The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 07-01-2013, 04:10 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
My thoughts exactly - it's often in the papers that Charles spends thousands and thousands of pounds on dresses for Kate, I see no reason she shouldn't buy her own wardrobe.
With the greatest of respect, is it really any of our business whether Charles or William pays for Catherine's dresses? It is a private family arrangement, no public funding is involved, so should we really be bothered?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 07-01-2013, 05:55 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
With the greatest of respect, is it really any of our business whether Charles or William pays for Catherine's dresses? It is a private family arrangement, no public funding is involved, so should we really be bothered?
It just seems odd to me that despite being part if a very wealthy millionaire couple themselves, Charles pays for luxury items (eg clothes) that aren't essential for to Royal life.
__________________

__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:00 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
It just seems odd to me that despite being part if a very wealthy millionaire couple themselves, Charles pays for luxury items (eg clothes) that aren't essential for to Royal life.

I suspect that Charles pays for her official wardrobe - that is the clothes she wears on official engagements and then gives William an allowance to support himself and Kate. If they need more than that then they dip into William's inheritance no doubt.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-01-2013, 06:09 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
It just seems odd to me that despite being part if a very wealthy millionaire couple themselves, Charles pays for luxury items (eg clothes) that aren't essential for to Royal life.
I should imagine that clothes form a very essential part of royal life, otherwise the fashion threads here would be empty and there would be several new threads entitled "Naked Royal Bodies".

It is very generous of Charles to provide an allowance to his children and no doubt if I were rich enough, I'd provide an allowance for my relatives...if only to bribe them into keeping away at Christmas.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:39 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,022
The Duchy of Cornwall has issued a formal statement in response to a Channel 4 programme about the Duchy finances:

A statement from The Duchy of Cornwall in relation to the Dispatches programme broadcast on 1st July 2013
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:33 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
The Duchy of Cornwall has issued a formal statement in response to a Channel 4 programme about the Duchy finances:

A statement from The Duchy of Cornwall in relation to the Dispatches programme broadcast on 1st July 2013
In summary, you can't tax me twice nor do you get something for nothing. I thought this was perfect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
In summary, you can't tax me twice nor do you get something for nothing. I thought this was perfect.
Exactly. Of course all of this was old info that was available to the producers of the show but they chose to ignore it since it did not fit with the story they wanted to tell. I wonder if they will react to the statement put out by the PoW office.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:56 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,022
It does set out the core of the case for the Finance Committee on the 17th July.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:20 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
In summary, you can't tax me twice nor do you get something for nothing. I thought this was perfect.
That is the point that a lot of peopl don't get - to pay corporations tax would mean taxing the same income twice. Whether the name of the tax is the wrong one is one issue but no one surely expects him to pay tax twice on the same money.

Another question - that no one can answe for me - is why is it only the Duchy of Cornwall being challenged in this way when the Duchy of Lancaster is arranged the same way?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:32 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
That is the point that a lot of peopl don't get - to pay corporations tax would mean taxing the same income twice. Whether the name of the tax is the wrong one is one issue but no one surely expects him to pay tax twice on the same money.

Another question - that no one can answe for me - is why is it only the Duchy of Cornwall being challenged in this way when the Duchy of Lancaster is arranged the same way?
I assume for the publicity and because they find Charles a target-able figure. I hate it when officials act all righteous and as if they have just discovered the Prince is stealing from widows and orphans.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

That is the point that a lot of peopl don't get - to pay corporations tax would mean taxing the same income twice. Whether the name of the tax is the wrong one is one issue but no one surely expects him to pay tax twice on the same money.

Another question - that no one can answe for me - is why is it only the Duchy of Cornwall being challenged in this way when the Duchy of Lancaster is arranged the same way?
To add to the whole argument of you can't expect him to pay tax twice is the fact that he's paying the highest tax rate, which is 50%. If tax rates are the same for corporate taxes (I don't know if they are), then he'd be paying 100% of his income in taxes... Which, you know, is a bit much.

