Official Summer 2015 Budget Thread

[DimPrawn]

You do realise we're allowed to have a difference of opinion without it getting personal, right? It's a hallmark of well-educated people that they can actually have a debate without getting all angry.

Yes of course, but being human, sometimes certain types of people and their attitude and opinions and how they express themsleves, GETS RIGHT UP OUR ******* NOSES AND MAKES US WANT TO SHAKE THE tulip OUT OF THEM.

HTH BIDI

[xoggoth]

Permanent employees will never be as flexible as contractors, thanks to UK law which makes is nearly impossible to sack someone.
That's rubbish.
It's only hard in public sector due to heavy unions influence.

That, aTW, is totally untrue. See here:

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/overview

The ability to terminate easily is a major advantage of contractors over employees and it saves their companies money. Also contractors do not get the various perks that employees do and they have a lot of admin on salaries, pensions, CT, accounts, reviewing contracts etc even before they pay expensive accountants and other experts. Those things should be taken account of in reduced taxation.

[tractor]

...

Um, I do take advantage of it. If you think the reason that everyone doesn't set up Ltds and contract is because they're lazy and stupid, you're the blinkered one. Most contractors are lazier than most permies - many here take pride in it! And the system relies on most people being permies.

You do realise we're allowed to have a difference of opinion without it getting personal, right? It's a hallmark of well-educated people that they can actually have a debate without getting all angry.

Most contractors are not business people, taking advantage of a situation they have no business being in. You can identify them by one or more of the following...

• Do not understand their responsibilities as a director.
• Have never heard of or do not understand IR35.
• Think they are opting out of AWR.
• Never have their contract reviewed.
• Do not understand the basics of accounting or VAT.
• Spend HMRC money and whine when they find themselves in the tulip.
• Need advice on how to arrange time off for holidays/breaks/negotiate rate rises/tie their shoelaces.
• Use every wheeze they can to screw pennies out of their company to avoid paying tax.
• Think that buying PI to get the certificate and cancelling it the day after is a good idea.
• yada, yada ad infinitum.

The reason I multi-quoted you in the other answer was to highlight the supercilious way you believe anyone who doesn't agree with your shiny-unicorn vista of 'fairness' is bad and wrong; you make it personal all the time. Obviously, you missed it.

As for the part I highlighted, you have never watched PMQ's, Question Time or any other debate?

[AtW]

That, aTW, is totally untrue. See here:

https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/overview

The ability to terminate easily is a major advantage of contractors over employees and it saves their companies money. Also contractors do not get the various perks that employees do and they have a lot of admin on salaries, pensions, CT, accounts, reviewing contracts etc even before they pay expensive accountants and other experts. Those things should be taken account of in reduced taxation.

Look, it's like this - big private UK companies got no problems sacking lots of stuff. Or just going bust and leaving employees with nothing whilst directors of the company enjoy nice gold parachute payments.

The only problem in sacking in UK is in public sector which is heavily unionized. For that reason the Govt TUPEing said employees to private companies who will then have no problems sacking them.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Look, it's like this - big private UK companies got no problems sacking lots of stuff. Or just going bust and leaving employees with nothing whilst directors of the company enjoy nice gold parachute payments.

The only problem in sacking in UK is in public sector which is heavily unionized. For that reason the Govt TUPEing said employees to private companies who will then have no problems sacking them.

My other half works for a large enough private company. And it takes her years to get rid of someone for being tulip, without going through a redundancy process.

[DimPrawn]

My other half works for a large enough private company. And it takes her years to get rid of someone for being tulip, without going through a redundancy process.

It's easier, quicker and safer to pay them off. Golden parachutes.

[unixman]

That's rubbish.

It's only hard in public sector due to heavy unions influence.

No it isn't rubbish. Have you ever tried to dismiss an employee ? You can't do it because they are overpaid (illegal), or rubbish at their job (illegal), or disruptive or lazy (illegal, illegal). You can go for "gross misconduct", but you better have a cast iron case with plenty of evidence and be ready for a lengthy and expensive tribunal, which will involve you hiring a solicitor and, for the later stages, a barrister at circa £2000 per day. If you lose the tribunal, you risk being branded a liar or worse, apart from the other consequences.

You can go for redundancy, but you must have an almost impossible level of evidence that the employee's post has become obsolete, *not* the employee. You must execute a long "consultancy period" with the employee, and have a number of statutory meetings with them. Followed by another tribunal, and of course you can't hire anyone else to carry out the same role, even if you win.

In order to dismiss people, firms will often watch out for things which can be called "gross misconduct", even small things like defeating a company security measure, or doing work for another company in the firm's time.

And I agree in the public sector it is even worse.

[d000hg]

Most contractors are not business people, taking advantage of a situation they have no business being in.

For once we're in agreement, I think.

The reason I multi-quoted you in the other answer was to highlight the supercilious way you believe anyone who doesn't agree with your shiny-unicorn vista of 'fairness' is bad and wrong; you make it personal all the time. Obviously, you missed it.

Um, no. Quite the opposite. I'm not the one saying I'm betrayed because I have to pay more tax, or that the situation is 'bad and wrong' because it hurts me in the pocket. I have absolutely no desire to pay any more tax but there seems no objective way to say the changes as understood, are anything of the sort.

As for the part I highlighted, you have never watched PMQ's, Question Time or any other debate?

If you're holding up politicians as role models, I feel you're on weak ground before we even start.

[AtW]

My other half works for a large enough private company. And it takes her years to get rid of someone for being tulip, without going through a redundancy process.

She is not very good at her job then...

[AtW]

You can go for redundancy, but you must have an almost impossible level of evidence that the employee's post has become obsolete, *not* the employee. You must execute a long "consultancy period" with the employee, and have a number of statutory meetings with them. Followed by another tribunal, and of course you can't hire anyone else to carry out the same role, even if you win.

"consultation" period is a sharade - I've been through one once (tax free redundancy payment was nice though), it's basically 90 days notice period that you will fire those people - they are "consulted with" on say ideas to magically double sales in that period to turn the company around

There are NO problems for big companies to sack employees in UK.