"no ID except a paper birth certificate which proves nothing. That's it. How do they prove who they are?"
This goes to the heart of the comment I made about Verify. Has there been any thought given to the meaning of "identity"?
40485 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
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.
Maybe it's time to investigate what the minimum number of people is to form a "company"*, set that up as a collective and proceed as before. From experience it also seriously cuts down on the costs of a better, collective liability insurance.
* Why the quotes. If it's registered at Companies House it's a company, if it isn't it isn't.
If you mean to be big enough to be outside the scope of IR35 ISTR that 20% holding of shares was the critical factor which implies a five person company but I'm not sure whether it was 20% or less or less than 20%. If some or all the shares were held by a spouse that would probably be considered a beneficial holding although there'd be scope for that being argued if the spouse were also providing billable time.
"they are all employing you, contract or not."
Not in this context. "Employ" has a specific meaning. It means that the person employed is an employee. Even if you start thinking in a more generic way such as "We employed a waterfall development approach" as soon as it's a person you're thinking about you're probably half way to coming to the narrow conclusion without even giving the matter due consideration. Worst of all, in any sort of tax investigation if you use the term in the loose sense to an inspector or a tribunal it'll be leapt on and taken literally.
To help you understand lets say ClientCo has 50 workers bodyshopped in by BigCo amd one worker bodyshopped in by LittleCo which he happens to own? Would you say the 50 are employed by ClientCo? Say the project was wound down and there's only one worker now bodyshopped inby BigCo; would you say they were employed by ClientCo? If BigCo's employee isn't employed by ClientCo why is LittleCo's employee?
"Broadly, IR35 reforms shift responsibility for determining tax status from the employee to the employer."
The entire basis of IR35 is determination of employment status. If you start by deciding that the client is an employer you've prejudged the whole thing.
Is it too much to ask that el Reg uses status-neutral terminology such as "engager"?
"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.
"Looking ahead, you'll get to worry about losing your physical hardware key rather than losing the secrecy protecting your passwords through a poorly secured server."
You'll also have to worry about the H/W key failing. You'll have to hope that the next computer, phone or whatever still has the slot that your key requires. It's not as if manufacturers would ever decide to eliminate connectors is it? And what happens when you're sitting on the end of a KVM switch with only a keyboard and mouse?
"Have you ever met service personnel?"
A few NCOs who were ex-IED displosal. Great guys.
Also been in a few situations where an armed escort was necessary.
OTOH my last week in forensic science started with 2 days flying over to Fort George to give evidence against a squaddie who'd broken into the NAAFI. They thought they were being considerate with the extra day but I could have done with that day in the office finishing off my writing up. It also reminded me that it's unwise to go drinking with Army sergeants, especially SIB.
"4% of turnover sounds quite expensive."
And not acting when you discover the problem is the sort of action that gets pushed into the top tier. It's also possible that they're not a big enough company to be 4%ers. The flat rate can be a lot more than 4% for small businesses if it ever gets applied.
"Well if you can be a ferry company without any ferries then why can't you be an AI company without AI?"
There's such a thing as leasing. I wonder how many ferry companies actually running ferry services are without ferries on this basis. Quite a few, I suspect. Ditto airlines without aircraft.
I wonder if this is a successful ploy by the ERG made credible by Grayling's involvement. No, of course we won't need extra ferry sailings and extra ports to handle them; it's all going swimmingly.
"For the people who designed the system, registering is easy"
They are born administrators who horde, classify and can instantly lay their hands on any piece of paper they need. Archaeologists classify people according to their material culture. These people are the Chitty People.
"So what are my options?"
Refuse to do business with most of them. You don't need to set up an account if you walk into a shop to buy something. Why should you need to set up an account to make a one-off or occasional purchase online? Just set up accounts when it makes sense.
"Now who did the vendor get my number from?"
Possibly from another vendor (not necessarily on ebay) to whom you gave your number in the past. DHL the match it up with your address.
Given that delivery drivers frequently have problems reading a house name written in 6" high letters beside the gate I find it useful that that happens.
I don't know where you're based but here in the UK the current DPA, which enforces as much of GDPR as HMG decides it can't avoid, is actually the third (unless I missed one along the way). It tightens things up and increases penalties but the principles of data protection have been in place in legislation since the 1980s. I assume thinks are much the same for the older members of the EU and also for the new members but possibly with a shorter time-frame.
People really shouldn't don't have to engage in spycraft to stay in touch with their family though.
Just use the phone to talk to the family instead of using it as a burner to install FB. Famlies kept in touch before Facebook existed and they'll still be able to do so after it disappears from the face of the Earth - which will happen as soon as people realise they don't really need it.
"Well, as Windows fans will be well aware, 5.0 is ... the moment at which Microsoft abandoned such numbering for its server products. There is thankfully no sign of Torvalds adopting a similar approach with Linux."
I should think not. In the Unix world we're made of sterner stuff. 5.0 is quite a modest version number.