So...anybody ask for any of this?

[TheFaQQer]

Can we just recap for a moment:

- We don't know what it is nor how it's going to work

Correct. And IPSE will not share the details of what it is that they want exactly. However, it is something that the staff who wrote the manifesto (as directed by the board, elected by the CC, elected by the 2% of the membership) know that the members want. It must be something that we want, or it wouldn't be in the manifesto.

- and there have been no discussions on how it's going to work

I don't believe that to be the case at all. As people are constantly reminding us, IPSE are being listened to at high levels of government (what an amazing impact the change of name has had, because before the rebranding took place, no-one was listening to IPSE).

- and the underlying logic was not considered nor any kind of risk analysis done

Not true. The IPSE experts, led by the director of policy and external affairs, have done the research. They just haven't shared it with anyone.

- but it won't provide any benefits for us who use Ltds or Umbrellas

Not that can be seen. However, if IPSE provide some details of what they want, then perhaps this could be answered more rationally. But since no-one will say what IPSE really wants (which has been asked and ignored goodness knows how many times), one can only speculate that what they are asking for is something that is not good for the current membership.

- and there are no other kinds of contractors or self employed workers for it to apply to

Not that are paying IPSE. Or certainly not in any great number.

- nevertheless we will be forced to use it by "them" and our existing companies closed down

I believe that to be a genuine concern of many contractors who will be impacted, yes. If HMG force agencies to reveal who they make payments to, but exempt FLCs, for example then this would result in agencies forcing contractors to use the new corporate vehicle. The fact that no-one in IPSE management seems to admit that this is a possibility is worrying.

- and as soon as we are it will be taxed into oblivion

I don't think anyone has used the word "oblivion". However, I don't believe that having this as an "option" will result in the status quo or even a decrease in my tax contribution. Again, the fact that we are meant to be reassured by CC statements like "we'd never let that happen" and "if it happened, the board would be booted out quickly" etc. is, again, worrying.

- so it's clearly a VERY BAD THING and should not be pursued just in case it actually works and has a real purpose

Unless it can be shown to have clear benefits for the people who are paying for the research, the staff, the direcors (OK, it's only £18k plus expenses per person per year), then it should not be pursued. But since no-one has managed to explain what the benefits would be to a fee-paying IPSE member who is paying for all this. then I cannot be in favour of it.

A challenge to anyone - convince me otherwise.

[The Spartan]

Can we just recap for a moment:

- We don't know what it is nor how it's going to work
- and there have been no discussions on how it's going to work
- and the underlying logic was not considered nor any kind of risk analysis done
- but it won't provide any benefits for us who use Ltds or Umbrellas
- and there are no other kinds of contractors or self employed workers for it to apply to
- nevertheless we will be forced to use it by "them" and our existing companies closed down
- and as soon as we are it will be taxed into oblivion
- so it's clearly a VERY BAD THING and should not be pursued just in case it actually works and has a real purpose

Just so we are all clear on the case against.

So why is there an article from Philip Ross talking about FLC's?

[Pondlife]

So why is there an article from Philip Ross talking about FLC's?

The article is one man's opinion and not the offical view from IPSE.

Can one of the IPSE CC members confirm this?

[malvolio]

The article is one man's opinion and not the offical view from IPSE.

Can one of the IPSE CC members confirm this?

Yep. I'm told Ross does talk to IPSE on various things, but this is not an IPSE piece

[eek]

The article is one man's opinion and not the offical view from IPSE.

Can one of the IPSE CC members confirm this?

I find it strange that that opinion seems to uncannily match the Labour document we discussed a page or two back....

[Pondlife]

I find it strange that that opinion seems to uncannily match the Labour document we discussed a page or two back....

The more I hear that it's a labour proposal floated ahead of an election, the less I'm worrying about it.

[tractor]

...

Correct. And IPSE will not share the details of what it is that they want exactly. However, it is something that the staff who wrote the manifesto (as directed by the board, elected by the CC, elected by the 2% of the membership) know that the members want. It must be something that we want, or it wouldn't be in the manifesto.


I don't believe that to be the case at all. As people are constantly reminding us, IPSE are being listened to at high levels of government (what an amazing impact the change of name has had, because before the rebranding took place, no-one was listening to IPSE).


Not true. The IPSE experts, led by the director of policy and external affairs, have done the research. They just haven't shared it with anyone.


Not that can be seen. However, if IPSE provide some details of what they want, then perhaps this could be answered more rationally. But since no-one will say what IPSE really wants (which has been asked and ignored goodness knows how many times), one can only speculate that what they are asking for is something that is not good for the current membership.


Not that are paying IPSE. Or certainly not in any great number.


I believe that to be a genuine concern of many contractors who will be impacted, yes. If HMG force agencies to reveal who they make payments to, but exempt FLCs, for example then this would result in agencies forcing contractors to use the new corporate vehicle. The fact that no-one in IPSE management seems to admit that this is a possibility is worrying.


I don't think anyone has used the word "oblivion". However, I don't believe that having this as an "option" will result in the status quo or even a decrease in my tax contribution. Again, the fact that we are meant to be reassured by CC statements like "we'd never let that happen" and "if it happened, the board would be booted out quickly" etc. is, again, worrying.


Unless it can be shown to have clear benefits for the people who are paying for the research, the staff, the direcors (OK, it's only £18k plus expenses per person per year), then it should not be pursued. But since no-one has managed to explain what the benefits would be to a fee-paying IPSE member who is paying for all this. then I cannot be in favour of it.

A challenge to anyone - convince me otherwise.

The worst thing of all is that no one has a choice in the matter, it is being asked for on behalf of everyone who is 'independent' and as with everything like this, there will be winners and there will be losers.

I want to know what IPSE is going to propose as my 'fair salary/dividend split'.

[The Spartan]

The worst thing of all is that no one has a choice in the matter, it is being asked for on behalf of everyone who is 'independent' and as with everything like this, there will be winners and there will be losers.

I want to know what IPSE is going to propose as my 'fair salary/dividend split'.

Fair in the sense that more will go to the government

[tractor]

...

The more I hear that it's a labour proposal floated ahead of an election, the less I'm worrying about it.

I am quite sure that even out of power, Labour has some influence with their buddies in the civil service and we all know to a certain extent, that HMRC is often the tail wagging the government dog

[tractor]

...

Yep. I'm told Ross does talk to IPSE on various things, but this is not an IPSE piece

The question was 'is it the official IPSE view'?