So...anybody ask for any of this?

[original PM]

would it be that by doing this it will reduce the amount of competition to the big consultancies by the smaller one man limited's thus meaning more overseas visas being issues. (or whatever they are called)

Thus squeezing the one man band and supporting the agenda already in place?

or not?

[tractor]

...

I agree - IR35 becomes irrelevant because it won't apply to FLCs. You'll just have to pay tax as if you were a limited company operating 100% inside IR35, but all your IR35 worries are taken away. In much the same way they could be already by operating via an umbrella, or declaring yourself inside IR35.

It will be as optional as the opt out, once agencies accept that they will only deal with umbrella or FLCs. As anyone who has had the opt out discussion with an agent knows, optionality doesn't come into it. You could even extend it a bit further and make the regulations not apply at all to anyone operating via an FLC - takes away the opt out argument by removing any rights you would have by remaining inside.

I have made these points in the IPSE forums as well as here and had the normal response.

Me too.

Funny thing is that we are repeatedly told here and over there that our voice and opinion matters and that we should get involved. Clearly it doesn't unless there is a groundswell. Given the extremely benign membership, that is not going to happen.

Last time I asked how I can contribute, my offer was roundly ignored.

[malvolio]

Last time I asked how I can contribute, my offer was roundly ignored.

Rubbish. Saying "this is wrong, I disagree with it, do something else" is useless and is rightly ignored. Present a reasoned case, preferably with an alternative approach and then debate it against the original. And be prepared to accept that your view, while firmly held, may not be the optimum solution.

What is always forgotten, especially on here, is that we are a subset of the total; an important one, of course, but not the only one. You have to look at the high-level policies from that perspective on occasion.

[tractor]

Rubbish. Saying "this is wrong, I disagree with it, do something else" is useless and is rightly ignored. Present a reasoned case, preferably with an alternative approach and then debate it against the original. And be prepared to accept that your view, while firmly held, may not be the optimum solution.

What is always forgotten, especially on here, is that we are a subset of the total; an important one, of course, but not the only one. You have to look at the high-level policies from that perspective on occasion.

Lies. The point that was made and that I am talking about is here and in particular after post #89 where you chose to disengage.

The point specifically was that even though the idea of an FLC has been mooted, discussed with political parties and no doubt HMRC, IPSE has not fully explored what they are actually proposing but have asked for it anyway and included it in the manifesto. My point is that until I see some kind of risk analysis and it is completely understood what we are asking for, I am not prepared to support it because of the risks. I asked how I could contribute and was ignored.

I am sick of the comments of 'rubbish', 'keyboard warrior' and the like from people who are supposed to be representing the membership. You do it over there, you do it here and regardless of your denial everyone who is interested can see it, even other less vocal cc members. Like I said, anyone who is a member and is interested or worried about these issues like merger of tax and ni or the introduction of FLC's should go over there and voice their concerns.

As far as the 'optimum solution' goes, you don't even know what you are asking for yet so how do you know whether it is a solution let alone the 'optimum' one???

[d000hg]

I agree - IR35 becomes irrelevant because it won't apply to FLCs. You'll just have to pay tax as if you were a limited company operating 100% inside IR35, but all your IR35 worries are taken away. In much the same way they could be already by operating via an umbrella, or declaring yourself inside IR35.

Is that actually true, assuming you're talking about merging PAYE & NI that is (I skimmed the thread)? In this special case it affords the opportunity to address the current situation where we either pay no NI, or far too much as we pay employers' AND employees' - a special entity created for contracting could merge PAYE and employee NI for instance but be exempt from employer. Or something.

[TheFaQQer]

Is that actually true, assuming you're talking about merging PAYE & NI that is (I skimmed the thread)? In this special case it affords the opportunity to address the current situation where we either pay no NI, or far too much as we pay employers' AND employees' - a special entity created for contracting could merge PAYE and employee NI for instance but be exempt from employer. Or something.

I don't know. There is no publicly available material on what shape the IPSE board want the FLC to take, other than it is optional. There is nothing on the IPSE forums which reveals this, indeed certain CC members have repeatedly said "this is just a starting point", or "we want to be involved in the decision making" or "if we ask for it now, we can shape it when they agree to do it".

There has been no risk analysis undertaken about whether this opens up a can of worms for the members (and non-members). There has been no detailed publication of what shape the membership wants it to take. There has been (as far as I am aware) no consultation of the members about this issue.

When the matter was discussed at the House of Lords committee, the PCG chief executive said that creating a new corporate vehicle would be "a great way of painting a target on the backs of these people who are independent professionals and want to be treated just like every other limited company." and that the PCG members would not welcome that move.

When it was asked in the IPSE forums about the U-turn, the response from board members and some CC members was that it wasn't a U-turn because the manifesto calls for it to be optional - "our members would be against the compulsory ruling...[but] an optional category would not be against the aims of our members".

Ultimately, it smacks of "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this" - a point I have made more than once on the IPSE forums.

[Doggy Styles]

I assume that IPSE's proposal for merging Tax and NICs retains the contractor's right to full state pensions and welfare benefits.

Missing NIC payments for a period would reduce them.

[tractor]

...

I don't know. There is no publicly available material on what shape the IPSE board want the FLC to take, other than it is optional. There is nothing on the IPSE forums which reveals this, indeed certain CC members have repeatedly said "this is just a starting point", or "we want to be involved in the decision making" or "if we ask for it now, we can shape it when they agree to do it".

There has been no risk analysis undertaken about whether this opens up a can of worms for the members (and non-members). There has been no detailed publication of what shape the membership wants it to take. There has been (as far as I am aware) no consultation of the members about this issue.

When the matter was discussed at the House of Lords committee, the PCG chief executive said that creating a new corporate vehicle would be "a great way of painting a target on the backs of these people who are independent professionals and want to be treated just like every other limited company." and that the PCG members would not welcome that move.

When it was asked in the IPSE forums about the U-turn, the response from board members and some CC members was that it wasn't a U-turn because the manifesto calls for it to be optional - "our members would be against the compulsory ruling...[but] an optional category would not be against the aims of our members".

Ultimately, it smacks of "we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this" - a point I have made more than once on the IPSE forums.

Exactly right. Given the benign nature of the membership though, only 3 or 4 (infuential) people need to support this ill thought out concept and it will run.

Incidentally, when I asked about risk analysis etc over there, I got the same kind of response you see from Malvolio only a few posts above this one.

[TheFaQQer]

I assume that IPSE's proposal for merging Tax and NICs retains the contractor's right to full state pensions and welfare benefits.

Missing NIC payments for a period would reduce them.

The proposal is for everyone to have NI and PAYE merged.

The proposal for the FLC means that NI and PAYE would happen earlier for operating via a FLC rather than via any other mechanism.

So I would assume that you would retain the right to a state pension and benefits as it would impact all workers. Unless they didn't merge it for all workers, and then HMRC / HMT could easily legislate so that people operating via a FLC didn't get those benefits. But that won't happen.

[Zero Liability]

Of course, this is only appealing if such a merger resulted in a lower overall tax bill. Given how this itemisation of taxes to be produced by the current govt already excludes VAT, I'm sure they'll find other taxes - including good ol' fashioned QE - if necessary to make up the shortfall as they're allergic to doing anything to cut their spending. Unless the proposed merger were to either leave the tax burden the same, or lower it, why would contractors even want it?

It is logical to merge them as NI is just another employment tax but there's certainly no guarantee it'll benefit the taxpayer. In Labour's case, if they ignore their big business buddies, the tax to go up may well be the CT.