• 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.

chancellor-will-create-crisis-self-employed

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bobspud
    replied
    Originally posted by contractorinatractor View Post
    Devil's advocate:

    Those HelpDesk roles wouldn't pay much cash if they were converted to permanent roles. The tax take from those permanent roles wouldn't be significant when compared to a higher paying contract role. HelpDesk contracts don't pay much and the contractor similarly won't be paying much tax. More dividends taken=more tax paid.

    What's the issue really? The government wouldn't be getting much more, if any, by placing them outside vs inside vs permanent. The main concern here is IR35, which requires increased enforcement, which would settle this.
    So lets start by focusing on the actual problem:

    A company needs a help desk person. - Do they need one that is going to stick around on a permanent basis? Or is it more of a hump thing to add some skills while they train up or deploy new production software?

    If its a permanent role then the fact they end up with a contractor shows they are not paying enough to attract a full time employee so are probably grudgingly using the contractor instead. Due to their finance model the contract rate will probably also be sub market rate so the temp ends up using the leverage of a tax loophole so the company gets the body they need.

    If they want the a temporary resource and hire a contractor, then they are not talking about a comparable employee market price. They are paying for a service that comes from someone that should be top in their field that has paid for their own tools and training and will provide their skills and expertise for a few months and then when they leave may wait for months between roles.

    What makes this hard is that the two parties probably used a recruitment consultant that is telling one party they supply staff and the other they hire contractors. SO with this in mind we should make any party that misrepresents a contract in the chain fully liable for all penalties and taxes in an investigation. This is the one change that would absolutely solve the problem.

    Nearly every case where IR35 has been proven to have been broken has had non mirrored contracts and that should be counted as serous fraud as the middle party are the only ones that see all the contracts.

    If the middle man was liable it would police itself

    Leave a comment:


  • MrMarkyMark
    replied
    Originally posted by gables View Post
    Yep, this would cause an immediate rise in price from my painter friend and presumably all the trades like him, or they keep the price the same and take home less, presumably HMRC don't care as they'll get the extra VAT.
    Or they will offer a reduced payment for cash

    In fact many years ago even the Head of Tax Inspection at HMRC asked my old man what his cash price would be.

    The old man wisely thought it could possibly be a trap and suggested he never operated in such a way

    Leave a comment:


  • gables
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    VAT is a tax neutral thing for those who work via agencies and are working for vat registered companies. The argument is that our clients would be paying the VAT we pay Hmrc so that is revenue neutral

    The reduction of the threshold down to £26k is not a neutral exercise. That is designed to capture a large number of self employed people who sell directly to the general public. Whatever vat collected there is new money to Hmrc but money that wiould have a serious negative impact on the economy as a whole
    Yep, this would cause an immediate rise in price from my painter friend and presumably all the trades like him, or they keep the price the same and take home less, presumably HMRC don't care as they'll get the extra VAT.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    Good job for HMRC that their bonuses are tied to their revenue and not the economy as a whole then.
    Everything here is planned to start on April 5th 2019 just as we leave the EU.

    Hence everything can be blamed on Brexit and everything is being done to ensure Brexit is a disaster

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    VAT is a tax neutral thing for those who work via agencies and are working for vat registered companies. The argument is that our clients would be paying the VAT we pay Hmrc so that is revenue neutral

    The reduction of the threshold down to £26k is not a neutral exercise. That is designed to capture a large number of self employed people who sell directly to the general public. Whatever vat collected there is new money to Hmrc but money that wiould have a serious negative impact on the economy as a whole
    Good job for HMRC that their bonuses are tied to their revenue and not the economy as a whole then.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Swamp Thing View Post
    Surprised and disappointed the FT would headline an article "Hammond aims at employment tax cheats". That's more Daily Mail language. If that's how the FT positions it, then their journalists have truly been brainwashed by HM Treasury.

    The more balanced and interesting article would have been: "Alleged bogus employment: Do Hammond's sums add up?" And then it could have discussed a number of scenarios comparing the different tax takes between outside (CT, VAT, Div tax, maybe a little NI and income tax) vs PAYE. It would point out that net net, tax receipts would typically reduce under the PAYE model.

