So...anybody ask for any of this?

[TykeMerc]

Yes, precisely why I think the discussion needs to continue here (and there, as well, of course). I totally disagree with the view that the discussion should be supplanted to the IPSE forum where it is somehow argued to have more resonance. There's a much broader cross-section of contractors willing to participate here. Hopefully, the discussion here will attract a few more IPSE folks too, as I'm not aware of many that actively participate (Mal, v8gaz, perhaps a couple more). We could do with a greater variety of...er...presentational styles of the IPSE policies too

Indeed, if one of the people with access to the IPSE forums would be good enough to transplant any conversations that the IPSE leadership would rather hold in private on this matter then it would be a benefit to the wider contractor community.

[TheFaQQer]

Indeed, if one of the people with access to the IPSE forums would be good enough to transplant any conversations that the IPSE leadership would rather hold in private on this matter then it would be a benefit to the wider contractor community.

Unfortunately, IPSE members have been asked specifically not to cross-post content from the IPSE forums to CUK.

If you would like to comment on the proposals, you are invited to stump up your money rather than freeloading, and then you will be listened to in the same way that every other member of IPSE is listened to.

[malvolio]

Unfortunately, IPSE members have been asked specifically not to cross-post content from the IPSE forums to CUK.

If you would like to comment on the proposals, you are invited to stump up your money rather than freeloading, and then you will be listened to in the same way that every other member of IPSE is listened to.

If you read it properly, you would know it's more about not revealing a lot of very expensive research and strategic planning: telling the opposition your game plan is not exactly a smart idea. You will also have read that all comments are being considered as part of the finalisation of the whole thing.

So let's not pander to the conspiracy theorists any more than we have to, shall we?

[TykeMerc]

So a discussion that started here, has raised the eyebrows of many here and frankly alarmed a LOT here gets transplanted into the IPSE forums where any debate can be squashed (as predicted) and then IPSE members are warned not to cross post.

[sarcasm]Clearly it's an inclusive discussion around issues that matter to all contractors. [/sarcasm]

This scenario is EXACTLY why the discussion shouldn't be in the IPSE secrecy since it's them that have come up with these dangerous proposals and it's THEM that should be brought to account when it turns into the clusterfvck that we all KNOW it will.

Expensive research and strategic planning? You did that THEN handed HMRC a big stick with rusty nails through it to batter us with, that was productive then wasn't it?

Oh and no I won't pony up for IPSE membership, they do NOT deserve my mandate nor will I allow them to claim it, plus tbh I don't want to give the useless arsewipes my money.

[mudskipper]

No great secrets have been revealed. They have said they will look into the possibility of posting a statement here, as they understand the interest and concerns raised.

[v8gaz]

So a discussion that started here, has raised the eyebrows of many here and frankly alarmed a LOT here gets transplanted into the IPSE forums where any debate can be squashed (as predicted) and then IPSE members are warned not to cross post.

[sarcasm]Clearly it's an inclusive discussion around issues that matter to all contractors. [/sarcasm]

This scenario is EXACTLY why the discussion shouldn't be in the IPSE secrecy since it's them that have come up with these dangeroius proposals and it's THEM that should be brought to account when it turns into the clusterfvck that we all KNOW it will.

Expensive research and strategic planning? You did that THEN handed HMRC a big stick with rusty nails through it to batter us with, that was productive then wasn't it?

Oh and no I won't pony up for IPSE membership, they do NOT deserve my mandate nor will I allow them to claim it, plus tbh I don't want to give the useless arsewipes my money.

Well, with that level of debate I cant imagine why IPSE wouldn't have the debate right here [/SARCASM]

[jamesbrown]

Well, with that level of debate I cant imagine why IPSE wouldn't have the debate right here [/SARCASM]

It's easy to dismiss these concerns, but it's more than a vocal minority. There's a large audience here (including of potential members) when compared to the IPSE forum. It would be pretty self-defeating to not overcome any privacy concerns and to have some level of discussion here. If IPSE isn't careful, I think many traditional contractors (who operate very differently from the self-employed) will begin to look through the benefits offered in terms of insurance and legal support, which remain very good value, and move from a position of ambivalence on the policy direction to becoming actively against IPSE.

For example, on the face of it, the concept of an FLC (read PSC), and the assertion that such a structure would remain optional to contractors, appears naive at best. Furthermore, it's unclear how such a structure would be exempt, as claimed, from IR35 (i.e. what's the political incentive?). For the majority of us around here that operate through a Ltd. for non-tax reasons and are confident about our working practices, I think we'd be pretty concerned that an FLC wouldn't be optional at all and would constrain our legitimate ability to manage company finances for the long-haul. I'm willing to listen, though, and I'd think that IPSE would want to dispel any myths along these lines among a broader audience.

[TykeMerc]

as part of the finalisation of the whole thing.

So let's not pander to the conspiracy theorists any more than we have to, shall we?

So you're planning to "finalise" in isolation, not having bothered to consult any other than your largely silent membership who are attracted to membership fundamentally by a cheap insurance product.....

Claiming a mandate is ludicrous and even claiming to represent the 20k membership is a stretch.

IPSE and its executive have no right to try to act as a voice for contractors and handing UK Government an alternative corporate structure which you try to sell as Optional is absurd. They will simply make its tax treatment the equivalent of inside IR35 (or worse) and set the agency regulations to require them to do business ONLY with contractors in the new vehicle or Umbrellas.

By default that abrogates the entire reason for starting the PCG in the 1st place, no wonder you've re-branded as a way to retain the corporate nature of the business, frankly that's little short of corruption.

If you can't see that (or more likely won't allow yourself to acknowledge it) then you're bewilderingly naive.

[TheFaQQer]

So you're planning to "finalise" in isolation, not having bothered to consult any other than your largely silent membership who are attracted to membership fundamentally by a cheap insurance product.....

For clarity, the membership weren't consulted directly either.

The membership were consulted because the CC (last election turnout 3%) is representative of the membership; the board is elected by the CC; policy is determined by the board.

There may have been some forum threads discussing this before the manifesto launch which I've not read, though.

[malvolio]

ROFLMAO...

Sorry, but the question still stands: what would you propose as an alternative *yeah, I know, do nothing - well tat's worked out well so far, hasn't it) and on what material evidence would you be basing it? And how, exactly, would you put it to HMG?

And just so we're clear, an FLC is not a PSC, nor is it meant to be, not is one meant to replace the other. Just try looking outside the bunker for once and you might just understand why it may be a viable solution for a lot of people.