Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...

[BrilloPad]

NTRT spent 3 years campaigning against retrospection and got nowhere. If it wasn't for the "George" argument they would probably have disbanded by now.

Whoever gets into power does what the uncivil disservice tells them to.

I wish you were right though.

[Boobetty]

As has been said above, I am fairly confident that nothing will change if there is a change in government, so our best efforts should be concentrated on wasting as much HMRC time as possible. For example:

1) every Contractor should make representations against the APN's they receive. These should be submitted 89.9 days after the issue date.

2) every contractor should engaged in the settlement opportunity, if for no other reason than to waste a bit of HMRC time.

3) every contractor should be making freedom of information requests

4) basically anything that takes up just a little bit of time and resource just to ensure our friends on board the HMS HMRC aren't given enough time to count their final salary pension schemes

This may sound childish to some....that's because it is. But did you know that the average child smiles 300 times a day. Can't remember the last time I did that!

[ads1980]

I will vote libdem just to have a hung parliament. More divided they are better.

My MP is a conservative. It's a very blue seat but sometimes lib dems do get in. I initially wrote to my conservative MP when this was all kicking off and he sent me a few snotty replies. So a few days ago I sent both him and the lib dem representative a tweet asking why I should vote for them. Snotty con replied asking me to call or email him and when I reminded him of the APN situation I never heard anything else. The lib dem representative has asked me to email details so they can have a look at it and get back to me. Ultimately, I don't want the n0b of a conservative MP to win his seat back so I will be voting lib dem in the hope of getting him removed. I know this won't make any difference in the grand scheme of things but I have a personal grudge with him now.

[dangerouswhensober]

The parable of the Innocent Man, the Bully, and the Very Big Stick

Once upon a time there was a Bully. This nasty person liked to rob innocent people, and he also liked to beat them up using a Very Big Stick which he owned. The Bully liked his Very Big Stick so much that he kept making it bigger and bigger, so that it would be more effective and would cause more and more pain.

One day, the Bully came upon an Innocent Man. The Bully started beating the Innocent Man using the Very Big Stick. He kept repeating "You have been bad - so now you must give me all of your money - I'll tell everybody that you have been bad - and I'll keep beating you until you give me your money ...".

Now the Innocent Man knew that he hadn't done anything wrong, so he said to the Bully: "I'm innocent - I haven't done anything wrong - please stop beating me".

But the Bully wouldn't listen - he just kept beating harder and harder.

Suddenly, the Bully said to the Innocent Man: "I need your permission to keep beating you - please will you let me keep beating you ?". (By the way, the Bully didn't actually stop the beating whilst he was asking for permission).

Of course, the Innocent Man replied "No, you can't have my permission - please stop beating me now !"

But the Bully just said "No - I'm just going to keep beating you. If you don't give me your permission, I'll have to stop. But if I stop, there is another Bully, and he's even bigger than me, and he will beat you even harder than I do - in fact, he'll be using my Very Big Stick instead of me - so please give me your permission to keep beating you".

So the Innocent Man had to decide what to do ...

And, not surprisingly, he told the Bully: "You don't have my permission !". And he also told the Bigger Bully: "You don't have my permission either !".

And, after this, in the time-honoured fashion of all good fairy stories, they all lived happily ever after (well, they certainly do in my dreams). The Bully and the Bigger Bully had to make friends with some very small bullies, and the smaller bullies wouldn't let them continue with their bad behaviour ...

And the moral of the story is: "TURKEYS DON'T VOTE FOR XMAS !!"

P.s. Webburg - I fully agree with your comments and recommended strategy (post #5 in this thread) - in fact I'm expecting and planning for a long fight over the next few years - but this thread was started to comment on tactics in the short term (i.e. over the next seven weeks).

(Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tsu "The Art Of War").

P.p.s. Boobetty - I also fully agree with your comments (post #12) - anything which ties-up HMRC resources (and/or causes them to make mistakes) increases the liklihood that payments will be delayed/deferred. There was a good article discussing this liklihood published last year:
Use of APN power could backfire on HMRC, says expert

(If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him. - Sun Tsu "The Art Of War").

Final comment: The Labour party has already stated that, should they gain power, they will instigate a root-and-branch reform of HMRC. This can only be good for our cause - reorganising a huge institution like HMRC will almost certainly result in massive disruption/delay to ongoing cases. I have a good contractor friend who was with Montpelier - he hadn't paid when I first met him seven years ago, and he still hasn't paid a penny - I'd be happy to be in his position in seven years time - with a bit of luck I'll be either retired abroad or dead :-)

[malvolio]

Final comment: The Labour party has already stated that, should they gain power, they will instigate a root-and-branch reform of HMRC.

