Any clue how many of your fellow contractors are going inside?

[rogerfederer]

Jesus, talk about Mr Average. What a boring and steady existence. You're not capitalising on the opportunities that contracting can provide. What a shame.

I've known a few people who have carefully saved and planned for retirement but they never got there or only just. This 'deferred life' strategy! I've never really got that. I'm about to jump on flight number 8 this year, building on 53 last year. Screw retirement, screw the planet, I'm having a great time!

I think a balance is required between the two extremes. Some people prefer routine, some prefer new experiences that challenge their perceptions. Having children is a major negative impact on climate change, the next is flying regularly. If people limit themselves to one or perhaps two children and avoid flying as much as possible it's clearly better for the planet. It's difficult at this time to just wait for electric/hydrogen/alternative fuel planes to appear but perhaps having bundling travels into one multi-trip works out better overall. We're currently reliant on tariffs and the generous favoritism of certain countries that sets the price on imports of such goods and it's clearly not working well when we consider the climate.

I'm an explorer rather than a homebird who enjoys a routine. Everybody may take a different approach to life.

On another note:
I appreciate this is heading slightly off topic but in the future ideal we won't have such cheap flights if they are as polluting as they are now. Train journeys should be really cheap the longer the distance. If I get the train to Germany via the Eurostar the price is substantially higher than a flight. This doesn't make sense if we attach a climate impact rating to the journey.

My hope is that in future we have a redesigned 'consumer' (hate that word) economy that rewards sensible climate choice by those being the cheapest choices. Currently we pay less for the worst climate choice and therefore people naturally choose this as it's cheapest. The US are resistant to this method of pricing but the Republicans seem to be climate-change denialists, for the most part, but I really hope we move to a system in which tasteless green vegetables flown in from Egypt are discouraged by high prices and a red climate change rating on them, whereas a cabbage from up the road is ultra cheap in comparison and has a green rating attached. In the current economic environment price is king and this seems the easy route to ensure that damaging products/services are priced accordingly.

I also believe this will see a newer generation of flying and travel options that are low carbon and incredibly impressive in their engineering feats. We've been stagnant for quite a while on many of those fronts due to incumbent fossil fuel industry - an understandable resistance to change, given the profit they make. Those who wish to be able to explore the world should be able to do so without being guilt tripped into avoiding such good endeavors. Only technology change will allow that.

[BABABlackSheep]

You remind me of my brother, much more steady than me, though his wife ended up running off with a lesbian!

Anyhow, relax, I'm not really having a pop at you, I'm just stressed out like everybody else at what's happening to my industry! A couple of months off will do me the world of good.

Got to watch those lesbians ?

[Grasser73]

Got to watch those lesbians ?

I do, given the chance!

[rogerfederer]

I think a balance is required between the two extremes. Some people prefer routine, some prefer new experiences that challenge their perceptions. Having children is a major negative impact on climate change, the next is flying regularly. If people limit themselves to one or perhaps two children and avoid flying as much as possible it's clearly better for the planet. It's difficult at this time to just wait for electric/hydrogen/alternative fuel planes to appear but perhaps having bundling travels into one multi-trip works out better overall. We're currently reliant on tariffs and the generous favoritism of certain countries that sets the price on imports of such goods and it's clearly not working well when we consider the climate.<snip>

As if on queue, see today's Financial Times article from the Professor of Engineering and Environment at Cambridge University:

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

"The only way to hit net zero by 2050 is to stop flying."

...in it's current fossil-fuel form.

(If you don't subscribe, you can find the article using the title I've mentioned in a google news search.)

[Dhrucku]

Will be fun if hmrc decide to do a retrospective investigation (which I believe they'll do), as some of my colleagues have been here for 4+ years.

What's stopping them doing a retro on you as well seeing as your contract was always inside?

Leaving a company based on the determination is still a risk. It's a misconception that only that only those staying under an inside are the ones who should worry...

[northernladuk]

What's stopping them doing a retro on you as well seeing as your contract was always inside?

Leaving a company based on the determination is still a risk. It's a misconception that only that only those staying under an inside are the ones who should worry...

We don't know the real answer but it's quite clearly be a lesser risk than staying inside. To investigate him they will have to find him, then they will have to prove he was inside. The fact the role he left is now inside add ammo to HMRC but its circumstantial to a certain extent.

They've got thousands inside and outside to go out so he will be further down the list. Not in the clear but a better position.

But yes, the worry should always be there. His position is only the next one down after the outside to inside guys and one above the people that left before the determination.

I am surprised HMRC haven't actively looked for contractors with many years at a gig. Same amount of work to chaw with greater returns. Now they've a honey pot to go at but, IMO, you should never discount the risk of 4+ years at a client. Time will tell.

[PCTNN]

What's stopping them doing a retro on you as well seeing as your contract was always inside?

I feel like I'm 100% out of risk since I've been working via umbrella.

[northernladuk]

I feel like I'm 100% out of risk since I've been working via umbrella.

No such thing as 100% out of risk if you've previously been self determining yourself outside.

[PCTNN]

No such thing as 100% out of risk if you've previously been self determining yourself outside.

I agree with you, someone in the situation you've described can never be 100% out of risk, although the risk as you said is way lower.

And I'm sure there's a fair number of people in that situation too.

Good luck to all, I guess...

[LondonManc]

Hi,

I'm with my current client (been here for four months) in an outside self declared capacity. Going via an agency and have had my contract reviewed and passed by Qdos. I also have insurance with them also.

I've been advised by the agency and the end client that they have made a SDS that post April I will be outside.

However, I am not fully confident I can just rely on that alone.

What do I need to do in addition to this to make it bullet proof?

do i need the agency to re-issue a new contract or do I keep the existing one and if a new contract get this reviewed again?

do I need a written SDS from the client and what should it say exactly?

If an investigation ever arose for this engagement and it was proved I was inside, would I only be responsible for the repayment of taxes for the self declared aspect of the engagement and post April it would be the client?

Anything I need to factor in?

QDOS approved and insured, client say outside, agency say outside?
Fill yer boots!!!