• 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!

Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

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

    Originally posted by seeourbee View Post
    I've never done the calculations in detail but bottom line does the old rules leave you with bigger tax bill than an employee. If it does that can't possibly make sense as it therefore actually punishes you for being a Psc rather than out you on equal footing as e'ee
    I think you're confusing 'you' and 'yourCo'. You will be on the same footing as the employee, yourCo will pay the NI.

    Comment


      I'm not. If the old rules are saying that the turnover figure (nevermind the 5% for now) is to be treated as salary it literally leaves no cash to pay any ERS NI. That's my point.

      Comment


        Originally posted by seeourbee View Post
        I'm not. If the old rules are saying that the turnover figure (nevermind the 5% for now) is to be treated as salary it literally leaves no cash to pay any ERS NI. That's my point.
        YourCo 'earns' the money and pays you.

        Yes, if yourCo turnover is 100K, you (personally) will be worse off than an employee with a salary of 100K.

        Comment


          Thanks that clarifies it I think. I always knew it sought to put things equal I never dreamt it intended to make you worse off than an employee (to the tune of 13%!). That's criminal, can't understand how that became law.

          Comment


            Originally posted by seeourbee View Post
            Thanks that clarifies it I think. I always knew it sought to put things equal I never dreamt it intended to make you worse off than an employee (to the tune of 13%!). That's criminal, can't understand how that became law.
            Because people have put their heads in the sand and have put a stupid petition on the government's petition website perhaps?
            "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

            Comment


              Originally posted by seeourbee View Post
              Thanks that clarifies it I think. I always knew it sought to put things equal I never dreamt it intended to make you worse off than an employee (to the tune of 13%!). That's criminal, can't understand how that became law.
              Not technically a criminal offence but some of you might want to dig up AWR from its shallow grave.....

              Agency Workers Regulations - NHS Employers
              Last edited by Andy Hallett; 3 February 2017, 20:15.
              https://uk.linkedin.com/in/andyhallett

              Comment


                Originally posted by Andy Hallett View Post
                Not technically a criminal offence but some of you might want to dig up AWR from its shallow grave.....

                Agency Workers Regulations - NHS Employers
                You should also go and look for the documents around contingency labour one contracts as well they very much cover what happens when the departments take responsibility for sd&c

                Comment


                  Originally posted by seeourbee View Post
                  Thanks that clarifies it I think. I always knew it sought to put things equal I never dreamt it intended to make you worse off than an employee (to the tune of 13%!). That's criminal, can't understand how that became law.
                  Simple.

                  Client to pay £100K salary costs the client £100K + EmploYER NI
                  Client to pay contractor £100K invoice costs the client £100K + Agency markup + VAT (which most can reclaim back) = a ton of cost to the Client.

                  An apples to apples comparison would be if the contractor was getting the same as the employee salary £100K + EmploYER NI then the net to both under IR35 would be the same and the cost to the client if it was a direct contract would be the same.

                  Law has nowt to do with it.
                  This default font is sooooooooooooo boring and so are short usernames

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by MPwannadecentincome View Post
                    Simple.

                    Client to pay £100K salary costs the client £100K + EmploYER NI
                    Client to pay contractor £100K invoice costs the client £100K + Agency markup + VAT (which most can reclaim back) = a ton of cost to the Client.

                    An apples to apples comparison would be if the contractor was getting the same as the employee salary £100K + EmploYER NI then the net to both under IR35 would be the same and the cost to the client if it was a direct contract would be the same.

                    Law has nowt to do with it.
                    Your economics are slightly awry. It costs an employer somewhere over £175k to employ someone on a £100k salary when all the overheads, notice period and utilisation inefficiency is added in. A £100k salary gig would be charged at rather more than £100k for an annual contract, but less than that £175k.
                    Blog? What blog...?

                    Comment


                      Supposing I stayed in a simliar role but PS client wanted to convert to FTC for 6 months to complete the project we were all working on. How red a flag would this be to HMRC? Assuming working practices were the same, it's currently outside based on lack of SDC (though I'd be nervous about having to fight it) but agency is taking a blanket "we don't care, we're calling you all inside" attitude.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X