So...anybody ask for any of this?

[jamesbrown]

Bear in mind that the author of the CUK article, whilst being a founder member of the PCG, isn't a CC or board member, nor a member of staff who wrote the manifesto.

I'm not saying that his view isn't absolutely spot on (and since he has had discussions with PCG about the idea then it may well be), but it could be very different from how IPSE want this to pan out.

Fair point. However, I'd be surprised if a founding member of PCG would take it upon themselves to put this case on-the-fly. It's possible that a different justification may emerge from IPSE, but I doubt it and, in any case, these views clearly represent the opinion of someone who has, in the past, been instrumental in developing PCG policy. But courtesy dictates that we defer any coffin nailing until the "official" analysis is in...

[Pondlife]

Personally, I can wait until we get something from the BoD at the end of the week.

There's many things about that article I don't like or agree with starting with the idea that it was bourne (or born? MS? Faq? Anyone?) out of a labour conference and it's somehow their idea.

IF it's something we want, the last thing we should be doing is crediting the idea to a particular political party.

[EternalOptimist]

Personally, I can wait until we get something from the BoD at the end of the week.

There's many things about that article I don't like or agree with starting with the idea that it was bourne (or born? MS? Faq? Anyone?) out of a labour conference and it's somehow their idea.

IF it's something we want, the last thing we should be doing is crediting the idea to a particular political party.

yeah, where did all this come from ?

Is it too soon to call it Ipse-gate ?

[Pondlife]

yeah, where did all this come from ?

Is it too soon to call it Ipse-gate ?

I first heard about it when I was informed of the rebranding from PCG to IPSE and the publishing of the new manifesto.

If you're a member EO you can have a looky at the IPSE forums (IPSE Community)

[NotAllThere]

Yep. FLC will be exempt Employers NI but all income will be subject to income tax (that's a guess as I only know about the agency reporting changes).

Back in the days post IR35 announcement and pre-PCG, while discussing with contractors in a meeting organised (and drinks bought by - at least, mine was) one "Andy White", the general feeling was that if we could deduct expenses, didn't have to pay ernic and retained limited liability, we wouldn't really object to paying income tax on the rest.

[mudskipper]

Back in the days post IR35 announcement and pre-PCG, while discussing with contractors in a meeting organised (and drinks bought by - at least, mine was) one "Andy White", the general feeling was that if we could deduct expenses, didn't have to pay ernic and retained limited liability, we wouldn't really object to paying income tax on the rest.

For me, one of the important aspects of running a Ltd, is choosing when to take my money. So I can build up a warchest and spend it during periods of non-work - I don't want to rely on JSA, thanks. It's not clear whether a FLC would permit this.

[GlenW]

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.

I agree with this but I don't understand why. Who at IPSE is going to benefit financially, politically or in any other way, by forcing this through? Someone must be, because they aren't doing it for us the members.

[Pondlife]

I agree with this but I don't understand why. Who at IPSE is going to benefit financially, politically or in any other way, by forcing this through? Someone must be, because they aren't doing it for us the members.

The drive behind this (as I see it) is to widen the membership to a more broader population. IPSE intends to be the voice of all independent workers and not just mainly IT contractors who worry about IR35, S660 opting in/out. They want to include all self employed people as well i.e. 4.5 million. That's a lot of membership fees

[eek]

Back in the days post IR35 announcement and pre-PCG, while discussing with contractors in a meeting organised (and drinks bought by - at least, mine was) one "Andy White", the general feeling was that if we could deduct expenses, didn't have to pay ernic and retained limited liability, we wouldn't really object to paying income tax on the rest.

This is flawed because of the logic below. Anyone sensible wants to keep money untaxed for a rainy day.

For me, one of the important aspects of running a Ltd, is choosing when to take my money. So I can build up a warchest and spend it during periods of non-work - I don't want to rely on JSA, thanks. It's not clear whether a FLC would permit this.

Being taxed at 45% one year and being on JSA the next is insane but is a logical step within this logic....

It really is a half baked plan....

[mudskipper]

Presumably this is the research, linked from the above article, that was being referred to earlier:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwGK...hjN2NjT00/edit

That doc is from the Labour Finance and Industry Group...