Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 June 5

= June 5 =

Prince Archie, dual citizenship and US taxes
I recently read an article about Prince Archie (Harry and Meghan's son) and how his dual (American and British) citizenship will impact him having to pay US taxes. In the article there was reference to how both of his parent's incomes as well as that of Prince Charles will be scrutinized to ensure he is paying the correct amount in taxes to the IRS. The article also stated that this is the first time such a thing has happened. My question is threefold: 1) What about Camilla? I thought she still had dual citizenship. How does the IRS respond to this and is Charles' income considered as well to determine how much she pays? 2) Given Archie's young age, I kinda understand why Harry and Meghan's income may be scrutinized, but why would Charles' income be brought into the equation; there was no reference to Camilla's income? 3) Can Britain refuse to disclose Harry's and Charles' income (if they did not want it disclosed)? 76.71.158.199 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * He is not Prince anything. Just plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "I thought she still had" probably doesn't do much for the IRS. I see nothing in Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to suggest she ever had, let alone still has US citizenship. Not even any reason to think she ever had. She was born in London. Her father Bruce Shand evidently wanted to take up US citizenship, but there's no mention he ever did and he didn't live there that long. Rosalind Shand doesn't seem to have a US connection that I noticed. A search for 'Camilla dual citizenship' and 'Camilla us citizenship' finds lots of irrelevant results which may suggest the search term failed but frankly a number of the search results seem minor enough that it would likely mean it's very uncommon to talk about if true. Are you thinking of Wallis Simpson or something? Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not the first time a US citizen marry a british royal. Wallis Simpson was surely wealthy enough to be under the IRS scrutiny. No child with the royal, though. As for Harry+Meghan, I am pretty sure that some marriage contract was signed, probably including some "to each, his own" regarding revenue, so I see no reason why the IRS would scrutinize Harry's any more than it did for Edward's. Gem fr (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an international agreement between most countries to ensure that tax is not paid twice, therefore if anyone earns in one country and pays taxes there they will not need to pay in another. If Man A is a US citizen but works in Germany and pays tax there he can take his earnings back to the US and not have to pay tax twice.  This is how tax havens work.  Man B claims to be domiciled in the Cayman Islands and goes there for a certain amount of time each year he can claim to be a citizen and only pay tax there, where the rate of tax is much lower that his true home.  Returning to man A, he can earn in Germany but be domiciled in the US and thereby pay tax to the US but not to Germany.  When Archie comes of age he will need to pay tax where ever he chooses to be domiciled.  Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides, in case of too much trouble he surely can relinquish his US citizenship Gem fr (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * According to all US citizens, whether in the USA or abroad, pay US taxees: "If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that, as per, "If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country or U.S. possession and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes." Normally it is taken as a tax credit. So the income is not doubly taxed. Loraof (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OR: a friend of mine who is a US citizen but has lived and worked in the UK for over 20 years has had to pay a substantial amount of US tax because she had some money in ISAs (a tax-free investment account, approved and indeed promoted by the UK government). See here for how this works. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't know why I thought Camilla was American (I wasn't thinking of Wallis Simpson since there were no children there). My bad. Second, thanks for the feedback. 209.91.188.70 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know whether Prince Archie is either on or off the table for any future "phenomenal trade deal". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the US could get Archie, and we could send Jughead to the UK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'd also have to take his NHS chaperone. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

