Results of the public sector consultation is up

[eek]

Other than the fact it's not a with-holding tax. If the money was recoverable it would be a with-holding tax, the way employers NI is paid goes well beyond that and it's not recoverable.

As for trying to find ways round it, I don't think there are that many. Best to work out how to move above it as you can't really fight it

[northernladuk]

As expected this thread has degenerated in to a useful discussion of what the rules mean, how ambiguous they are, the unintended consequences, and how to get around the rules.

There you go, FIFY

Not at all as posters before me have pointed out. Guessing and comparing a small element of an apple and a pear is not a useful discussion. You've got to investigate both engagements and understand how they work and the differences and then go back to the technical document and find out where it sits. Just saying a plumber isn't under D&C so we will do that is just.. well.. Meh....

[mudskipper]

Other than the fact it's not a with-holding tax. If the money was recoverable it would be a with-holding tax, the way employers NI is paid goes well beyond that and it's not recoverable.

I agree with eek - it does look as if the Employer's NI is paid by the engager. Obviously it ultimately comes from your day rate, but as I read it, it isn't paid 'on behalf' of yourCo like the Employee's and Income tax - it is paid by the engager. So for the purposes of things like pension contributions, or successfully arguing that you're 'outside', it's not going to come back to you.

[youngguy]

Sorry - I am not trying to be difficult or stir up a nest - I am really trying to see the difference betwen TimCo and Bobs Plumbers as far as the tool and the law goes.

I think the difference is that Bob won't have to have his engagement checked by a tool which is designed to catch him and used by a ps person who doesn't think/understand/care what the result says.

For years - around 17 yrs actually - this game of cat and mouse has gone on where we have argued we are like Bob and HMRC have disagreed.

Up until this point we undertook the assessment and paid our insurances and 'behaved' in the most suitable way.

From April that decision is given to someone else ,via a tool which presents HMRC's view of the world . I don't think it matters what we think. The difference is that HMRC see us at different and have designed a process and tool to prove it.

[eek]

I agree with eek - it does look as if the Employer's NI is paid by the engager. Obviously it ultimately comes from your day rate, but as I read it, it isn't paid 'on behalf' of yourCo like the Employee's and Income tax - it is paid by the engager. So for the purposes of things like pension contributions, or successfully arguing that you're 'outside', it's not going to come back to you.

It's why I'm expecting to see arguments over employment rights due to Pensions. NI by the time you look at the employee and employer parts is 25% or so non of which is recoverable. And that 25% is the difference between a company putting £30k and £40k in the pension pot...

[youngguy]

It's why I'm expecting to see arguments over employment rights due to Pensions. NI by the time you look at the employee and employer parts is 25% or so non of which is recoverable. And that 25% is the difference between a company putting £30k and £40k in the pension pot...

And regardless of what the technical note says that all comes out of the contractors day rate one way or another. I've seen the suggestion on contractor calculator that raising rates by 20% or so will give you broadly the same,but that seems quite low when you account for paye, ni and expenses

[eek]

And regardless of what the technical note says that all comes out of the contractors day rate one way or another. I've seen the suggestion on contractor calculator that raising rates by 20% or so will give you broadly the same,but that seems quite low when you account for paye, ni and expenses

For me to take a DWP role that was paying £600 a day I would want £800 after April and that's without expenses (as it was a commutable location just an utterly hideous one).

For me to take a £600 a day role in London you would be rapidly looking at £1000 to make it worthwhile (hint I'm not going to get that so I suspect I won't be doing Government Bum on Seat work in London)...

[youngguy]

For me to take a DWP role that was paying £600 a day I would want £800 after April and that's without expenses (as it was a commutable location just an utterly hideous one).

For me to take a £600 a day role in London you would be rapidly looking at £1000 to make it worthwhile (hint I'm not going to get that so I suspect I won't be doing Government Bum on Seat work in London)...

Huge percentages.

I'm not even quite sure how to go about calculating it (given pension , expenses , paye, ni, being pushed into the upper tax bracket )

[eek]

Huge percentages.

I'm not even quite sure how to go about calculating it (given pension , expenses , paye, ni, being pushed into the upper tax bracket )

For me there are 2 big issues:-

1) there were expenses involved in that commute (about 100 miles of mileage a day).
2) I rapidly end up at the income levels where child benefit / income allowances disappear.

London is a £300 train fare (knocked down to £200 if you are careful). You then need £1000 a month to live somewhere in London....

[jamesbrown]

Other than the fact it's not a with-holding tax. If the money was recoverable it would be a with-holding tax, the way employers NI is paid goes well beyond that and it's not recoverable.

Minor point (I'm not looking for an argument ) but, since you raised it, there's nothing particularly technical about the term "withholding", and it is, indeed, a withholding tax. A withholding tax doesn't mean that it's refundable, it simply means that it is withheld, at source. Often, a withholding tax is a down-payment on a final liability and may be partially or completely refundable, but it's sometimes regarded as a final liability and/or not refundable (e.g. an international withholding tax for which a corresponding credit may or may not be available, locally, subject to treaty benefits).