So...anybody ask for any of this?

[eek]

So who's getting rich from IPSE?

From memory the founder's web design company did awfully well for a while...

[DodgyAgent]

That's total bollocks, but hey, it's a good rant.

If you're that concerned, get over there and make your case; it's pointless banging on to your fellow sceptics over here. Like it or not, they have the ear of Westminster and can make opinions felt. If you want them to be your opinions, you have to contribute.

Incidentally, everyone on the Board and the CC are working contractors, just like you. I haven't seen any tendencies toward professional suicide from any of them.

Well said. This is a moaning forum. It is not a platform for action.

[malvolio]

So who's getting rich from IPSE?

Simple. Nobody.

[TheFaQQer]

Regarding this last point, there's a thread over there about how the membership aren't engaged. If you were ipse, what would/could you do to get the likes of us to get involved as members rather than just using it for the insurance?

<malvolio>IPSE doesn't provide insurance</malvolio>

[TheFaQQer]

Like it or not, they have the ear of Westminster and can make opinions felt.

Does that not contradict somewhat with the party line of "people thought the PCG were builders and didn't pay attention to us, so we needed to change our name to show we are self-employed"?

[TheFaQQer]

That REALLY worries me.

It's a recipe for the agency regs to be changed again to insist that people use FLC's, then the rules, tax treatment and protections for FLC's can be changed independently from Ltd companies. Bye bye any concept of being a true business for very many contractors and hello complicated re-incorporations if a business model changes to say supplying hardware in large quantities.
The smartarse that proposed that has absolutely NO concept how risky that is, I can see it being another total clusterfvck the same as the "entirely voluntary" Opt Out. It will be a monstrous own goal.

NI and Income Tax merger, seems unlikely to be something that a government will want in reality since they can hide tax policy in NI while lowering Income Tax, unless of course it's introduced for the Contractor subset in which case you can expect the rules to be far from favourable.

Those clowns at IPSE do NOT represent me nor do I recognise their manifesto.

There has been much discussion about this FLC idea on the IPSE forums - I questioned how it fitted with the evidence given to the House of Lords committee which said that the PCG members would not welcome such a move, and the difference is that this one will be optional.

In the same way that being a limited company is optional. Or opting out of the agency regulations. Because there's absolutely no pressure anywhere for those things to happen. Oh no.

[mudskipper]

There has been much discussion about this FLC idea on the IPSE forums - I questioned how it fitted with the evidence given to the House of Lords committee which said that the PCG members would not welcome such a move, and the difference is that this one will be optional.

In the same way that being a limited company is optional. Or opting out of the agency regulations. Because there's absolutely no pressure anywhere for those things to happen. Oh no.

So what's the thinking behind the FLC? Why is it deemed necessary/desirable/useful?

[TestMangler]

So what's the thinking behind the FLC? Why is it deemed necessary/desirable/useful?

I'd put money on it being backdoor IR35, maybe with very slightly more generous expenses.

There is absolutely no need for a different business entity to be created. IPCGSI are pandering to their political masters because of the perception that all freelancers avoid tax.

[TheFaQQer]

So what's the thinking behind the FLC? Why is it deemed necessary/desirable/useful?

I think the main points are:

• It would get rid of IR35 concerns.
• It would reduce the amount of red tape required to run the company.
• It would result in lower taxes because NI and PAYE would be merged into one simple payment.
• It would be optional, so you wouldn't need to do it if you didn't want to do it.

I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me, but that seems to be the summary from the IPSE threads that I have read / participated in.

I'm not saying I agree with any / all of those, but that's the argument that has been put forward.

[tractor]

...

I think the main points are:

• It would get rid of IR35 concerns.
• It would reduce the amount of red tape required to run the company.
• It would result in lower taxes because NI and PAYE would be merged into one simple payment.
• It would be optional, so you wouldn't need to do it if you didn't want to do it.

I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will correct me, but that seems to be the summary from the IPSE threads that I have read / participated in.

I'm not saying I agree with any / all of those, but that's the argument that has been put forward.

The latest CC minutes make interesting reading on this topic. I suggest members go over and take a look.