Reply to: House of Lords to review use of PSCs

[7specialgems]

Don't think you're being paranoid - my feeling is that they are considering banning the use of PSC contractors working outside IR35 in the Public Sector altogether

This.

[Zero Liability]

Obviously. For one thing it is totally counter to HMG's intention to give more work to SMEs. They are also seeing it as a voluntary activity with the aim of avoiding taxation, not as a necessary and commercially valid activity in order to be allowed to get work and manage a variable income.

But hey, you don't expect a bunch of no-hoper unelected political hangers on to understand business do you?

Sadly, I don't think being elected makes a difference. Both Houses are capable of remarkable stupidity and ignorance. I think the more salient point is how these people derive their income, i.e. taxes. Even if they are in business, in some cases, to what extent is it through cronyism and other benefits they install for themselves? Any pretences to understand contractors are just that, for the most part - pretences. No qualms about tax evasion/avoidance where they're concerned, though.

I am more concerned about what they intend for usage of PSCs in the private sector, where I think they have little business intervening, although I don't really object to the usage of PSCs in the public sector, either, if only because this probably costs the taxpayer less on net, if you don't have to fork out for these people's pensions, benefits etc.

[malvolio]

Many of whom are multi millionaires that have barely done a full day's work? No, my expectations are low.

To be entirely fair, Baroness Noakes has a reasonably capable CV. However, she will, no doubt, be following her master's agenda...

[GB9]

But hey, you don't expect a bunch of no-hoper unelected political hangers on to understand business do you?

Many of whom are multi millionaires that have barely done a full day's work? No, my expectations are low.

[malvolio]

I don't think they understand the damage they will do to the economy if they do that. Or maybe they just don't care....

Obviously. For one thing it is totally counter to HMG's intention to give more work to SMEs. They are also seeing it as a voluntary activity with the aim of avoiding taxation, not as a necessary and commercially valid activity in order to be allowed to get work and manage a variable income.

But hey, you don't expect a bunch of no-hoper unelected political hangers on to understand business do you?

[GB9]

I don't think they understand the damage they will do to the economy if they do that. Or maybe they just don't care....

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

From reading the questions to the HOL and comments by Baroness Noakes, the questions seem a bit loaded to me.

Call me paranoid, but I think the purpose of the exercise is to bring more contractors under the PAYE net.

Don't think you're being paranoid - my feeling is that they are considering banning the use of PSC contractors working outside IR35 in the Public Sector altogether

[amcdonald]

It's always been a stitch up between hector and the consultancies to make like difficult for freelancers.

Besides it's a lot easier to go after us than tax dodging multinationals, after all what's a few hundred billion to hector they just want to persecute people it was never about the money

[cojak]

From reading the questions to the HOL and comments by Baroness Noakes, the questions seem a bit loaded to me.

Call me paranoid, but I think the purpose of the exercise is to bring more contractors under the PAYE net.

I'd call you clear sighted Dear - that is the aim of all these 'consultation' papers.

[SantaClaus]

From reading the questions to the HOL and comments by Baroness Noakes, the questions seem a bit loaded to me.

Call me paranoid, but I think the purpose of the exercise is to bring more contractors under the PAYE net.

[Zero Liability]

Well there's a huge industry built around contracting and IR35 in particular. The only thing that concerns me is if they think IR35 isn't raking in enough, they might employ a blunter instrument to get the job done; equally it could mean it just isn't worth the expense when there are bigger fish to fry.

Besides, who is to say firms would hire some suppliers if they were not contracting? It definitely brings flexibility to the otherwise sclerotic, understandably risk-averse employment market.

[Maslins]

If anyone is on Twitter Accountancy Age are giving a blow by blow account of the first meeting of the PSC select committee - most significant so far is that the current estimate for 'exchequer risk' posted by PSC's is around £475m.

What does that mean? That if all these PSCs were instead employees paying full PAYE/NICs that would be the extra tax take?

When compared with other government type numbers bandied about that doesn't sound too much for the benefit in flexibility it gives recruiters...plus it keeps some of us accountants in jobs, sure that's worth £475m to the country as otherwise we'd be on the dole...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If anyone is on Twitter Accountancy Age are giving a blow by blow account of the first meeting of the PSC select committee - most significant so far is that the current estimate for 'exchequer risk' posted by PSC's is around £475m.

[malvolio]

Any idea what the PCG intends to say and what its alternative proposal is?

Not yet.

[GB9]

It won't, but it probably won't carry a lot of weight by itself.

That's my point, really. PCG's submission on behalf of its 21,000 members will be taken seriously.

Any idea what the PCG intends to say and what its alternative proposal is?