ccc

It's scandalous. I do wonder why the council hasn't done anything about this when they are constantly going on about housing pressure in the city..... Corrupt as. They are all in neck deep. I want them all to lose everything. Utter scum imo. May sound harsh but we are talking about council officials here choosing to destroy people's lives and futures just to make a fast buck.

😄 Were you meant to be on at the festival this year ? Finger in the air about 80% of potential house buyers in Edinburgh have had their income / earnings / future hopes smashed. The housing market will be brutal. 20-30% easily. It's already happened.

Brilliant. Where do I get the huge amounts of tax back from then that I've paid for over the last ten years !? I didn't realise I didn't have to pay tax. Thanks for the insight. 😁

These numbers are for one of the UK's largest banks transformation team. Including all change type / IT etc staff. In engineering it may be different. I doubt it though. If contractors are not "shown the door" then that's up to the management team and not the contractors or the permanent staff. I don't see why folk would get themselves annoyed by this. As for the numbers - again I don't think you quite get it. Statistically irrelevant ? HR. Well let's say they are on £40k for argument's sake. Times three of them. That's £120k. Across a team of 110 people that's over £1000 per head per year they cost. And the majority of that will be on non contractor matters. And that's not to mention the HR teams pension contributions, the cost of keeping that running etc etc. And that's just one thing I used as an example. It's all these "Statistically irrelevant" numbers that all add together up to a rather large number. And why permanent employees generally have zero clue of just how expensive they actually are. Anyway my general point is contractors don't cost a company much more in real terms than permanent staff do. If you don't believe me that's fine I'm not really bothered. It's the truth. As for blabbing their mouth off ? Well shock horror you get contractors who are twats and surprise surprise the same for permanent staff. It's of no relevance to the underlying numbers. As for this bit here below ? I'm very confused. Big companies would love it if real costs for contractors were lower than for perm. Complete flexibility and cheaper. It's their dream. At present they get the complete flexibility for a relatively small premium. Hence why they do it. Otherwise they wouldnt would they..... "Contractors must be more expensive than permanent staff (in terms of headline wage cost) or their would be no justification for choosing contractors in the first place"

I don't think you are quite getting this. It's nothing to do with a salary. It's what you cost a company: Salary + everything else. A permanent employees "everything else" is huge compared to a contractor. Hence when you add it all together - and as I've said these numbers are from exactly that process - the difference is quite small. I will give one example - that big extremely expensive HR department where you work ? Their workload is probably 95% perm related to 5% contractor related. So you split those costs accordingly and the average perm cost per day shoots up a little. Add together all the similar extra costs and this is why the cost per day is actually fairly close. Your triple income per year Vs perm is also quite unusual imo. I would reckon double is more the norm. And that's not including the perm package either. In my experience anyway. Anyway these numbers aren't mine. I'm just passing them on. They are 100% verified and factual. This is what most permanent staff just don't get. They sit there and complain - why do they bring in so many contractors when they cost so ******ing much more than we do !! The answer is - they don't.

Personally I think any company making a blanket change with zero individual "tests" will actually - in terms of court cases if it ever got that far - support a contractor in this situation rather than the opposite.

Well that's up to his end client if they want to offer that. He should be congratulated for getting such an amazing good deal. Why do they do this ? Is he some Uber in demand bod with skills that are very difficult to get ? If so understood - if not - well done that bloke. 😁

I am not talking about what's fair to compare. I'm talking about what a perm or a contractor costs a company. The simple bottom line. And it's a small difference. So many people just don't realise this. I think you do. Profits for these overseas companies and huge bonuses for their senior staff. I suppose with on shore staff you can at least see they exist. You must have heard the numerous stories of people going over to newly created Indian call centres to check on details - and finding out half the folk being invoiced for - don't even exist. Incredible. Well this is the key question. There are good and bad on both sides. VAT is very complex but I am pretty certain it's highly unlikely they ever got back 100% of it they had to pay on top of contractor day rates. They would have to right it off against Vat they charged for services. How many services do banks charge vat on ? It's not much imo. Anyway - even if it's just 1% of this vat charges they are up on. It's still better than before. I think we all agree on the ridiculous national debt.

What company tab ? If it's his own one you should point out he does still actually pay for this out of his company income. The number of contractors who think they get these expenses for free is quite staggering. Same goes for permanent staff who think contractors get these all for free too.

That quote of mine is from ten years ago. 😁 I have to say in hindsight that's mighty fine advice I was dishing out for free. Although the really lucrative IT bit was way off. Still plenty crazy money around for the right skills.

That's the average in the change / IT central department of one of the UK's largest banks.100% fact. I have the details sitting in front of me right now. If you would like to inform the bank in question they have worked out these numbers wrong then that's up to yourself. But I can't provide the name. It's one of the largest though. What's actually probably more interesting to most people - is on-shored resources through the usual Indian companies cost MORE per day than a UK permanent member of staff. Scandalous imo. As for the future of contracting ? Boom later this year imo. The end client absolutely loves it for the flexibility. Why would they change that ? This doesn't cost them any more and if anything they will save a nice whack due to the VAT. They will however only raise day rates if they have to. Again - they won't be doing it because they want to be nice.

The problem is who says what's "disguised" employment or not. It's just all nonsense imo.

Transport costs/Food costs - only if you are working a certain distance away from where you live. Now I'm sure some take the mick with this but that's a dangerous game. For those not ? Fair enough IMO. You really just get a 20% discount on it as you can offset against your company tax. You still have to pay for it though. I do think a lot of Permanent staff don't fully realise this. If you are a permanent member of staff have to go and work away from home ? They pay your flights, mileage, train, hotel costs and you will get £x per day to cover food and a few drinks. And all of that is 100% paid for you. Why is a contractor getting a 20% discount on all their costs a big deal ? It seems reasonable to me. Housing costs - its a minimal token amount. Equipment cost - Fine - but how often do you buy any of these - and as above - you still have to pay for them - you just get a 20% tax benefit to use. Its hardly getting them for free. In terms of employee benefits ? Pension Holiday Sick Redundancy training costs Maternity leave Paternity leave Death in service benefit Car allowance. The list goes on. Simple fact is I have never heard a single contractor telling a permanent member of staff they should have any of the above taken away from them as they don't think its fair. I have head countless permanent staff doing the exact opposite to contractors. To be honest I find it pretty rude. As I've already noted above - permanent staff don't appear to realise just how expensive they are. Ive nothing against permanent staff. Most are perfectly reasonable about this all and realise there are pros and cons to both sides. However there are a small number who will openly tell a contractor in the middle of the office that they should have their 'work' benefits taken off them. Its blooming rude !! There are also of course a small number of contractors who are utter tools and swan about thinking they are the bees knees telling everyone how much they earn. Equally rude.

Contractors only cost a company slightly more than permanent employees. And they are fully flexible. Bring in 100 folk for a two year project that gets cancelled 3 months later ? Contractors ? See ya later thanks. Permanent staff ? Holy ****** what a mess to deal with. 14% more for a contractor per day in the main change / IT department of one of the UK largest banks. That's hardly a lot to pay for the sheer flexibility of it all.

So you welcome the government making up the rules as they go along to suit whatever they fancy just coz they can ? 😄 People have been so brainwashed by all this nonsense it's incredible. What's wrong with a one man band ltd co agreeing to do whatever the end client who is paying their invoices says because - errr - they are paying for it ? And doing that for 6 months, 6 years or 6 centuries ? Seriously - tell me what's "wrong" with that. I've asked this numerous times - and yet to get an answer from anyone. And no - oh because HMRC says so doesn't wash.