Re: 24E6 eggs in a flimsy basket
1546 posts • joined 28 Mar 2014
"Or, you got into the whole mining shebang early and it's "new" pre-tax income/currency from nothing, so if you pull it all out at once, you get hit at the entire income tax liability all at once."
At what point do you become liable for the tax on this? When you mine the crypto currency you have "earned" it so I'd assume tax would be due there and then.
Are you saying that you dont have to declare it for tax until its taken from your Crypto wallet and paid into your personal wallet?
"I may have missed it, but there are a lot of people who depend on hackintosh or virtualization out there"
Apple don't care if you depend on hackintosh - running osx on non apple hardware is against the TOS, they don't make money from it so if apple really don't care if hackintoshes stop working.
As for virtualisation, that's more of a grey area BUT I doubt that apple are going to be too worried about it given that it seems like most of the cases you give there would be a violation of the TOS for OSX.
The agreement basically says that you can only virtualise OSX on *apple hardware* already running OSX.
You cannot use the virtual machines for commercial purposes other than as part of the software development process (You might be able to argue the compiler farm case on this one, but I think even that might be shaky).
"What happens to all the developers at Microsoft carrying around Macs?"
They will probably carry on as normal, I expect there will be a Apple Silicon build target added to the .net core compiler in due course and I'm sure the dev tools will also be updated before apple release the hardware (Probably not visual studio, but I've already seen VS code on arm so that should be fairly straight forward).
"But why not just virtualise, if you need to run Windows on a Mac? Yes, you need the memory, but modern Macs have enough of that to host a Win10 session if required."
Direct access to the hardware might be an issue there (Though I cant see it being a massive issue for most). But for example some plug in hardware doesn't have mac support, works in bootcamp but not parallels.
The only example that springs to mind is a fairly high end PCIe Sound card* (I forget the make), which works find in windows via bootcamp but isn't passed through to parallels because the mac hasn't a clue what it is.
I expect the number of people worldwide that will be affected by this and similar issues will be insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
*So more applicable to desktop offerings than laptop.
Yes, but if windows is managing it you don't need to go in there and set a default at all.
You just select the printer you ant to print from when you're printing and windows remembers that choice for future.
So really, 4 clicks has become 1 additional one within the print dialog.
Unless you want to manually change the default and not have windows manage it which you absolutely can do, but it's probably not the case for most users.
I was happy when my teenage son wanted to watch.... 6 hours watching on Saturday and then we were up at 7.15 to catch them waking up (we misheard what time it would be at so ended up two hours early) watched all day Sunday just to see them float through that hatch.
Only turned off when Ted Cruz popped up to give his speech.
"Out of curiosity, did the target organisation not provide an API? Seems odd (to me) that if they were expecting this level of user input, that they'd provide an API instead."
That's the beauty of the sector my client works in.. the systems they needed to interface with are basically monopolies (Regional utility companies).
They created the software years ago (In one case I was using RPA to work with a site that claimed to require IE5.5).
These companies don't make profit from this software, they have to provide it for regulatory reasons but that doesn't mean they need to provide an API and that would cost them money, so the majority just don't provide anything other than a half arsed web page.
"Or if they did provide an API, why ever use RPA in the first place?"
Quite, The system that we created was capable or interacting with APIs where available, but out of the 20+ utility companies that we were interacting with, only one had an API and even then it was in beta and not suitable for actual usage.
So, yeah if there was a competitor available with an API that would be great, the reality is there are no competitors that we could have used, still cant complain, Its quite a niche area and it pays quite well when the work comes around :)
I was working on an RPA project a few years ago where the target of the automation got wind of what we were doing and said that it was against their TOS.
We pointed out to them that our options were RPA with about 25 concurrent sessions hitting their service 24 hours a day or we were going to have to supplement the team we manually had doing the task manually (85 people at the time) with a few hundred off shore workers which would mean 300+ concurrent sessions.
A balance was met where we implemented RPA but with some small delays build into the process to make it more manageable from their side, but still faster and cheaper for my client than hiring a bunch of humans to do the job.
The headline holds true - speak to IT before implementing anything!
"I'm not sure if the 25 to 1 ratio is correct but it feels like it and it seems to me that other European countries use a much lower ratio."
I was looking at business broadband around 10 years ago and BT told me that the main thing I would be paying for would be to be on a contention ratio of 20:1 on business as opposed to 50:1 on the domestic product.
That may have changed over the years.
