front page of yesterday's telegraph --PSC loop hole being closed

[dogzilla]

I'm not worried about tax changes impacting contracting, any impact will be short term whilst the market readjusts. Businesses will still need contract workers, so the demand will be there and where there is a will, there is a way.

In my opinion the only significant risk to contract working is if the government tries to remove employment protections by allowing companies to hire/fire short term/temporary workers. E.g. if they remove certain rights and regulations which currently apply to permanent employees. Once permies become more like contractors, the rates for contractors will diminish very quickly.

[TheFaQQer]

Perhaps it's as simple as introducing a time limit you can work for one client. If you define the whole NHS as one client for example, then it's going to catch a lot of people, as well as the Paxmans of the world, but not hurt those of us that do work for multiple clients.

But will probably hurt anyone who is brought in to deliver a complex project and then leave. Or shaft the project because they will do the first two years (or whatever that time period is) and then leave the project. Or shaft both project and taxpayer because the client will be forced into using a consultancy, who then get contractors in to get round the rule.

Penalising a business for providing a good service to their clients seems a strange way to encourage economic growth.

[VectraMan]

Hello, I fear it is the beginning of the end of contracting as we know it.

Not again!

Perhaps it's as simple as introducing a time limit you can work for one client. If you define the whole NHS as one client for example, then it's going to catch a lot of people, as well as the Paxmans of the world, but not hurt those of us that do work for multiple clients.

[jamesbrown]

The Treasury figures from 2014 confirmed that 94% of "PSCs" operating in the public sector did so for legitimate reasons, so it would be an interesting exercise to see what the impact really would be in the public sector.

Yep. If the briefing is accurate, I'm not sure what they intend by "new guidance" and how this would impact that ratio (without a broader legislative change), but public bodies are increasingly savvy in this area and the impact may be far more muted than they anticipate.

[TheFaQQer]

We'll have to wait. It could be one of at least two things: 1) PR; or 2) use of the public sector as a guinea pig. I suspect it's the latter, as they can bring it in more quickly for the public sector, monitor it more easily, and they can deal with the wrath of the private sector later (after 23 June). However, we know from experience not to read too much into these headlines. The more detailed reports of the briefing appear to point to as assessment by the client (public body in the first instance), based on updated guidance, so it's unlikely to be a blanket ban or even a highly simplified set of criteria. I'd expect an IR35 consultation along with the announcement, with a preferred option similar to the thrust of the discussion document. OTOH, they may have decided already and simply opted for a staged rollout. Either way, this is likely to continue for several years, as there are other changes in the pipeline (OTS). However, the latter changes are more likely to be focused on the remaining "10%" of contractors they see as being "legitimate". Fun times

The Treasury figures from 2014 confirmed that 94% of "PSCs" operating in the public sector did so for legitimate reasons, so it would be an interesting exercise to see what the impact really would be in the public sector.

[jamesbrown]

Btw The loophole with TV stars is to work for a different TV company who sells the program to the Beeb. Public sector have a number of loopholes.

One of many reasons this will be in the private sector before long. Much like the T&S changes, I suspect they're doing it in stages, at the risk of some short-term loopholes and increased complexity.

[jamesbrown]

Hello, I fear it is the beginning of the end of contracting as we know it. He threw a dummy with the pensions guff, but really he was gunning for us all the time.
But I don't understand the focus on public sector, tv stars and footballers. Is that part of a propaganda war to garner public sympathy from Telegraph readers and the like?

We'll have to wait. It could be one of at least two things: 1) PR; or 2) use of the public sector as a guinea pig. I suspect it's the latter, as they can bring it in more quickly for the public sector, monitor it more easily, and they can deal with the wrath of the private sector later (after 23 June). However, we know from experience not to read too much into these headlines. The more detailed reports of the briefing appear to point to as assessment by the client (public body in the first instance), based on updated guidance, so it's unlikely to be a blanket ban or even a highly simplified set of criteria. I'd expect an IR35 consultation along with the announcement, with a preferred option similar to the thrust of the discussion document. OTOH, they may have decided already and simply opted for a staged rollout. Either way, this is likely to continue for several years, as there are other changes in the pipeline (OTS). However, the latter changes are more likely to be focused on the remaining "10%" of contractors they see as being "legitimate". Fun times

[SueEllen]

Hello, I fear it is the beginning of the end of contracting as we know it. He threw a dummy with the pensions guff, but really he was gunning for us all the time.
But I don't understand the focus on public sector, tv stars and footballers. Is that part of a propaganda war to garner public sympathy from Telegraph readers and the like?

Yep.

Though the more tax code he writes the more loopholes will be found.

Public sector equals every ones money.

TV stars and footballers are high profile.

Btw The loophole with TV stars is to work for a different TV company who sells the program to the Beeb. Public sector have a number of loopholes.

[IR36Contractor]

Hello, I fear it is the beginning of the end of contracting as we know it. He threw a dummy with the pensions guff, but really he was gunning for us all the time.
But I don't understand the focus on public sector, tv stars and footballers. Is that part of a propaganda war to garner public sympathy from Telegraph readers and the like?

[mudskipper]

Yes saw that. Was surprised no comments on here already. Would love to hear what advisors and those in the know think will happen next. If nothing else it will be interesting seeing how it is applied for the public sector so we can take a view as PSCs in commercial world. Always something to look forward to!

IPSE's view is here

[jamesbrown]

Yes saw that. Was surprised no comments on here already. Would love to hear what advisors and those in the know think will happen next. If nothing else it will be interesting seeing how it is applied for the public sector so we can take a view as PSCs in commercial world. Always something to look forward to!

There are multiple threads. For example. I dare say we'll need a mergefest before long.

[LondonManc]

Would love to know what a PSC is other than a tick box

[TheMrs]

on the front page of the telegraph, the closure of the "PSC loop hole" is apparently going to be announced in the budget ---for Public Sector workers.

Yes saw that. Was surprised no comments on here already. Would love to hear what advisors and those in the know think will happen next. If nothing else it will be interesting seeing how it is applied for the public sector so we can take a view as PSCs in commercial world. Always something to look forward to!

[ChadGates]

on the front page of the telegraph, the closure of the "PSC loop hole" is apparently going to be announced in the budget ---for Public Sector workers.