Budget 2015: Chancellor announcement on Employment Intermediaries: Temporary workers

[Unix]

Just yet another nail in the already heavily nailed contractor coffin.

Whats the alternative? go permie? They can't afford me!

[jamesbrown]

Just yet another nail in the already heavily nailed contractor coffin.

I think this is purely a matter of perspective/expertise/recent experience. You personally may have a negative view of things, but from my POV, the outlook is driven more by the market than legislation. Legislation may simplify or complicate life as a contractor, but it rarely changes the fundamental picture in the way the market can (admittedly, for disguised permies, it probably does, but the sooner we get rid of those from contracting, the better).

[eek]

Just yet another nail in the already heavily nailed contractor coffin.

As I've continually said contracting is merely a side effect in the arms race between agencies trying to reduce their costs by any trick possible and hmrc trying to remove the loopholes.

[darrylmg]

SIH I've always thought this too. I've never been sure which way to look at it. Is it direction and/or control? Or is working with the client to produce an outcome outlined in the 'deliverables' i.e. a website for the client? Surely it's no different to a self-employed brick layer working alongside someone like a site foreman who may say, "I don't want that wall there any more, can you rebuild it over there instead"?

Surely the same could be said for any contractor delivering to a set of requirements.

My interpretation of D&C is that the client, or whoever, is telling you exactly what to do and more importantly how to do it.
If you're truly providing a service without D&C, the client is not concerned with the "how" at all.

If all else fails, it sounds like the Mrs will be the one reaping the divis, while I take a full salary. That way, I'm not a shareholder and not even classed as a PSC (according to the wording helpfully posted about 4 posts back). Sorted.

[SunnyInHades]

it sounds like the Mrs will be the one reaping the divis, while I take a full salary. That way, I'm not a shareholder and not even classed as a PSC. Sorted.

That I like. Interesting strategy. Take that Osborne !

Got me thinking - might be possible to set up a parent company into which dividends are paid...

[BolshieBastard]

Just yet another nail in the already heavily nailed contractor coffin.

This.

I think this is purely a matter of perspective/expertise/recent experience. You personally may have a negative view of things, but from my POV, the outlook is driven more by the market than legislation. Legislation may simplify or complicate life as a contractor, but it rarely changes the fundamental picture in the way the market can (admittedly, for disguised permies, it probably does, but the sooner we get rid of those from contracting, the better).

The market doesnt drive government \ hmrc dogma. The market gives tacit acceptance to the contractor model by wanting a skilled, flexible and mobile workforce but then clients sell contractors short by treating the short term resource they want and need as psuedo permies.

The number of clients who back the contractor in IR35 investigations is small and instead, their HR Departments seem to fall over themselves to confirm the contractor has to conform' as their permies.

Im not convinced the number of 'disguised permies' you mention exist in large numbers. Myself, Id recommend staying no longer than 24 months max at a client although admit, I went well over this once.

[jamesbrown]

This.



The market doesnt drive government \ hmrc dogma. The market gives tacit acceptance to the contractor model by wanting a skilled, flexible and mobile workforce but then clients sell contractors short by treating the short term resource they want and need as psuedo permies.

The number of clients who back the contractor in IR35 investigations is small and instead, their HR Departments seem to fall over themselves to confirm the contractor has to conform' as their permies.

Im not convinced the number of 'disguised permies' you mention exist in large numbers. Myself, Id recommend staying no longer than 24 months max at a client although admit, I went well over this once.

Of course it doesn't. To put it simply, as long as the market is working, Gov't regulation is an aside, but the reverse certainly isn't true. For contractors that are aware of IR35 and take basic steps to mitigate risk, it's a non-event. Why should a client care about IR35? They shouldn't and, unless you're in a position to dictate to them how you're going to operate, it won't. By implication, then, any contractor that doesn't assert a clear working relationship and operate within the context of a specific project and specific deliverables (presumably because they're supplementing perm staff), probably shouldn't be contracting; they're really just a temp or FTC. It's the contractor that dictates this via their skillset and attitude. Blaming a client for treating a BoS contractor as they would any other temp resource is ludicrous. If it looks like a duck...

[supersteamer]

By implication, then, any contractor that doesn't assert a clear working relationship and operate within the context of a specific project and specific deliverables (presumably because they're supplementing perm staff), probably shouldn't be contracting; they're really just a temp or FTC.

Must disagree sir - providing a temporary employee is a product myCo can provide just like it can also deliver projects. I've done some inside IR35 work and don't feel "less" of a contractor for doing so (I do feel less wealthy but that's another matter). I'm selling Employee-As-A-Service (EAAS!) I wouldn't want to do this as a temp or FTC.

The main problem with doing so is that I should be able to push the additional costs (i.e. tax) onto the client but in most cases you can't, as you're always up against some toerag who pretends that everything he does is outside of IR35 and so goes and unfairly undercuts you on rate.

[jamesbrown]

Must disagree sir - providing a temporary employee is a product myCo can provide just like it can also deliver projects. I've done some inside IR35 work and don't feel "less" of a contractor for doing so (I do feel less wealthy but that's another matter). I'm selling Employee-As-A-Service (EAAS!) I wouldn't want to do this as a temp or FTC.

The main problem with doing so is that I should be able to push the additional costs (i.e. tax) onto the client but in most cases you can't, as you're always up against some toerag who pretends that everything he does is outside of IR35 and so goes and unfairly undercuts you on rate.

YMMV. I have no problem with contractors that decide to operate in a particular way and do so according to the rules (however flawed they may be). It's contractors that act like permies, don't understand or operate IR35 properly or those that do but bury their heads when the reality differs from the contract that are better off as permies. The client won't, and shouldn't, give a flying feck about how a particular dev (for example) wraps themselves if they have a bunch of devs under a similar degree of D&C.

IMHO, contracting is about project work with discrete deliverables that lack D&C by virtue of the skills not otherwise being available to an end client (for whatever reason) and, in all other cases, a contractor is quite likely to be viewed as "just another temporary resource". That in no way devalues the work that's being done, only the assertion that it's being done as an independent contractor. Personally, I'd like to see the Gov't walk the talk on the flexible economy so that the various shades in between permie and independent contractor aren't so important, but those shades still exist, and IMHO there are many contractors closer to the former that are pretending to be closer to the latter.

[d000hg]

And a good example of why FLCs are a bad idea - they would allow precisely this sort of defined targetting.

For good and for ill. Large and small companies are already treated differently when it comes to CT rates (or they were, I didn't check if it's now aligned), R&D tax relief, VAT, ability to file simpler CT returns, etc. But "small" companies are not really small so specific legislation for very small companies isn't in itself a bad thing. True though, "very small" and PSC are quite different. But then a contractor often has a higher turnover and much profit for one person than a traditional family business might have for 5 employees. We ARE a special case.