Reply to: Suicides and the Loan Charge: Split from HMRC enquiries

[DealorNoDeal]

I remember these schemes just about being around when i started up in 2008 but they never passed the smell test. However they were quite mature by then so although I like to think I would never have gone near one, who knows what I might have done had I started up a few years earlier

I started contracting a couple of years before IR35 came, and joined one of the early schemes because it seemed like a safer bet (doh!) than carrying on outside.

By 2008, the Government had already fired the first salvo of retro. I couldn't for the life of me understand why the schemes really took off then. To me, it seemed obvious that the writing was on the wall.

It beggars belief that schemes are still going now.

[AtW]

The only practical way to slow down these “schemes” is to retrospectively whack them - this was long coming, all those endless court fights had to result in a brutal retro action, the’ve asked for it and they’ve got it - should be grateful it’s not treated as criminal tax evasion, which it is what those “schemes” really are - all those infamous “QCs” should have been doing time in jail until year 2040, alongside with promoters and users.

[SussexSeagull]

It is not for other people to decide what someone else worries about as the human mind is subject to (retrospective) law or logic.

I remember these schemes just about being around when i started up in 2008 but they never passed the smell test. However they were quite mature by then so although I like to think I would never have gone near one, who knows what I might have done had I started up a few years earlier?

All of the above said chasing people a couple of decades after the event where their personal circumstances might have entirely changed isn't on.

[AtW]

Ministrone, 1 month

[minestrone]

I think we are all in agreement then.

Fetch the banhammer mods.

[AtW]

Correct move by Mods - it’s bad enough to have dull posters, totally unacceptable to have dull sockies

[minestrone]

So sasguru was Gricer?

I dont think so, but gricer got booted for being a dull sockie.

Sauce for the goose and all that

[AtW]

So sasguru was Gricer?

[minestrone]

If gricer got booted for being a dull sockie this one should have been punted on the second post.

[DimPrawn]

Why are people wasting their time arguing with sasguru's dullard sockie?

[minestrone]

With respect, the calculations I've seen suggest that a much lower lifestyle expenditure was required by some in order to allow the paying back of the loan. The additional charges on top were in question, as for some people it was rather high. However the notion that people were to be homeless or have zero access to enough cash to live simply isn't true.

There seems to be a crossover here between personal responsibility and the fact many people managed to buy much larger houses than they otherwise would've done, then complaining that they'd have to sell their house in order to meet the charges due. Many people have to rent a place to live in the UK, that's just the way things are. A penalty on living circumstances is to be expected, given the balance between personal responsibility and the providers promoting these schemes.

People may have taken issue with the HMRC charges and with the high amount of tax they owed, but similarly they did owe the money and I'm afraid few of us outsiders disagree with their terms. Nobody was going to be homeless, just some had to sell their residence they gained through blatant tax evasion. Being homeless doesn't mean having to sell your home and then rent somewhere. Being homeless means having zero cash. The continual exaggeration of the plight of people facing the loan charge is one of the reasons why many people, including me, get continually annoyed at conflating this with people taking things badly and then ending their lives, often without evidence that the loan charge was actually the primary cause.

I wrote all this to provide detailed clarification, as I didn't appreciate the "try living on nothing, if money is just money" inference. Nobody was ever being asked to live on no money. I am stating that if you owe money and it's obvious you do then it's not worth letting this take control of your life.

I'm guessing you've drank a lot of waiter's piss in your time.

[AtW]

Well if somebody was duped they should sue whoever duped them, it's not like tax rates were hidden and only QCs knew about them.

[rogerfederer]

I disagree in this instance and will back these workers to the the hilt.

They were never contractors. They didn't want to be contractors. They were forced out of their jobs and equally coerced into taking contract work.

It was a shock to the system forcing them to consider things that they didn't want to get involved with. Of course the tulipty agency was going to woo them with 'do this and you won't have to worry about anything', and I'm not surprised that they believed them. Why wouldn't they? - they have no idea what a crook-infested world this can be.

Basically these are permies who think that if they are fair to the world, the world will be fair to them.

Sadly that isn't the case.

Forced into contracting? Read this.

Agreed. It should be easy enough to separate these lower paid workers by looking at the scheme used, industry they work in and past companies with linked NICs to determine if they should receive leniency.

Those on £800 per day in the O&G industry, well, almost no sympathy for them.

[cojak]

I do think that many scheme users were attracted by their own cupidity, but it is unfair to say that all were, or even that they "should have known better". Some seem to have been almost forced into it, others duped by the agency recommendation.

I disagree in this instance and will back these workers to the the hilt.

They were never contractors. They didn't want to be contractors. They were forced out of their jobs and equally coerced into taking contract work.

It was a shock to the system forcing them to consider things that they didn't want to get involved with. Of course the tulipty agency was going to woo them with 'do this and you won't have to worry about anything', and I'm not surprised that they believed them. Why wouldn't they? - they have no idea what a crook-infested world this can be.

Basically these are permies who think that if they are fair to the world, the world will be fair to them.

Sadly that isn't the case.

Forced into contracting? Read this.

[NotAllThere]

Low paid as in how much - minimum wage or £500 per day?

Maybe £150 a day. HMRC have admitted that some affected by the LC were on lower than 30K a year. Some on £30 an hour - so £240.

SmartPay were the scheme provider cited in an article in The Times from January last year.

... House of Lords review into the finance bill recently received evidence that councils used a PSL of agencies that "employees" were asked to join on leaving direct employment. There was a definite sense in the evidence that this was done in many cases under fear of losing employment entirely. So in effect a social worker would leave direct employment on Friday, and head back into work on Monday as an agency worker via a PSL umbrella...

In many cases the net benefit to the worker was minimal - eaten up in the charges. But it saved their employers a lot of money.

Another Times Article said:

Public-sector nurses and social workers are being encouraged by recruitment agencies to take their wages through suspected tax-avoidance schemes, only to be chased by the taxman for debts of tens of thousands of pounds.

Tripod Partners promoted the scheme (again SmartPay) to the hundreds of workers (mainly social workers and locum nurses).

I do think that many scheme users were attracted by their own cupidity, but it is unfair to say that all were, or even that they "should have known better". Some seem to have been almost forced into it, others duped by the agency recommendation.