So...anybody ask for any of this?

[mudskipper]

Anyway, I voted

I didn't.

I was one of the ones who visited the site, but didn't vote.

[mudskipper]

Yeah, what about that IPSE coaster? My PCG coaster is so yesterday

I never got a coaster!

[SueEllen]

I didn't.

I was one of the ones who visited the site, but didn't vote.

There was an election?

This was the first year I didn't vote.

[TheFaQQer]

I never got a coaster!

Me neither

[TheFaQQer]

There was an election?

This was the first year I didn't vote.

May time IIRC.

There were some emails about it, but the candidate statements etc were bundled in with FM that month, and many people didn't realise it. There was nothing with the magazine that said the voting papers were inside, which I think was down to a printers error.

Not everyone gets the magazine - I'd been a member for at least two years before I even knew there was one, and I had to chase it up before they finally started arriving.

There are some very interesting threads about the elections and the turnout in the IPSE forums, if you get chance to look.

[Zero Liability]

At the outset of Labour's proposals for IR35, Philip Ross who was IIRC an active member of the Labour Party AND a freelancer, was a very active and again IIRC effective part of PCG from the outset and a very outspoken critic of IR35 and NL's largesse over the matter. I don't think his support for our way of working or his motives were or are ever suspect. FTAOD.

My memory fades in and out between vodkas but I am quite confident it is accurate.

That is not to say that I agree with this proposal, nor the way it seems to have been injected into the mainstream political debate.

You have to remember that we are going back almost 20 years here and whilst some of you young pups are no doubt the best in your field, it is possible you were still in shorts and caps at the time

Well if his intentions can't be doubted, his naiveté in this matter certainly can be. Even if IR35 really does "protect" £500m in what the govt claims should go to it (under so many faulty assumptions I couldn't even begin to enumerate them here), is this not a pittance compared to the amount they spend each year, and does it not represent a massive opportunity cost to HMRC given their strained resources, in terms of what other tax they could be pursuing? Waste spending alone accounts for this much. They can't even prove that it "protects" this much (or that it should, for that matter), but lets say for argument's sake it did. IR35 has gone so far beyond its original scope and is so arbitrary in both intent and in implementation, that it is a wonderful demonstration of the ratchet effect of government policies. This has the potential to just be another tax grab, though I hope I am wrong.

One thing I'm curious about, that was mentioned here, is that agencies may (speculatively) be exempt from having to report payments to FLCs. What would be their motive for making use of it? Reduced compliance costs? A way to get around the false self-employment legislation? There's too many ifs and buts about it.

[TheFaQQer]

One thing I'm curious about, that was mentioned here, is that agencies may (speculatively) be exempt from having to report payments to FLCs. What would be their motive for making use of it? Reduced compliance costs? A way to get around the false self-employment legislation? There's too many ifs and buts about it.

If HMRC make it worth their while, whether by reducing their reporting burden, or opting everyone out of the agency regulations, then we'll be effectively forced into using one.

Of course, you'd expect legislation and a strong BIS to be able to force agencies to do the right thing

[Zero Liability]

And I would surmise that these are the sort of plans, projects and changes eek had in mind with respect to HMRC, that would segue with FLCs, i.e. the requirement for agencies to report to whom payments are made, and the architecture required for it. It could well be HMRC's way of getting what they want and letting IR35 die a slow, quiet death, considering that the contractors for whom it would still apply would likely be the ones who would be most well positioned to win an inquiry, and therefore even more of a hopeless cause. Meanwhile, everyone else would be shoehorned into FLCs. Sounds bleak, and I hope it remains speculation!

[tractor]

...

Well if his intentions can't be doubted, his naiveté in this matter certainly can be. Even if IR35 really does "protect" £500m in what the govt claims should go to it (under so many faulty assumptions I couldn't even begin to enumerate them here), is this not a pittance compared to the amount they spend each year, and does it not represent a massive opportunity cost to HMRC given their strained resources, in terms of what other tax they could be pursuing? Waste spending alone accounts for this much. They can't even prove that it "protects" this much (or that it should, for that matter), but lets say for argument's sake it did. IR35 has gone so far beyond its original scope and is so arbitrary in both intent and in implementation, that it is a wonderful demonstration of the ratchet effect of government policies. This has the potential to just be another tax grab, though I hope I am wrong.

One thing I'm curious about, that was mentioned here, is that agencies may (speculatively) be exempt from having to report payments to FLCs. What would be their motive for making use of it? Reduced compliance costs? A way to get around the false self-employment legislation? There's too many ifs and buts about it.

I have no idea of the current motives, I am just painting the picture of the past for those that were not around then.

IR35 protects nothing. It realises next to nothing. It's solitary value is in its' deterrent effect. Cameron and Gideon didn't understand that when they promised to repeal it. HMRC put them straight just after they found the note that said 'there is no money left'. That's why they reneged and that's why I don't trust a single one of them and never will.

[Zero Liability]

Well the amount it "protects" is the supposed deterrent effect, with the caveat that they can't evidence these figures, and articles on CUK previously have cast aspersions on their validity.