Contracting to MOD - HELP!!

[Lance]

Is this the general view amongst contractors?

For example, surely the £800 per day the MOD have agreed with AMS is not considered the contractor's money? The contractor's money would only be the amount that PSR agrees with the contractor, e.g. £500 per day. Anything above in the chain is not known to the contractor so shouldn't affect them. They'll only accept the rate that their happy with, and that's £500 (not £800).

It is the general view.

It's not mine as I don't really care. I know what I'm worth and also know that I can't get the £1k a day for me that a consultancy can.

I used to care when I was a permie. I was sold out for £1.2k a day in the late 90s and only saw c. £35k salary.... No more.

[malvolio]

Is this the general view amongst contractors?

For example, surely the £800 per day the MOD have agreed with AMS is not considered the contractor's money? The contractor's money would only be the amount that PSR agrees with the contractor, e.g. £500 per day. Anything above in the chain is not known to the contractor so shouldn't affect them. They'll only accept the rate that their happy with, and that's £500 (not £800).

Thanks


Zeeshan

With one very important caveat. The role must be advertised and accepted at the gross rate to the contractor, i.e. this is what you get less Employer NICs and PAYE only. Employee NICs and Apprentice Levy should be paid to the fee payer by the end client and is not part of the contractor's rates. So while there will be a gap between what the client is being charged and what comes down to the contractor, you cannot advertise a role at £500 as contract rate and then actually pay out £350 as an assignment rate or some other mealy-mouthed term, to cover your (new) overheads, you advertise the role at £350.

[wattaj]

With one very important caveat. The role must be advertised and accepted at the gross rate to the contractor, i.e. this is what you get less Employer NICs and PAYE only. Employee NICs and Apprentice Levy should be paid to the fee payer by the end client and is not part of the contractor's rates. So while there will be a gap between what the client is being charged and what comes down to the contractor, you cannot advertise a role at £500 as contract rate and then actually pay out £350 as an assignment rate or some other mealy-mouthed term, to cover your (new) overheads, you advertise the role at £350.

Somebody had better tell the market that because that's not what most of the agents out there are doing. MOD might be different, but the market's still trying to stick it to the contractor.

[northernladuk]

Is this the general view amongst contractors?

For example, surely the £800 per day the MOD have agreed with AMS is not considered the contractor's money? The contractor's money would only be the amount that PSR agrees with the contractor, e.g. £500 per day. Anything above in the chain is not known to the contractor so shouldn't affect them. They'll only accept the rate that their happy with, and that's £500 (not £800).

Thanks


Zeeshan

Not for me and a few others. We have had this discussion before and there is a firm split in views on it. We get what's left of the agents money in my world.

Switch it around. When I get a sub in then I pay him from my money that I get from the agent. The sub might think its his money but it isn't.

[DolanContractorGroup]

I used to care when I was a permie. I was sold out for £1.2k a day in the late 90s and only saw c. £35k salary.... No more.

Wow.

With one very important caveat. The role must be advertised and accepted at the gross rate to the contractor, i.e. this is what you get less Employer NICs and PAYE only. Employee NICs and Apprentice Levy should be paid to the fee payer by the end client and is not part of the contractor's rates. So while there will be a gap between what the client is being charged and what comes down to the contractor, you cannot advertise a role at £500 as contract rate and then actually pay out £350 as an assignment rate or some other mealy-mouthed term, to cover your (new) overheads, you advertise the role at £350.

Oh, yes. Agreed. For inside-IR35 contractors, the rate advertised/agreed should be the rate paid to them, subject to tax and NI.

Thanks

Zeeshan

[northernladuk]

Wow.

To be fair the same was said for every consultant from the large outsourced suppliers. It was standard working practice so not unique to Lance. In fact it's the same now, just lower rate from client and lower pay to consultant, where ever in the world he's based.

[Lance]

To be fair the same was said for every consultant from the large outsourced suppliers. It was standard working practice so not unique to Lance. In fact it's the same now, just lower rate from client and lower pay to consultant, where ever in the world he's based.

Definitely wasn't unique. It's what happens to capable individuals who don't know what they can do and what it's worth. In your 20s, and with no formal qualifications, a wage that's welll above average, doing a job you enjoy is good.
Also the consultancy market was quite different then.

And I'm based in the North (yorks. lancs at a push if the rate is good).


Suffice to say that I don't begrudge agents getting their 10-20% if they get me good roles.

[BR14]

To be fair the same was said for every consultant from the large outsourced suppliers. It was standard working practice so not unique to Lance. In fact it's the same now, just lower rate from client and lower pay to consultant, where ever in the world he's based.

Definitely wasn't unique. It's what happens to capable individuals who don't know what they can do and what it's worth. In your 20s, and with no formal qualifications, a wage that's welll above average, doing a job you enjoy is good.
Also the consultancy market was quite different then.

And I'm based in the North (yorks. lancs at a push if the rate is good).


Suffice to say that I don't begrudge agents getting their 10-20% if they get me good roles.

ahhh, when i were a lad...............................................

[Lance]

ahhh, when i were a lad...............................................

1923?

'owd *****

[BR14]

1923?

'owd *****