FLCs - LFIG Proposal

[mudskipper]

Contracting is a policy priority, Labour told :: Contractor UK

Philip Ross (author of the above) has bravely and foolhardily popped into the 'Did anyone ask for this?' thread to respond to the below post.

However, despite the seeming similarities, the LFIG proposal and IPSE proposal are entirely separate beasts.

It's probably helpful to separate the discussions (assuming that Philip comes back to answer questions) as his ideas may be different to IPSEs.

So starters for 10 from me -

- How influential are your proposals?

- Who do you envisage using the new FLC - will it be contractors like us, self employed professionals like social workers, self-employed businesses like plumbers, low paid self employed like cleaners?

- What will be the benefits of using a FLC over a limited company?

- What will the likely tax implications be?

- Will the use be optional, or will businesses meeting certain criteria need to use it?

- If optional, will those not using it come under closer scrutiny than at present?

- If optional, what sort of safeguards do you envisage to make sure it really is optional?

Thank you for your time - we appreciate you coming in to discuss this.

Well I think you may mean me in your post. I don't think it is flawed at all. But it is true the primary goal is to given some recognition to the freelancing sector. The status quo isn't working. And it isn't just about IT freelancing but for people in other sectors too. The key work in the paper for labour is that it would be optional and work off the model currently in place for community interest companies for being a limited company but registering as a freelancer. Ipse's have come separetly to their own conclusions I think.

With abandonment of the bet tests freelancing is on the agenda and all the political parties and the industry is thinking about what comes next.

I think your concerns are valid and need to be addressed and debated. The strength of these and other forums is the ability to engage in constructive debate. I am not in ipse though but it is ipse and others who would fight the corner for you.

As for the flc I think success comes one step at a time. If it was a piece of software I'd see your concerns as the security risks and I'd seek to tighten them up, I wouldn't ditch the product because it could be hacked. I'd make it so it couldn't be hacked.

That REALLY worries me.

It's a recipe for the agency regs to be changed again to insist that people use FLC's, then the rules, tax treatment and protections for FLC's can be changed independently from Ltd companies. Bye bye any concept of being a true business for very many contractors and hello complicated re-incorporations if a business model changes to say supplying hardware in large quantities.
The smartarse that proposed that has absolutely NO concept how risky that is, I can see it being another total clusterfvck the same as the "entirely voluntary" Opt Out. It will be a monstrous own goal.

NI and Income Tax merger, seems unlikely to be something that a government will want in reality since they can hide tax policy in NI while lowering Income Tax, unless of course it's introduced for the Contractor subset in which case you can expect the rules to be far from favourable.

Those clowns at IPSE do NOT represent me nor do I recognise their manifesto.

[tractor]

...

Contracting is a policy priority, Labour told :: Contractor UK

Philip Ross (author of the above) has bravely and foolhardily popped into the 'Did anyone ask for this?' thread to respond to the below post.

However, despite the seeming similarities, the LFIG proposal and IPSE proposal are entirely separate beasts.

It's probably helpful to separate the discussions (assuming that Philip comes back to answer questions) as his ideas may be different to IPSEs.

So starters for 10 from me -

- How influential are your proposals?

- Who do you envisage using the new FLC - will it be contractors like us, self employed professionals like social workers, self-employed businesses like plumbers, low paid self employed like cleaners?

- What will be the benefits of using a FLC over a limited company?

- What will the likely tax implications be?

- Will the use be optional, or will businesses meeting certain criteria need to use it?

- If optional, will those not using it come under closer scrutiny than at present?

- If optional, what sort of safeguards do you envisage to make sure it really is optional?

Thank you for your time - we appreciate you coming in to discuss this.

I am surprised that someone would come in here and make the following statement...

I think your concerns are valid and need to be addressed and debated. The strength of these and other forums is the ability to engage in constructive debate. I am not in ipse though but it is ipse and others who would fight the corner for you.

The fact that people make these proposals and don't appear to want to actually debate them is of the most worry to me. The above statement says to me that they are expecting a fight and secondly that the lack of debate means that HMRC have a done deal and there will be no debate.

[TykeMerc]

The fact that people make these proposals and don't appear to want to actually debate them is of the most worry to me. The above statement says to me that they are expecting a fight and secondly that the lack of debate means that HMRC have a done deal and there will be no debate.

Indeed that's the way I read it, if IPSE have effectively agreed to the FLC concept then it appears to someone not in the IPSE leadership that they've just sold their membership down the river.

Their refusal to engage in discussions, clarify the situation, squash misconceptions and communicate other than by arrogance and sarcasm doesn't make them appealing, in fact it positions them as an enemy rather than an ally.

[malvolio]

Indeed that's the way I read it, if IPSE have effectively agreed to the FLC concept then it appears to someone not in the IPSE leadership that they've just sold their membership down the river.

Their refusal to engage in discussions, clarify the situation, squash misconceptions and communicate other than by arrogance and sarcasm doesn't make them appealing, in fact it positions them as an enemy rather than an ally.

Almost all of which is inaccurate (I think the bold bit is) but let not spoil a good rant...

I'm not saying it again but from the top of this thread all I've been saying s the IPSE position: it is a proposal for discussion. If people want to load that with their own expectations or develop their own model then that's perfectly fine. It does not mean however, that IPSE are making any decisions or avoiding any clarifications.

[tractor]

...

Almost all of which is inaccurate (I think the bold bit is) but let not spoil a good rant...

I'm not saying it again but from the top of this thread all I've been saying s the IPSE position: it is a proposal for discussion. If people want to load that with their own expectations or develop their own model then that's perfectly fine. It does not mean however, that IPSE are making any decisions or avoiding any clarifications.

To be clear, this thread is not about IPSE. It's about Philip and the need he felt to explain his proposal as reported on CUK a while ago.

Please can we keep it that way so that we can see each proposal in isolation and determine where any differences lie and what each individual position actually is?

[malvolio]

To be clear, this thread is not about IPSE. It's about Philip and the need he felt to explain his proposal as reported on CUK a while ago.

Please can we keep it that way so that we can see each proposal in isolation and determine where any differences lie and what each individual position actually is?

That is a damned good idea.

[PhilipRoss]

reading posts

this is a quick post to let you know that I have seen this thread and will do my best to engage, hopefully later today or this evening time allowing.

thanks for putting this up.

Philip

Contracting is a policy priority, Labour told :: Contractor UK

Philip Ross (author of the above) has bravely and foolhardily popped into the 'Did anyone ask for this?' thread to respond to the below post.

However, despite the seeming similarities, the LFIG proposal and IPSE proposal are entirely separate beasts.

It's probably helpful to separate the discussions (assuming that Philip comes back to answer questions) as his ideas may be different to IPSEs.

So starters for 10 from me -

- How influential are your proposals?

- Who do you envisage using the new FLC - will it be contractors like us, self employed professionals like social workers, self-employed businesses like plumbers, low paid self employed like cleaners?

- What will be the benefits of using a FLC over a limited company?

- What will the likely tax implications be?

- Will the use be optional, or will businesses meeting certain criteria need to use it?

- If optional, will those not using it come under closer scrutiny than at present?

- If optional, what sort of safeguards do you envisage to make sure it really is optional?

Thank you for your time - we appreciate you coming in to discuss this.

[tractor]

...

this is a quick post to let you know that I have seen this thread and will do my best to engage, hopefully later today or this evening time allowing.

thanks for putting this up.

Philip

/Taps feet........

[eek]

/Taps feet........

+1 although I have a suspicion this could be out of his hands later this week..

[mudskipper]

+1 although I have a suspicion this could be out of his hands later this week..

Taps nose?