Reply to: Family business tax back on the agenda.

[Sysman]

I fear the Australian 80/20 type of rule. I would think that most contractors work at a single client at any one time, and - given the chance - a good contractor will be able to win extensions through proposals or strong client relationship building.

Most clients I work at have fairly long requirements of 6 months to several years. Many of them simply would not allow working for multiple clients, due to confidentiality agreements (banking for example).

Given these situations, my concern would be that I would not be seen as a "genuine contractor" because I am at a single client for the whole financial year.

Yes there are also many contractors who work at multiple clients in a year, perhaps on several short-term assignments. It's just a different situation but mine is no less "genuine" contracting than that;.

Confidentiality reasons apart, a fellow contractor had more than one client on the go for several years, doing 3 or 4 days a week and the rest at another.

His comment was that the staff from both clients treated him with a suspicion that he might be using their time to work for the other client. In his opinion it wasn't a very satisfactory situation, and he was certainly missing out on interesting projects.

[prozak]

Why is the remark either sexist or racist?????

Lisa,

clicked on your linked in and then your website....

Myths and facts section:

"....and worst case scenario you could be prosecuted for tax avoidance."

please explain this FUD?

[malvolio]

Which is 8 years more experience than you have, so pipe down.

And FYI I have 8 years of experience in Direct recruitment, a further 4 years in direct marketing, and 2 years of direct IT sales.

Why would you even feel the need to comment on this though?

Troll

No, not a troll. Like all contractors he suffers from the recruitment "consultant" box ticker who knows everything about sales and nothing about the product they're selling. You may be one of the exceptions - they do exist, although your job history is still all about sales and marketing - but 90% of the people I deal with have never heard of Service Management or ITIL and are utterly incapable of dealing with the fact that if I can do lead management of a £70m service delivery improvement programme, I'm probably fairly capable of running a single project without falling over and crying. I may even have a reasonable grasp of things like change management Prince 2 and how IT and the business inter-relate.

I've been checking every agent I deal with on LinkedIn. Perhaps I've hit a bad patch, but the last six have amassed a grand total of three years seven months in IT recruitment between them (whoo hoo!), and none of them have ever worked in IT. Doesn't fill me with confidence that they are capable of understanding a 16 year freelance career, all at a senior level.

So you'll forgive us being just a little sceptical about who's making the decisions. We know our trade, you know yours (actually, I know a fair bit about yours as well, come to that) and as you say, they are not the same.

Also, I suspect my understanding of the work of the OTS is at least as good as yours and almost certainly better informed.

Anwyay, rant over. Have a good Christmas

[The Agents View]

Yes, he has 8 years, yes, count 'em. 8 YEARS! experience!

^

Which is 8 years more experience than you have, so pipe down.

And FYI I have 8 years of experience in Direct recruitment, a further 4 years in direct marketing, and 2 years of direct IT sales.

Why would you even feel the need to comment on this though?

Troll

[monobrow]

I am a VERY long way from being Naive

Yes, he has 8 years, yes, count 'em. 8 YEARS! experience!

^

[The Agents View]

With all due respect (?), I am going along with Mal's view here as he has proven a number of times that he has an informed opinion. You have often spoken with a rash and somewhat naive vision of the industry, and though I appreciate your effort, I will not accept it as an educated part of this discussion.

Go and speak to a lawyer then.
Or go and look at your contract.
Naive vision of the industry? I don't think so. Different, I accept - I work on the other side of the fence to you - but I am a VERY long way from being Naive.

Merry Christmas to you too........

[ChimpMaster]

Wrong. Agency is your client, unless you are a direct contractor.

You are merely a sub-contractor of the agency, working for their client.

It might not be like, or feel like that the majority of the time, but ultimately, you are paid by the agency -they are the ones stumping up the cash, in advance of being paid for it by their client - the end user has absolutely nothing to do with you in the eyes of the law.

With all due respect (?), I am going along with Mal's view here as he has proven a number of times that he has an informed opinion. You have often spoken with a rash and somewhat naive vision of the industry, and though I appreciate your effort, I will not accept it as an educated part of this discussion.

[Wanderer]

My feeling, for what it's worth, is that HMR&C don't like single person Limited Companies and will do whatever it takes to ensure that they can only operate through PAYE

HMRC "not liking" it is irrelevant. Parliament make the laws, not HMRC.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You've just shown you are a sexist and a racist and don't have any understanding of the range of ways the laws can be used.

I use to house share with male teachers and know head teachers. When the head teachers and school governing body have had male candidates they wanted to give an open teaching post to, they had to make up reasons why he was better than all the female candidates. Now they don't have to the school can just say the majority of our teaching staff are female so we are employing a man.

Why is the remark either sexist or racist?????

[escapeUK]

You've just shown you are a sexist and a racist and don't have any understanding of the range of ways the laws can be used.

I use to house share with male teachers and know head teachers. When the head teachers and school governing body have had male candidates they wanted to give an open teaching post to, they had to make up reasons why he was better than all the female candidates. Now they don't have to the school can just say the majority of our teaching staff are female so we are employing a man.

No, Ive shown I only want to compete on the basis of who is best for the role. We have seen what happens when people are awarded jobs to meet criteria, nothing works, money is wasted, aka last 13 years of Labour.

I have a lot to thank teachers for. Thanks to them, there will be no new generations competing for my job. They are all far too ill-eductated. Re your comment about employing a man, what man would want to work surrounded by women, that would be intolerable, as the recent series of the Apprentice clearly demonstrated.

[BolshieBastard]

Good point....

Not just a good point, an accurate one

[malvolio]

The only person going on about being 'hysterical,' is you!

Good point....

[BolshieBastard]

You're right, but let's see what the OTS is really talking about before we get all hysterical. The S660 debate is a lot sexier than some of the other things they're looking at - did you know, for example, there is a CT relief for the manufacture of Angostura bitters...? ANd if S660 does comes back into consideration they will have a lot harder battle this time around.

The only person going on about being 'hysterical,' is you!

[malvolio]

Wrong. Agency is your client, unless you are a direct contractor.

You are merely a sub-contractor of the agency, working for their client.

It might not be like, or feel like that the majority of the time, but ultimately, you are paid by the agency -they are the ones stumping up the cash, in advance of being paid for it by their client - the end user has absolutely nothing to do with you in the eyes of the law.

Tell that to the tax commissioners in your next IR35 case...

[Fred Bloggs]

You're right, but let's see what the OTS is really talking about before we get all hysterical. The S660 debate is a lot sexier than some of the other things they're looking at - did you know, for example, there is a CT relief for the manufacture of Angostura bitters...? ANd if S660 does comes back into consideration they will have a lot harder battle this time around.

You're right of course, nobody is hysterical, just damned annoyed at reading this kind of stuff in what is after all, a tory newspaper that one would hope is pretty well informed.