chancellor-will-create-crisis-self-employed

[malvolio]

It's not all about "affording a permie". Most service desks* are subject to wide seasonal demand variations so being able to pick up and put down resources is a key business requirement. So a bad example in that particular case. In fact for most trades and most occupations, you need a core staffing level and the ability to add resources to deal with exceptions to BaU, be it a new project, building a car park, whatever. Arguing the cost of permie vs contractor is not all that relevant, except to say loudly that permies are always more expensive.


* Help desks are so 90s....

[Swamp Thing]

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

Agreed. What I could have said more clearly though is that by pushing through the IR35 extension into private sector, converting contractors to PAYE means Treasury suffers the opportunity cost of no more VAT generated by contractors from their services to clients. Quite ironic really: Treasury drops VAT threshold to capture more micro-businesses which at the same time it wants to take out of corporate structures (and therefore VAT generation) because of "fairness".

And then on top of that, as others have said, Hammond effectively rejuvenates the cash-in-hand/black economy.

So tax receipts down across the board. I'm really struggling to see where Treasury thinks the £1.2bn black hole is.

Smart one, Mr Hammond, you couldn't make it up. Tomorrow could yet be another omnishambles for you, once the pundits and analysts really estimate the true cost benefit of this.

[SueEllen]

Agreed. What I could have said more clearly though is that by pushing through the IR35 extension into private sector, converting contractors to PAYE means Treasury suffers the opportunity cost of no more VAT generated by contractors from their services to clients. Quite ironic really: Treasury drops VAT threshold to capture more micro-businesses which at the same time it wants to take out of corporate structures (and therefore VAT generation) because of "fairness".

And then on top of that, as others have said, Hammond effectively rejuvenates the cash-in-hand/black economy.

So tax receipts down across the board. I'm really struggling to see where Treasury thinks the £1.2bn black hole is.

Smart one, Mr Hammond, you couldn't make it up. Tomorrow could yet be another omnishambles for you, once the pundits and analysts really estimate the true cost benefit of this.

VAT is cost neutral so can't be used as an argument about how much tax the Treasury loses.

[Swamp Thing]

VAT is cost neutral so can't be used as an argument about how much tax the Treasury loses.

Can you explain that? I don't understand.

[MrMarkyMark]

VAT is cost neutral so can't be used as an argument about how much tax the Treasury loses.

I know banking and some, not all, financial services are exempt, for VAT to be claimed back.

I'm sure the 20% they keep from Banking Contractors on decent rates adds up to a fair penny.

[bobspud]

Lets also not forget that a lot of the rhetoric for this lands with the paradise papers and all the naughty money hiding off shore. Its time to point out the obvious and state that without doubt tax at source of employment is as bad as hiding your cash off shore because as much as the government won't want to admit it. The money it spends has a far smaller reach in terms of propagation through the economy than if you or I spend it and let it trickle back in excise, Vat and corporation taxes.

[SueEllen]

Can you explain that? I don't understand.

See eek's earlier reply linky

In short if you are providing services to another VAT registered business, the VAT you are paying is cancelled out by the VAT that registered company claims against.

[bobspud]

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

But this does not take into account the interest the money accrues while it is sat in HMRC's account. For many years banks made millions holding onto clearing funds for a few extra days and leaving it their own accounts. This was why everyone dragged their heels over faster payments. For HMRC to get 500,000 businesses to pay them VAT on account every quarter while someone else claims some money back when their own return becomes due still provides a serious profit for them.

High time we stopped falling for their lies and to prove it we should start demanding that we be made zero rated for VAT purposes...

[mudskipper]

More press coverage

Philip Hammond is once again plotting an attack on Britain's self-employed army

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...get-bombshell/

[jamesbrown]

More press coverage

Philip Hammond is once again plotting an attack on Britain's self-employed army

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...get-bombshell/

Credit where it's due w/r to press coverage. I've seen these and related articles come across a lot of feeds that are viewed by exactly the right people. The message is definitely reaching the right places. Whether or not they're listening is another matter but, as I say, credit where it's due, as the breadth and reach of coverage from IPSE has been excellent in recent weeks/months.