As to why Cornwall is being singled out, I have two theories:
1. Charles is viewed as an easier target and they just want to get more money from him, while leaving the Queen as is
or
2. The intent is to go after Lancaster once a precedent is established with Cornwall. They're singling out Charles because he's easier to go after, but once they've done so if they're successful they'll go after HM on the grounds that the two Duchys are arranged the same way, so if one has to pay taxes so does the other
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
The fact that Charles has always paid tax voluntarily has been missed while the Queen had to be encouraged to do so in 1992 - 40 years after getting the Duchy of Lancaster says to me that this is more Charles bashing.

And yes there are people who would like to see him pay both corporations and income tax on the same money meaning close to 100% of the earnings paid in tax leaving him with nothing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:59 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
To add to the whole argument of you can't expect him to pay tax twice is the fact that he's paying the highest tax rate, which is 50%. If tax rates are the same for corporate taxes (I don't know if they are), then he'd be paying 100% of his income in taxes... Which, you know, is a bit much.
I don't think that is correct. The Duchy generated 19 million pounds last year and had around 11 million pounds in official expenses, so the net was 8 million pounds. Charles paid about 4 million pounds in taxes.

However, if the Duchy were incorporated and paid a 50% tax rate (I think the UK corporate tax rate is actually lower), the remainder would be 4 million pounds. If Charles still paid the 50% rate he would have 2 million pounds left over.

People incorporate businesses and pay more taxes when there are benefits to doing so. For example, many businesses incorporate because it shields the shareholders from personal liability for the corporation's debts. But there is no reason for the heir to the throne to do that. The papers should also note that he gives large amounts of money to charities.

Another note: Charles has always voluntarily paid taxes, but I think he reduced his taxes to 25% when he married Diana (he took a tax deduction), but he increased his payments to 50% when it became an issue in 1992.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I don't think that is correct. The Duchy generated 19 million pounds last year and had around 11 million pounds in official expenses, so the net was 8 million pounds. Charles paid about 4 million pounds in taxes.

However, if the Duchy were incorporated and paid a 50% tax rate (I think the UK corporate tax rate is actually lower), the remainder would be 4 million pounds. If Charles still paid the 50% rate he would have 2 million pounds left over.
So you think he should pay tax twice on the same money - 50% of the net profit as corporations tax and then 50% of the net after corporations tax as income tax - doesn't seem fair to pay tax twice on the same money.

Either the net profit is his income - and subject to income tax or it is corporations profit and subject to corporations tax but not both.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:48 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post

I don't think that is correct. The Duchy generated 19 million pounds last year and had around 11 million pounds in official expenses, so the net was 8 million pounds. Charles paid about 4 million pounds in taxes.

However, if the Duchy were incorporated and paid a 50% tax rate (I think the UK corporate tax rate is actually lower), the remainder would be 4 million pounds. If Charles still paid the 50% rate he would have 2 million pounds left over.

People incorporate businesses and pay more taxes when there are benefits to doing so. For example, many businesses incorporate because it shields the shareholders from personal liability for the corporation's debts. But there is no reason for the heir to the throne to do that. The papers should also note that he gives large amounts of money to charities.

Another note: Charles has always voluntarily paid taxes, but I think he reduced his taxes to 25% when he married Diana (he took a tax deduction), but he increased his payments to 50% when it became an issue in 1992.
Thanks for the correction, and on a second look your math totally makes more sense than mine. I was thinking 50% + 50% = 100%, when it's really 50% + (50% of 50%) = 75%. Basically if the numbers for last year are what the Duchy regularly makes, then people are expecting Charles to pay 6 million pounds in taxes, and take home 2 million pounds (with which he supports himself, Camilla, the Cambridges, and Harry).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

So you think he should pay tax twice on the same money - 50% of the net profit as corporations tax and then 50% of the net after corporations tax as income tax - doesn't seem fair to pay tax twice on the same money.

Either the net profit is his income - and subject to income tax or it is corporations profit and subject to corporations tax but not both.
I don't think that's what US Royal Watcher is saying at all... If you read the rest of the post it seems to imply that she doesn't think Charles should incorporate and/or have to pay more in taxes. Or at least that's how I read the post (which seemed more like a correction to a misunderstanding of how corporate taxes work on my part than anything).

