IPSE have just suggested a "Contractor" Levy as the equivalent of Employers NI IPSE have just suggested a "Contractor" Levy as the equivalent of Employers NI - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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

  2. #12

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caffeine man View Post
    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"...
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  3. #13

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,398

    Default

    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..
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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

  5. #15

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofTarbera View Post
    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)..
    Last edited by eek; 20th October 2020 at 16:14.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  6. #16

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofTarbera View Post
    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.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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 ).

  8. #18

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    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
    Last edited by eek; 20th October 2020 at 17:58.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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.

  10. #20

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Warwickshire and Dublin
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    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.
    Former IPSE member
    Main website | News and blog | Magazine

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •