Reply to post:

I agree with the first guy, and don't bring the Daily Mail into it. Everyone should pay their taxes, including wealthy IT contractors. I used to be one and I paid myself a proper salary. Yes, I earned less, but it was the correct and legal thing to do.

There is a place for contractors, and it shouldn't be to employ people full-time without giving them the benefits a normal employee is entitled to. Contractors should earn inflated wages, out of which they should pay corporation tax as well as tax on salaries for any employees (usually just the one). The inflated wages reflect the short-term nature of such engagements: if employers were to go to consultancies or professional services organisations they would pay loads more for the same work. Contractors need to account for time spent not working or having to travel to jobs etc. Prices should reflect this.

The issue here is employers who are using the system to take/keep people off the payroll. A lot of contractors are, frankly, shit, and have narrow/basic skillsets. The good ones suffer because of this, because rates are low as a result, and they're getting worse. I don't find it appealing at all any more, given I can earn more overall as a full-time worker.

I'd rather have a situation where skilled people can set themselves up as a business, deliver value for money at a rate which doesn't cheat the revenue (and hence all of us) and earns them a decent amount of money that makes that rate viable.

As a user of contractors I'd be happy to pay good money for someone who can come in, get up to speed quickly, deliver the service efficiently and effectively, and get out. I'd rather not have to go through several people with inflated CVs to discover that they're shite and time-wasters.

Downvote away if you want. I think the system's broken and needs to properly reflect the role of the contractor rather than putting them into a dodgy tax situation for the benefit of an employer who doesn't want to do his bit.