    And before anyone says it, I don't agree that VAT is somehow neutral and that Treasury doesn't factor this into the trade-off. If Treasury is contemplating reducing VAT threshold to £20K, VAT is not a neutral issue for them.
    VAT is a tax neutral thing for those who work via agencies and are working for vat registered companies. The argument is that our clients would be paying the VAT we pay Hmrc so that is revenue neutral

    The reduction of the threshold down to £26k is not a neutral exercise. That is designed to capture a large number of self employed people who sell directly to the general public. Whatever vat collected there is new money to Hmrc but money that wiould have a serious negative impact on the economy as a whole

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by Swamp Thing View Post
    Surprised and disappointed the FT would headline an article "Hammond aims at employment tax cheats". That's more Daily Mail language. If that's how the FT positions it, then their journalists have truly been brainwashed by HM Treasury.

    The more balanced and interesting article would have been: "Alleged bogus employment: Do Hammond's sums add up?" And then it could have discussed a number of scenarios comparing the different tax takes between outside (CT, VAT, Div tax, maybe a little NI and income tax) vs PAYE. It would point out that net net, tax receipts would typically reduce under the PAYE model.

    And before anyone says it, I don't agree that VAT is somehow neutral and that Treasury doesn't factor this into the trade-off. If Treasury is contemplating reducing VAT threshold to £20K, VAT is not a neutral issue for them.
    Spot on, especially after they have reduced it to 20k.

    I think their plan is to trap the better paid from the "gig economy" in VAT so that they can make a fuller tax grab on them two or three years later if they think they're inside. Very crafty idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swamp Thing
    replied
    Originally posted by contractorinatractor View Post
    The Financial Times has an article on this very matter. The article is mediocre but the comments are very useful.

    For those without a subscription: you can view the article by clicking on the google link to it. This is legit and a deal they have made with Google's New offering.

    Budget to signal focus on private sector’s bogus self-employed - Google Search
    Surprised and disappointed the FT would headline an article "Hammond aims at employment tax cheats". That's more Daily Mail language. If that's how the FT positions it, then their journalists have truly been brainwashed by HM Treasury.

    The more balanced and interesting article would have been: "Alleged bogus employment: Do Hammond's sums add up?" And then it could have discussed a number of scenarios comparing the different tax takes between outside (CT, VAT, Div tax, maybe a little NI and income tax) vs PAYE. It would point out that net net, tax receipts would typically reduce under the PAYE model.

    And before anyone says it, I don't agree that VAT is somehow neutral and that Treasury doesn't factor this into the trade-off. If Treasury is contemplating reducing VAT threshold to £20K, VAT is not a neutral issue for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • contractorinatractor
    replied
    Originally posted by bobspud View Post
    Out of interest how many years have you been contracting?

    For me the vast majority of contractors that I have met are completely clueless. I have heard such amazing bulltulip ranging from:

    "I am outside IR35 because I bring my own special mug to staff meetings..."

    Helpdesk guys that sit on call centres that have to ask to take a break and use client kit and read scripts all day but still telling anyone that will listen that they are outside because of a bunch of little scripts they wrote at home and brought in on a USB stick... FFS!

    What it is time to do is state for the record that we all need to pay full sodding taxes regardless of our status and frankly the dividend changes has pretty much managed that.

    From that point on we need to start acting like businesses and set the proper rates as a result just become far more expensive for the end clients.

    They either pay or we give up and go back to being permanent.

    Devil's advocate:

    Those HelpDesk roles wouldn't pay much cash if they were converted to permanent roles. The tax take from those permanent roles wouldn't be significant when compared to a higher paying contract role. HelpDesk contracts don't pay much and the contractor similarly won't be paying much tax. More dividends taken=more tax paid.

    What's the issue really? The government wouldn't be getting much more, if any, by placing them outside vs inside vs permanent. The main concern here is IR35, which requires increased enforcement, which would settle this.

    Leave a comment:


  • contractorinatractor
    replied
    The Financial Times has an article on this very matter. The article is mediocre but the comments are very useful.

    For those without a subscription: you can view the article by clicking on the google link to it. This is legit and a deal they have made with Google's New offering.

    Budget to signal focus on private sector’s bogus self-employed - Google Search

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X