BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Toocan]

Many contractors left a permie desk on Friday and sat down at the same desk on the next Monday, it used to be incredibly common.

...

That's why they hate us!!!!!

But for many, if not most, of us that is not the case. And the remainder of your reasons were a reaction to IR35 - they came after, not before.

The reason is clear – they cannot tolerate that we don’t want their “employment protection”, their unions, there whole corrupt socialist system. Look at what Gordon Brown has done to our country. We stand in stark contrast to all of that. They are consumers of wealth, we are creators of wealth.

[Toocan]

cos they see us as the little guys, they wouldnt dare take on the legal might of the banking system, they see us as an easy target...

They were wrong.

[Toocan]

But BP or Shell doesn't earn most of its profits in the Isle of Man, and if they did they'd be in deep sh*t.

That's one of the questions I ask myself when I see a scheme. If it is so good why don't big companies do this?

No, you right - it's not Isle of Man - it's one of the central american islands...

[silver_lining]

But BP or Shell doesn't earn most of its profits in the Isle of Man, and if they did they'd be in deep sh*t.

That's one of the questions I ask myself when I see a scheme. If it is so good why don't big companies do this?

I imagine you ask yourself lots of things and get very little answers..twat. Your a cancer with no place here. I have no doubt the last sound you will hear will be your own screams

[poppy01]

But BP or Shell doesn't earn most of its profits in the Isle of Man, and if they did they'd be in deep sh*t.

That's one of the questions I ask myself when I see a scheme. If it is so good why don't big companies do this?

bit harsh there silver lining.

BB, I understand many of the high street banks do just this sort of thing, involving wholly artificial transactions with the cayman islands, BN60 in the current budget tries to close it down I think, not retrospectively I might add.

If they did do this retrospectively it would recover BILLIONS, not the paltry few million they might get from the likes of us (and after a shameful peformance from HMRC).

[futurecat]

[QUOTE=poppy01;825816]bit harsh there silver lining.

QUOTE]

Agreed there is no need to write stuff like that on this forum. We want to work together and not make petty school yard remarks. Get a grip.

[PlaneSailing]

bit harsh there silver lining.

BB, I understand many of the high street banks do just this sort of thing, involving wholly artificial transactions with the cayman islands, BN60 in the current budget tries to close it down I think, not retrospectively I might add.

If they did do this retrospectively it would recover BILLIONS, not the paltry few million they might get from the likes of us (and after a shameful peformance from HMRC).

And other companies too...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/...ile/299543.stm

I suppose the Revenue hasn't got the bottle to take on 'clever accountants'
from these larger companies.

On the plus side of all this, I think we can safely say the Government's
argument about 'fairness' is well and truely scuppered. If they don't
apply this year's DTA changes retrospectively, it looks very much like we're
being singled out.

[smalldog]

of course we are being singled out. As someone mentioned Mr Treasury used to work for Logica and as part of the old boys consultancy network there is nothing they hate more than independent contractors. We are the obstacle to them winning some big contracts from which they can place their multitude of grads on £25k per year charging them out at £1k per day...

We are the fly in the ointment that stops them fleecing businesses...hmmm so who are the bad guys in that equation, us, or consultancies ripping of corporates by getting rid of the cheaper competition and creating a monopoly?

Does there not have to be consistency with HMRC rules, for instance if they are closing DTA loopholes do they not all have to be closed on the same basis? Or can they pick and chose which ones are retro and which prospective..?

[phileds]

Satirical magazine Private Eye is currently banging on about some chap (a Rothschild? Can't recall) who claims to live abroad for tax purposes - with a handsome château in France to prove it - yet apparently spends an unfeasibly large amount of time here. The mag's question is, why isn't he taxed like the rest of us when, in effect, he lives full time in the UK? (over to you, Mr Tax Man, as I'm sure you're reading this. Private Eye is available at all good stores).

Marvellous. Gins and tonics all round.

[silver_lining]

[QUOTE=futurecat;825918]

bit harsh there silver lining.

QUOTE]

Agreed there is no need to write stuff like that on this forum. We want to work together and not make petty school yard remarks. Get a grip.

I make no apologies. Sometimes we need to spell it out as it is; if you are not supporting the issue leave. This is a very serious matter for lots of people and their families, myself included. We don't need arbitrators and commenter’s popping in and out trying to eat away at peoples drive.

People like that simply breeze in now and then, make a conscious effort to articulate underhanded remarks aimed at simply antagonizing people who are actually affected by this injustice. This individuals are simply kicking people when they are down; people who are trying with support from genuine individuals on there to climb back up and fight on