November Budget - Stop Public sector IR35 rules coming into the Private sector

[Guesstimator]

Aside from this and lobbying directly, there isn’t much that can be done, fullstop. I think it helps insofar as they sense a degree of opposition from the number of letters received, particularly letters that don’t follow the lobbying format of an interest group. The Faqqer provided an analogy earlier in this thread, I think. Any savvy politician will think twice if there’s an unusually high degree of opposition to something, but the Tories have shown themselves to be pretty tin eared, and the Chancellor, in particular.

I realise I'm being defeatist but after a brief conversation, of two communications each way, describing the apples to oranges comparison of PAYE vs Single Expert Ltd it was like beating my head against a brick wall: "levelling the playing field"

When you explain our situation to anyone including MPs you need to think of sectors e.g. engineering where there are very well known skills shortages and where making it difficult to get contractors will directly impact their own lives e.g. trains, electricity. It also helps if that sector complaining about not getting skilled people was recently in the media somewhere particularly a newspaper.

Going on about how you won't be able to work in a bank in London due to living in Edinburgh simply won't cut it with most MPs.

Totally agree, even so it just doesn't seem to register. Explaining that the tax received from Me Ltd is substantially more than Me employee cuts no ice either: "But but but, that's not the point" I've heard a few times.

[BoredBloke]

It was the exact opposite agencies were requiring people to be self employed to avoid responsibility for tax

I thought it was they insisted on the use of limited companies instead of self employed but happy to be corrected as I was only 8 when it happened. My dad was a contractor and I vaguely remember him setting up his limited company back then.

Either way, the industry changed pretty much overnight due to somebody in the chain not wanting to expose themselves to a contractors tax liability.

[BoredBloke]

Regarding the part about not being able to work in a London bank when based elsewhere, I think that is a valid point. We are supposed to be a flexible resource and the removal of our ability to expense remote temporary assignments removes our flexibility - something that's not removed for the big consultancies/body shops when they post their staff. Where I live roles are pretty scarce and over the past 17 years I've pretty much worked away from home. Without being able to offset the travel and accommodation costs then remote roles will be out of the question. They say that employees can't expense commuting costs, but how many of them have to stay in a London hotel 4 nights of the week?

[SueEllen]

Regarding the part about not being able to work in a London bank when based elsewhere, I think that is a valid point. We are supposed to be a flexible resource and the removal of our ability to expense remote temporary assignments removes our flexibility - something that's not removed for the big consultancies/body shops when they post their staff. Where I live roles are pretty scarce and over the past 17 years I've pretty much worked away from home. Without being able to offset the travel and accommodation costs then remote roles will be out of the question. They say that employees can't expense commuting costs, but how many of them have to stay in a London hotel 4 nights of the week?

The point is they don't care about banks. It doesn't effect them.

They do however care if they have no electricity or can't get on a nice shiny first class coach on a train on their way from their constituency to Westminster.

They also care if they have a small majority and are told in simple terms that not lobbying the Chancellor will mean they may not be re-elected.

Also I've worked with employees who have lived elsewhere in the country with their families, but commute to stay weekly in a large town or city.

[bobspud]

Regarding the part about not being able to work in a London bank when based elsewhere, I think that is a valid point. We are supposed to be a flexible resource and the removal of our ability to expense remote temporary assignments removes our flexibility - something that's not removed for the big consultancies/body shops when they post their staff. Where I live roles are pretty scarce and over the past 17 years I've pretty much worked away from home. Without being able to offset the travel and accommodation costs then remote roles will be out of the question. They say that employees can't expense commuting costs, but how many of them have to stay in a London hotel 4 nights of the week?

There really does need to be a bit of a brutal wake up for the policy makers this is why I am starting to advocate the need for a completely new political party.

By the way this is not the conservative party that did any of this it's the Civil Service! They have not even done it through malice they just don't understand the facts of life. I have tried to explain to to them in the past. Its like teaching your dog economics... They don't understand that you could be out of work for 12 months because the market suffers. They don't think you need to be able to expense travel to work because they don't understand that anyone would ever live the way we do and worst of all when they get flustered they ask advice from nice guys like PWC or PA etc...

Seriously you are not arguing with an equal intellect some of them can barely keep spreadsheets up to date. (not bad for £80k)

[d000hg]

Seriously you are not arguing with an equal intellect

I think you probably are.

[TheFaQQer]

Totally agree, even so it just doesn't seem to register. Explaining that the tax received from Me Ltd is substantially more than Me employee cuts no ice either: "But but but, that's not the point" I've heard a few times.

Arguing on numbers is difficult for people to understand - particularly when the headline percentages aren't in line. That's true whether you are trying to explain to a permie, a journalist, an MP or anyone else.

Where the argument can be made that people understand is around what we have to pay for that they don't - holiday pay, sick pay, jury duty cover, pensions, maternity / paternity pay, insurance, risk that the clients disappear without paying.

And each of those has a "human interest" element to it that people can relate to.

[SueEllen]

MP has replied to my letter send via email late last night already.

Copied and pasted standard response to the Treasury in the reply (see below), and said he would forward my letter to the Treasury.

Thank you for getting in touch, and for sharing your concerns about these policy proposals with me. I will, of course, ensure they reach the Treasury.

In the meantime, I have copied below the most recent information issued by the Department about the changes to IR35:

‘Flexible labour plays an important role in the UK economy and it is necessary that the tax system recognises the different ways that individuals are working, while at the same time making sure nobody is given an unfair advantage.
In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of workers engaged through an employment intermediary. While many play a legitimate role in the labour market, increasingly some market themselves, at least in part, on the basis that they allow individuals and businesses to maximise their income through claiming tax relief on home-to-work travel expenses. The increase in the use of intermediaries means that large numbers of individuals are claiming tax relief that the majority of workers cannot claim, even when they hold very similar jobs.
People can also use intermediaries to disguise what would otherwise be employment income. The IR35 legislation seeks to ensure that what is properly employment income is taxed as such and tackles tax and National Insurance avoidance through the use of intermediaries.'

[SueEllen]

By the way this is not the conservative party that did any of this it's the Civil Service! They have not even done it through malice they just don't understand the facts of life. I have tried to explain to to them in the past. Its like teaching your dog economics... They don't understand that you could be out of work for 12 months because the market suffers. They don't think you need to be able to expense travel to work because they don't understand that anyone would ever live the way we do and worst of all when they get flustered they ask advice from nice guys like PWC or PA etc...

Seriously you are not arguing with an equal intellect some of them can barely keep spreadsheets up to date. (not bad for £80k)

Civil servants aren't one homogeneous group.

I've worked alongside some who had to live the way we do e.g. travelling around the country, staying in hotels overnight and having limited food expenses. Unfortunately those civil servants don't work alongside the policy makers, they just clear up their mess so things can be implemented.

[northernladyuk]

I can't see it getting anywhere with MPs. Doesn't anyone have contacts with someone in the Mail or Express to put together a frothing at the mouth Middle Britain / hard pressed self-employed / backbone of the country kind of story?

It needs a proper PR campaign IMO, not lobbying MPs. Does IPSE do this kind of thing?