Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[youngguy]

the intention was to provide a vehicle that was guaranteed clear of IR35 (and hence the current plans for PS payment) lying somewhere between permie and Ltd Co in terms of returns and providing assurance on status to both sides, if you qualify to use one. I've no idea where it is now, or even if it is still up for discussion. However, it is one - and only one - possible way forward.

Perhaps we should be looking at it as a sane pre-emptive strike...

I think the idea COULD have worked if the terms were somewhere in the middle. And from memory they weren't .

No one wants to pay more tax but there are things which could be a bit fairer all round. Eg reduce the 2 yr expenses rule to 1. Ensure real business expenses (pension, accountancy etc etc) are always valid.

I could go on but there is little point as Gov don't want a fair system, they want Gov depts to collect tax for them from what they consider an easy tax pool.

[malvolio]

If this is a suggestion/inference/ guess that ipse's proposals to Gov are FLC again then we really are all doomed!

IPSE should have learnt how little support their idea had the first time .

Oh yes, when surveyed a mere 30% or so of the membership were opposed to it...

And no, it's not guesswork, it is informed opinion. It may well be wrong, but I don't think it is. Happy for that to be disproved, preferably by someone much closer to the middle than I am.

[DotasScandal]

I could go on but there is little point as Gov don't want a fair system, they want Gov depts to collect tax for them from what they consider an easy tax pool.

Amen

[missinggreenfields]

IPSE should have learnt how little support their idea had the first time .

About 75% of the members supported the idea, I think.

[pr1]

Oh yes, when surveyed a mere 30% or so of the membership who responded to the survey were opposed to it...

FTFY, probably

[missinggreenfields]

No one wants to pay more tax but there are things which could be a bit fairer all round. Eg reduce the 2 yr expenses rule to 1. Ensure real business expenses (pension, accountancy etc etc) are always valid.

What makes a reduction to one year fairer than two? The projects that I work on tend to run for years and years, so two years is very unfair to me because of the nature of the work that I do. One year would be even more unfair, and would result in projects that aren't in areas where there are lots of people with the right skills but take longer than a year either having to change resources after a relatively short time, or expecting someone to pick up the costs of that.

I could go on but there is little point as Gov don't want a fair system, they want Gov depts to collect tax for them from what they consider an easy tax pool.

On that point, we do agree though.

[pr1]

What makes a reduction to one year fairer than two? The projects that I work on tend to run for years and years, so two years is very unfair to me because of the nature of the work that I do. One year would be even more unfair, and would result in projects that aren't in areas where there are lots of people with the right skills but take longer than a year either having to change resources after a relatively short time, or expecting someone to pick up the costs of that.
.

if you're on a multi year project then you could factor it into your rate, or take the hit on expenses knowing you've got a relatively secure income stream

[malvolio]

FTFY, probably

It was around 1,500 as I recall; certainly enough to be statistically significant. Around 75% were in favour.

[missinggreenfields]

if you're on a multi year project then you could factor it into your rate, or take the hit on expenses knowing you've got a relatively secure income stream

[youngguy]

About 75% of the members supported the idea, I think.

Members who voted sure - and to be fair that is all IPSE can do.

But it did come at a time when most of the contingent here questioned IPSE in terms of who they were representing and the feeling here was it was not well thought out. I stand corrected though....the feedback here is not the same as the member feedback which it seems was more in favour .