• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "contracting, rates, and tax"

Collapse

  • ratewhore
    replied
    Originally posted by expat View Post
    I understand the point that you and Mal and the author were making, but actually I don't think it's government's job to compensate people for risks they take freely. If the risk is not worth taking in itself, people shouldn't take it. Furthermore, for government to insure against it, is to interfere in the market mechanism that works against bad choices.
    I disagree. When those risks are taken to the benefit of UK PLC, I believe there should be an element of reward to that...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by expat View Post
    I understand the point that you and Mal and the author were making, but actually I don't think it's government's job to compensate people for risks they take freely. If the risk is not worth taking in itself, people shouldn't take it. Furthermore, for government to insure against it, is to interfere in the market mechanism that works against bad choices.
    The problem with IR35 is not the legislation itself. If it were we could just accept it and change our rates to make it worth our while. The problem is that we set our acceptable rates based on our assessment of the risks involved. If we get IR35 wrong then our original assessment was wrong however we can not go back 6 years to recover the earnings IR35 taxes away.

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by swamp View Post
    Scheduled D self employed individuals pay less overall tax than their PAYE counterparts because of the risk they undertake. The tax system recognises this fact.

    Limited company contractors enjoyed the same advantage (if a little indirectly) until IR35.

    This, I believe, is the point he was making.
    I understand the point that you and Mal and the author were making, but actually I don't think it's government's job to compensate people for risks they take freely. If the risk is not worth taking in itself, people shouldn't take it. Furthermore, for government to insure against it, is to interfere in the market mechanism that works against bad choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • swamp
    replied
    Originally posted by expat View Post
    The compensation for loss of security and state benefits comes from the higher rate. If you're not getting a high enough rate to compensate, even on 100% PAYE, then your rate is not high enough.
    Scheduled D self employed individuals pay less overall tax than their PAYE counterparts because of the risk they undertake. The tax system recognises this fact.

    Limited company contractors enjoyed the same advantage (if a little indirectly) until IR35.

    This, I believe, is the point he was making.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Well OK, he's not wrong - but Mr Roback is simply repeating what many have been saying for the last 10 years...

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    started a topic contracting, rates, and tax

    contracting, rates, and tax

    CUK front page, Contractors not in it for tax avoidance

    IR35 was a major blow for contractors who had become ‘self-employed’ on the understanding that the tax advantages would compensate for the loss of security and state benefits.
    The compensation for loss of security and state benefits comes from the higher rate. If you're not getting a high enough rate to compensate, even on 100% PAYE, then your rate is not high enough.

Working...
X