Umbrella companies to be abolished

[SlipTheJab]

Doing fine, thanks for asking.
Actually I have had it so good before - a few years in the city around the turn of the century on rates that were exceptional compared to today.
Of course I blew it all on fast cars and women, but I have learned from my experiences ;-)

At least you didn't waste it

[Snorky]

Labour pledges to ban umbrella companies.

Still reeling .... :-s


Labour pledges to ban umbrella companies :: Contractor UK

[Smartie]

Still reeling .... :-s


Labour pledges to ban umbrella companies :: Contractor UK

Late to this party http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...abolished.html

[Smartie]

At least you didn't waste it

Je ne regrette rien.

[OwlHoot]

I've always said this, absolutely for 5-10 years it's going to hurt. But then things should pick up.

Even if we stayed in, we'd still be going into some hard times due to the ponzi economy.

It will be interesting to see if the UK unshackled does better than the Eurozone in the next financial crisis...

WHS

[Whorty]

How?

Surely the whole point of an umbrella company is that the worker pays the full whack of tax and NICs?

The target of this legislation is deliveroo drivers earning **** all and getting no rights. The sledgehammer used to crack the nut will mean proper freelancers get collared also.

However, I'm really not so sure the Tories also don't have visions on the same. I don't use an Umbrella, so this doesn't impact me. ;-)

Seems to me the aim to get rid of umbrellas is to either make people work as employees, FTCs or for the very few, stay limited. Labour likes it's low paid workers in the public sector so they can 'encourage' them to join their unions, something the low paid are not likely to do when in an umbrella.

My problem with umbrellas is that the emphasis is on the employee to cover all taxes, which takes allows the client/'employer' off the hook. If a 350 pd rate really meant that, and the employee paid employee taxes on that, it would annoy me less, but the fact the employee also covers employer NI, plus the now extra 0.5% levy, that is a 'p' take. Maybe Labour feel the same?

Either way, whoever wins, it's all changing and we are in the middle of the coming storm

[eek]

Seems to me the aim to get rid of umbrellas is to either make people work as employees, FTCs or for the very few, stay limited. Labour likes it's low paid workers in the public sector so they can 'encourage' them to join their unions, something the low paid are not likely to do when in an umbrella.

My problem with umbrellas is that the emphasis is on the employee to cover all taxes, which takes allows the client/'employer' off the hook. If a 350 pd rate really meant that, and the employee paid employee taxes on that, it would annoy me less, but the fact the employee also covers employer NI, plus the now extra 0.5% levy, that is a 'p' take. Maybe Labour feel the same?

Either way, whoever wins, it's all changing and we are in the middle of the coming storm

It's exactly your middle paragraph which I expect to come out of the Taylor report - As I've already stated agencies will be required to provide a cost free method of payment - and that may or may not be an umbrella. The idea that a teacher (and I'm using teacher as an example it could equally be careworker / nurse / cleaner / secretary) is offered a job advertised at £160 a day without no means of receiving that all that £160 (before personal tax) is a bugbear the unions are pushing Taylor on.

Note I'm not saying that umbrella's will be banned the attack will be on agencies and how the advertise pay - umbrellas will just be hit by the consequences...

And the Taylor review recommendations will be implemented in full - any changes need to be lobbied for before its published....

[Snorky]

Late to this party http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...abolished.html

It's a link to the CUK article from today. Worth a read. Bit shorter than the manifesto.

Labour pledges to ban umbrella companies :: Contractor UK

[Hobosapien]

Something needs to be done, though it will feel historically weird if it's Labour trying* to promote efficiency rather than the tories.

Currently off-payroll rules are pushing public sector to have:

Client -> Capita CL1 -> Agency -> Umbrella, all taking their cut and the end result is contractor needs 30%+ rate increase to stay on similar 'take home' after all that, and PS client having to cover that increase if they want to continue to attract the better talent away from the private sector.

All of the links in that chain will have payroll facilities for their own staff so why not just have the client do it all, or client/Capita for PS if that's what they want to do to centralise it?

The agency and umbrella seems to add no real value to the chain.


* Though their election manifest is full of massive borrowing to 'fix' things that could be less expensively fixed by cutting out all the inefficiency and troughing, something any government struggles to do almost as if they have a vested interest somehow.

[AtW]

Something needs to be done, though it will feel historically weird if it's Labour trying* to promote efficiency rather than the tories.

There is no Tory party anymore.

I don't know if May abolishes umbrellas, but I certainly would not be surprised - let's not forget about new NICs sneaked in under the guise of "auto-enrollment", this tulip works best if people are employees working directly for company: it's very important for "Tories" that this pension scam goes through as smoothly as possible.