I got a letter offering me more compensation* shortly before I was offered the survey.
Now, it's almost likley pure coincidence but the timing was definitely suspicious.
* They have paid out about 500 in compensation now as I had issues for 7 weeks and still encounter minor issues every now and then. I'd change banks but I have no confidence that the same wouldn't just happen at another bank - they're all as shit as each other.
I guess I could have summed that up more succinctly with what I've been saying to recruiters..
Outside IR35 I'm willing to commute anywhere in the UK.
Inside I need to be within 45 minutes of home (in traffic)*
In the long term it's bad for clients.
* What actually ended up happening was a double whammy where I got a role outside IR35 15 minutes from home..
"Current Umbrella rules mean that I can no longer claim back those expenses. Ergo, I won't be working in Bristol for much longer."
Exactly why I've just ditched a client (perks of being a contractor) and found a new one closer to home.
I'm not saying I was doing them a favor exactly but they were chronically short of staff and paid well so me spending 15-20 hours a week commuting was beneficial to both of us. From April I'd be paying 6k a year on travel expenses out of my own pocket instead of my LTD... Just not going to fly I'm afraid. They are now down one contractor and the other 30-40 will be leaving in the next 6 weeks.
"Salary is not a net number. It has to cover income tax and NI, and what you keep is substantially less than that headline figure.
Just like a contractor, except they start from a substantially higher number."
Close.... The number the contractor starts on seems higher because your salary *even the gross* doesn't include all of the cost of your employment that is covered by your employer... Your pension matching, your sick pay, your holiday pay. The per head amount that is needed for HR and people management every year... Your travel expenses, your training costs...
All of these things and more your employer pays *not from your gross* but on top of it - they don't have any of that for a contractor.
"We could both do the job equally well, the only difference was that I was a wage slave while he was a contractor."
Sounds terrible, in what way was this nasty contractor forcing you to be a permie?
Seriously, complaining that you get shitty conditions so everyone else should have the same is ridiculous... Speak to your employer and ask for changes, if you're good enough they will comply (to an extent) to retain you.. but then again... There's probably a reason you didn't do this.
"For all those who are critical of the rates that some contractors are on please remember that it’s a club you are welcome to join"
Those people also need to remember that it's not just IT contractors affected by this.
Tradesmen working on site for a larger company
All also affected - I'm sure there are more.
As weird as it sounds... Yes.
If you had responded to say that you stopped because you were struggling financially because of it, or that you were becoming addicted (Or one of a number of other indicators) - you would be at least blacklisted from their service, have your account closed and given information about help providers.
We are not as yet required to add you to the GAMSTOP database blackisting you elsewhere (not in the instance you described anyway) - but you could refer yourself if you thought you were developing a problem. After that it would be very difficult to gamble anywhere in the UK which does proper identity verification.
"Kinda like saying the rain caused your roof to leak"
Actually what they were doing was credential stuffing*
So in your analogy this would me more akin to complaining that someone is hosing your house with a high pressure hose looking to see if they can cause a leak... Or more accurately standing at your front door with 20k keys trying each one until they gain access...
* Using credentials exposed elsewhere online to attempt to log into other sites.
"As SmugMug's grovelling email shows, enough people were pissed off about this to vote with their feet and bid SmugFlickrMug a cherry two-fingered farewell"
Presumably these people who didnt want to pay $50 a year had free accounts.. them leaving is no loss to the company, in fact... its probably beneficial to flikr that these people leave and take their media with them - reduced bandwidth and storage costs translate to lower losses so the company gets what they want either way.
I think you've inadvertently stumbled upon the whole reason contractors have an issue with IR35.
No it doesn't stop companies hiring us, or even put any more restrictions on them doing so, what it means is we (contractors) will be taxed more but won't be eligible for any normal employment benefits.
Basically we get all.of the downsides of contracting with fewer of the upsides and we get to pay more tax in the process.
Many people like contracting, I decided to do it 5 years ago because I like the flexibility, the extra money is Handy too, but it was mainly flexibility, I have two kids and don't want to beg a boss for time off when it's needed if we fancy a day out or they're ill.
"Not only will they get less in tax on the lower salary, don't forget they'll get NOTHING back in VAT."
Yep, I was looking at my first IR35 role yesterday - something better came up so it's not happening now but the income tax (&NI) increase for me was around 700 a month (8400 per year) this is less than I pay in Corp tax... And when I pay Corp tax I generally have some income tax and NI to pay as well.
"I think most normal employees are sick to the teeth of grossly expensive (usually twice the cost as an employee per day worked) contractors doing the same job as them"
Well, I hate to break it to you, but IR35 doesn't change how "expensive" we are to your employer.
Also if you think contractors are not providing a service of value why do you think your employer has them? Is your company normally happy with needlessly spending money or do the owners quite like making a profit? Because I suspect it's the latter... Which means that someone somewhere in your company has done the maths and seen that there is a cost benefit to having contractors.
Still, if you're still sick to the back teeth of it and think that contracting is all sunshine and unicorns drop me message and I'll be happy to help you get set up with a LTD company, accountant and insurance so that you too can join the dark side... Surely if it's so much more lucrative and risk free you'd be stupid not to?
"Why not just fix the client not to show the flashing images if the user so chooses?"
You didn't read all the way to the end did you?
Not everyone who is sensitive to strobing effects is aware of the fact until they have a seizure... Which (one assumes) is a little late for toggling gifs off in the browser.
"that's the company the individual own's and likely takes minimum wages from + dividends."
That's what I thought you meant, and this is why you're wrong :
We are talking about IR35. When a contractor is inside IR35 the company that they own is removed from the equation meaning that it has no income with which to give them the sick pay or holiday pay that you are suggesting they can pay themselves.
Inside IR35 the contractor is no longer an employee of *their own* company , they are an employee of the company that pays them (ie the client - the company that the end product belongs to) except they do not get holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions, maternity/paternity pay. Yet they pay exactly the same % Tax and NI as people who do (Actually with their slightly higher day rates they pay *more* £ than the employees who get these benefits.
 Well they are unless they decide to close the company down but as the company has zero income they are unlikely to pay themselves a wage.
"This decision means that GSK will not extend the contracts of any workers who operate through their own personal services company "
Thats fine - I do it through a Limited company.
Seeing as a "Personal Service Company" isnt a real legal entity - its just a term HMRC made up to mean "Small limited company that we want to tax more" I dont see the issue ;)
"What major disruption? You may not like it, but if you're a fake contractor you'll have to stop the pretense and pay the tax due. How does that disrupt anything?"
What if you're a real contractor but your client isn't willing to accept liability so decide to put you inside even though you have done all of your due diligence and had your contract & working practices reviewed by a recognised institution in this area and been deemed outside? What if the client just doesn't want to take the time to understand the legislation and takes the easy route?
 Please don't take that as me accepting your term "Fake contractor" - for the purpose of the argument I'm lowering myself to your lever because I doubt you would understand anything else.
 Bearing in mind that the legislation isn't finalised yet and the guidance for companies isn't due out until march (a few weeks before implementation)
For fuck sake, how can you be a "real contractor" and still not know that length of contract and number of clients has nothing to do with IR35
You could have 2 clients simultaneously for a week and depending on how you work for them.be inside with one and outside with the other.
"It is currently used to describe the type of company where there is one director, the services are provided by the director, and the shares are all owned by the director."
Untrue - if this was the case then I could get round IR35 by simply having my partner set up the company, own all of the shares (and collect the associated dividends) whilst paying me minimum wage for my services.
And this highlights the problem - Like I said, its not a real thing, there is no legal definition of what makes a PSC so it can be all things to all men - to you a PSC is as you described it, to HMRC it could be something else.. more worryingly - on different days to different people within HMRC it could mean something else.
Which brings us back to the argument that was made a few years ago - we are forced for reasons of liability to use a limited company - why not just have a new legal entity with the liability benefits of a limited but with a tax policy more closley aligned to that of a sole trader (ie - you get taxed as normal PAYE rates on all income but are able to make deductions for expenses such as pensions, travel, hotels etc.
My plumber* isnt considered a PSC - hes the only employee of his ltd company and the only shareholder and he doesnt really sell any goods - only services - why should it only apply to IT staff?
To recap - PSC is a meaningless term - until there is a proper definition we should not use it - just say contractor - we all know what that means.
* Substitute any number of your own jobs here.
Not quite as we would still be able to claim expenses, pay into pensions, decide our own working times/days etc under that regime. where as inside IR35 as it stands now theres no expenses so the 6k a year I spend commuting becomes a ridiculous prospect under IR35 but a bit more bearable if it was just a hike in tax rates.
That said, under the conservatives at least there will still be some outside IR35 roles knocking about...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020