Reply to: IPSE have just suggested a "Contractor" Levy as the equivalent of Employers NI

[NotAllThere]

Check out Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm surprised by the lack of comments in the past 4 hours. The IPSE suggest an engager / contractor levy and yet no one comments.

Nobody cares any more. <mod snip> I lost interest completely after the rebranding exercise that none of the membership knew about or endorsed. After several bans from their forum I eventually concluded it was a lost cause and didn't bother again. Very sad to see how the organisation degenerated from the hey day of Arctic Systems. Sad to witness, but it's how many previously decent organisations go once people see the free lunch. <mod snip> I am sure I am not on my own in my opinions.

[courtg9000]

See Parliamentlive.tv - Treasury Committee starting at 10:37:40

half a pound of tuppeny rice on half a pound of artisan cheese.

[courtg9000]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

We must have a natter about this.

[jamesbrown]

Even if it doesn't get passed down and was paid by the engager (hard to see how that works in reality) it would still just be a cut in the budget available to the contractor while making a consultancy or outsourcing abroad more affordable.

My main concern is that they really don't think through the consequences of what they are suggesting

Sure, it would get passed down, whether directly or indirectly, absolutely no about about that.

However, I think this was only squeezed out of him after several attempts to declare a tax that should be increased, which he didn't do. This was in the context of where the differential arises (i.e., mainly ErNI), which is true, and hence what should be eliminated, if you were going to eliminate a differential. Anyway, the whole session was pretty worthless from my pov. Absolutely nothing new and, while I don't think he did particularly badly, I stopped listening to any ideas from IPSE after the whole FLC debacle.

[eek]

TBF, having listened to this, I think he was perfectly clear that this would be a tax on an engager, but admitted that it might get passed down (of course, it would). So he wasn't advocating for any new tax to be levied directly on contractors and, throughout the session, he was advocating for maintaining or lowering taxes on the self-employed, including small companies (e.g., differential CT rates again if they increase CT).

Overall, I didn't hear anything new there and there was no particular blunder, afaict (although I admit to only having listened to half the session, because it was the same old arguments ).

Even if it doesn't get passed down and was paid by the engager (hard to see how that works in reality) it would still just be a cut in the budget available to the contractor while making a consultancy or outsourcing abroad seem more affordable.

My main concern is that they really don't think through the consequences of what they are suggesting

[jamesbrown]

He literally couldn't make his mind up (just go to I think 1 minute later). Either way it would be 13.4% straight off the headline budget figure which would previously have been going to the contractor.

TBF, having listened to this, I think he was perfectly clear that this would be a tax on an engager, but admitted that it might get passed down (of course, it would). So he wasn't advocating for any new tax to be levied directly on contractors and, throughout the session, he was advocating for maintaining or lowering taxes on the self-employed, including small companies (e.g., differential CT rates again if they increase CT).

Overall, I didn't hear anything new there and there was no particular blunder, afaict (although I admit to only having listened to half the session, because it was the same old arguments ).

[eek]

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Also Dave is going to love it when he discovers I've trademarked a phrase that explains what an agency pays an umbrella in such a way that the Smurf rates he hates and Agencies love to use can be legally advertised without risk or drawbacks for agencies.

[eek]

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

I think it was the original TCS one. I pointed out the IPSE issue we are discussing here, Dave said he agreed with the principle so I simply pointed out the consequences (and remember that this isn't in the context of a meeting about IR35 its a meeting about raising additional tax post Covid)..

[GhostofTarbera]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[eek]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

[eek]

If they mean keeping LTD, and just paying this, I would prefer this to IR35 because"
*It won't scare the client away from using contractors, or upset the relationship
*You can still use schedule D or E expenses
*no PAYE, so you can still keep money in a company or pay in dividends as needed.
*It provides certainty, no nasty surprises in the future

Listen to the discussion - this wasn't a quid pro quo in exchange for binning IR35 this was just "here's a means of raising additional revenue"...

[caffeine man]

He literally couldn't make his mind up (just go to I think 1 minute later). Either way it would be 13.4% straight off the headline budget figure which would previously have been going to the contractor.

If they mean keeping LTD, and just paying this, I would prefer this to IR35 because"
*It won't scare the client away from using contractors, or upset the relationship
*You can still use schedule D or E expenses
*no PAYE, so you can still keep money in a company or pay in dividends as needed.
*It provides certainty, no nasty surprises in the future

[eek]

At some point, they went from being "meh" (add up the costs, subtract the benefits, is it better than zero?) to a serious problem for professional contractors, working against our better interests. Perhaps the bohemian finger painters are pleased with their new union, but they're now worse than useless as an advocate for high-end contractors.

For me that was back in 2016 when I had to go and do the work they should have done to fight the expenses changes.

[jamesbrown]

He literally couldn't make his mind up (just go to I think 1 minute later). Either way it would be 13.4% straight off the headline budget figure which would previously have been going to the contractor.

At some point, they went from being "meh" (add up the costs, subtract the benefits, is it better than zero?) to a serious problem for professional contractors, working against our better interests. Perhaps the bohemian finger painters are pleased with their new union, but they're now worse than useless as an advocate for high-end contractors.