So...anybody ask for any of this?

[tractor]

...

Point of order. I always try to respond to the question asked; you may not like the answer but hey, that's life. Others of my co-frères take the more robust option of attacking the questioner.

And just to be clear, engagement means offering alternatives or explaining properly why X is a bad thing and quantifying how it's affecting you. Very rarely do we get that, 99% of the comments are along the lines of "Well that's a load of horse feathers" without adding the rather more useful "Why don't you do this instead".

And FWIW I've been shouting about the Opt Out abuse for ages now. I'm as pissed about it as anyone. But unless BIS take notice and agree to do something, rather than their current mealy mouthed answer of it's a condition of doing business, we ain't going anywhere with it. The opt out is not the problem, the agencies that abuse it are. And they need to be smacked by BIS, not IPSE.

Points of order;

1. Thank you for not answering any of my points regarding FLC and Tax merges.
   
2. Thank you also for confirming that there is no 'consensus of opinion' that you claimed yesterday.

So to make it even simpler for you, why is IPSE doing all these things the members have not even been aware of until they are announced in the manifesto?

The only possible alternative to both of the issues that I have mentioned is to NOT ask for them. That is why no one proposes an alternative. How hard is that for you to understand?

There is no point taking the robust approach with you because as you have amply demonstrated in the other place and here, you would have your bank account amputated before admitting you are wrong however the evidence is stacked up against you. I prefer the more subtle approach of digging the bear pit and watching you inevitably stumble in blindly. Poeple can then make their own mind up.

[malvolio]

Points of order;

1. Thank you for not answering any of my points regarding FLC and Tax merges.
   
2. Thank you also for confirming that there is no 'consensus of opinion' that you claimed yesterday.

So to make it even simpler for you, why is IPSE doing all these things the members have not even been aware of until they are announced in the manifesto?

The only possible alternative to both of the issues that I have mentioned is to NOT ask for them. That is why no one proposes an alternative. How hard is that for you to understand?

There is no point taking the robust approach with you because as you have amply demonstrated in the other place and here, you would have your bank account amputated before admitting you are wrong however the evidence is stacked up against you. I prefer the more subtle approach of digging the bear pit and watching you inevitably stumble in blindly. Poeple can then make their own mind up.

I've argued for a long time that we need a mechanism that recognises that we are neither employee nor employer. The proposal for an FLC-type construct is one option. Personally I'll stick with my Limited, but if you don't want to understand why an FLC is a valid option. There's little point arguing. And if nobody takes it up or if the tax position is worse than any other variant then nobody will use it. How hard is that to understand? I's not like it will be compulsory.

"Consensus"? I believe, from various conversations and survey feedback over the years that most members also want to be seen as contractors first, operating as a business. Some don't. It was ever thus; the majority appears to be for it.

And you don't have to have a "thing" to argue against to start a debate. Go mad and come up with your own ideas. Something I haven't seen much evidence of to date, everything you raise has been in opposition to something or other.

Getting tired of this now. You want to continue the debate, feel free. Just not on here.

[v8gaz]

Canvases how exactly? I've been a contractor since before the PCG was formed and I've never been asked my views by the PCG, I'm not aware of any other contractor that's been canvased either.

Annual survey?

Regular polls as highlighted in the weekly newsletter emails?

If you don't get either of those can you check that IPSE has the correct contact details for you.

[eek]

Just not on here.

Who made you the person to dictate where we can discuss the perceived incompetence of IPSE....

[TykeMerc]

Annual survey?

Regular polls as highlighted in the weekly newsletter emails?

If you don't get either of those can you check that IPSE has the correct contact details for you.

So the canvassing is members only, the same members that don't engage in the forums, executive votes or activities that aren't just buying a cheap insurance product?

As you've probably noticed I chose NOT to be a member as I do NOT agree with what the PCG claimed as a victory (Opt Out is an unmitigated disaster), I do NOT support the direction the organisation has gone, I regard this manifesto as dangerous (if anyone thinks FLC's would be voluntary they're bonkers) and I certainly don't respect the regular mouthpiece that spouts IPSE propaganda on CUK. I don't want to give you a penny or any rights to claim a mandate from myself.

[v8gaz]

So the canvassing is members only, the same members that don't engage in the forums, executive votes or activities that aren't just buying a cheap insurance product?

Of course the member survey members only. That's who IPSE represents. And we get a pretty good turnout on the annual survey. But recently we have started to engage with non-members, which is of course considerably more difficult, but we've put the effort and expense into that. So I, as a BoS contractor, am quite happy that IPSE has the information it needs from a wide spectrum of contractors to make decisions.

[tractor]

...

