more crackdowns on contractors expected

Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2002
Posts
7,646
Location
Manchester City Centre
My contributions are still there as i said earlier, they are just small as im one of the ones who happily works 60 hours a week and commutes miles and miles. Which in turn gets me 45p a mile (up to 10,000 a year) , 15 pounds per day (12 hour rate) food allowance, any expenses for work related tooling equipment, ppe etc i need, my phone bills paid for as there for work only, plus my overalls washing at the set rate per week.
If you have effectively a permanent place of work then you shouldn't be claiming mileage to it, a long commute is different from working away from your permanent place of work.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2002
Posts
4,365
Location
Kent
Not sure if this is worth a new thread but:

I have a UTR (universal tax reference) number, I've filled in Tax Returns before. Have not worked as a Labourer recently so stopped filling them in. I was getting short term contracts through an agency.

My question is twofold:
How does the change in the OP effect me, and could I be a contractor and work for a company direct with just a UTR number and not have to "spoof" my own company?
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2005
Posts
4,955
Location
Widnes
Not sure if this is worth a new thread but:

I have a UTR (universal tax reference) number, I've filled in Tax Returns before. Have not worked as a Labourer recently so stopped filling them in. I was getting short term contracts through an agency.

My question is twofold:
How does the change in the OP effect me, and could I be a contractor and work for a company direct with just a UTR number and not have to "spoof" my own company?

Were your previously employed by the agency with a payslip etc? There's different rules for construction workers. Using a limited company is dependant on how much you earn (generally not worth it for less than £40k a year) and if your place of work requires it.
 

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

Just a leach on the public purse?

Well, I am eyeing up becoming an MP one day, so I thought I'd get some practice in.

Tax avoidance isn't illegal no matter what the media might tell you.

Tax evasion is illegal.

Quite.

But the government are taking steps to reclassify some avoidance as evasion, so what counts as avoidance today, might be evasion tomorrow, especially with the strengthening of the "tax avoidance becomes tax evasion when you knowingly take steps to deprive the treasury of tax receipts" clause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 66701

D

Deleted member 66701

What the hell, so I would be breaking the law if I increase my pension payments to reduce my tax liability?

Bit draconian!

Effectively yes, but there will be explicit exemptions listed, which pension contirbutions will be included under.

It's to kill the "well, no one said it was illegal" argument and frame it as "well, we didn't say specifically that it was legal".

HMRC wont have to define all the illegal precticies, just the legal ones, and everything else automatically becomes illegal. Much simpler for them.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2002
Posts
7,646
Location
Manchester City Centre
Tax avoidance isn't illegal no matter what the media might tell you.

Tax evasion is illegal.
Ah, what a twit, I even checked I had them the right way around in my head and then typed the wrong one!

This is common practise in Banks.. you're just bitter because you can't do it.
Yes, because common practice and banks could never be illegal...

I'm not bitter, and I clearly could do it if it's common practice. It does sound like it's very close to being illegal though.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
24,069
Location
Lorville - Hurston
i have about 10 contractors in my team, 10 permies and 7 "outsourced". The contractors (I'm the manager) are harder work and more "unionised" than the permies. They are more expensive at the bottom line but the charge rate for an FTE is the same regardless. In simple terms in the bad times they are the first to go regardless of skill (and if there is no permie to do the job instead as the manager I'm in trouble). If they all went perm instead all the lesser performers would go first.

It's a pain in the harris for both parties to have to renegotiate every 6 months.

My life would be easier if it was abolished, although that is at the moment when I am trying to plan 1-3 years ahead. If it was just 6 months they would be really useful.

I do get why they do it though - 80k vs 650 a day and all that. Supply and demand.

On the bigger picture, with the (correct IMHO) approach to cutting down tax "efficiencies" they should not be surprised. Permies & employers pay more tax for the same job, contractors know that and it's thier choice.

EOF

Actually contractors pay more tax via corporation tax.Also have no benefits such as sick pay etc and as u clearly mentioned, are easy to get rid of.

Also contractors get lots of downtime and so the amount they earn offsets a bit compared to a perm
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
24,069
Location
Lorville - Hurston
Ah, a manager who expects his workers to work extra for nothing, what a surprise..

Good for them to be honest, the permies should follow suit.

yea i was about to say this too.

to expect perms to work beyond there working hours is ridiculous and taking the ****.

As a manager you should be more organised with your projects or pay the money for perms to work after hours
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
24,069
Location
Lorville - Hurston
Definitely in favour of clamping down contractors that work as employees. Not bitter at all, I contracted for 5-6 years and did very nicely out of it....but I've known people doing it at the same 'client' for 2-3 years, it's a joke.

The issue isn't companies being able to hire contract staff...it's single-client, single-employee LTD companies masquerading as 'businesses' when in reality they are just a tax-avoidance vehicle.

Then make it a rule stating how contractors cant work on same client for more then 2 years then instead of just saying no to no contractors after 1 month
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
24,069
Location
Lorville - Hurston
dont think this has bene mentioned:

" A contractor who uses an agency to find work with a range of IT firms for short periods will still be able to classify themselves as a personal service company. But a middle-manager brought in to do maternity leave cover at a firm will in future have to go on the firm’s payroll. The new rules will apply to both private firms and the public sector, where there have been numerous examples of senior staff paid ‘off the books’ in recent years"

That in itself implies that if you apply using an agent, nothing changes?
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Apr 2008
Posts
24,069
Location
Lorville - Hurston
The onus should be on the employer to offer the contractor a full time job.

Yes and they should do after 2 years.

As someone here have stated, what if they just want to work on a 6/12 month project to see how it fairs before dedicated a perm team to take over and enchance it?

Thats the point of a contractor, to bring someone in temporarily to do a job while a permy is there for life so to speak
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
dont think this has bene mentioned:



That in itself implies that if you apply using an agent, nothing changes?

no, if you work for short periods at different places then you can carry on as a contractor

if you're staying at the same place for a prolonged period then you should be an employee
 
Back
Top Bottom