Very worrying - the expenses thing

[Contreras]

Unions like Unite are primarily concerned with preventing forced incorporation of low paid workers.

They should be against the creation of a 'simplified' freelancer corporate entity then. Which all this tidying up of T&S/IR35/divvies is leading up to (intentionally or not).

[jamesbrown]

They should be against the creation of a 'simplified' freelancer corporate entity then. Which all this tidying up of T&S/IR35/divvies is leading up to (intentionally or not).

They will be if it's perceived as just another vehicle for avoiding employment rights, i.e. driven by employers. Ultimately, though, I don't think HMG will have any problem with dismissing the opinions of Unite and others if it's contrary to their preferred approach, and they will certainly have one.

[DotasScandal]

How can I complete with big consultancy companies who can claim expenses?

Answer: you can't! the idea is for the Chancellor to have only a few big players sharing the IT consulting cake. That's only a few, big interlocutors to "deal" with. Please look up "Crony Capitalism".

I thought I was doing exactly what the government wanted by paying myself a salary and not taking big dividends? Why go after me I pay thousands in PAYE and NI!
Very Sad and Confused,

Answer:
1/ because they need to put money in the Treasury's coffers.
2/ because you are the low hanging fruit

All of us poor bastards who also did "what the exactly what the government wanted" and gently did DOTAS-disclosures back in the early 00's only to get f*cked in 2014 learnt that the hard way.
Lesson: do not trust the government with anything, ever. Do what is in your best interest, not what you think they "want you to do" - because they'll always use that to ***** you over.

[SarahL2012]

Eek - I agreed with most of it. Particularly the fact that you can't separate the tax treatment of deemed employees from their employment status. If someone is deemed an employee for tax purposes then their deemed employer should pay up for holidays, pensions, employers NIC etc.

[eek]

They will be if it's perceived as just another vehicle for avoiding employment rights, i.e. driven by employers. Ultimately, though, I don't think HMG will have any problem with dismissing the opinions of Unite and others if it's contrary to their preferred approach, and they will certainly have one.

From what I have heard, HMG and HMRC don't have a preferred approach.... They have a problem and know they have a problem but don't have a clue how to actually fix it....

They have a possible solution (the current IR35 discussion and expenses consultation). Problem is that it has collateral damage and get out clauses that may be a restraint of trade.... (the fact that as an employee of my current end client I can claim expenses, but as a specialised associate they don't need full time I cannot is a problem HMRC really didn't like me pointing out to them)...

[jamesbrown]

From what I have heard, HMG and HMRC don't have a preferred approach.... They have a problem and know they have a problem but don't have a clue how to actually fix it....

They have a possible solution (the current IR35 discussion and expenses consultation). Problem is that it has collateral damage and get out clauses that may be a restraint of trade.... (the fact that as an employee of my current end client I can claim expenses, but as a specialised associate they don't need full time I cannot is a problem HMRC really didn't like me pointing out to them)...

Yes, I meant their preferred approach once it's fully formulated. If they had a preferred approach on IR35 now, I think the discussion document would be a consultation document. Once they've identified their preferred approach to IR35 (and I'd be surprised if it didn't involve engaging clients/agents more) and expenses, I can't see them being too worried about whether that meshes with Unite and others, although I'm not so cynical as to believe they would completely ignore good suggestions on enforcement from large consultancies (while minimizing risk to them)

[SarahL2012]

Anyone offering to take part in their round table stakeholder events?

[eek]

They should be against the creation of a 'simplified' freelancer corporate entity then. Which all this tidying up of T&S/IR35/divvies is leading up to (intentionally or not).

Is it though.... They would prefer the low paid to be treated as employees, companies want to avoid that to keep costs as low and as flexible as possible... This is only going to get worse as the living wage is implemented next year...

We are back to the problem I have wittered on about for the past year from the moment IPSE changed their focus... There are a set of low paid "freelancers" who actually, really, honestly don't want to be freelance but their "employers" won't employ them any other way... The IPSE shouldn't be pretending to act for them but support the unions in actively helping them fix the issue.

[eek]

Anyone offering to take part in their round table stakeholder events?

I know people who are and probably could have attended if I really wanted to even before today..

[jamesbrown]

The IPSE shouldn't be pretending to act for them but support the unions in actively helping them fix the issue.

Amen.

I think IPSE would argue that it's difficult to discriminate on the basis of skills alone because there are skilled occupations that are relatively low paid and face these pressures from forced self-employment. However, this distinction seemed to be made adequately with PCG; the hint is in the name, right?