FLCs - LFIG Proposal

[jamesbrown]

If, after all this discussion, you have not realised that there are employers, employees and self-employed people in the workforce, it is pointless arguing any further.

So what's the workforce category of a director who earns most or all of their company's income but subcontracts or substitutes occasionally and may like the flexibility to take on temporary employees for specific projects? This is one (among many) reasons that an FLC will never work for contractors. It's a duck-shaped hole, and most of us aren't ducks. But we'll be quacking nonetheless. Unless, of course, it's "optional"

[eek]

Whether pointless or not, I doubt that will stop you.

We were talking about the umbrella users. They are only using umbrellas because employers are able to dip out of their responsibility to employ them. Most like to think they are self employed but their working practices more than anything belie that. Hence, they are forced to use umbrellas.

I am only surprised that all the care worker suppliers haven't realised that they can get away with it yet. That would probably swell the numbers in forced self employment greatly. Just wait until FLCs come to pass and the government start touting it as the new wonder of economics that will save the world. It won't take them all long to cotton on.

You really should grasp the idea that just because people have a different view to you does not mean they are imbeciles and don't understand the difference between employed, self-employed and employers. No one here believes that I am that stupid and however you try to paint it that way, you have failed. The difference between us is that I haven't staked my belief on an idea that has as much chance of working (for us) as the UK getting a Jedi Parliament after next year's GE.

I don't doubt it will work but the only winner will be the agencies and HMRC.

Anyway, I thought we had declared this a Malvolioitis free zone in order that Philip Ross can come in and defend his corner without wading through reams of trash?

We had. And its worth saying that I believe throughout these debates there has only been one imbecilic person seemingly unable to listen repeating the same comments (without thought) continually. He does the IPSE no favours when claiming to represent them...

[malvolio]

We had. And its worth saying that I believe throughout these debates there has only been one imbecilic person seemingly unable to listen repeating the same comments (without thought) continually. He does the IPSE no favours when claiming to represent them...

Your paranoia is showing again. I didn't mention IPSE, but if you insist on applying the wrong model to a limited subset of the whole, you're never going to come up with a viable response. So have fun, but you're arguing too soon about the wrong things.

[cojak]

So basically we won't be able to afford to work away from home because we'll be taking home the same as those working in brollys?

[tractor]

...

Your paranoia is showing again. I didn't mention IPSE, but if you insist on applying the wrong model to a limited subset of the whole, you're never going to come up with a viable response. So have fun, but you're arguing too soon about the wrong things.

More gobbledegook.

The biggest flaw in your model is that you are convinced that there is a whole. There may be when it comes to convincing plumbers and shepherds that we have some affinity with them and that they should come and join us (for a fee).

We may all be entrepreneurs. We may all be freelance in the mercenary sense of the word. But legally, we go about things in entirely different ways. I am employed. By a company that I coincidentally own shares in. Similar to you maybe. But I am not self employed. By any stretch of anyones imagination - even yours. When you confuse me with the self employed then you really don't know what you are talking about and you are positively dangerous if let anywhere near anyone who legislates.

Your proposal is unlikely to ever get over this basic hurdle and given the antics of unscrupulous agents and disinterested Vince Cable and his ineffective department, it is a risk too far inasmuch as it has been described.

Additionally, the basis of your argument elsewhere is that we should not dismiss this idea until we understand exactly what it is. Well IPSE announced and demanded this thing. You should go back, put some meat on the bones of your proposal so that you are able to sell it better, then come back and talk about it instead of making all these 'wait and see' nods and winks.

Indeed, over the other side, I think there are only 6 (ish) proponents of your flawed model. No one else will publicly stand up and support it in the fora anyways. Quite the reverse in fact.

[original PM]

What is wrong with the current situation of people setting up ltd co's and then offering services to companies on a business to business basis?

Apart from the fact it is of no value to people within the PCG trying to suck up to politicians and get their ego stroked?

Oh right I see.....

[mudskipper]

We had. And its worth saying that I believe throughout these debates there has only been one imbecilic person seemingly unable to listen repeating the same comments (without thought) continually. He does the IPSE no favours when claiming to represent them...

To be fair, I'm not sure what Mal could say that would make us all think "that's alright then!".

The ipse line is that there's nothing to discuss yet, and mal has presented that.

(He has also hinted that we're all rather stupid and being awkward for the sake of it, but this isn't part of the official ipse line )

[tractor]

.....

To be fair, I'm not sure what Mal could say that would make us all think "that's alright then!".

The ipse line is that there's nothing to discuss yet, and mal has presented that.

(He has also hinted that we're all rather stupid and being awkward for the sake of it, but this isn't part of the official ipse line )

He has also said it's pointless arguing. 200 times. But he's still here peddling this nonsensical view that we are all self employed.

[GlenW]

You all must be thick!
What's so hard to understand?

IPSE don't know (or won't say) what an FLC is, or will be, but they say we must have it. They therefore cannot give us any idea of the benefits it offers us or the risks.

Now pay your subs, shut up complaining and be good little boys and girls.

[eek]

He has also said it's pointless arguing. 200 times. But he's still here peddling this nonsensical view that we are all self employed.

The problem is that we haven't been arguing. We have simply being discussing it over multiple threads looking at potential flaws. While our local IPSE representative has been saying we don't need to worry our pretty little heads over such trifling matters....