• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry and Meghan crisis: tax breaks helped to pile up fortune fit for a prince

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Harry and Meghan crisis: tax breaks helped to pile up fortune fit for a prince | News | The Sunday Times

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex insist on their website that they “do not receive any tax privileges” — but the truth is slightly more complicated.

While the couple attracted some criticism last week after saying that they wanted to “work to become financially independent”, their current fortune is the result of huge tax advantages given to Prince Harry’s relatives.
============================================================
Their main source of income is via his father from the Duchy of Cornwall, which benefits from significant tax breaks.

If it weren't for tourist income revolving around the Royal Family, they should all either be banished or jailed for corruption.

See Duchy of Cornwall - Wikipedia
 
Maybe monarchy was a stupid idea.
 
JacksinPA said:
William thought it was worth a sea voyage & a battle in 1066.
Click to expand...

Living to 25 was worth a sea voyage and battle in 1066. Having one child out of ten survive was worth an epic journey. Drinking water without dying from it was worth globe trekking.

A Pyrrhic victory at best.
 
Chomsky said:
:thumbs:

Though I think I may be warming-up a bit to parliamentarianism ...
Click to expand...

A two party system provides compromise from the ground up, that is the people up, as it demands we make personal concessions in choosing which party to support. A parliamentary system provides for compromise from the top down. Concessions are made not by the individual but by "representatives" looking out for their own power in a government body. That's top down compromise.

Bottom up is how we work, not top down, and that includes political compromise.
 
ecofarm said:
Living to 25 was worth a sea voyage and battle in 1066. Having one child out of ten survive was worth an epic journey. Drinking water without dying from it was worth globe trekking.

A Pyrrhic victory at best.
Click to expand...
Which explains the prevalence of beer in Europe & the U.K., and 'no' I'm not joking here!
 
Chomsky said:
Which explains the prevalence of beer in Europe & the U.K., and 'no' I'm not joking here!
Click to expand...

Fermentation was the only way to be safe.
 
ecofarm said:
A two party system provides compromise from the ground up, that is the people up, as it demands we make personal concessions in choosing which party to support. A parliamentary system provides for compromise from the top down. Concessions are made not by the individual but by "representatives" looking out for their own power in a government body. That's top down compromise.

Bottom up is how we work, not top down, and that includes political compromise.
Click to expand...
You know, yours is one of the best rationales I've seen for the two-party system. I'll accept that, even if I'm not ready to cease my unhappiness with the two-party system.

But I will add the parliamentarian system still provides for minority representation in that those minority reps are indeed elected, and even in minority numbers they still have the ability to have their voices heard due to their being needed to form a governing coalition. Their efficacy and chances to be part of the coalition are political rather than strictly numerical, but the system does allow for smaller minority parties to become part of the governing coalition - and this appeals to me.
 
ecofarm said:
Fermentation was the only way to be safe.
Click to expand...

Beer was a lot safer than pond water. The Pilgrims had the Mayflower crammed with barrels of it & stopped in Cape Cod to brew up some more.
 
Chomsky said:
You know, yours is one of the best rationales of seen for the two-party system. I'll accept that, even if I'm not ready to cease my unhappiness with the two-party system.

But I will add the parliamentarian system still provides for minority representation in that those minority reps are indeed elected, and even in minority numbers they still have the ability to have their voices heard due to their being needed to form a governing coalition. Their efficacy and chances to be part of the coalition are political rather than strictly numerical, but the system does allow for smaller minority parties to become part of the governing coalition - and this appeals to me.
Click to expand...

Those minority parties have greater power when mainstreamed by bottom up compromise. In this way, they can decide elections.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Those minority parties have greater power when mainstreamed by bottom up compromise. In this way, they can decide elections.
Click to expand...
Yes - but "bottom-up compromise" dilutes their positions, meaning we end-up with this huge middling monolithic uni-party type mess. Not wanting governance by the "tyranny of the majority", is why our founders gave us a constitutional representative republic, rather than a direct-democracy. Though I suppose I may have just helped you make your point!
 
