• 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.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Chancellor vows to ban 'one man firms'

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

    #41
    We should be backing this, people who really are employees making the rest of us look bad. Contractors aren't employees who choose to work through a company, they are hired specifically NOT to be employees by the company.
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by d000hg View Post
      We should be backing this, people who really are employees making the rest of us look bad. Contractors aren't employees who choose to work through a company, they are hired specifically NOT to be employees by the company.
      But how do you differentiate? IR35? That works well!

      It's heading for a throw the baby out with the bathwater solution.
      It's about time I changed this sig...

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by MrRobin View Post
        But how do you differentiate? IR35? That works well!

        It's heading for a throw the baby out with the bathwater solution.
        If the company offers you a choice "how do you want to be paid", that's a good indicator. If you take a permanent position (no expected end date) rather than a temporary one, that's another.
        Originally posted by MaryPoppins
        I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
        Originally posted by vetran
        Urine is quite nourishing

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by centurian View Post
          Well if he wanted to ban it within public sector - just issue an edict to all government departments "thou shalt not "employ" contractors" - simples.
          Easy demarcation to make, but it would hit contractors that are employed at all levels in the public sector, quite a few of which are probably on CUK (is RBS considered public sector?).

          Could it spur a rise in LLPs to avoid "one-man-band" status?

          Comment


            #45
            I'll bet many of them aren't "one man" firms anyway. I'm sure that spousal secretaries and co-directors are widely used.

            So I suspect we'll end up with legislation that misses the intended mark anyway.

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by KimberleyChris View Post
              Of course, it would never dawn on them to stop spending more money than the taxpayer can afford would it?
              ftfy
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment

              Working...
              X