Reply to: FLCs - LFIG Proposal

[TheFaQQer]

Nope I move up the food chain replace agents with salesmen and bring contractors in to pick up the stuff I can't offshore.

Make them work via an FLC though

[eek]

Yes - there's a difference between it being optional in legislation (which it will be) and optional in practice (which it won't be)

It's perfectly simple - you keep a Ltd for the one place that accepts them, and an FLC for everything else...

Nope I move up the food chain replace agents with salesmen and bring contractors in to pick up the stuff I can't offshore.

[TykeMerc]

+1 opting out and opting in is supposedly optional but many agencies won't deal with people who want to opt in. If payments to an FLC are excluded from HMRC's agency requirements I can imagine most agencies will say use an FLC or forget about that contract...

It's inevitable that scenario would play out, there's no debate that the Agencies would take the path of least resistance which is to ignore contractors who won't use the FLC approach.

Optional or not is utterly irrelevant the Agencies ignore their toothless regulation bodies.

[TheFaQQer]

+1 opting out and opting in is supposedly optional but many agencies won't deal with people who want to opt in. If payments to an FLC are excluded from HMRC's agency requirements I can imagine most agencies will say use an FLC or forget about that contract...

Yes - there's a difference between it being optional in legislation (which it will be) and optional in practice (which it won't be)

It's perfectly simple - you keep a Ltd for the one place that accepts them, and an FLC for everything else...

[eek]

Yeah, but who would a Labour gov't listen to?

Useful letter anyway. I don't think it says much that we didn't know, i.e. it's a tough backdrop, but it's important to hear these concerns from people that know what they're talking about. The downside risks of IPSE lending credibility to the FLC structure remain, as do the upside benefits of influencing the design. One can argue the balance either way. My concern is more with the working assumption that it will be (can be) optional, because I think it clearly won't be optional.

+1 opting out and opting in is supposedly optional but many agencies won't deal with people who want to opt in. If payments to an FLC are excluded from HMRC's agency requirements I can imagine most agencies will say use an FLC or forget about that contract...

[jamesbrown]

Worth comparing the kind of people who IPSE are working with the ones who formulated the original proposal as well...

Yeah, but who would a Labour gov't listen to?

Useful letter anyway. I don't think it says much that we didn't know, i.e. it's a tough backdrop, but it's important to hear these concerns from people that know what they're talking about. The downside risks of IPSE lending credibility to the FLC structure remain, as do the upside benefits of influencing the design. One can argue the balance either way. My concern is more with the working assumption that it will be (can be) optional, because I think it clearly won't be optional.

[malvolio]

BUMP - for IPSE members, there is an update in the Policy and Consultations forum here.

For non-IPSE members, it's still there, but you need to join (and vote!) before you can see it.

Worth comparing the kind of people who IPSE are working with the ones who formulated the original proposal as well...

[TheFaQQer]

BUMP - for IPSE members, there is an update in the Policy and Consultations forum here.

For non-IPSE members, it's still there, but you need to join (and vote!) before you can see it.

[TykeMerc]

What FLC reminds me of....



Is it really 2003 that I remember this from?

I'd agree, but it's far too innocent for how the likely FLC scenario will play out.

[tractor]

...

What FLC reminds me of....



Is it really 2003 that I remember this from?

[Zero Liability]

This is what I'm hearing...

[DaveB]

I have to say, that despite all the arguments one way and another I've seen nothing so far that makes me think that I would want to switch to an FLC or any other "Freelancer Company" structure..

IR35 is a nuisance, but thats all. We know how to manage it, negotiate contracts, take out insurance etc and get on with the job. Sometimes I have multiple clients, sometimes I have just one, thats the nature of being in business.

Using anything else would mean shutting down my existing Ltd with all the associated costs; changing shareholdings as MrsB is currently a minority shareholder; and overall would leave me worse off. Without exact figures it's only a guess but I'd probably be better off just going permie or working via an umbrella and be done with it.

This is not a good thing.

[tractor]

.....

Deleted

[eek]

Interesting a quick google reveals that if the employer provides an employee regular hours then there is MOO especially if the contract forbids the employee from working for someone else. However our contracts are clear on the terms and the working relationship but zero hours contracts aren't.

One of the things the current Government are attacking zero hour contracts on is the bit about regarding them forbidding an employee from working for someone else.

from Sports Direct forced to advertise zero-hours contract terms | Business | The Guardian

The business secretary, Vince Cable, has warned “unscrupulous employers” that he plans to ban clauses in zero-hours contracts that prevent workers from accepting shifts with more than one employer.

[SueEllen]

I think the problem with MoO is that on one side we like it but many zero hour contracts work on the MoO principle. And while I personally hate the idea of a zero hour contract I can see why for some people (students say) they work well.

Interesting a quick google reveals that if the employer provides an employee regular hours then there is MOO especially if the contract forbids the employee from working for someone else. However our contracts are clear on the terms and the working relationship but zero hours contracts aren't.