IPSE have just suggested a "Contractor" Levy as the equivalent of Employers NI

[caffeine man]

He literally couldn't make his mind up (just go to I think 1 minute later). Either way it would be 13.4% straight off the headline budget figure which would previously have been going to the contractor.

If they mean keeping LTD, and just paying this, I would prefer this to IR35 because"
*It won't scare the client away from using contractors, or upset the relationship
*You can still use schedule D or E expenses
*no PAYE, so you can still keep money in a company or pay in dividends as needed.
*It provides certainty, no nasty surprises in the future

[eek]

If they mean keeping LTD, and just paying this, I would prefer this to IR35 because"
*It won't scare the client away from using contractors, or upset the relationship
*You can still use schedule D or E expenses
*no PAYE, so you can still keep money in a company or pay in dividends as needed.
*It provides certainty, no nasty surprises in the future

Listen to the discussion - this wasn't a quid pro quo in exchange for binning IR35 this was just "here's a means of raising additional revenue"...

[eek]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

[GhostofTarbera]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[eek]

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

I think it was the original TCS one. I pointed out the IPSE issue we are discussing here, Dave said he agreed with the principle so I simply pointed out the consequences (and remember that this isn't in the context of a meeting about IR35 its a meeting about raising additional tax post Covid)..

[eek]

Was it this classic you were replying to Dave on


“BREAKING: Mel Stride just said at a TSC meeting that "We are all agreed that this [IR35] is best abolished as soon as possible."”


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Also Dave is going to love it when he discovers I've trademarked a phrase that explains what an agency pays an umbrella in such a way that the Smurf rates he hates and Agencies love to use can be legally advertised without risk or drawbacks for agencies.

[jamesbrown]

He literally couldn't make his mind up (just go to I think 1 minute later). Either way it would be 13.4% straight off the headline budget figure which would previously have been going to the contractor.

TBF, having listened to this, I think he was perfectly clear that this would be a tax on an engager, but admitted that it might get passed down (of course, it would). So he wasn't advocating for any new tax to be levied directly on contractors and, throughout the session, he was advocating for maintaining or lowering taxes on the self-employed, including small companies (e.g., differential CT rates again if they increase CT).

Overall, I didn't hear anything new there and there was no particular blunder, afaict (although I admit to only having listened to half the session, because it was the same old arguments ).

[eek]

TBF, having listened to this, I think he was perfectly clear that this would be a tax on an engager, but admitted that it might get passed down (of course, it would). So he wasn't advocating for any new tax to be levied directly on contractors and, throughout the session, he was advocating for maintaining or lowering taxes on the self-employed, including small companies (e.g., differential CT rates again if they increase CT).

Overall, I didn't hear anything new there and there was no particular blunder, afaict (although I admit to only having listened to half the session, because it was the same old arguments ).

Even if it doesn't get passed down and was paid by the engager (hard to see how that works in reality) it would still just be a cut in the budget available to the contractor while making a consultancy or outsourcing abroad seem more affordable.

My main concern is that they really don't think through the consequences of what they are suggesting

[jamesbrown]

Even if it doesn't get passed down and was paid by the engager (hard to see how that works in reality) it would still just be a cut in the budget available to the contractor while making a consultancy or outsourcing abroad more affordable.

My main concern is that they really don't think through the consequences of what they are suggesting

Sure, it would get passed down, whether directly or indirectly, absolutely no about about that.

However, I think this was only squeezed out of him after several attempts to declare a tax that should be increased, which he didn't do. This was in the context of where the differential arises (i.e., mainly ErNI), which is true, and hence what should be eliminated, if you were going to eliminate a differential. Anyway, the whole session was pretty worthless from my pov. Absolutely nothing new and, while I don't think he did particularly badly, I stopped listening to any ideas from IPSE after the whole FLC debacle.

[courtg9000]

And it seems that Dave Chaplin didn't like the accusation that he sold the contractor industry down the river as he's blocked me on LinkedIn.

Now that's going to be interesting as I clean up the umbrella industry..

We must have a natter about this.