What are the clients going to do assuming HMR&C and Osborne get their way?

[BolshieBastard]

I know I shouldn't be so naive but that's a disgrace. Not that people haven't already said that consultancies would be some of the major beneficiaries of any proposed changes.

Being even more cynical I wonder which decision makers will end up with a seat on the board of one of these consultancies!?

He consistently drops fellow contractors in the tulip. I wouldnt let it bother you.

[MarkT]

He consistently drops fellow contractors in the tulip. I wouldnt let it bother you.

You have wonder if KPMG, Deloitte, Capita etc have already been briefed.

[GB9]

You have wonder if KPMG, Deloitte, Capita etc have already been briefed.

The only problem with this type of consultancy is that they cost 2.5 times a day rate contractor and still no guarantee that you get a good one.

Even the overseas lot charge more than day rate for on shore resource.

[MarkT]

The only problem with this type of consultancy is that they cost 2.5 times a day rate contractor and still no guarantee that you get a good one.

Even the overseas lot charge more than day rate for on shore resource.

of course - but then contractors don't put Tory finance ministers on their boards do they? And that's probably got more to do with this than anything else.

[ZARDOZ]

Couldn't clients offer MSAs (think they are called that). A while ago a client offered me one of these. Basically they ask you to quote for some project based task. You may not win the work every time. Work orders generated each time. You provide the tools (laptop,software) use their system where needed. The hours worked are offsite, project dependant, could be a few hours a week or every day (it is timeline driven so up to you). You are allowed other clients. This client also had bums on seats contractors but was getting IR35 twitchy and did not want to imply MOO.

Surely that could never fail IR35 or be subject to the 1 month then payroll rule?
It would also work well for a lot of clients.

[Danglekt]

I have Kpmg coming in tomorrow to advise on replacing contractors with Kpmg staff if this hits - I will make sure I get a good lunch and hide my contractor badge

The day rate on them is through the roof though, I charge well, yet a big consultancy were charging their bods out at x3 my day rate and upwards...

"Dear Client, we know you are paying £500 per day for X, Y and Z contractor. You may become liable for up to 60% of their day rate if they don't pay up properly! The total exposure per contractor could therefore be £800 PER DAY! (day rate plus potential liability)

Protect your company by getting in our XXXXX Consultancy support at only £1500 per day for the same level of support."

It just doesn't make sense for the client unless they drop their rates - but then how will they be able to justify the £1500+ per day rates for average PM type in future if they drop to compete with the potential exposure we may or may not present as freeelancers?

[northernladuk]

But it's a different model. You can't compare it body by body. They also handle all the resourcing and engagement so a lot less process/admin at client side. They (should) provide a full service not individual bodies and so on. All those points are arguable but that's the theory.

[Danglekt]

But it's a different model. You can't compare it body by body. They also handle all the resourcing and engagement so a lot less process/admin at client side. They (should) provide a full service not individual bodies and so on. All those points are arguable but that's the theory.

Agreed - the theory is that it's a different model, but the reality...

You get a pitch team with all their well known top bods, then the actual team that turn up to do the work are a mix of good bad and ugly, as they can't be sure they will get their hands on the best of their teams.

They have duffers too.

And at double the day rate (even including any potential - but unlikley, tax liability) thats an expensive way to "solve" the problem.

[LondonManc]

Agreed - the theory is that it's a different model, but the reality...

You get a pitch team with all their well known top bods, then the actual team that turn up to do the work are a mix of good bad and ugly, as they can't be sure they will get their hands on the best of their teams.

They have duffers too.

And at double the day rate (even including any potential - but unlikley, tax liability) thats an expensive way to "solve" the problem.

[jamesbrown]

And at double the day rate (even including any potential - but unlikley, tax liability) thats an expensive way to "solve" the problem.

It's not so much upfront cost that would concern clients as long-term risk. They don't want a bunch of contractors on payroll, outside of their main business area, with all associated employment liabilities. I'd assume the path of least resistance, in many cases, would be a FTC.