And you seriously believe them? And you seriously believe that any such reform will be to do anything other than move as many people as possible towards paying taxes on the same level as employees...? After all, taxing everyone's income at a marginal rate of 60% is a simplification.

And you would do well to remember who enabled this whole f***ing mess in the first place.

[flamel]

This is more like Morton's Fork.

The evil elves at HMRC persuaded the Labour party to introduce retrospective legislation (s58), as the people affected weren't paying their union dues. They lost the election and Lord Snooty and his pals took over.

The elves at HMRC saw an opportunity to cover themselves in glory, so persuaded Lord Snooty and his pals to introduce further retrospective legislation to stuff up even more of the annoying peasants who were taking millions away from their mates' big consultancy firms.

Lord Snooty and his pals then needed to win an election, so they dreamed up a cash grab and came up with APNs, as they didn't want to sound like Cyprus.

So do you vote for the people who have avowed to smash contractors as they are outside the union and are nasty middle class professionals. Or do you vote for Lord Snooty and his pals who have completely screwed you and have vowed to further smash contractors as they are outside the system and reduce their mates' earning power?

Choices, choices....

[webberg]

Is it not the case that IPSE asked the political parties for a comment on how they would treat contractors and all but the Labour party replied?

Quote

Our first Finance Bill will close the tax loopholes that cost the Exchequer billions
of pounds a year. We will introduce tougher penalties for those abusing the
tax system, end unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds and others, and bear
down on disguised employment

From the Labour Manifesto.

"Disguised employment"..

Exactly the same words as used when IR35 was introduced by ... drum roll .... the Labour Party.

Expect no favours.

[StrengthInNumbers]

May be better vote for conservatives - better to have a devil we know. Of all the manifestos conservatives sound most sensible to me. Keep evaluating.

[dangerouswhensober]

Is it not the case that IPSE asked the political parties for a comment on how they would treat contractors and all but the Labour party replied?

Quote

Our first Finance Bill will close the tax loopholes that cost the Exchequer billions
of pounds a year. We will introduce tougher penalties for those abusing the
tax system, end unfair tax breaks used by hedge funds and others, and bear
down on disguised employment

From the Labour Manifesto.

"Disguised employment"..

Exactly the same words as used when IR35 was introduced by ... drum roll .... the Labour Party.

Expect no favours.

That's as maybe, but I don't see the word "retrospective" in that quote from the Labour Manifesto.

The major beef that contractors have against the current Government & HMRC is not that opportunites for tax minimisation have been reduced, but that the legislation has been enacted retrospectively. For my own part, I don't mind if any future Government closes perceived "loopholes" - I (and all contractors) have the choice to go permie any time we think that the rewards of contracting (such as they are) don't match the risks.

Also, even if the word "retrospective" were to be included in the Labour pledges, I believe they would have a very hard job in applying that to myself and most other true contractors. During the past eight years, I have worked for four (major) companies. During each contract (which has usually been 3 or 6 months, extendable depending on project length), I have received no pension contributions, no holiday pay, no sick pay, and no other company employee benefits of any kind. I suggest that any competent lawyer could easily demonstrate in a court of law that I have not been in any kind of permie employment (disguised or otherwise).

And in answer to flamel: "So do you vote for the people who have avowed to smash contractors as they are outside the union and are nasty middle class professionals. Or do you vote for Lord Snooty and his pals who have completely screwed you and have vowed to further smash contractors as they are outside the system and reduce their mates' earning power?"

You vote for neither - the more divided the next Government is, the harder it will be for them to enact extremist legislation of any kind. So vote for the party which will have the greatest unstabilising effect in your own constituency - especially if your current MP is Conservative.

Remember - "TURKEYS DON'T VOTE FOR XMAS !!"

[LandRover]

That's as maybe, but I don't see the word "retrospective" in that quote from the Labour Manifesto.

The major beef that contractors have against the current Government & HMRC is not that opportunites for tax minimisation have been reduced, but that the legislation has been enacted retrospectively. For my own part, I don't mind if any future Government closes perceived "loopholes" - I (and all contractors) have the choice to go permie any time we think that the rewards of contracting (such as they are) don't match the risks.

For a Conservative government to legislate so vindictively has been a major shocker to many . Don't buy into this coming from the liberals, but Gauke's hands are all over it. And to think his previous job was in tax planning. To bring about legislation in a fair-minded democracy is to make legislation law from a date in the future, so people can make arrangements, that has always been the case in the past. Its shockingly unfair legislation and it has the Tories dirty hands all over it.

They will NEVER get my vote again.