Originally posted by doomage
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!
Duchess of Cambridge pregnant
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Ketchup View PostWho are you referring to by "you plebs"Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.Comment
-
Originally posted by doomage View PostTaxpayers.
And what team would state-funded footballers play for?
poor arguementComment
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostThey come to see the buildings because we still have a royal family. The Yanks love the whole idea - they can see old buildings in any European country but they come to London drawn by the queen.Comment
-
Originally posted by Ketchup View PostAre you not included in that group then?
And what team would state-funded footballers play for?
poor arguement
Pleb.Keeping calm. Keeping invoicing.Comment
-
Comment
-
Let's put this horse tulip straight to bed. The country in Europe most visited is France. Last time I looked, they didn't have a royal family, but still have palaces.
In lists compiled of the most visited sights in the world, Trafalgar and Parliament Square come ahead of Buck Pal, and the Louvre, Sacre Coeur, Notre Dame, Versailles, Eiffel Tower and Disneyland Paris all well ahead of it.
50 most visited tourist attractions in the world:
Not surprisingly, the French are out in force. How to account for the preponderance of attractions in Paris? According to the latest statistics report from the World Tourism Organization, France receives more foreign tourists per year than any other country -- some 76 million in 2005. Spain followed with 55 million, the United States with 50 million and China with 47 million. Italy rounded out the top five with 37 million (with the U.K. not far behindComment
-
Originally posted by Ketchup View Postand you are forgetting that that £500m comes into the country, and is not directly offset against the £100m they cost. Some of that £500m will be spent on imported goods for example.
However it's daft to make the case for keeping/removing them on profitability anyway. If we do that and talk about "think of the hospitals" then if our forebears had thought the same, virtually none of our great buildings would exist in the first place. It would be most cost effective if we all lived in cheap concrete boxes, drove cheap efficient cars, wore cheap durable clothes, and did nothing but work and eat and sleep. But then why bother.Originally posted by MaryPoppinsI'd still not breastfeed a naziOriginally posted by vetranUrine is quite nourishingComment
-
Originally posted by Ketchup View PostExcept the £100m PA they cost, think what we could spend that on. Improved transport links, redeveloping run down areas, museums, art galleries, hospitals.
£100M is peanuts, its not enough for Barclay's biscuit budget.
0.72 Miles of M74.
BBC News - The UK's last, great, expensive, short roads
1/2 of a lean to on the Tate Modern
Why Tate Modern's extension stacks up | Art and design | guardian.co.uk
Sorry I prefer her Maj
Of course Duchy Originals could be moved offshore and the Queen could charge Blair like attendance fees losing a few quid before paying tax.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostAnd? The cost of upkeep of all those buildings without the family could easily be tens of millions, so my point is even a small reduction in tourism would more than offset this.
However it's daft to make the case for keeping/removing them on profitability anyway. If we do that and talk about "think of the hospitals" then if our forebears had thought the same, virtually none of our great buildings would exist in the first place. It would be most cost effective if we all lived in cheap concrete boxes, drove cheap efficient cars, wore cheap durable clothes, and did nothing but work and eat and sleep. But then why bother.
Besides, we do have all those nice buildings now, so they can still come and see them.
It's a falacy borne of fools that we'd lose money without the monarchy in situ. Jesus, if we sold a the palaces we could recoup an awful lot more than what they bring in each year, protect the buildings, and still have them.
I say fook em, let's catch them, and burn them. I am sure you could sell the TV rights to that alone for a few billion...Comment
- 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
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment