• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

November 22nd - The death of contracting as we know it

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Folks, I have sent a letter to my MP (Conservative), and will be going one of his surgeries later this month to put my point across.

    Will let you know how it goes. I'm sure it will be a drop in the ocean, but I'm not going down without a fight. Ooh, I'm getting all Gina Miller about this!
    "My God, it's huge!!"

    Comment


      Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
      You seem bothered.

      The reference for what exactly? The ITEPA is the reference for IR35, which applies to intermediaries. Case law is the reference for employment status, regardless of whether a worker operates through an intermediary. The irony here is that they're attempting to circumvent the rules with CEST, because the rules haven't worked in their favour. What with the judiciary being independent 'n all.
      I'm bothered by sitting here watching thousands of decent contractors being sold down the river not only by HMG but also the people you regards as friends. So for myself, I am not bothered. For everyone else I am deeply bothered.
      Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
      Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
        I'm bothered by sitting here watching thousands of decent contractors being sold down the river not only by HMG but also the people you regards as friends. So for myself, I am not bothered. For everyone else I am deeply bothered.
        I take a balanced view. Look through my posting history; I don't blindly support IPSE. OTOH, you clearly have an axe to grind. A statutory definition of self-employment carries obvious risks, but so do all the alternatives. To understand the risks properly, you need to take a realistic view about the counterfactuals. Not one of them is the status quo. A statutory definition that has some possibility of being shaped (arguable, of course) or a winding road, beginning with a failed rollout of the PS rules, to something far more draconian (such as the strict deeming criteria employed in many other jurisdictions). You're welcome to the latter. But you appear more than a little paranoid in believing that IPSE is somehow out to get your mates or to "sell them down the river". They just take a different view from you.

        In the long-run, I'm pretty fatalistic TBH, especially for BoS/BAU contractors. The Treasury isn't going to stop until a certain (high) percentage are operating through full PAYE with ErNI deducted. If the PS rollout fails, in terms of revenue (narrowly defined), something else will follow. Afterall, it's about stopping the bad press too (post student loans company, BBC etc.).
        Last edited by jamesbrown; 10 November 2017, 23:49.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
          I'm bothered by sitting here watching thousands of decent contractors being sold down the river not only by HMG but also the people you regards as friends. So for myself, I am not bothered. For everyone else I am deeply bothered.
          Totally agree with this the the ultimate burden will be on us. The clients will see a hit but not as much as us and they certainly won't be improving rates.
          HMRC see a short term gain and don't care about the damage.
          That leaves us footing the bill.

          Comment


            Originally posted by unixman View Post
            Worst case scenario, contractors either:

            - take the hit and pay for accommodation etc. out of pocket
            - obtain contracts nearer home, which should be easier as other contractors turn down distant gigs
            - go umbrella

            All while charging a bit more.
            There is a reason I work away from home and it's not because I don't like my house. For me the real kicker with IR35 is that it will price me out of contracts away from home, leaving me with the crappy ones I choose to avoid by working away from home.
            Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

            I preferred version 1!

            Comment


              Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
              There is a reason I work away from home and it's not because I don't like my house. For me the real kicker with IR35 is that it will price me out of contracts away from home, leaving me with the crappy ones I choose to avoid by working away from home.
              It might work out ok tho - an end to Contactor A passing Contract B on the motorway travelling and living in each others manor at no real benefit to either.

              Comment


                November 22nd - The death of contracting as we know it

                Everyone seems really convinced that this potential change will automatically mean an inside decision for them. Either that’s because they ultimately see themselves as being inside but currently getting away with claiming to be outside (and they’re worried this will spell the end of that gravy train), or they’re worried that the end client will make an incorrect determination.

                Given that (IMHO) only for the most inside-of-inside gigs would a client object to favourable SDC and MOO terms and actual working practices, and that ROS only really sound scary to them when worded as it is in the HMRC tool, wouldn’t IPSE’s efforts be better spent helping us educate end clients on the matter rather than fighting what seems to be a losing battle against the introduction of the legislation?

                I think it’s fair to say that the fight is not that we want it to be ok to do the old Friday/Monday perm to freelance trick, but more that we object to being unfairly categorised as one thing when in fact we are another? And that we are left to use three relatively wooly “pillars” to support our position?

                This is not an IPSE dig btw, I’m a Plus member and have been for many years. I just think that if we ARE outside, maybe the emphasis should be on proving that, rather than fighting the rules.
                Last edited by meanttobeworking; 13 November 2017, 10:04.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
                  Everyone seems really convinced that this potential change will automatically mean an inside decision for them. Either that’s because they ultimately see themselves as being inside but currently getting away with claiming to be outside (and they’re worried this will spell the end of that gravy train), or they’re worried that the end client will make an incorrect determination.

                  Given that (IMHO) only for the most inside-of-inside gigs would a client object to favourable SDC and MOO terms and actual working practices, and that ROS only really sound scary to them when worded as it is in the HMRC tool, wouldn’t IPSE’s efforts be better spent helping us educate end clients on the matter rather than fighting what seems to be a losing battle against the introduction of the legislation?

                  I think it’s fair to say that the fight is not that we want it to be ok to do the old Friday/Monday perm to freelance trick, but more that we object to being unfairly categorised as one thing when in fact we are another? And that we are left to use three relatively wooly “pillars” to support our position?

                  This is not an IPSE dig btw, I’m a Plus member and have been for many years. I just think that if we ARE outside, maybe the emphasis should be on proving that, rather than fighting the rules.
                  I think the issue people have is it's out of their control and part of running a business is controlling your own destiny. I have a contract that puts me 'outside' but that may not mean anything to a legal department scared of the liability. I swing polar opposites on a weekly basis to be honest it's all rather depressing.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by poorautojobber View Post
                    I think the issue people have is it's out of their control and part of running a business is controlling your own destiny. I have a contract that puts me 'outside' but that may not mean anything to a legal department scared of the liability. I swing polar opposites on a weekly basis to be honest it's all rather depressing.
                    Couldn’t agree more, and I’m exactly the same.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by meanttobeworking View Post
                      Couldn’t agree more, and I’m exactly the same.
                      That’s why I agree with moving ir35 decisions to the client prior to advertising. The simple fact is I won’t take an inside ir35 contract.

                      And I will accept that it may reduce the market I’m targeting but in reality I don’t care - the customer is likely to get what they deserve.
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X