You're probably not going to like this - we certainly don't

[eek]

Sadly we aren't like a union that can just say no. We are subordinate to them. It is very likely Gov will take no notice at all. It is not a fair consultation in the sense of power and decision making ability.

The Gov have created a PSC definition and seem intent on using it. I don't agree with it, but it is often a case of picking the battles and I don't know that having a document that just blank refused anything the Gov said would have been useful.

Its been clear that Gov are convinced we are a cash cow and now I think it is about getting the 'least bad option' .

The doc cites the lack of psc definition in section 2.2 and then says it will use it given the Gov does. I personally don't think you can dismiss the entire document based on this alone.

No but as I said before the fact they use it obscures a very large part of the argument and the actual end issue.

A PSC is a tax device (you can argue the reasons behind it, however, you want and whether its tax saving or not), but that's not what being attacked here. What is being attacked here are specialist freelance resources i.e. skilled workers the public sector organisation does not and probably cannot employ themselves for whatever reason.

Using the term psc removes that fundamental fact from IPSE's entire argument and removes the actual problem and risk to the public sector from their answers to those questions...

So yes it is a mistake to use it. I would have used 2.2 to emphasis what we actually are picked a far more suitable term (Freelance Expert, Professional Freelance worker whatever someone thought was best) and substituted that where-ever PSC appeared in the document. The final impact would then have been far clearer and far more obvious....

[malvolio]

TBF, what's being attacked is not the proposal per se, but the fact that the proposal is based on deeply flawed, inaccurate and wilfully misleading data being presented as fact by people with no knowledge of the sector and little or no understanding of the underlying economics. Basically, not so much as "Don't do this damned silly thing" as much as "Are you actually aware that what you are doing is the wrong thing for the wrong reasons". Using their language and terminology, while irritating, at least means we are deliberately talking the same language so they can't claim misunderstanding of meaning.

I have little doubt it will go ahead and that the best we can hope for is to delay implementation until the tool has been tested to destruction and - almost certainly - shown to be unfit for purpose. Not that that will stop them, since they are following a political agenda, not an economic one.

Meanwhile, get writing to your MPs and tell them why their government is badly in the wrong in a crucial area for UKPLC.

[jamesbrown]

unfit for purpose.

Unfit for what purpose? It's quite likely to be fit for the purpose they intend, even if they haven't understood the implications of that intention. The calibration of the online tool and related questions is a sideshow from our perspective.

The problem here is that HMG/HMRC appear not to have a legitimate aim, expressed honestly. They want to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment. It isn't even unspoken, they've explicitly stated this, but the PR obviously focuses on the avoidance angle. I fully agree with that aspect of the case presented by IPSE, namely that HMG should use employment contracts if they want employees.

Everything else flows from their desire to increase disguised self-employment; the screening questions, the removal of due process, the calibration of the online tool. It's all a means to an end, because they want to believe their own hype about 90% non-compliance.

On the whole, I think lobbying is a worthwhile activity, but this needs to go above the heads of the civil servants and focus on MPs and ministers. If the ministerial direction is in keeping with the desire to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment, then we're all wasting out time; but we won't know until we've tried (i.e. engage your MP).

[malvolio]

Unfit for what purpose? It's quite likely to be fit for the purpose they intend, even if they haven't understood the implications of that intention. The calibration of the online tool and related questions is a sideshow from our perspective.

The problem here is that HMG/HMRC appear not to have a legitimate aim, expressed honestly. They want to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment. It isn't even unspoken, they've explicitly stated this, but the PR obviously focuses on the avoidance angle. I fully agree with that aspect of the case presented by IPSE, namely that HMG should use employment contracts if they want employees.

Everything else flows from their desire to increase disguised self-employment; the screening questions, the removal of due process, the calibration of the online tool. It's all a means to an end, because they want to believe their own hype about 90% non-compliance.

On the whole, I think lobbying is a worthwhile activity, but this needs to go above the heads of the civil servants and focus on MPs and ministers. If the ministerial direction is in keeping with the desire to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment, then we're all wasting out time; but we won't know until we've tried (i.e. engage your MP).

I'm pretty sure IPSE are talking to people well above the senior Civil Service drone level...

And the magic tool has to be able to produce consistent results that align to established case law for IR35 determinations. That simply isn't going to happen, even if UIR35 status is cut and dried which it isn't. If it is forced on you and you disagree, then you use the existing appeal/tribunal/higher appeal process: you think HMRC could handle a few thousand of them a month?

[youngguy]

No but as I said before the fact they use it obscures a very large part of the argument and the actual end issue.

A PSC is a tax device (you can argue the reasons behind it, however, you want and whether its tax saving or not), but that's not what being attacked here. What is being attacked here are specialist freelance resources i.e. skilled workers the public sector organisation does not and probably cannot employ themselves for whatever reason.

Using the term psc removes that fundamental fact from IPSE's entire argument and removes the actual problem and risk to the public sector from their answers to those questions...

So yes it is a mistake to use it. I would have used 2.2 to emphasis what we actually are picked a far more suitable term (Freelance Expert, Professional Freelance worker whatever someone thought was best) and substituted that where-ever PSC appeared in the document. The final impact would then have been far clearer and far more obvious....

I think the issue is the reason Gov cite for doing this (scummy tax dodgers) is not really the reason for doing it (we think this is an easy way to grab more tax revenue).

So the entire debate and consultation is playing out against the wrong perception.

I personally don't think they are attacking us as specialists ....they just see a group that they can collect tax from by making Gov depts an extension of HMRC. The unintended consequence on us is something they have not thought through.

[youngguy]

TBF, what's being attacked is not the proposal per se, but the fact that the proposal is based on deeply flawed, inaccurate and wilfully misleading data being presented as fact by people with no knowledge of the sector and little or no understanding of the underlying economics. Basically, not so much as "Don't do this damned silly thing" as much as "Are you actually aware that what you are doing is the wrong thing for the wrong reasons". Using their language and terminology, while irritating, at least means we are deliberately talking the same language so they can't claim misunderstanding of meaning.

I have little doubt it will go ahead and that the best we can hope for is to delay implementation until the tool has been tested to destruction and - almost certainly - shown to be unfit for purpose. Not that that will stop them, since they are following a political agenda, not an economic one.

Meanwhile, get writing to your MPs and tell them why their government is badly in the wrong in a crucial area for UKPLC.

It pains me to agree with you, but I do

[eek]

I think the issue is the reason Gov cite for doing this (scummy tax dodgers) is not really the reason for doing it (we think this is an easy way to grab more tax revenue).

So the entire debate and consultation is playing out against the wrong perception.

I personally don't think they are attacking us as specialists ....they just see a group that they can collect tax from by making Gov depts an extension of HMRC. The unintended consequence on us is something they have not thought through.

It's not the unintended consequences on us that matter.. It's the unintended consequences of the public sector delivering that will be the issue...

[youngguy]

On the whole, I think lobbying is a worthwhile activity, but this needs to go above the heads of the civil servants and focus on MPs and ministers. If the ministerial direction is in keeping with the desire to increase employment for tax purposes, without increasing employment, then we're all wasting out time; but we won't know until we've tried (i.e. engage your MP).

I have no knowledge in this area,but surely Gov can't have it both ways, ie tax as an employee but have no rights. Is there not some legislation or case law that would call that unscrupulous?

[eek]

I'm pretty sure IPSE are talking to people well above the senior Civil Service drone level...

And the magic tool has to be able to produce consistent results that align to established case law for IR35 determinations. That simply isn't going to happen, even if UIR35 status is cut and dried which it isn't. If it is forced on you and you disagree, then you use the existing appeal/tribunal/higher appeal process: you think HMRC could handle a few thousand of them a month?

You need to think that through a bit more. The entire approach being suggested means that you won't be able to go through the appeal tribunal approach quickly enough for it to be effective. All you realistically will be able to do is to suck up or walk away - as I suspect that a very large portion of the deductions made at source (all the NI ones for instance) would not be recoverable regardless of the tribunal response 18 months later...

And that's not meant as an attack by the way - its just one of those annoying things about NI..

[eek]

I have no knowledge in this area,but surely Gov can't have it both ways, ie tax as an employee but have no rights. Is there not some legislation or case law that would call that unscrupulous?

I think thats far more true in the private sector than it is in the public sector. Most public sector organisations have unions that watch over such things....