Reply to: Why big corp and hmrc have a dislike for contractors?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

MP Costs

[JohntheBike]

I suspect the whole thing is just due to the merry-go-round of senior civil servants and consultancy firms.

They swap "good ideas" - in this case a great way to ensure the tax system is as complex as possible so it needs more people to administer it.

MPs have a cheek too - their gig is expected to last more than 2 years in one place but all their expenses are tax free.

MPs have a cheek too - their gig is expected to last more than 2 years in one place but all their expenses are tax free.

interesting point of view! I'll put it to my MP. So is it fair that MP's who have a place of work which is likely to be more than 2 years can claim tax free expenses? Well, no, but that's how corrupt the system is.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I suspect the whole thing is just due to the merry-go-round of senior civil servants and consultancy firms.

They swap "good ideas" - in this case a great way to ensure the tax system is as complex as possible so it needs more people to administer it.

MPs have a cheek too - their gig is expected to last more than 2 years in one place but all their expenses are tax free.

[GigiBronz]

When HMRC band numbers about I believe they include a made-up include number that groups together perimies who would go contracting but remain permie. So the clamp down is to also reverse the trend of of people leaving to go contracting. Now the tories are in full power they will be clamping down on permie rights so the tax without representation will become the next I'm for all.

So what I understand:
- they might have a plug-in number to estimate how much they gain if people don't jump ships. Replacing resources comes with finders fee, training time, cost of assessing the new resource(time of a panel of managers) and additional risk the new person might not be up to par.
If the person leaving is an essential resource to the team then cost is a lot higher (for comp not hmrc).
So understandable they don't like the cost.
Question is, when they actually have to get resources, will they be able to motivate that person to take the role?

- "tax without representation" pay everything as a permanent resource, you don't get compensated for additional risk you take.
As a permanent you can still get fired in first 2y without much fuss, redundancy package before 3-4y is not significant anyway. So security is a red herring anyway.
Pretty much what my thoughts were before, they are changing the resourcing model to limit opportunities and create more manageable approach.
If IR35 has been a compromise solution in the past(for them) to get resources, now looking forward what are they counting on to give more fluidity?
Questioning if EU Tier 1 visa requirements were an impediment and now they can count consultancies and external resource to fill the gaps.

[BR14]

When HMRC band numbers about I believe they include a made-up include number that groups together perimies who would go contracting but remain permie. So the clamp down is to also reverse the trend of of people leaving to go contracting. Now the tories are in full power they will be clamping down on permie rights so the tax without representation will become the next I'm for all.

and, in English?

[DoctorStrangelove]

When HMRC band numbers about I believe they include a made-up include number that groups together perimies who would go contracting but remain permie. So the clamp down is to also reverse the trend of of people leaving to go contracting. Now the tories are in full power they will be clamping down on permie rights so the tax without representation will become the next I'm for all.

You wot?

[BlueSharp]

When HMRC band numbers about I believe they include a made-up include number that groups together perimies who would go contracting but remain permie. So the clamp down is to also reverse the trend of of people leaving to go contracting. Now the tories are in full power they will be clamping down on permie rights so the tax without representation will become the next I'm for all.

[JohntheBike]

• A new sentence should begin with a capital letter
• "Grammar" in your comment is an ordinary noun and should not be capitalised in that position in the sentence

Could do better, see me after class.

there are those "intellectuals" would claim now that it is valid to start a sentence with "and". However, in the context of the post, it is a continuation of a comment made by someone else, so its use can be debated.

I was always taught to capitalise the G in grammar, when it followed English, or any other language. But then I studied English over 65 years ago and some old rules are being changed. (the use of a capital I in indian in a recent post elsewhere invited a six month ban for being racist!)

The old instruction of I before E except after C is clearly one which I was taught at junior school, but as we know there are as many exceptions as follow the rule. However, it's still being taught now to my grandchildren.

The point I'm making there is that it's very difficult to adjust to new rules, when such rules were imprinted early in an individual's life.

Note that the French don't use capital letters like we do, so whereas we would write French, they would write francais. (don't know how to include the cedilla here).

[DealorNoDeal]

And for a lot of people it's not the tax bit that is the issue, its the inability to pay expenses before tax that is the issue.

But how does paying expenses, before tax, benefit people? Answer: it reduces their tax burden. That's what the Govt has an issue with. Doesn't matter whether it's expenses or dividends, they don't want contractors having any of the tax breaks of a Ltd Co.

[ladymuck]

Gratis.

TBF it does apply to most mornings

[Zigenare]

Crikey, you got out of bed on the wrong side that morning!

Gratis.

[OwlHoot]

I suppose that is why the squirrels nibble your nuts. Now why not f**k off and let the grown ups talk.

Crikey, you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning!

[anonymouse]

My tuppence

Back in the dim and distant past, a lot of civil servants left on a Friday and returned to the same client on the Monday as a contractor, this was basically a full team left and came back. Those CS left behind got bitter and twisted about it.The "I hate contractors" was on the last central government project, didn't matter who you were. The attitude included HPES (ex CS TUP'd out), the crazy thing was HPES were trying to get ex-CS's to train Indians to take over their own roles).

[JohntheBike]

It’s always money

as it is for everything in the modern World.

[eek]

HMRC/Govt don't have any issue with contractors working through PAYE brollies.

It's the reduced tax (& NI) of using a Ltd Co that they don't like. Simple as that.

Not quite true - they also don't want people claiming expenses as that opens a second hornet's nest.

And for a lot of people it's not the tax bit that is the issue, its the inability to pay expenses before tax that is the issue.