So...anybody ask for any of this?

[mudskipper]

Thanks for the prompt MS - as were not connected on LinkedIn, where in the IPSE forums is the debat?

Anyone save me the tedium of rummaging through the wasteland that is the IPSE forums?

The two main threads are here (only accessible to members)

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads...f-this.108533/

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads...ifesto.108545/

[TykeMerc]

Sadly my concern is that it won't be irrelevant. They seem to have grasped an idea (the FTC) favoured by HMRC (via the Labour party) and are running with it as if its a good thing. There is a chance (albeit a very very small one) that it will end up being a good idea but it will allow HMRC to separate out limited companies from PSC and tax them differently. Its then just a small leap for agencies to start favouring FTC's rather than Limited companies and we will all be worse off..

Granted none of the above may happen (and hell may freeze over) but why on earth do those people wanting to schmooze not think through the consequences of what is being suggested...

Indeed.

Still I suppose they can claim that the IR35 debate is over and it's a dead issue since we will all end up inside once the new FLC vehicle is required. Any illusion that it will be Optional is pure smoke and mirrors.
It makes me wonder how long ago HMRC took over/bought out the PCG/IPSE leadership, since it's clear that they've not represented the interests of contractors for some time.

[TheFaQQer]

Granted none of the above may happen (and hell may freeze over) but why on earth do those people wanting to schmooze not think through the consequences of what is being suggested...

If we are to believe IPSE, they have considered the consequences of this in their secret research which hasn't been shared and won't be shared.

We just have to trust that they are professionals and know what they are doing - the policy team have spent a significant amount of time and money in this process, therefore we should trust that they are right and we are worrying unnecessarily.

[TykeMerc]

If we are to believe IPSE, they have considered the consequences of this in their secret research which hasn't been shared and won't be shared.

We just have to trust that they are professionals and know what they are doing - the policy team have spent a significant amount of time and money in this process, therefore we should trust that they are right and we are worrying unnecessarily.

I'm sure we've all seen projects filled with highly skilled professionals spend a load of money and deliver absolutely nothing of any value at all, usually because the requirements were lousy at the start.
Feels a bit like this situation really.

[eek]

If we are to believe IPSE, they have considered the consequences of this in their secret research which hasn't been shared and won't be shared.

We just have to trust that they are professionals and know what they are doing - the policy team have spent a significant amount of time and money in this process, therefore we should trust that they are right and we are worrying unnecessarily.

Yes. The previous example of similar manoeuvring with the opt out has worked brilliantly hasn't it. Agencies have been forced to accept something that makes contractors' lives so much easier.....

Its like watching a pre-school debating society up against Machiavelli.

[original PM]

I'm sure we've all seen projects filled with highly skilled professionals spend a load of money and deliver absolutely nothing of any value at all, usually because the requirements were lousy at the start.
Feels a bit like this situation really.

It is not that the requirements are lousy in this case but the team of highly skilled professionals have simply no interest in representing a tax efficient vehicle for contractors as it does not put any money in their pockets.

What they are interested in using this as a vehicle to boost their own standing and thus line their own pockets.

I think back in the day the PCG was run by contractors for contractors - that is simply note the case now.

[malvolio]

It is not that the requirements are lousy in this case but the team of highly skilled professionals have simply no interest in representing a tax efficient vehicle for contractors as it does not put any money in their pockets.

What they are interested in using this as a vehicle to boost their own standing and thus line their own pockets.

I think back in the day the PCG was run by contractors for contractors - that is simply note the case now.

Nonsense. All the Board Members are working contractors (Apart from the FD who is appointed annually), as are all the CC members. The executive are permanent salaried staff but they don't design strategy, only how to put it into practice.

So want to try again?

[tractor]

...

Nonsense. All the Board Members are working contractors (Apart from the FD who is appointed annually), as are all the CC members. The executive are permanent salaried staff but they don't design strategy, only how to put it into practice.

So want to try again?

I think OPM was perhaps a little harsh but I consider that something has definitely been lost in the communication between members-> CC -> Board -> executive.

Indeed, it reminds me of......

[mudskipper]

Mal, you've said that "do nothing" is not an option. Why is it not an option? As the old saying goes, better the devil you know...

[TykeMerc]

Mal, you've said that "do nothing" is not an option. Why is it not an option? As the old saying goes, better the devil you know...

I'm guessing that the IPSE committee were led willingly by the hand (nose ring more likely) by some officials from the Treasury and HMRC who clearly wanted an end to IR35 by bringing everyone inside, it's the Government officials that want the change.
Their gambit of a new corporate vehicle (FLC) was swallowed whole by IPSE and the officials are all looking at their nice new Honours on the way once the deal is agreed and forced on the rest of us.

Anyone who thinks this new vehicle will offer an advantage or even the same general position as we have now is either naive or dangerously and deliberately obfuscating another motive.