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

[eek]

IPSE's role is not to campaign on behalf of exploited workers - of which there are legion - but rather to campaign on behalf of contractors who are far from exploited. We have, many times, told HMRC of examples of worker exploitation and, many times, told HMG what they need to do regarding exploited workers. It's crucial that politicians see contractors as valuable contributors to UK plc and that IPSE defends our way of working - that's our raison d'être.

As you rightly point out there's the Low Pay Commission, the Trade Unions and others who can and do battle for exploited - see the current court case brought by Uber drivers.

Given two plans, one that protects 3 million workers and impacts contractors (perceived by many people including the treasury as tax dodging ....) and one that protects a few thousand over paid contractors while making things no better or indeed worse for those 3 million workers which option do you think will be chosen..

Unless you provide options that protect both those 3 million workers and ourselves we are just going to be lost as collateral damage... If you don't grasp that pretend to be a union leader representing 100,000 outsourced public sector workers and go back and read the proposals especially the example relating to employees through a consultancy....

As LondonManc states above remember what our reputation is of undertaxed and overpaid.... Any argument needs to use other factors such as the impact T&S will have on northern authorities and offices....

[IPSE]

Why the need for secrecy?

This is a public forum and FTAOD we also regard IPSE's forums as pretty much public. In general, it's probably not a great idea to broadcast plans and thereby offer the opposition insights.

[eek]

This is a public forum and FTAOD we also regard IPSE's forums as pretty much public. In general, it's probably not a great idea to broadcast plans and thereby offer the opposition insights.

Them and us - oh dear....

[DotasScandal]

We'll be using evidence-based arguments, calling our members to action as and when appropriate and speaking with HMG, HMRC, HMT and politicians at the highest levels. We also work closely with all the other stakeholders - CBI, REC, APSCo, the accountancy profession, end-users &etc. This has worked in the past and may well work again this time.

Evidence is key, hence the member surveys and the call for member submissions but we've also commissioned independent research around the economic impact - HMG won't listen to pure rhetoric, but they can and do pay attention to hard evidence. We attend and organise roundtables at which HMRC receive your (very vocal) feedback. And yes, membership numbers do make a difference - the larger IPSE is the louder your voice, so getting your mates to join and get involved is no bad thing.

So in a nutshell, IPSE is doing or plans to do exactly what Big Group is doing already. Yet won't join forces with Big Group. Marvellous!

[eek]

So in a nutshell, IPSE is doing or plans to do exactly what Big Group is doing already. Yet won't join forces with Big Group. Marvellous!

Big group is dealing with the fallout of HMRC schemes and the possible tax changes in April 2019 which supposedly mop up missing unpaid tax.

IPSE started this topic to talk about the consultation into the off payroll working in the public sector - reform of the intermediaries legislation (IR35) as published on May 26th with a consultation end date of August 18th...

If Big group are sending a response to the consultation will that is interesting but I didn't think it was the purpose of Big Group....

[youngguy]

This is a public forum and FTAOD we also regard IPSE's forums as pretty much public. In general, it's probably not a great idea to broadcast plans and thereby offer the opposition insights.

But WHY? What do you think you will lose by starting to ask and lobby?

Gov is not opposition ....this is not a political leadership where it is equal and a third party (the public ) choose.

Gov have decided to do something and we need to show them the ramifications and ask the questions that show they have not understood the impact. If you leave it too late Gov can say they had no feedback or had no time to consider the feedback

Simple example
Gov: we will legislate and get more tax
Us: we will increase rates (overall cost goes up and offsets your tax profit ) or leave PS and you will have no workers .

So once again IPSE, why the secrecy?

[BrilloPad]

When HMRC decide what will happen, the government just enacts it. Waste your time and money if you want.

[DotasScandal]

Big group is dealing with the fallout of HMRC schemes and the possible tax changes in April 2019 which supposedly mop up missing unpaid tax.

As per BG's mission statement:
"Our focus is on mobilising a collaborative voice to develop a strategy for resolution of the existing enquiry in a fair and appropriate way ensuring the future sustainability of the contractor profession."

As such, the scope of BG's action goes well beyond "dealing with the fallout of HMRC schemes" and has much to do with demonstrating to HMRC why it's not in their best (mid-term and long-term) interest to remove thousands of skilled contractors from the workforce by way of APN-triggered bankruptcy.
Yes, it's about closing the whole topic in a sensible manner, but it's also, perhaps more importantly, about ensuring the contractors in question can continue to work. For their own benefit, for the benefit of their clients, and for the benefit of HMRC themselves.

IPSE started this topic to talk about the consultation into the off payroll working in the public sector - reform of the intermediaries legislation (IR35) as published on May 26th with a consultation end date of August 18th...
If Big group are sending a response to the consultation will that is interesting but I didn't think it was the purpose of Big Group....

We understand that. BG is also involved with these topics. Remember it's largely IR35 that put most if not all BG members in the sorry situation to start with

This will be our last post on this thread as the intention is not to hijack IPSE's discussion.

[Lance]

Am I missing something?
The IPSE OP post has the following phrase...

"an individual provides services to a public sector engager through a PSC and is doing a similar job in a similar manner to an employee, both they and their engager will be required to pay broadly the same tax and National Insurance as if they were an employee"

Surely this only effects IR35 caught contracts?
And as the employer won't want to be clobbered with NICs then they're more likely to ensure that their contractors are NOT doing a similar job in a similar manner to an employee.

Please help with my lack of understanding as I cannot see what the big deal is here.

[northernladuk]

You could read all the other threads and discussions to try understand it fully?