Reply to: IR35 Forum - July minutes

[TheFaQQer]

Log into the IPSE website, then go to 'community' on your dashboard.

Or go direct to http://community.ipse.co.uk

[mudskipper]

Didn't realise ipse had a forum and I'm a member!

Log into the IPSE website, then go to 'community' on your dashboard.

[northernladuk]

A company I have worked for in the past used agency workers for manufacturing 'inside' the union forced them to convert them after 2 years to perm. Not sure if they just terminated them at 23 months I guess not otherwise they would have gone out on strike.
If/when this rolls out industry will be having kittens. My mind says they'd have to be stupid to even try but my heart says they will because 'HMRC'. Their will certainly be a few less conservative voters.

Didn't realise ipse had a forum and I'm a member!

Sounds more like they were on FTCs or something rather than B2B contracts like ours could be a different kettle of fish.

[poorautojobber]

A company I have worked for in the past used agency workers for manufacturing 'inside' the union forced them to convert them after 2 years to perm. Not sure if they just terminated them at 23 months I guess not otherwise they would have gone out on strike.
If/when this rolls out industry will be having kittens. My mind says they'd have to be stupid to even try but my heart says they will because 'HMRC'. Their will certainly be a few less conservative voters.

Didn't realise ipse had a forum and I'm a member!

[eek]

So why are you debating the point on here, may I ask? Take this discussion where it belongs and we can discuss it properly. Come to that, the point about who was at the table was raised earlier and answered.

Or are you saying that with your extensive knowledge of HMRC operations, the various offices are taking no notice of what Head Office is telling them? In which case there is a whole other argument to be raised...

Reverse that last sentence and I suspect you are nearer the truth....

[malvolio]

May I suggest you go back and re-read what James actually said over at the IPSE forums - I don't want to correct you on a public forum. Equally I suspect the problem may be less obvious in London / some departments than it is in say Longbenton.

But you know what people say about assumptions - on things like this we really shouldn't be making assumptions and should be pressing the point until we get an explicit confirmation...

So why are you debating the point on here, may I ask? Take this discussion where it belongs and we can discuss it properly. Come to that, the point about who was at the table was raised earlier and answered.

Or are you saying that with your extensive knowledge of HMRC operations, the various offices are taking no notice of what Head Office is telling them? In which case there is a whole other argument to be raised...

[eek]

The Hectors in the room were senior people from both strategic and operational wings of the organisation, so we must assume they speak for the whole of HMRC

May I suggest you go back and re-read what James actually said over at the IPSE forums - I don't want to correct you on a public forum. Equally I suspect the problem may be less obvious in London / some departments than it is in say Longbenton.

But you know what people say about assumptions - on things like this we really shouldn't be making assumptions and should be pressing the point until we get an explicit confirmation...

[malvolio]

My question would be which part of HMRC does that comment relate to and was it HMRC as a whole or just those in the meeting..... Equally did they use HMRC or the word we within the meeting.....

The Hectors in the room were senior people from both strategic and operational wings of the organisation, so we must assume they speak for the whole of HMRC

[eek]

Computer Weekly: IR35 reforms: Why the war of words between HMRC and IT contractors needs addressing

What the minutes do state is that, “HMRC has seen no evidence of significant impact on attrition rates of contractors,” as a result of the IR35 reforms, but who’s to say that is true of everybody else?

My question would be which part of HMRC does that comment relate to and was it HMRC as a whole or just those in the meeting..... Equally did they use HMRC or the word we within the meeting.....

[TheFaQQer]

Computer Weekly: IR35 reforms: Why the war of words between HMRC and IT contractors needs addressing

What the minutes do state is that, “HMRC has seen no evidence of significant impact on attrition rates of contractors,” as a result of the IR35 reforms, but who’s to say that is true of everybody else?

With this in mind, HMRC has now offered to update the minutes from the meeting with additional feedback from those who attended, after contributors complained they were published without their approval. It, of course, remains to be seen if the amended version will feature a wider range of viewpoints and perspectives on how IR35 is affecting the public sector, but – if not – it is fair to assume we’ll see more organisations calling HMRC out on it, if they don’t.

[poorautojobber]

Fair enough - but if we don't shout now, the chances of bad things in November are greatly increased.