I've argued for a long time that we need a mechanism that recognises that we are neither employee nor employer. The proposal for an FLC-type construct is one option. Personally I'll stick with my Limited, but if you don't want to understand why an FLC is a valid option. There's little point arguing. And if nobody takes it up or if the tax position is worse than any other variant then nobody will use it. How hard is that to understand? I's not like it will be compulsory.

"Consensus"? I believe, from various conversations and survey feedback over the years that most members also want to be seen as contractors first, operating as a business. Some don't. It was ever thus; the majority appears to be for it.

And you don't have to have a "thing" to argue against to start a debate. Go mad and come up with your own ideas. Something I haven't seen much evidence of to date, everything you raise has been in opposition to something or other.

Getting tired of this now. You want to continue the debate, feel free. Just not on here.

All of it are your views, there is no science, no evidence, no risk analysis. I don't have to come up with ideas to understand that offshore investment schemes are bad. I just have to understand the risks and make a decision. If you cannot understand this, you are dangerous. If IPSE 'go mad' and get FLC's on the statute books and heaven forbid, the government reneges and makes them compulsory for one man bands and merges tax/NI and puts the CT rate for FLCs up to 50%, what use is it for us to say 'I told you so'?

Things that I raise are not always in opposition, often they are simply questions asking for reasoning or evidence; both of which are suspiciously lacking of late.

How can you or IPSE possibly expect anyone to go for this concept of FLC when it clearly has not been thought through and the government has not even forumulated a proposal? It seems to me we are looking for a fight where none exists.

As for your consensus, I know of very few people who agree with your statement that we need a mechanism that recognises that we are neither employee nor employer. Why do we need it? Because some are too lazy or tight to pay for payroll services? Tough. It's a cost of being in business. I ask again, can you give me a single reason why we need it?

If people disagreeing with your viewpoint makes you tired, either try to see it from both sides and modify your view or do the groundwork and present more comphrehensive, well thought through proposals and you will find far less resistance and you won't get so tired.

If you choose not to continue fine, we are used to you disengaging when you are put on the spot.

[TykeMerc]

Well put Tractor and yes Mal does tend to leg it as soon as he's on the spot and being called out for evading the question, typical politician type behaviour.

Except that IPSe canvases a lot more people than its forum users and commissions genuine, in-depth academic research on the key issues to inform its decision making.

V8gaz- From Mals post above I read it as more than just your members being canvassed which would have made your canvassing meaningful, clearly I misunderstood.

Both you and Mal have used the BoS Contractor phrase, I'd be interested in knowing what that means as it's an unfamiliar term to me, I assume it's something that's come from PCG/IPSE commonly used language.

I will state yet again, that if FLC's are instituted and remain purely voluntary I will invest in some headgear to eat, quite frankly it's a glaring opportunity (complete with large flashing sign and neon colours) for HMG to make a special ruleset for tax treatment of 1 man bands.
It's a tiny and again obvious step to then change the Agency regs so that they can only (in effect) engage people who utilise that vehicle. The voluntary aspect will then be binary, do it or forget getting work via agencies and then the contracting business model is shot to hell.
I'm a cynical bugger, but if I can: with no thought at all: see a few obvious scenarios how this proposed FLC structure can be used to slap contractors silly then a few HMRC bods sitting down and thinking it through could come up with a lot of nastier options.

[eek]

BoS probably means Bum on Seat (at clientco)...

[tractor]

Well put Tractor and yes Mal does tend to leg it as soon as he's on the spot and being called out for evading the question, typical politician type behaviour.



V8gaz- From Mals post above I read it as more than just your members being canvassed which would have made your canvassing meaningful, clearly I misunderstood.

Both you and Mal have used the BoS Contractor phrase, I'd be interested in knowing what that means as it's an unfamiliar term to me, I assume it's something that's come from PCG/IPSE commonly used language.

I will state yet again, that if FLC's are instituted as and remain purely voluntary I will invest in some headgear to eat, quite frankly it's a glaring opportunity (complete with large flashing sign and neon colours) for HMG to make a special ruleset for tax treatment of 1 man bands.
It's a tiny and again obvious step to then change the Agency regs so that they can only (in effect) engage people who utilise that vehicle. The voluntary aspect will then be binary, do it or forget getting work via agencies and then the contracting business model is shot to hell.
I'm a cynical bugger, but if I can: with no thought at all: see a few obvious scenarios how this proposed FLC structure can be used to slap contractors silly then a few HMRC bods sitting down and thinking it through could come up with a lot of nastier options.

BOS = Bum on Seat. Derogatory term for contractors who take roles that would be permie if they could get permies clever enough or motivated enough to learn to do them (in a lot of cases though, stupid enough to do them ). Came about following IR35 to describe the usual type of contractor that IR35 was aimed at, often to justify the need for IR35 itself even though NL positioned it to be targetted at F2M in order to gain support for the proposal which they then had to surreptitiously sneak through hidden inside the Welfare Reform Bill.