New Electrical Regs - Again

[Fishter]

Cheers Owain and tim.

[Dave Plowman]

They are in my industry, forcing employers to deduct tax and NI from certain grades near regardless, which of course they'd rather not do because of the paperwork.

Well, many 'little' men will only work on a cash basis.

The whole thing is unfair and a nightmare, but what else do you expect from politicians?

[Dave Plowman]

In my industry, the IR has guidelines as to who may be considered as self employed. Having multiple 'employers' is just one of them. Others revolve around being your own 'boss' like risking money, supplying equipment, making your own hours, employing others, etc etc. I'd say you could bring a test case to see which of these should apply in IT, as we did in broadcasting. And won, FWIW.

If you're in a staff position, you'd be on PAYE, so IR35 wouldn't apply.

Because it suits the employer not to, of course. But plenty in my industry who *are* on the equivalent of IR35 do get sick and holiday pay. Of course, if you're above the national minimum wage a bit of creative accounting can easily make it part of the hourly rate or fee anyway...

IMHO, it all stems from the Thatcher paranoia of getting rid of 'jobs for life' thus 'improving' efficiency and profits in industry. Make people compete for work at every turn - even in the lowliest of jobs. But didn't realise the implications of this on tax or NI income. So the idea is to make what *are* self employed people with no job security or the normal 'perks' of permanent employment like sickness, holiday pay, pension, etc still pay as much to the IR. And also stop them claiming unemployment benefit when they're between jobs. When 'freelance' working was unusual, it didn't matter that much that they paid much less tax overall. But when you make vast numbers freelance

- against their wishes too - the old rules cost the government too much in lost income.

I'd make a start by having IR35 etc apply to MPs.

[usenet]

These same things apply in IT but they're rather "greyer" in the legal sense. The other problem is that precedent doesn't apply at the level where the cases are brought (I don't think) so there could be very many cases. So far in the cases handled by the two contractor organisations (PCG and Shout99) nearly all cases have been won against the IR. It's the huge waste of time and money that is the problem, I can't believe that the IR are actually making any more tax revenue out of this.

Hey, now that's a neat idea!

[Dave Plowman]

But the whole purpose of the IR is simply to exist. Being profitable or efficient simply isn't in their rule book. They must be the most inefficient government body by far - and then some. And that's saying something.

[IMM]

When I have visited other countries and had guns pushed in my ribs my police and border guards, and then land in the UK and see police without guns, I then realise that what we pay is worth it, as the alternative is not worth considering.

[Huge]

Good point. Best one in the whole debate, in fact.

[Andy Hall]

I take your point, although there are not as many police without guns as there used to be, especially at ports and airports.

That aspect is very positive, I agree, but my basic premise is that the individual should have the freedom to do whatever he likes (especially in his own space) *provided* that it does not interfere with the equal right of others to enjoy the same.

It doesn't need very much intervention from the state to achieve that, and there is a point where intervention becomes intervention for its own sake. I think that we are over that line.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Serves you right for telling them you were coming.

"Zat Heenternational Mayne of Meestery; we keeked heem out! We don' wan' none of hees steenkin' combee boilers 'ere!"

But you didn't see the itchy trigger fingers.

[Peter Saxton]

Why is it strange? Should employers start providing all manner of benefiits which are not taxable? It would get ridiculous.

--=20 Peter Saxton from London [e-mail]

[Peter Saxton]

Now you are just making it up.

--=20 Peter Saxton from London [e-mail]

[tim]

But they did. That's why the BIK rules are as they are, because employers keep on TTP and loopholes had to be closed.

tim

-- Peter Saxton from London [e-mail]

[derek]

Like I said, it is strange (by definition) 'cos it is not income.

Another strange aspect of it is that it's not taxed on the what it has cost the employer to provide it. It's taxed on the notional savings the employee has made by not having to provide a car himself.

I do £22k business miles per year, working from home, 3 other cars in the household. The IR reckon those business miles cost about £7k/yr. I believe it would be fair for me to pay tax on the actual cost of my proportion of the cars use (using IR rates). I'm only home at weekends and the car's full of kit so I use my wife's car, private use of the firms car is minimal but say 1.5k miles/year, IE I pay tax on £7,300 *

1.5/23.5 =£465 But the revenue wanted me to pay tax and NI on £4,400. Note the past tense BTW :-) Not to mention the scale charge for VAT on private fuel which is not mitigated for low private mileages.

That's strange.

DG

[derek]

Oddly enough when car benefit rules first got tightened up and income tax started being charged on the IR's perception of the value of the benefit rather than what it had cost to provide it, the issue of cheap mortgages to Bank/Building Soc employees was raised, since at that time these did not attract income tax. The revenue said they could not prove it had cost the employer anything to provide the cheap loan so they weren't taxed. In the days of 15% interest rates a senior bank employee was getting a tax free benefit worth a significant proportion of his salary

(This IR policy may/may not be the case nowadays).

Contrast that with their position on company cars.

DG

[derek]

Yes I understand that. I work with lab gases at work but am not a CORGI.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Ever used a piece of old gas pipe on a potable water supply?

DG

[Ronald Raygun]

So how is "a neighbour doing DIY gas work" "controlled under the CORGI scheme"?

That's a pretty amazingly unusual thing to be doing, but not impossible, I'll grant.

What would happen? How old? Lead? Are you on about lead poisoning, i.e. the reason lead is now frowned on for water pipes, or are you hinting at something nastier, like poisons in the gas becoming absorbed in the gas pipe material and subsequently leaching out when it is recycled as a water pipe? Would that have to be lead too or does copper also act like a sponge for those poisons?

[PoP]

Not forgetting of course that ministers have their own allocated car and driver on call at all times - without one penny being due in BIK.

I think shortly after Bliar came to power in 97 some bright spark came up with the idea that ministers could save some money if they used pool cars (and drivers) instead. Naturally that never saw the light of day.

PoP

[Dave Plowman]

I can assure you I'm not.

It's easy enough to see where it comes from - some little nerd of an IR clerk thinking it's preferable to have a night at an hotel than at home.

[derek]

I think somebody else said that.

I had a stock of stripped out, used 15mm and 22 mm pipe at the back of the garage. Which over the years I had been re-using indiscriminately. Plumbing used to be my hobby. :-)

One day we had a plumber in and he said I never re-use copper pipe, no matter how long it's not been used 'cos there's chemicals in gas that adsorb onto the surface of the pipe and taint drinking water indefinitely.

Not lead, just the stuff in gas.

DG

[Peter Saxton]

Exacty. That's why I am being critical of derek wanting to change back to the old ways.

--=20 Peter Saxton from London [e-mail]