So...anybody ask for any of this?

[jamesbrown]

In your case (and even mine) that's possibly true. However there an awful lot on people out there in the real world that are exposed by a lack of knowledge of the factors that can bite them at any time, that represent a sizeable chunk of the working population and that have no effective voice. IPSE's 20k member are probably the bulk of those that actually understand and can deal with IR35, for example, out of a few million independent workers.

Secondly IPSE can't maintain a dialogue with HMG on any subject if they don't contribute anything: doing nothing merely means that we all lose the very real representative authority they have now. Do you really want your work environment defined by some inexperienced jobsworth Civil Servant at the Treasury or BIS???

It seems very odd to me that IPSE would be pushing for something that would be of no use, and potentially harmful, to the majority of its membership. Also, the idea of doing nothing is a straw man, as no one here is suggesting that IPSE avoids a dialog with HMG or doesn't pursue proposals that reflect the wishes of its contractor members (and even contractors more widely, if the argument is that IPSE is now courting "independent workers" in general). I think the underlying concern is that very few contractors would agree with the principle of an FLC as representing their needs (as opposed to those of the self-employed, which IPSE is now trying to court; indeed, one might argue that IPSE is spending the money of its current members pursuing policies that aim to court an entirely different membership). However, it's difficult to tell, as IPSE is apparently unwilling to defend the concept, publicly, in any detail.

[TykeMerc]

In your case (and even mine) that's possibly true. However there an awful lot on people out there in the real world that are exposed by a lack of knowledge of the factors that can bite them at any time, that represent a sizeable chunk of the working population and that have no effective voice. IPSE's 20k member are probably the bulk of those that actually understand and can deal with IR35, for example, out of a few million independent workers.

Secondly IPSE can't maintain a dialogue with HMG on any subject if they don't contribute anything: doing nothing merely means that we all lose the very real representative authority they have now. Do you really want your work environment defined by some inexperienced jobsworth Civil Servant at the Treasury or BIS???

The bit in italics possibly so, but since IR35 isn't really targeted at the majority of the contract and self employed workforce the point is a bit moot.

The bit in bold is the really alarming part for several reasons.

1. So for IPSE to maintain a place at the negotiating table they had to bring the family silver as a bargaining chip Sorry but that's not a reason to hand HMG what they've wanted for some time, a route to the total enforcement of IR35 for no real effort.
2. With a membership of 20k the vast majority of whom take no part in IPSE debate how can IPSE leadership have the gall to claim to be a representative organisation?
3. I want to define my OWN working environment, not have the likes of IPSE dictate what they in their wisdom consider to be a "good thing" since their track record of the "good thing" is dismal.

I'm not here for the argument, I genuinely think that this FLC proposal will end IR35 by capitulation and since IPSE rebranded to step away from IR35 it's clear they knew it was on the cards.

[TheFaQQer]

It seems very odd to me that IPSE would be pushing for something that would be of no use, and potentially harmful, to the majority of its membership. Also, the idea of doing nothing is a straw man, as no one here is suggesting that IPSE avoids a dialog with HMG or doesn't pursue proposals that reflect the wishes of its contractor members (and even contractors more widely, if the argument is that IPSE is now courting "independent workers" in general). I think the underlying concern is that very few contractors would agree with the principle of an FLC as representing their needs (as opposed to those of the self-employed, which IPSE is now trying to court; indeed, one might argue that IPSE is spending the money of its current members pursuing policies that aim to court an entirely different membership). However, it's difficult to tell, as IPSE is apparently unwilling to defend the concept, publicly, in any detail.

An FLC isn't meant for the current IPSE members - it's to try and show that IPSE represents all 4 million freelancers.

The downside of this, of course, is that it may / will impact badly on the 22000 current members, but if you replace all those with a higher number of new blood who don't care where the organisation came from, then it's trebles all round.

It's not about contractors any more.

[jamesbrown]

An FLC isn't meant for the current IPSE members - it's to try and show that IPSE represents all 4 million freelancers.

The downside of this, of course, is that it may / will impact badly on the 22000 current members, but if you replace all those with a higher number of new blood who don't care where the organisation came from, then it's trebles all round.

It's not about contractors any more.

It certainly appears that way.

[eek]

An FLC isn't meant for the current IPSE members - it's to try and show that IPSE represents all 4 million freelancers.

The downside of this, of course, is that it may / will impact badly on the 22000 current members, but if you replace all those with a higher number of new blood who don't care where the organisation came from, then it's trebles all round.

It's not about contractors any more.

An FLC is of no use to a proper freelancer. Many of those have multiple clients and can easily work as self employed with the ease of doing that. In fact the only people it will actually hurt are the 22000 current members who are bum on seats contractors (using Malvolio's insulting version of that phrase) who will need to use an FLC to work via agencies.....

Granted I've seen the next set of HMRC's changes (as the software is being written at the moment and HMRC are very big on Agile and so attend the monthly meetings I also attend). But the idea that an FLC is of interest to someone who can just as easily be self employed is utterly insane....

[tractor]

...

I appreciate that people here have differing views and experiences of the leadership.

Information presented over there cannot be repeated here and I have to say that for the most part I agree with it, until such information becomes public knowledge.

In order to make your views heard, I am afraid you gotta pay the entrance fee.

For the avoidance of doubt, if I was not a member, it would be worth £150 for a year just to contribute to this debate alone. You can always leave afterwards.

[mudskipper]

An FLC is of no use to a proper freelancer. Many of those have multiple clients and can easily work as self employed with the ease of doing that. In fact the only people it will actually hurt are the 22000 current members who are bum on seats contractors (using Malvolio's insulting version of that phrase) who will need to use an FLC to work via agencies.....

Granted I've seen the next set of HMRC's changes (as the software is being written at the moment and HMRC are very big on Agile and so attend the monthly meetings I also attend). But the idea that an FLC is of interest to someone who can just as easily be self employed is utterly insane....

The FLC provides limited liability, which I guess is quite a biggie.

[eek]

I appreciate that people here have differing views and experiences of the leadership.

Information presented over there cannot be repeated here and I have to say that for the most part I agree with it, until such information becomes public knowledge.

In order to make your views heard, I am afraid you gotta pay the entrance fee.

For the avoidance of doubt, if I was not a member, it would be worth £150 for a year just to contribute to this debate alone. You can always leave afterwards.

Personally I think it would result in my name being attached to the proposal even if I utterly disagreed with it. I think spending £150 may well actually result in your views being discounted both inside and outside of IPSE so would recommend having absolutely nowt to do with it.

If and when the time comes I think we could just as easily create a consolidated reasoned approach here and submit a counter argument.

[mudskipper]

For the avoidance of doubt, if I was not a member, it would be worth £150 for a year just to contribute to this debate alone. You can always leave afterwards.

Whilst I'm sure that member's feedback is read, and possibly discussed, I'm not sure that members can actively contribute to the debate. The decisions seem to have already been made.

[eek]

The FLC provides limited liability, which I guess is quite a biggie.

No because you have the option of professional indemnity regardless of whether you are limited or not to cover that and can already use a limited company if you really needed to. That reduces the argument to the amount of paperwork which to be blunt is already fairly minimal and most accountants provide means to minimise even that so I doubt it could be any less than what we already have.

To be honest the great unknowns are:-

• Tax treatment of this company type (but we can guess that it will be nearer self employed than contractor).
• HMRC agency reporting rules which will be phrased in a way to actively discourage the usage of limited companies.

and I can guarantee that between those 2 items your take home pay is going to be smaller, your warchest smaller (and sat in your own personal savings account) and your total tax bill far higher.