Re: Remind me
"I use the term allegedly as no one mentioned in any article ever saw his body."
Either way, he's not going to be able to sue you.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
RAF Northolt had occasional flights to & from N Ireland for ministers and senior London based staff. They were ad hoc based on the travel requirements of those people but anyone else travelling between the two was supposed to use any spare seat if there was a flight due. It tended to have effects such as arriving military side, Aldergove, car still parked at Belfast City.
I rolled up for one of these journeys to discover that the VIP had cancelled but the plane still had to return to Northolt. Along with me were some engineers from Wang who had a contract for WP kit with NIO. NIO weren't going to pay airline fares to them when there was space on the VIP flight. When we got to Northolt there was a slight confusion as the VIP needed to justify the flight wasn't on it. In the end I, a humble SSO, being the only NIO person involved, had to sign some sort of receipt for the aircraft - or maybe just the flight. I can't remember but I think the official car to central London was still available - ISTR the Wang guys leaving separately.
"tthe manager who had sent me off in such a hurry had gone off on holiday"
Cause and effect.
"I'm going on holiday as from tonight so I'll spend the rest of the day without time to think properly making all the decisions I should have spent the last two weeks making and I'll screw them up." Seen it before. In fact it was the stress experienced from that at the hands of a client project manager that made me decide that once the current projects were done it was time to retire.
"What we need is for actual real consequences for companies who are shown to be negligent."
Yes. It's called regulation.
For a company so removed from any situation where they don't interact directly with the people whose data they are collecting there's no chance for market forces to operate on them. In that case the only consequences that can happen are legal sanctions. You don't have legal sanctions imposed out of thin air just because it becomes obvious that someone did something bad or was negligent in some way, at least not in a free society. It requires that they have breached some specific legal restriction.
It makes no sense to call for "real consequences" and then say we don't need more regulation. If there are currently no real consequences for breaches like this it's a clear indication that more regulation is needed.
Sadly the continued existence of Facebook and the like shows that that market forces don't seem to have much influence even when there is direct interaction.
"They likely do not have the facilities to audit the code."
Why should they need to? Car did X. How it did X is irrelevant. The only thing to decide is whether doing X is illegal. What's more, if the driver/minder was a Uber employee Uber should share responsibility for any actions or inactions on their part.
" If the system incorrectly performs emergency breaking then you're very likely to end up with a car in the back of you "
Only if the car behind is too close in which case that's the car behind or its driver's responsibility (depending on whether the car behind was also "autonomous").
We call out the police often enough for unlawful data retention etc. Let's give them credit for doing the right thing by being at least cautious here. It might be, of course, caution about the risk of what happens when there's a leak from the traditional misconfigured AWS backup of stuff they shouldn't even be holding.
"2) You can outsource the installation and management of the systems - but keep ownership of it, and avoid that sensitive citizens' data are stored by commercial entities"
You also have to hire people with the right skills to manage the outsourcers. The evidence is that those skills are lacking. They may well be the skills needed to make an informed choice between both your options.
Here's an alternative model.
Income tax is paid on what the engager pays.
Permanence of job and all benefits such as entitlement to holiday pay, sick pay etc. are treated as benefits in kind and subject to additional taxation.
The tax take of the benefits in kind allows the percentages of the various income tax bands to be substantially lowered.
The net outcome could be the same as now for freelancers and permies but the permie tax inspectors can then understand that they and the freelancer are paying the same tax on money received and the extra tax they, the tax inspectors pay is due to the things they get and the freelancer doesn't.
No, but you missed this (and so did I):
"Agency pays worker's PSC"
This is HMRC's obfuscation. PSC in HMRC-speak is Personal Service Company. It could, of course be short for Professional Services Company and it would always be better to spell it out fully in this way. Personal service is what HMRC are trying to establish so it's wise not to fall into their trap.
Adding it onto "worker's" further clouds the issue it's a company that's probably at least partly owned by the worker but there might be other shares involved. But why not call it the worker's employer? This captures the other side of the arrangement, the one HMRC doesn't like. It's the company that's actually responsible for paying the worker's salary, including sick pay and everything else.
"If I charge the client £30k in VAT, and they claim that back from HMRC"
You do realise, don't you, that your company can reclaim VAT on any business expenditure?
And, in line with my comment to Lee, get your terminology right. You don't charge the client anything, Your company does. Distinguish between yourself and your company. HMRC tries its hardest to confuse that issue because the entirety of IR35 is based on such confusion. Don't fall into their trap.
Correct but also irrelevant. That's why I wrote "shares". This is for IR35 purposes which, in the context, is what the OP was asking about. If you own too great a proportion of the shares in the contracting company HMRC will attempt to deem you an employee of the client.
"contractors are forced to take everything as 'pay' and not allowed to put aside money in their companies for sick leave, holidays, etc."
Unless things have changed from my day the weasel word "deemed" was used. They're deemed to take everything as pay for purposes of taxation but they can leave however much of the post-tax in the company as they want to pay sick leave etc. Yup, that makes perfect sense if you're a weasel.
"Not sure you're getting the concept of risk."
I read that post as explaining - correctly - how the freelancing company manages the risk. The well managed freelancing company deals with the risk not by sharing it nor by insuring it (as you point out, that's not possible for the typical single consultant company) but by putting money aside to continue paying its employee when there are no billable hours, either by being sick, on holiday or being on the bench.
Right from the start or IR 35 this has been misunderstood. Primarolo described it as "treating their companies as money boxes". Well, a moneybox is where money's saved against a rainy day. It's the means by which the company stays solvent. It is good management.
In fact, I'd suggest it's a good test of whether the company is being run as a genuine company; if it's being managed prudently in this way it's the genuine article, if it's a direct conduit through which the money travels from client to worker scarcely touching the sides then IR35 might be appropriate.
There's also a corollary. If we add an expectation that the worker will be paid NMW or living wage and build up reserves then the rate must be some margin above that. If the client pays less than that then they have an employee. Not a deemed employee catching the rough from both sides. A genuine on the books employee, benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay, redundancy the lot paid by the client, PAYE handled by the client, employer's NI paid by the client.
From the engager's point of view they then can't get away with shoving off the provision of benefits and pay rock-bottom rates: either they have a company providing services at a reasonable rate or thay have an employee. In fact it was dealing with the sort of abuses that we see so much of now that was a paper-thin excuse for IR35.
"Frankly I can't imagine why anyone would try to organise an international event in the USA nowadays."
Given the previous reports of problems getting travel to such events (maybe even to this one) in previous years I'm surprised they even chose the US this year.
"From the outside, it could look identical to a Yale-type lock"
Except for the need for an electrical supply. Even if it has no wires and no batteries the solar panel might be a clue.
The real problem with what's commonly meant by "Yale-type" locks* is a lock that takes a key on the outside and has a simple knob on the inside. It holds the door closed but if there's a glass panel near the lock, either in the door or beside it don't regard the door as locked. Just because a door looks locked it doesn't mean it is.
In the present context consider the screen saver. If the login requires 2FA because password isn't enough have you remembered to require 2FA to unlock the screen-saver? And have you then required the H/W device to be removed after login to prevent it being left in place when the screen-saver is in operation?
* Yale also make multi-lever deadlocks.