New proposal from IPSE - Smoke and mirrors?

[malvolio]

Whereas...

Phillip Ross has articulated the original view of what this should be and how it will work, down to details such as a fixed salary/dividend ratio. IPSE have so far only suggested in their manifesto that the idea should be explored in detail but have not decided on any of the operational functionality (and if they had are unlikely to spread it around ahead of the discussions anyway). People have conflated the two into a single firm proposal.

The Ross version has many risks as has been said by many (and with which I agree to some extent, if that was what was to be implemented). However, nothing has been agreed and panic at this stage is pointless. IPSE's version will be developed in consultation with its members which I have no doubt will reflect most of the understandable fears that have been expressed so far.

But as of now it IPSE's version remains a concept, not a firm proposal.

HTH (and FTAOD, that's all I'm going to say on the subject ).

[mudskipper]

Whereas...

Phillip Ross has articulated the original view of what this should be and how it will work, down to details such as a fixed salary/dividend ratio. IPSE have so far only suggested in their manifesto that the idea should be explored in detail but have not decided on any of the operational functionality (and if they had are unlikely to spread it around ahead of the discussions anyway). People have conflated the two into a single firm proposal.

The Ross version has many risks as has been said by many (and with which I agree to some extent, if that was what was to be implemented). However, nothing has been agreed and panic at this stage is pointless. IPSE's version will be developed in consultation with its members which I have no doubt will reflect most of the understandable fears that have been expressed so far.

But as of now it IPSE's version remains a concept, not a firm proposal.

HTH (and FTAOD, that's all I'm going to say on the subject ).

So who has the bigger influence on policy? LFIG or IPSE?

At the moment it seems there's a LFIG proposal with some detail, and IPSE saying they want a FLC but with no detail - isn't there a danger that the proposal with the detail will be taken and run with?

[TheFaQQer]

IPSE have so far only suggested in their manifesto that the idea should be explored in detail but have not decided on any of the operational functionality (and if they had are unlikely to spread it around ahead of the discussions anyway).

And yet, IPSE want it to happen in the first finance bill of the next parliament, which doesn't give much time to put any meat on the bones.

Unless there is already meat there, but only for the select few who can see it.

[TheFaQQer]

So who has the bigger influence on policy? LFIG or IPSE?

At the moment it seems there's a LFIG proposal with some detail, and IPSE saying they want a FLC but with no detail - isn't there a danger that the proposal with the detail will be taken and run with?

Particularly since the PCG and LFIG had discussions prior to Philip Ross and Andrew Burke writing their report.

[SarahL2012]

I don't trust any organisation who's existence and remuneration depends on the status quo to fight our corner with true conviction.

I feel IPSE are becoming like so-called 'IR35 experts' who are invited to government forums when they have a business interest in maintaining the status quo. Their representations and recommendations need to be moderated in some way.

I agree. Turkeys & Christmas springs to mind....

[BolshieBastard]

Bunch of clowns. I mean one shareholder?

And what exactly is "extract profits by way of a fixed fair salary-dividend split." How can dividends be 'split' between one shareholder? What they mean by 'split' is a high wage subject to tax and NI and a small or token divi because you're a business (of sorts).

This is just IR35 by another name.

Oh, and nice to see PCG, sorry, IPSE are running to Labour seeing as they got shafted by their tory chums after the election.

No doubt the IPSE apologist will be along soon to defend this piece of crap.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Having read this http://lfig.org/wp-content/uploads/2...a4-12SEP14.pdf it seems that LFIG are making the case for 'freelancers' paying more tax (so higher % PAYE salary/lower % divs) to give them entitlement to statutory employee payments such as SMP and welfare payments between contracts. Is it just me or does that sound as though they just want everyone to be an employee (but for their own good obvioulsy)

[SueEllen]

Having read this http://lfig.org/wp-content/uploads/2...a4-12SEP14.pdf it seems that LFIG are making the case for 'freelancers' paying more tax (so higher % PAYE salary/lower % divs) to give them entitlement to statutory employee payments such as SMP and welfare payments between contracts. Is it just me or does that sound as though they just want everyone to be an employee (but for their own good obvioulsy)

Yes they want everyone to be an employee.

So if you work in a company with your spouse/sibling/parent/whoever who is also actually fee earning, sell a product alongside your contracting or employ others alongside your contracting then you are screwed under this model. This model stops people trying to expand their business.

I wonder if they are going to change the signing on for jsa criteria? As with every break someone has under this they could sign on.

[TheFaQQer]

For clarity, the article on Contractor Weekly is an opinion piece by an employee of Qdos. It is not based on anything that IPSE have released, apart from the brief part of the manifesto.

[TheFaQQer]

As with every break someone has under this they could sign on.

You can at the moment, as long as you haven't declined work.