Budget 16th March 2016

[SueEllen]

Certainly does

I'm convinced they are going to hammer us, however these stories are talking about public sector and not private.

It felt like a let off last time, chances are it won't this time.

He will just up the dividend tax.

I was reading how stupid Gidiot was is fuel duty. He should have configured it so when fuel prices fell he got more money by keeping the price stable and vice versa. So while people wouldn't see a difference in their pockets the Treasury and taxpayers in general would be better of.

[MarkT]

Not sure he'll do that, lots of tory voters are paying it and won't take kindly to it going up, it won't help his case to be PM one iota.

More likely is he will enforce our employment status to be decided by the end user, the vast majority will take the risk averse option and put us on either their or the agency books.

[SueEllen]

Not sure he'll do that, lots of tory voters are paying it and won't take kindly to it going up, it won't help his case to be PM one iota.

More likely is he will enforce our employment status to be decided by the end user, the vast majority will take the risk averse option and put us on either their or the agency books.

Big business will complain before working out loopholes.

Remember businesses use people who are self-employed and who work as contractors, and they definitely don't want any of us on their books being able to claim any more rights under the law that we can already can and neither do agencies. While the likes of Accenture don't want us to exist they still use us to fill holes in their resource pools as and when required.

Basically he's screwed as the larger he makes the tax code the bigger the loopholes.

[ShandyDrinker]

Not sure he'll do that, lots of tory voters are paying it and won't take kindly to it going up, it won't help his case to be PM one iota.

More likely is he will enforce our employment status to be decided by the end user, the vast majority will take the risk averse option and put us on either their or the agency books.

Big business will complain before working out loopholes.

Remember businesses use people who are self-employed and who work as contractors, and they definitely don't want any of us on their books being able to claim any more rights under the law that we can already can and neither do agencies. While the likes of Accenture don't want us to exist they still use us to fill holes in their resource pools as and when required.

Basically he's screwed as the larger he makes the tax code the bigger the loopholes.

I'd tend to agree with SueEllen rather than MarkT on this.

One of the reasons I think it ended up as unworkable in time for the Autumn Statement was the backlash probably encountered from big business and of course from many others.

How many businesses are really going to be prepared to consider contractors as on the books and the potential demands for employment rights longer term than having the flexibility of a workforce they can expand/contract quickly as business demands dictate. Even if the potential issue of employment rights didn't exist, I do think a number of contractors will just pack in and go perm due to the hassle or contract rates will rise as a result. Although there has been talk of an employment status indicator tool I am not convinced this will improve the situation any more that the Business Entity Tests did.

[MarkT]

I'd tend to agree with SueEllen rather than MarkT on this.

One of the reasons I think it ended up as unworkable in time for the Autumn Statement was the backlash probably encountered from big business and of course from many others.

How many businesses are really going to be prepared to consider contractors as on the books and the potential demands for employment rights longer term than having the flexibility of a workforce they can expand/contract quickly as business demands dictate. Even if the potential issue of employment rights didn't exist, I do think a number of contractors will just pack in and go perm due to the hassle or contract rates will rise as a result. Although there has been talk of an employment status indicator tool I am not convinced this will improve the situation any more that the Business Entity Tests did.

Id love to be wrong!!!!!

[SueEllen]

Id love to be wrong!!!!!

You have to remember the world of self-employed and contractors covers more than just us.

Even if you consider IT contractors there are those who work direct, have more than one contract at a time, subcontract work out, do fixed price projects and/or have employees.

So if you can think of a tax regulation that would cover all these types of IT contractors without a loophole. Then ensure it covers every other type of skilled professional you can think of e.g. engineers, HR, accountants, lawyers, marketers, then you should be the Chancellor not Gidiot.

[MarkT]

So if you can think of a tax regulation that would cover all these types of IT contractors without a loophole. Then ensure it covers every other type of skilled professional you can think of e.g. engineers, HR, accountants, lawyers, marketers, then you should be the Chancellor not Gidiot.

Nope

But I still think I'd make a better fist of it......to be fair, my dog could make a better fist of it, and he's scared of cardboard....

[bluemonkey71]

The Chancellor announces a series of actions to tackle tax avoidance and evasion totalling £12bn, including moves to end the use of "personal service companies" by public sector employees to minimise their tax liabilities. A number of TV personalities have faced criticism for their use of the tax loophole.

[westtester]

Found this in the main Budget document.



Off-payroll engagement in the public sector

1.148 Some individuals who work through their own limited company are undertaking jobs that would ordinarily mean they are employees of the business that they are working for. In those circumstances, existing legislation on off-payroll working requires them to pay broadly the same taxes as employees. However, non-compliance with these rules is costing the taxpayer around £440 million a year – and these costs are rising.

1.149 Public sector bodies have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that the people working for them are paying the right tax. From April 2017, where the public sector engages an off-payroll worker through their own limited company, that body (or the recruiting agency if the public sector body engages through one) will become responsible for determining whether the rules should apply, and for paying the right tax. This strengthens the public sector’s role in ensuring that the workers it engages comply with the
rules.

1.150 The government also recognises that the current rules are seen as complex and can create uncertainty. It will therefore consult on a simpler set of tests and online tools that will provide a clear answer as to whether and when the rules should apply.

[matzie]

Things I've spotted in the docs so far -

* public sector responsible for determining contractor status and for paying the tax - from April 2017

"From April 2017, where the public sector engages an off-payroll worker through their own limited company, that body (or the recruiting agency if the public sector body engages through one) will become responsible for determining whether the rules should apply, and for paying the right tax. This strengthens the public sector’s role in ensuring that the workers it engages comply with the rules."

* more 'consultation'

"The government also recognises that the current rules are seen as complex and can create uncertainty. It will therefore consult on a simpler set of tests and online tools that will provide a clear answer as to whether and when the rules should apply."

* Loans to participators tax rate raised from 25% to 32.5% - from April 2016

"Budget 2016 announces an increase in the rate of tax payable by close companies under the loans to participators rules so that it continues to mirror the higher rate of dividend tax. The loans to participators tax rate will be increased from 25% to 32.5% in April 2016, with effect for loans, advances and arrangements made on or after 6 April 2016."

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...rking-people-1

Section 3.30 and following