You're assuming that was an unintended consequence, not a goal.

It's not as though the union wants contract workers taking the place of union members. Cutting the pay and conditions of contract workers is a success, from their viewpoint.

Not sure if it was the 1950s or 60s, but they had this outlandish notion that we would be able to wear a videophone and or watch tv on our wristwatch! Some even suggested that it would be possible for cars to drive without a driver. So far fetched back then.

It was intended to finish contracting and force us into taking permanent or temporary work and then hopefully become members of the unions. Both the Labour Party and the Unions made it clear how much they dislike contractors and between them agreed special taxation rules (google IR35) and employment legislation to make it difficult to be a contractor. Both spectacularly backfired and created 0 hours contracts on their own members and contractors avoided it. Contracting is a way of life, and is chosen by those who wish to do it and know the risks. Perm/temp is for those not wanting the risk and I don't think 0 hours should exist there unless a premium is paid above normal rate. If the unions had not attacked contracting 0 hours would not exist.

I made it all the way through that paragraph!

It's extremely misleading as the purpose of being a contractor and to have a corporate set up is to cheat the tax man. Contractors are obvious enemies of regular workers as they can provide services to employers at a lower cost than a worker, not because they're better or work harder, but due to not paying their fair share of income taxes.

There was once an argument that the contractor worked short-term for many employers and was therefore in a different position than a worker. I don't think that holds any more, contractors now stay in one position for years on end, they represent casualisation of the labour force and are, in general terms, a bad thing, as well as typically being personnally disreputable.

Only because of tax deferrals. Having cheated in one year by pushing the tax bill into the next, the contractor is obliged to keep doing it until he or she is dead. There's no nobility there.

Where did I cheat the taxman?- I have nearly 30 years worth of audited accounts agreed with HMRC and could show tax being paid at the same rate as anyone on a similar income.

If you want to accuse people of criminal activity such as tax evasion I suggest you back it up with hard evidence not hearsay. Resorting to name calling such as personally disreputable seems to be a trait of people on this board when they run out of reasonable argument.

My contracts varied in length from 1 day to 9 months over nearly 30 years so there goes your other argument. I think you listen to to many stories from the left wing spin and have yourself been very misleading.

No need to get so defensive of behalf of a whole sector. I'm a contractor. My tax affairs are, um... interesting, and I am definitely personally disreputable.

I have never deferred any tax from one year to the next and how would you know if I did. I think you refer to bank bonuses which is nothing to do with contractors. Deferring tax to the next year means it is still paid, only in rare years when tax drops is there any benefit.

You have no idea of my tax position or work history but have made criminal allegations in your posts. My accounts are made public at Companies House so have hidden absolutely nothing.

You might refer to the few contractors but not the majority.

I too am a contractor and a pimp. I've been a contractor since 1986 this time around and have worked with other contractors in several countries and all but seven US States. I routinely talk people out of proper jobs and into contracts, what sells is the tax breaks; the ability to write off cars, houses, bar bills and so on. I sell the services of contractors, what sells is lower cost, primarily through not paying for healthcare and disposibility. Contracting, at least in the computer business, is disreputable as it's whole purpose is to subvert proper employees and because it only works through exploitation of tax avoidance (many contractors also get into tax evasion but this isn't central to the immorality of the trade).

I have 7 years worth of auditted nonsense (there's no need to keep more in this jurisdiction unless you want to have a storage facility for some other reason and are looking for an excuse to write it off).

I can, of course, see the contracting has been good for idontlikestrikers, but that's at the expense of society, it's not something of which one should be proud. It seems to me that if you advocate a controversial position, "gays shouldn't marry", "contractors are decent people", "smoking on passenger trains is acceptable" then you should expect to be criticised for that. Obviously there will be some blurring between attacking the man and the ball but idontlikestrikers has chosen a life he knows to be a bit dodgy. One would expect the same if one were a vendor of Video Lottery Terminals or Indian smokes.

If you are not achieving a tax advantage by contracting and you can obtain legitimate working papers for the places where you contract; why do you not take a proper job?

With respect, nobody has accused you of anything.

The comment made was a generalisation about contractors, there was no specific reference to you and you did not state you were a contractor until after dbd's post - so how could he have?

Well, no. There's an immediate benefit in that money in your pocket today is worth more than money tomorrow. There may be a benefit if a tax liability is deferred into a year with lower income and/or higher allowances and there's always a benefit if the liability is deferred beyond death.

The typical contractor problem is that the money that, in theory, could have been used to pay the taxes in the first year has been spent so the contractor is always behind.

I got a big premium for being a contractor and my contract was legitimate.

You were a contractor, a pimp, sold tax avoidance/evasion as the main benefit of contracting yet despise contractors so much. Don't believe a word you are saying after all that.

The big premium is in lieu of paid holidays and other benefits, if the first contract was 30 years ago then a proper job would probably have come with a pension so that's likely a wash. "Legitimate" is an odd word to use in the context, I'm not saying that contractual arrangements are typically, or ever, illegal, just immoral, "not cricket" if you will.