Originally posted by AtW
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
EU comes to Greece's rescue
Collapse
X
-
That's not what I saidLet us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone -
This time next year Rodders, you know it makes sense...Originally posted by DodgyAgent View PostThat's not what I saidComment
-
Yeah, good points. It is just that, as I get old and grumpy, I have decided no longer to let offhand mutters of "we subsidise Scotland" pass by without comment.Originally posted by doodab View PostExcept of course that they aren't. In the figures given corporation tax take is allocated to regions based on gross value added or population. If you look at the table on p.123 you will see that Scotland provides slightly more than 10% of the corporation tax take used in the calculations, which is consistent with your figures.
I'm just trying to point out that London and the SE make a disproportionate contribution to UK GDP and tax revenue, in much the same way that Germany makes a disproportionate contribution to the Eurozone. That's not to say the whole isn't greater than the sum of it's parts.
I'm not trying to be anti Scottish or pro London here, if anything I would say that it's in the interests of the stronger Eurozone countries to look out for the weaker ones because the end result benefits everyone, in much the same way that having Scotland remain part of the UK is a good thing.
I also think the UK would win by being in the Euro.
I'm not being pro-Scotland, and certainly not anti-London, in that. I'm just trying to improve the standard of debate and of facts behind the debate; and I see that you are too.Step outside posh boyComment
-
Failure to pillage the Indian lands was one of the things that the colonists held against Great Britain:Originally posted by Paddy View Posthttp://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/doc...p2.cfm?doc=307
Prior to the American Revolution, a surprisingly large number of Native Americans lived among whites. ...
Because of their interest in the fur trade and in avoiding costly Indian wars, the British had been eager to prevent rapid settlement of the backcountry and to guarantee Indians the integrity of their hunting grounds. ....
The end of the war brought a westward surge of backcountry settlers onto Indian lands.
U.S. Declaration of IndependenceThe history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
....
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
...
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.Step outside posh boyComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Burnham's housing vision vs. Starmer's home-buying reforms: what it means for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- In Khalil v Innovate Transport, a limited company contractor wasn’t a worker and was on £2.30 — not £230 Jul 21 07:58
- Andy Burnham is PM: 5 new IT policies set to shape UK tech and its contractors Jul 20 06:29
- Taxed on money I haven't earned yet? Bold move, HMRC Jul 17 08:36
- The Fair Work Agency has got zero hours in its sights. Do you? Jul 16 08:44
- Cookie Policy Jul 15 11:50
- Cloned again: an umbrella company founder's warning on fraud, JSL and Companies House Jul 15 07:47
- How is JSL bedding in for contractor umbrella companies, 100 days in? Jul 14 07:45
- IT contractor demand cools in June 2026 amid UK heatwave Jul 13 08:18
- How could zero hours contract reform create unexpected problems for contractors? Jul 8 06:40


Comment