JacksinPA said:
Harry and Meghan crisis: tax breaks helped to pile up fortune fit for a prince | News | The Sunday Times

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex insist on their website that they “do not receive any tax privileges” — but the truth is slightly more complicated.

While the couple attracted some criticism last week after saying that they wanted to “work to become financially independent”, their current fortune is the result of huge tax advantages given to Prince Harry’s relatives.
============================================================
Their main source of income is via his father from the Duchy of Cornwall, which benefits from significant tax breaks.

If it weren't for tourist income revolving around the Royal Family, they should all either be banished or jailed for corruption.

See Duchy of Cornwall - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Entire article is behind a paywall but from what I read and from the wiki page you linked it seems Charles pays income tax but that the duchy itself isn’t taxed.

In any case so what? The salient question is whether Harry pays taxes or not.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes - but "bottom-up compromise" dilutes their positions, meaning we end-up with this huge middling monolithic uni-party type mess. Not wanting governance by the "tyranny of the majority", is why our founders gave us a constitutional representative republic, rather than a direct-democracy. Though I suppose I may have just helped you make your point!
Click to expand...

The fun part is we approach the question from a philosophical perspective (qualitative) and not quantitative.
 
ecofarm said:
The fun part is we approach the question from a philosophical perspective and not quantitative.
Click to expand...
Isn't that interesting? That never occurred to me. In my case, I think I blame it all on my Catholic School education! :2razz:
 
Chomsky said:
Isn't that interesting? That never occurred to me. In my case, I think I blame it all on my Catholic School education! :2razz:
Click to expand...

Middle class public school wasn't a bastion of enlightenment either.
 
Chomsky said:
Is this a Canuck euphemism?
Click to expand...

(grin!)

In the civil war, I forget the dates, supporters of King Charles were called Cavaliers and supporters of Cromwell and the Parliament were called Roundheads. Because of their short hair or because of the helmets they wore in battle, depending on who you ask.
 
ecofarm said:
Middle class public school wasn't a bastion of enlightenment either.
Click to expand...
Well, trust me - after muddling through Catholic theology in a group academic setting, and making that work, you get to the point where you can argue pretty much anything! :mrgreen:
 
Grand Mal said:
(grin!)

In the civil war, I forget the dates, supporters of King Charles were called Cavaliers and supporters of Cromwell and the Parliament were called Roundheads. Because of their short hair or because of the helmets they wore in battle, depending on who you ask.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks for that Grand Mel - much appreciated.

Here's what heretofore came to my mind, when I heard the term "King Charles' Cavalier":


cavalierkingcharlesspanielsf2.jpg
 
JacksinPA said:
Harry and Meghan crisis: tax breaks helped to pile up fortune fit for a prince | News | The Sunday Times

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex insist on their website that they “do not receive any tax privileges” — but the truth is slightly more complicated.

While the couple attracted some criticism last week after saying that they wanted to “work to become financially independent”, their current fortune is the result of huge tax advantages given to Prince Harry’s relatives.
============================================================
Their main source of income is via his father from the Duchy of Cornwall, which benefits from significant tax breaks.

If it weren't for tourist income revolving around the Royal Family, they should all either be banished or jailed for corruption.

See Duchy of Cornwall - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

This Sunday Times story is symptomatic of why Harry and Megan should leave for Canada. The charge of tax-breaks etc applies to Charles and his kids (William and Harry) yet Harry and Megan are the ones the newspapers focus on.
As it is, the Royals bring in a lot of income to the UK so I'm not ready to call for a Republic yet but let's treat them all the same way except when one or other commits an act the others haven't (i.e. makes friends with a reknowned paedophile etc)
 
ecofarm said:
Maybe monarchy was a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Tax breaks, on the other hand, are awesome. See what people can earn if the gubmint stopped robbing them via the use of taxes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom