Reply to: IR35 Forum

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

We were well aware of that well before this post

Cheeky

[northernladuk]

Indeed. Must confess I am more than a little confused

We were well aware of that well before this post

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Glad is not just me who is

Indeed. Must confess I am more than a little confused

[SueEllen]

Must confess, other than political parties being scared to do it, I don't see the point in NI and PAYE being separate any more.

It's so governments can put up NI and claim they haven't put up income tax.

They also have to ring fence a certain amount as social insurance to cover reciprocal agreements with other EEA countries.

[SueEllen]

Oh well that's cleared that up then

Glad is not just me who is

[SussexSeagull]

Must confess, other than political parties being scared to do it, I don't see the point in NI and PAYE being separate any more.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

It is someone who all they know is what they are first told they will receive, then what they actually do. A person who don't care how much is reduced off it.

Oh well that's cleared that up then

[kingcook]

Who is this "common person" of which you speak?

It is someone who all they know is what they are first told they will receive, then what they actually do. A person who don't care how much is reduced off it.

[SueEllen]

No, you claim instead you will "simplify taxation" and "remove national insurance".

More important, you make out you are closing all the legal loopholes for the "big" corporations to make them pay their taxes at the same level as everybody else.

The common person is taxed at source, and all they know is what they are first told they will receive, then what they actually do. They don't care how much is reduced off it.

Who is this "common person" of which you speak?

Yes other countries have a far simplier tax system and some of these tax systems require people to pay social insurance regardless of how they earn their money.

[northernladuk]

No, you claim instead you will "simplify taxation" and "remove national insurance".

More important, you make out you are closing all the legal loopholes for the "big" corporations to make them pay their taxes at the same level as everybody else.

The common person is taxed at source, and all they know is what they are first told they will receive, then what they actually do. They don't care how much is reduced off it.

Mind me asking if English is your first language?

[Earl Purple]

No, you claim instead you will "simplify taxation" and "remove national insurance".

More important, you make out you are closing all the legal loopholes for the "big" corporations to make them pay their taxes at the same level as everybody else.

The common person is taxed at source, and all they know is what they are first told they will receive, then what they actually do. They don't care how much is reduced off it.

[moggy]

Not quite end of problem. How will you get elected by promising to set the tax rate at around 45%...?

Why would a govt try to get elected on their actual policies.. they campaign on one thing and implement another..

[malvolio]

Here we go again.

We were discussing this on our "contracting" chat boards in my last contract. If they just restructured the taxation system it would solve all the problems.

We decided the best solution was to have one totally flat tax rate that everybody pays once they pass their tax allowance, regardless of how you make the money. And no "national insurance" just tax.

End of problem. If you take the money, you pay tax on it.

Not quite end of problem. How will you get elected by promising to set the tax rate at around 45%...?

[Earl Purple]

Here we go again.

We were discussing this on our "contracting" chat boards in my last contract. If they just restructured the taxation system it would solve all the problems.

We decided the best solution was to have one totally flat tax rate that everybody pays once they pass their tax allowance, regardless of how you make the money. And no "national insurance" just tax.

End of problem. If you take the money, you pay tax on it.

Now how about working on legislation for the big international companies who make losses here too by making big expenditure payments to their overseas branches where the tax rates are lower.

Ok, if we're going to "get real" and nobody can change the law, then contractors should be trying to change the actual conditions under which we work when we are hired so we really are treated as external consultants. The "reporting" structure should be provider-client based and should really be made to look that way, the same as it would for any external companies who are put onto project work. If a certain project has been "outsourced" then it remains that way. If they want the work to be done by development teams, then get one external consulting company to bring together a "team" of developers to do it. But the client itself should ideally not be interviewing every member of staff, the outsourcing company should.

Even if contractors are paid a "daily" rate by the outsourcing company, the outsourcing company itself is paid for delivery of product. In the real model this "outsourcing company" would replace our current "agencies".

[TheFaQQer]

Of the 84 cases responded to by HMRC contract review service 79 responses were "unable to give opinion".

So what's the point then....

It would be nice to know what their opinion of the 10 cases was as well.