So...anybody ask for any of this?

[tractor]

...

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.

Labour are not yet back in power

[OwlHoot]

That REALLY worries me.

:::

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

WHS - Sounds like they have been in too many cosy discussions with ministers and civil servants and are "going native"

[tractor]

...

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.

Indeed, as much as everyone has their ear in the year before an election. Just watch that 'influence' evaporate pretty quickly on polling day +1. Have you learned nothing?

[eek]

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.

Yep because you will be paying that tax
As if. Its hardly a lot of paperwork to run a limited company. The difficult bit is dividend payments and tax returns. The latter won't disappear.
how does merging 2 taxes make the end result smaller.
Optional I can't imagine it will be optional..

And I post it here as I want nothing to do with that bunch of fools. It makes it easier to argue otherwise when sat in a House of Commons bar having a drink with friends...

[DaveB]

Reading that is not heartening.

I don't usually take much notice of PCG/IPSE beyond paying for membership to get the tax investigation cover, but the way they are going, if I can find the same sort of package elsewhere, I don't think I'll be renewing my membership.

[The Spartan]

Reading that is not heartening.

I don't usually take much notice of PCG/IPSE beyond paying for membership to get the tax investigation cover, but the way they are going, if I can find the same sort of package elsewhere, I don't think I'll be renewing my membership.

Same here, I've seen the way optional works and it's never been to my benefit.

[TykeMerc]

But why would they do this? What motivation?

The same reason as any political organisation, the ability or illusion of exerting influence or power, this is a motivation in itself. It tends to gain a seat at top tables where influence and power concentrates, that's good for business and income in the long run......

Not that I'd accuse them of corruption, but anyone who argues that they have no personal agenda or motivation in being part of an executive is either deeply confused or outright lying.

[TykeMerc]

Reading that is not heartening.

I don't usually take much notice of PCG/IPSE beyond paying for membership to get the tax investigation cover, but the way they are going, if I can find the same sort of package elsewhere, I don't think I'll be renewing my membership.

That's exactly it, you like an awful lot of others buy an inexpensive insurance package and the PCG/IPSE executive claim a mandate in your name.
If the PCG/IPSE organisation was truly a lobby group then the insurance product as it stands would be available elsewhere at the same price, it's a bribe to pad membership numbers.

[d000hg]

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

It might end up making it worse off but most contractors are NOT true businesses in the sense that they only form a business because the rules say they have to, and it's the only efficient way to do things. How many people think "I want to set up a contracting business" and how many think "I want to be a contractor, looks like I need to set up a business to do that"?

The fact a handful of people come bleating about "I'm very much a real business thank you" doesn't change that. I'm one of those people!

[TheFaQQer]

Yep because you will be paying that tax
As if. Its hardly a lot of paperwork to run a limited company. The difficult bit is dividend payments and tax returns. The latter won't disappear.
how does merging 2 taxes make the end result smaller.
Optional I can't imagine it will be optional..

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.