So...anybody ask for any of this?

[eek]

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 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.

You are not the only cynical bugger as I'm sure there are a few other HMRC reporting additions which will make FLC very much their preferred option.

[tractor]

...

You are not the only cynical bugger as I'm sure there are a few other HMRC reporting additions which will make FLC very much their preferred option.

+1

[malvolio]

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.

No, I bugger off when it's clear that continuing the debate is utterly futile and the other side is refusing to listen.

HTH. BIDI. WGAS.

[tractor]

...

No, I bugger off when it's clear that continuing the debate is utterly futile and the other side is refusing to listen.

HTH. BIDI. WGAS.

The sensible alternative of course, is to realise that people do have a point and it may be you that is wrong or misguided. I can not speak for others but I am not refusing to listen, you are refusing to answer the questions that inevitably result from your claims.

[eek]

The sensible alternative of course, is to realise that people do have a point and it may be you that is wrong or misguided. I can not speak for others but I am not refusing to listen, you are refusing to answer the questions that inevitably result from your claims.

+1. I'm very happy to listen and change my view if you can give me a valid argument for your view. My concern is that IPSE appears to be an organisation (and there are many) which doesn't see beyond the initial solution to identify the possible problems that may occur.

The "Opt Out" is one of them. For many BoS contractors (and I don't use that phrase as an insult as consultancies use that term for consultants offsite long term) the opt out simply stops them returning to the original client within 6 months of leaving that client... and the bits you opt out of are actually things you may want especially if you don't trust the finances of the end client. Unfortunately there are agencies ing at Amelia Bond, Teksystems who won't touch people who don't opt out. Hence you end up with no choice but to accept the new status quo.

Now moving on to the new HMRC agency reporting requirements which make little sense until you remember that there is strong possibility of a new company type appearing.... I will leave people to join up the dots but I think you are promoting something some clever bod in HMRC created...

[original PM]

not wishing to stick the boot in but I have to agree re Mal running from the questions

I think the mode of operation is to tease in the naïve, new contractor to think they will be well represented (for an annual membership fee) but when they start to find their feet and understand the system and know what questions to ask and where to challenge then well we see the true colours.

Maybe

[darmstadt]

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.

On my first ever contract (back in those carefree 80's) we had an internal informal newsletter which we put out every now and then called BoS News. It basically contained pisstaking articles about other members of staff and projects. Oh and BoS stood for 'Bag of tulip'

[TheFaQQer]

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.

Two questions.

1) If IPSE only represents their members, will we be updating our advertising / press releases / manifesto to show that we represent 22000 people rather than the 4.5 million that we purport to represent now that we've embraced the self-employed?

2) What percentage of the wide range of contractors asked for a new corporate vehicle to operate through?

[Pondlife]

not wishing to stick the boot in but I have to agree re Mal running from the questions

I think the mode of operation is to tease in the naïve, new contractor to think they will be well represented (for an annual membership fee) but when they start to find their feet and understand the system and know what questions to ask and where to challenge then well we see the true colours.

Maybe

I disagree.

My own opinion is that for many years the PCG was the only real voice that represented my interests as a one man band working through a Ltd. I'm on record on this site recommending that newbies join up even if it's purely for the insurance and first timer guides. I don't really post on the forums as it's (IMO) too much of a clique and it doesn't get the traffic and variety that we get here. So, I have 11K posts here and 11 there but I've been a paid up member since 2006.

Unfortunately, now I see the rebrand and the lack of consultation beforehand as a step away from what I thought the organisation was. TBH I'm not even sure if I'm a member of an organisation anymore. AFAIK IPSE is a ltd company that sells insurance and has a forum - I find this disappointing.

I can't be arsed to voice this on the IPSE forums as I'm not willing to receive the condescension from certain mods/CC members and with such a low post count it would look like trolling.

If I was convinced that the rebrand was purely to attract others who work through Ltds (locum doctors for example) above the IT crowd then I'd be onboard but it looks like they are trying to be a voice for anyone who's self employed... and in my view we face different issues since IR35, S660, opt in/out doesn't apply to them. I just don't subscribe to the view that representing a larger pool of different people makes your voice louder. I'd prefer the voice to be focused on what I want. Yes, currently the CC is made up of predominately 'my people' but with a differing membership with differing issues this focus will change.

I've had separate QDOS insurance for a number of years but I was still happy to keep my membership paid up as I believed they represented my interests, now I'm no longer convinced. Quite frankly I find the idea of introducing a 'new vehicle' for us to work through as ridiculous. Ever since HMRC floated the idea of a PSC to widen the IR35 net we have been saying there's no such thing legally. Now it seems we want to create it as a legal entity.

I also find the argument that I voted for the CC and therefore the BoD and so the rebrand and shift is what I wanted as, IMHO, bollox. If there was ANY difference between prospective CC members on the rebrand/direction shift issue I would have voted accordingly but AFAICR there wasn't.

Just my £0.02

[tractor]

I disagree.

...Snip

I've had separate QDOS insurance for a number of years but I was still happy to keep my membership paid up as I believed they represented my interests, now I'm no longer convinced. Quite frankly I find the idea of introducing a 'new vehicle' for us to work through as ridiculous. Ever since HMRC floated the idea of a PSC to widen the IR35 net we have been saying there's no such thing legally. Now it seems we want to create it as a legal entity.

..../Snip

Just my £0.02

This is my point entirely. IPSE's unwavering support for this worries me significantly. I hope it's not but it sounds like a deal is being done behind the scenes and it will all be presented as a fait accompli like the rebrand and the manifesto.

We keep being told that a new vehicle is in our interests etc and no one can give us a single reason why it is needed. I can think of many reasons HMRC think it is needed and none of them bode well.