely on taxpayers as many people in the country can't even afford to pay for their rent or food. The taxes should instead be spent on British citizens. In England, people find it unreasonable that their taxes are funding royal ceremonies and the refurbishment of the Buckingham Palace when the family has immense wealth available to cover the funds themselves. The monarchy should be reformed, if not abolished, to protect the welfare of taxpaying citizens.

Context

The UK government subsidizes the Monarchy with tax payer money each year. This is estimated at £300 million per annum and is greater than any tourism revenue generated. Royals do not pay tax nor have to insure their properties. When there was a major fire at Windsor castle, the Queen expected taxpayers to pay for repairs.

Premises

[P1]Surveys show most British citizens object to their taxes funding royal events, such as the 76% who opposed public spending on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's wedding. [P2] Given the royal family's immense private wealth and the many citizens who struggle to afford rent or food, it is unreasonable for taxpayers rather than the family to fund ceremonies and palace refurbishment. [C] The monarchy should be reformed so that it sustainably self-funds rather than relying on taxpayers.

Counter-arguments

In Britain, the funds that come from Queen's Crown Estate are taxed at 75%, which makes the monarchy self-funded. In 2018, the British royal family brought £595 million in the country through tourism, merchandise, and the arts, while costing £165m. They make much more profit than other European monarchies. The family spends generously on the country's taxpayers and supports them through self-funded events and projects.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A single question commissioned by an organisation campaigning for abolition is weak evidence of settled public opinion, and it asked about one event; the public element of that cost was overwhelmingly policing and security, which no private family can provide for itself. [Rejecting P2] The premise also misdescribes the arrangement it objects to: the Crown Estate's surplus goes to the Treasury and the Sovereign Grant is calculated as a percentage of it, so the institution already returns more to public funds than it draws — which means the reform proposed either describes the status quo or is really an argument about the private fortune, a separate question the premises do not distinguish.