- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
So...anybody ask for any of this?
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
-
-
-
The thoughts of one accountant is somewhat different from a trade body which purports to represent 4.5million people, though.Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostComment
-
True, but it'd be nice for them to ask an actual contractor some time.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostThe thoughts of one accountant is somewhat different from a trade body which purports to represent 4.5million people, though.Comment
-
My original concern was that IPSE wanted to float the idea of an FLC as a way of gathering a larger membership i.e the self-employed and hadn't fully appreciated that there would be implications if BoS were classified by HMRC as the same. It was all about appealing to a wider audience and therefore having a louder voice.
Now it turns out that this is someone else's idea of how all non-employees should operate and this is turning into damage limitation. The proposals by Philip Ross and the other one on CW that hit my inbox are absolutely NOT what I want.Last edited by Pondlife; 27 November 2014, 14:58.Comment
-
There's a big difference between damage limitation and saying "this is what our members want" though.Originally posted by Pondlife View PostMy original concern was that IPSE wanted to float the idea of an FLC as a way of gathering a larger membership i.e the self-employed and hadn't fully appreciated that there would be implications if BoS were classified by HMRC as the same. It was all about appealing to a wider audience and therefore having a louder voice.
Now it turns out that this is someone else's idea of how all non-employees should operate and this is turning into damage limitation. The proposals by Philip Ross and the other one on CW that hit my inbox are absolutely NOT what I want.Comment
-
Yeah but I can understand that by taking a negative stance for the start they risk the same alienation from Gov that we're getting from the BoD for exactly the same reason.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostThere's a big difference between damage limitation and saying "this is what our members want" though.
i.e. We've given this a lot of thought so either present a better idea or shut your pie-hole.
Comment
-
...
I cannot work out who thought of it first, IPSE or Gummint. I know who my money is on.Originally posted by Pondlife View PostYeah but I can understand that by taking a negative stance for the start they risk the same alienation from Gov that we're getting from the BoD for exactly the same reason.
i.e. We've given this a lot of thought so either present a better idea or shut your pie-hole.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers


Comment