That said, if individuals who own corporations have to pay income taxes on whatever income they gain from their businesses in addition to paying corporate taxes, then I can understand the logic that Charles should pay more (maybe not agree with it, on many levels, but certainly understand it). The argument can be made that Charles and the Duchy should be placed under the same tax restrictions as anyone else - whether it means he has to pay taxes twice if others with corporations do so, or only once.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
The duchy is not a corporation so why should it pay corporate tax?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07-03-2013, 04:44 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,471
I saw the programme last night. I think the crux of the argument (although it was not set out clearly) was that the Duchy regularly trades in its property portfolio, quite like a property company, and should, therefore, be subject to capital gains tax or corporation tax, as may be applicable, on the gain from such trading. The Duchy's counter argument is that it is not a company, and so should not be subject to corporation tax (which is only 23% in the UK). Further, as the Duke does not have access to the capital gain (as he cannot withdraw the capital) resulting from the property trading, he does not pay any capital gains tax in his personal capacity. However, he does pay income tax at the top rate applicable to all (now 45% in the UK) on the net surplus from the Duchy. I think that is a pretty fair arrangement.

I thought the documentary was particularly poorly presented as it seemed to argue against the Duchy investing in commercial real estate and retail property, or from trading agricultural land. As regards Margaret Hodge's comments using Starbucks as an analogy in the context of the Duchy of Cornwall, her energies would be better spent chasing Amazon, Google, Cadbury Schweppes and Starbucks rather than wasting public resources on the Duchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 07-03-2013, 08:15 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,022
I'm not sure that everyone scrolled up and saw this - the Duchy response to the C4 documentary. It clearly states that the Duchy is not a corporation and as Charles is strictly prohibited from taking profit from capital, he is not liable for capital gains tax.

A statement from The Duchy of Cornwall in relation to the Dispatches programme broadcast on 1st July 2013

If there is an issue over the D of Cornwall - is the D of Lancaster next?
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 07-03-2013, 08:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I don't think that's what US Royal Watcher is saying at all... If you read the rest of the post it seems to imply that she doesn't think Charles should incorporate and/or have to pay more in taxes. Or at least that's how I read the post (which seemed more like a correction to a misunderstanding of how corporate taxes work on my part than anything).

That said, if individuals who own corporations have to pay income taxes on whatever income they gain from their businesses in addition to paying corporate taxes, then I can understand the logic that Charles should pay more (maybe not agree with it, on many levels, but certainly understand it). The argument can be made that Charles and the Duchy should be placed under the same tax restrictions as anyone else - whether it means he has to pay taxes twice if others with corporations do so, or only once.
Thank you, Ish. You are correct, I do not think that the Duchy should pay corporate taxes because it really isn't a business.

The net proceeds that are not reinvested for future generations are not just used to support Prince Charles and his family, but they are given to charities and help pay much of the cost of the royal family's public duties. I'm not British, but the public opinion polls indicate that most people in Britain support the monarchy.

If the Duchy pays more in taxes, then Prince Charles and his family will be forced to cut back on charitable donations, cut back on appearances, and/or get more support from the taxpayers. If Prince Charles cuts back on charitable donations, that will force some people to seek more assistance from the government, which will cost the taxpayers. Some people will say that he should cut back on his lifestyle, but that would put people out of work, which will mean those people will pay less in taxes.

In the grand scheme of things, the media is focusing on a small amount of money.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:20 PM
Dman's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,588
Villagers brand Prince Charles a bully for sending them letters invoking ancient right to mine under their homes-
Villagers brand Prince Charles a bully for sending them letters invoking ancient right to mine under their homes | Mail Online
__________________

__________________
"The truth, I think, is always fair even if it hurts. But misrepresentation, is to me, injustice. It isn't fair, so therefore it is not digestible."

The Honourable Frances Shand Kydd
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
duchy of cornwall, duke of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Relationship of the Royal Family with The Duchess of Cornwall? HMQueenElizabethII The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 378 02-02-2014 01:55 PM
Duchess of Cornwall Fashion and Style Part 1: April 2005 - December 2009 A.C.C. Archives 399 12-25-2009 12:30 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima princess mette-marit queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]