False Self-Employment - New Approach Needed

[malvolio]

Out of interest, in respect of the proposed changes what will the PCG be arguing on behalf of those contractors who operate (or would like to operate) as self-employed?

Why is that even vaguely relevant? PCG represents freelancers, not corporate structures.

[Contreras]

Out of interest, in respect of the proposed changes what will the PCG be arguing on behalf of those contractors who operate (or would like to operate) as self-employed?

[v8gaz]

Just like the other lobbyists out there (though probably not as well funded so less clout) PCG are simply doing what they are paid by their paymasters to do.

You are absolutely right. And the paymasters are the members. All contractors.

Are you suggesting that there's in issue with this arrangement?

[jamesbrown]

Just like the other lobbyists out there (though probably not as well funded so less clout) PCG are simply doing what they are paid by their paymasters to do.

It's called representation.

[kal]

Which is?


PCG are paid by their members, nobody else. And their clout is well above any other group representing the freelance worker.


I'm assuming you are neither a member nor anyone who understands what they are trying to achieve.

Every contractor should be a member of PCG in my opinion, c'mon FFS 220 quid a yr to actually get a voice in the murky political sh1tstorm about to engulf us all, its a no brainer...

[malvolio]

Just like the other lobbyists out there (though probably not as well funded so less clout) PCG are simply doing what they are paid by their paymasters to do.

Which is?


PCG are paid by their members, nobody else. And their clout is well above any other group representing the freelance worker.


I'm assuming you are neither a member nor anyone who understands what they are trying to achieve.

[MPwannadecentincome]

The only way to defeat this is to ensure that the measures are scoped so that they only apply to the people they are meant to apply to and leave the skilled, highly-paid, indpependent workforce alone. That is what PCG is trying to make happen.

On the other hand, the PCG's approach seems to be to fight HMRC whenever and wherever; they appear to be stuck in this mind set. Fighting HMRC, however, is a battle that eventually cannot be won - the opponent can just bring out new legislation at will!

Just like the other lobbyists out there (though probably not as well funded so less clout) PCG are simply doing what they are paid by their paymasters to do.

[malvolio]

Because it will be in the agencies' best interests, it seems to me. From the articles by PCG it looks as though it is the agencies that will carry the can - and have to pay the tax - if HMRC find anything wrong later.

Nonsense. They simply deduct PAYE and NICs from the gross.

And the extra effort required of agencies is simple enough - I'm not suggesting agencies will have to dictate terms. They merely have to do a little educating of their clients:-

• setting out simple guidance on how to avoid exerting control (basically using the info broadcast by PCG and other sources in the past)
• recommending the clients agree and sign "working arrangements" emails when asked (where the details can be accepted of course)
• and pointing out the bother and trouble the client could experience if they have to answer demands from IR35 enquiries.

And the ability to work outside IR35 does encourage the contract market, as less tax and no NI is involved. So the agencies will benefit by accepting and enabling the process.

They are not in the business of educating or guiding clients. They are commodity salesmen, they sell whatever the client wants with as little added value as possible. End of. Read their websites carefully if you don't believe me; they are selling the myth that they have their own stocks of people ready to go, perfect for any requirement. Yeah, right...


The only way to defeat this is to ensure that the measures are scoped so that they only apply to the people they are meant to apply to and leave the skilled, highly-paid, indpependent workforce alone. That is what PCG is trying to make happen.

[gws]

Because it will be in the agencies' best interests, it seems to me. From the articles by PCG it looks as though it is the agencies that will carry the can - and have to pay the tax - if HMRC find anything wrong later.

And the extra effort required of agencies is simple enough - I'm not suggesting agencies will have to dictate terms. They merely have to do a little educating of their clients:-

• setting out simple guidance on how to avoid exerting control (basically using the info broadcast by PCG and other sources in the past)
• recommending the clients agree and sign "working arrangements" emails when asked (where the details can be accepted of course)
• and pointing out the bother and trouble the client could experience if they have to answer demands from IR35 enquiries.

And the ability to work outside IR35 does encourage the contract market, as less tax and no NI is involved. So the agencies will benefit by accepting and enabling the process.

[northernladuk]

Bearing in mind the agents are slaves to the client and will do anything to get their dollar including screw the contractors over I can't see this happening really. Agent dictating what the client wants? I don't think so.

[gws]

Looking at many of the comments in the thread about Onshore Employment Intermediaries - False Self-Employment, it seems to me that a lot of contractors are burying their heads in the sand and saying this HMRC legislation won't apply to us contractors, or to PSCs, or to Me..... At the end of the day it won't matter what HMRC intend on this, it's the way agencies will see it - I think they will feel threatened (and I think justifiably so), and either start payrolls or (if the legislation allows) demand contractors pay themselves through a payroll.

On the other hand, the PCG's approach seems to be to fight HMRC whenever and wherever; they appear to be stuck in this mind set. Fighting HMRC, however, is a battle that eventually cannot be won - the opponent can just bring out new legislation at will!

We need a new approach. It needs contractor recruitment agencies to take one very simple initiative, in order to avoid possible tax and NI bills later.

The critical identifying mark of a contractor (the one still recognised in these new proposed False Self-Employment rules) is the existence of Control. All the agencies need to do is tell their clients, "We will supply you with contractors, but you must not attempt to control them..." - and then the agency should list the various factors that constitute control, and impress on the client that they must avoid such acts at all costs, and give written terms to the contractor that make it clear - a simple email is all that is needed for that. IR35 can be extremely onerous for the client as well, if they are required to provide evidence for a contractor enquiry.

After all, agencies are supposed to be intermediaries. Let's see them do some mediating!