However I remain sceptical that it will be as simple as applying IR35 in the same way as they've done with the PS. For one thing, industry won't take kindly to accepting a huge amount of extra risk, the chances of their bottom line costs going up significantly and doing more unpaid work on behalf of HMRC. Secondly, political funds for the Tories almost all come from private businesses; why seriously piss off your main sponsors? (Labour, otoh, are more than happy to screw the private sector, given their paymasters are against self employment of any kind).

We also have to start hitting this myth about "unpaid" taxes. Most of us pay all the taxes that are due to be paid when they are due: comparing that amount to one based on a non-existent situation and then claiming that taxes are missing is totally unacceptable to anyone with half a brain (i.e. not most politicians...). That tax is missing because we don't f***ing owe it!

I don't disagree with you generally but the general population don't understand and are generally to thick all they see is £££. It will be fun in the PS because the disagreement will be widely out in public rather thank behind closed doors between government departments. The CBI is waking up to this so it may get some traction.

On the other thread in the public sector forum contacting UK have checked out the jurno who seems to check out. Probably a friend of Chris Evans

[malvolio]

What I think I was getting at was HMRC have been known for being vindictive and putting the spotlight on yourself when you haven't been directly affected is a big ask.
I'm interested to hear real stories by people affected but as most who would have been hit have probably escaped into the private world again why would you put the light on yourself.
It the expected changes come in in November I would expect to hear a lot more people getting vocal. Not many people can afford a 25% hit something has to give.

Fair enough - but if we don't shout now, the chances of bad things in November are greatly increased.

However I remain sceptical that it will be as simple as applying IR35 in the same way as they've done with the PS. For one thing, industry won't take kindly to accepting a huge amount of extra risk, the chances of their bottom line costs going up significantly and doing more unpaid work on behalf of HMRC. Secondly, political funds for the Tories almost all come from private businesses; why seriously piss off your main sponsors? (Labour, otoh, are more than happy to screw the private sector, given their paymasters are against self employment of any kind).

We also have to start hitting this myth about "unpaid" taxes. Most of us pay all the taxes that are due to be paid when they are due: comparing that amount to one based on a non-existent situation and then claiming that taxes are missing is totally unacceptable to anyone with half a brain (i.e. not most politicians...). That tax is missing because we don't f***ing owe it!

[poorautojobber]

What I think I was getting at was HMRC have been known for being vindictive and putting the spotlight on yourself when you haven't been directly affected is a big ask.
I'm interested to hear real stories by people affected but as most who would have been hit have probably escaped into the private world again why would you put the light on yourself.
It the expected changes come in in November I would expect to hear a lot more people getting vocal. Not many people can afford a 25% hit something has to give.

[malvolio]

I think most people will want to keep their heads down if they've moved on out of PS why would you want to highlight themselves. I'd be interested in hearing from people who stayed in and how it affected them but again why would you stick your head up. This is the problem with all of this worried people don't talk specifics

If that says what I think it says, what are you on about? If we don't argue our corner, what do you suppose will happen next? Why is sticking your head up a bad thing? Or are you one of those happy to let other people do all the hard work and then get the benefit?

[TheFaQQer]

I think most people will want to keep their heads down if they've moved on out of PS why would you want to highlight themselves. I'd be interested in hearing from people who stayed in and how it affected them but again why would you stick your head up. This is the problem with all of this worried people don't talk specifics

Why would you want to speak up and let the press and government know how their policies are affecting real lives, real projects, and generally impacting public sector both in terms of additional daily costs and delayed implementations? Why would you want to speak up to let people know that you've been providing expert freelance services to the NHS and now there are fewer people available to do the work of an already over stretched workforce?

Without specifics it is easy to dismiss something as hearsay, or to say "this isn't what we are seeing", or "there is no significant impact". With specific examples of what is happening, then that becomes a lot harder to say. MPs love being able to say "I had a letter from my constituent, Miss X, who has faced this" and put HMG on the spot, which is why it's important for people to speak up.

I know it's difficult, and you worry that you are highlighting yourself - I've been there and I've done it, so I know the fears that people have. But sometimes, you have to think of the greater good that getting the truth out there might do to help the millions of others who are affected in the same way that you are.