So...anybody ask for any of this?

[Pondlife]

An FLC isn't meant for the current IPSE members - it's to try and show that IPSE represents all 4 million freelancers.

The downside of this, of course, is that it may / will impact badly on the 22000 current members, but if you replace all those with a higher number of new blood who don't care where the organisation came from, then it's trebles all round.

It's not about contractors any more.

This (sadly).

But the up shot is the existing members get to pay for it. Yay!

[TheFaQQer]

Whilst I'm sure that member's feedback is read, and possibly discussed, I'm not sure that members can actively contribute to the debate. The decisions seem to have already been made.

The board have made the decision. The manifesto isn't something that can be voted on and approved by the membership. We are assured that the board read every post on the forum (can't take them that long to do it!), but sadly remain silent on the important matters.

Having been accused by the board of not taking part in the forums in the past, it seems somewhat hypocritical that only one (maybe two) board member has commented in the myriad of discussions about the FLC. The level of engagement from the board who are representative of the membership is disgustingly poor.

[Pondlife]

Whilst I'm sure that member's feedback is read, and possibly discussed, I'm not sure that members can actively contribute to the debate. The decisions seem to have already been made.

This (again sadly)

[jamesbrown]

No because you have the option of professional indemnity regardless of whether you are limited or not to cover that and can already use a limited company if you really needed to. That reduces the argument to the amount of paperwork which to be blunt is already fairly minimal and most accountants provide means to minimise even that so I doubt it could be any less than what we already have.

To be honest the great unknowns are:-

• Tax treatment of this company type (but we can guess that it will be nearer self employed than contractor).
• HMRC agency reporting rules which will be phrased in a way to actively discourage the usage of limited companies.

and I can guarantee that between those 2 items your take home pay is going to be smaller, your warchest smaller (and sat in your own personal savings account) and your total tax bill far higher.

I'd predict (because who really knows) their argument would be that Limited Liability is not the same as insurance, and I'd agree on that point, because insurance does not protect against unlimited liabilities (and the liabilities ultimately remain on the self-employed person). In terms of starting a Ltd instead, I'd assume their argument is essentially administrative, as you describe (managing IR35 etc.). I can see an argument for a limited liability structure that would benefit the self-employed, but I cannot see any argument whatsoever for such a structure benefiting their current membership of contractors. I'd, therefore, agree with the TheFaQQer that it appears to be a cynical repositioning towards the self-employed using the funds of existing contractor members who would lose from such an arrangement being required for agency work (but, who knows, nobody is here to defend it properly...).

[eek]

(but, who knows, nobody is here to defend it properly...).

I'm assuming its because they have no means of defending it. In fact its uncanny how often Malvolio runs away from an argument with me.

[jamesbrown]

Oh, and what's also laughable is that an FLC appears to be an argument for a particular type of tax structure (details unknown) at a time when tax receipts are woefully short and there's enormous scrutiny on corporate tax structures in general and PSCs specifically. I assume they're arguing that it's better to fudge something together that might be bought by HMG than have something imposed (IIRC, Mal made an argument along these lines), but the reality is that, were it to be adopted, it would assume a life of its own, regardless of how well-meaning the proposal might be.

[jamesbrown]

I'm assuming its because they have no means of defending it. In fact its uncanny how often Malvolio runs away from an argument with me.

He's very good at addressing points of order w/r to IPSE structure, but very selective when it comes to addressing points of substance. But, I'd hate for this to turn into an anti-IPSE love in. I honestly believe they serve an important purpose, in principle, and I wish they'd have the confidence to put their case to a broader audience and clarify any substantial points that we're missing.

[tractor]

No because you have the option of professional indemnity regardless of whether you are limited or not to cover that and can already use a limited company if you really needed to. That reduces the argument to the amount of paperwork which to be blunt is already fairly minimal and most accountants provide means to minimise even that so I doubt it could be any less than what we already have.

To be honest the great unknowns are:-

• Tax treatment of this company type (but we can guess that it will be nearer self employed than contractor).
• HMRC agency reporting rules which will be phrased in a way to actively discourage the usage of limited companies.

and I can guarantee that between those 2 items your take home pay is going to be smaller, your warchest smaller (and sat in your own personal savings account) and your total tax bill far higher.

Plus the potential for HMRC to insist that existing organisations that fit (their view of a PSC) the model would be forced into the new structure. It may prove to be impossible for them to compulsorily convert existing companies but they could easily insist on new companies taking the FLC route.

[tractor]

...

He's very good at addressing points of order w/r to IPSE structure, but very selective when it comes to addressing points of substance. But, I'd hate for this to turn into an anti-IPSE love in. I honestly believe they serve an important purpose, in principle, and I wish they'd have the confidence to put their case to a broader audience and clarify any substantial points that we're missing.

I have to agree and all joking aside, to be fair to Mal, I think he is being very loyal (and quite brave, if I am honest) and where he cannot answer a question, often it is because the executive either won't allow him to or won't give even the CC that level of detail.

And that is even more worrying.

[TheFaQQer]

Oh, and what's also laughable is that an FLC appears to be an argument for a particular type of tax structure (details unknown) at a time when tax receipts are woefully short and there's enormous scrutiny on corporate tax structures in general and PSCs specifically. I assume they're arguing that it's better to fudge something together that might be bought by HMG than have something imposed (IIRC, Mal made an argument along these lines), but the reality is that, were it to be adopted, it would assume a life of its own, regardless of how well-meaning the proposal might be.

If an FLC is going to be outside IR35, then there must be a mechanism for replacing that lost revenue. And the easiest way to do that is to force people into an FLC and then remove the ability to pay dividends.

You get the limited liability, the government gets the money, IPSE gets the members, existing limited contractors get shafted.

But this is all just hysterical speculation - IPSE will save the day