War
Is there any historical evidence or writings referring to the overall advantages or disadvantages of past human warfare for human civilisation? Ie has war been good or bad for us overall? 80.2.20.209 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The winners write the history, and they of course will argue that their win was for the greater good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Arnold J. Toynbee's War and Civilization is a classic (and argues war creates decline, I believe), but there are loads of books on this topic. This one argues war helps civilization. This one thinks war is a hindrance to civilization. This one argues that war develops in tandem with civilization. You may also wish to start with the wiki article Polemology and see where it takes you... 70.67.193.176 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There's the infamous Report from Iron Mountain (originally intended as a parody), and the "War is Peace" chapter of Goldstein's Book is included in Orwell's 1984... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * war is part of problem of evil, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argues that we live in the best of all possible worlds; not every one agrees, to say the least. Kenneth Arrow proved that no question ever has a single collective answer, that is, good or bad to not apply to "us", just to "me" or to "you"; moreover each of us can have different perspective: looking backward, past war were good for each of us (You and I just wouldn't be born without past war), but looking forward, you and I have reasons to fear future wars (more chance that they hurt us that we benefit from them). Your question just can have any answer, so it has no answer. Gem fr (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Arrow's impossibility theorem" says something much more specific and limited than that. I don't find it all that impressive, since it's based on narrow special assumptions... AnonMoos (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * then show us ANY counterexample, that is, ANY way to construct a collective answer satisfying everyone, that is, basically, a way to prevent any open conflict and war. Oh wait. You cannot. Because, you know, this "not all that impressive" theorem, based on "narrow special assumptions"... Gem fr (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Arrow's impossibility theorem" is not about preventing war -- it's a dry technicalistic result in the mathematics of voting systems, which has a much narrower applicability than many seem to understand. If voters are allowed to indicate not just that they prefer A to B and B to C (a relative ordinal ranking), but are allowed to assign three numbers to indicate how much they prefer each of A, B, and C (absolute numeric valuations), then the whole thing pretty much falls apart... AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * your solution doesn't work: different a priori legit ways to crunch those numbers could give different results, whereas, if the collective preference existed, every legit ways to crunch the number would have it as a result. try again. Gem fr (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not "my solution", it's one fairly obvious method of indicating voter choices, which in integerized form has been fairly widely applied to elections below the nationwide level. The basic mathematical axioms with which Arrow starts his "impossibility theorem" proof exclude it, for no very good reason that I've ever been able to see... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * fair enough, "the solution you mentioned", then. The reasons to exclude cardinal voting are many, and, anyway, it obviously is just a two-stages usual voting (first stage : voter=circumscription throw its ballots; second stage: assemblage of those --very small--circumscription ballots in any usual way), so it doesn't solve problems of usual voting (even makes them worse, methink), and doesn't make it immune to Arrow's theorem. (which doesn't make it stupid or useless). I am afraid we digress, though. Gem fr (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The article which you just linked to says: "Arrow's impossibility theorem…states that no method can comply with all of a simple set of desirable criteria. However, since one of these criteria (called 'universality') implicitly requires that a method be ordinal, not cardinal, Arrow's theorem does not apply to cardinal methods."
 * This is pretty much what I've been saying all along...
 * But thanks for turning up the cardinal voting article -- I didn't know that that was the general name for it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, an equivalent wording would be "cardinal methods inherently violate a desirable criteria, and increase the sensibility of the final result to the method and to tactical voting". Cardinal ranking is not feature, it is an hassle and a bug, and a clever voter would get rid of it, both to save the hassle, and to maximize the chance of a favorable outcome, by voting the maximum he can in the order of his choice (let's say, 100, 99, 98 for his three top candidates, zero for each and every other). That is, he would turn the vote ordinal. Gem fr (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I find the answers above fascinating but that they don't go very far in answering the original question. May I pose the reason for this and the answer in an analogy. Jordan Peterson has stated that war is an extension of territorialism, thereby to ask if the act of warfare has had a benefit to the development of civilisation is akin to asking if territorial disputes in wolves have hindered or advanced their Darwinian evolution. However I will also ask that it is noted that many of our advances in technology have been the result of military research, make of this what you will. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have trouble linking territorialism and civil war or religious disputes.
 * Guns, Germs, and Steel thesis regarding the effect of perpetually competing/warring factions on technology is interesting: "The Asian areas [had] isolated empires which faced no external pressure to change which led to stagnation. Europe's many natural barriers allowed the development of competing nation-states. Such competition forced the European nations to encourage innovation and avoid technological stagnation."
 * It may be wrong, though. The losing side in a war is often brought very far back in technology, and even for the winning side, war require resources (including brains) that otherwise would had been invested in machinery, know-how, knowledge... technology. :Gem fr (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The millions of innocent people displaced, raped or slaughtered in humanities wars would disagree about the being any benefits. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "innocent". hum... We just wouldn't be born if Gengis Khan hadn't slaughtered an estimated 1/3 of humanity of its time, and sired an estimated 1/4 of current humanity (someone else would be born instead; but unborn cannot complain they were deprived of life, can they? Only descendants of Gengis Khan&friends can do that). Just every single one of those complainers owed his very life to previous wars. So ye, sure, they complain when the thing it them back. Just like the (innocent) son of a thief, owing his fortune to thievery, could complain when stolen... but would he be right? Gem fr (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes innocent. I take it from your smug attitude that you don't understand the word. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me make it simpler for you. Every currently living human benefits from past wars. Those acknowledging the fact can rightfully claim innocence (past crimes are not theirs!), but this imply admitting the benefits they owe to war. Those pretending otherwise may be "innocent" only in the pejorative sense (not aware). Deal with it. Gem fr (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me make it simpler for you. People who have nothing to do with a conflict are slaughtered so yes innocents get no benefit from a war. A shame that you are clueless about this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my... 2 false sentences, linked by a non sequitur, with a disgusting a contrario implication, in 20 words, that are not even to the point. Too much for me. And any way, too much of a digression. Be happy, man. Gem fr (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that a false sentence, or a non-sequiter? You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of an "innocent victim".  It means someone who had done nothing to provoke whatever happened to them, or was otherwise unconnected to whatever caused the act of aggression.  If I launch an invasion of another country, and kill a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the conflict or the cause of conflict, then they are innocent victims of my war.  Even if they are the great-great-great-grandchildren of some previous warlord. And to go back to the overarching argument, they are clearly not benefiting from the war, even if they technically benefited (assuming mere existence counts as a benefit) from a previous war. Iapetus (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While agreeing that war is a BAD THING; see also Do wars drive technological advancement?. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that a false sentence. Well, quite obviously, been slaughtered in a conflict ipso facto makes the victim having something to do with the conflict (whether they somehow are, or not, connected to whatever caused the war, is just irrelevant: you are not supposed to slaughter them anyway). So the first part is plainly false. Likewise, being hurt by a current war surely reduce the benefit of having been alive thanks to previous wars, but doesn't erase, and doesn't even outweigh the benefits from previous war. Besides, for instance, Argentine people who made a living (and sometime even fortune) selling meat to UK and France warring in WWI, both were innocent of this conflict and benefited, didn't they?
 * or a non-sequiter?; you cannot deduce innocents get no benefit from a war from People who have nothing to do with a conflict are slaughtered. No connection at all. non sequitur.
 * Furthermore, be aware that the concept of "innocent victim of war" may seem friendly, but is actually a disgusting tool of barbarism, because, its only practical effect would be awful treatment of "non innocent" warring faction. see just war theory. Gem fr (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. op here. A couple of good refs early on but then posts degenerated into mutual personal attacks with no references to the subject in question. Is this what the reference desks have degenerated into: a place to kick,verbally,the shit out of each other? SHAME on you all. I'm very disappointed at the aggressive responses on the desk of a worldwide encyclope[redacted] to which children have free access. 86.8.200.182 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you think war has not been a net benefit to the Refdesk? I'm surprised, since so many of the reliable sources above think that wars with real bullets are a blessing to mankind. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)