I am a contractor now, I'm billing this time. I'm sitting in a room with twenty odd contractors, several of them mine. I don't despise any of them (well, maybe the cradle, but not because he's a contractor).

And it's avoidance, not evasion.

The Guardian has already identified nearly 200,000 workers on zero-hours contracts across the private sector, including staff at McDonald's, Burger King, JD Wetherspoon, Sports Direct, Cineworld and Boots. The government has also admitted that 307,000 workers in the care system are on zero-hours contracts, which leave staff unable to guarantee their income each week, making it difficult to get mortgages or loans.

The Office for National Statistics is changing the way it calculates the number of workers on zero-hours contracts after admitting that its current figures are likely to be too low.
The government agency has already been forced to increase its previous estimate by 25% to 250,000 workers after the Guardian revealed that several high profile employers, including Sports Direct, McDonald's and Buckingham Palace, were using the contracts for a large majority of their staff.

While these contracts work for some Im guessing the vast majority are against these zero hour contracts unless they are self employed which is different.

Depending on whether or not they choose to be self-employed. Local government here, Ontario, has "self employed" historians, archivists, road repair people; all of whom would have had jobs, and paid holidays, ten years ago.

Contracting is surely just trading off job security and benefits for flexibility and pay. Contractors act as a brake on the excesses that "regular workers" gain over long term employment.

Not sure what the cheating the taxman thing is about?

People who have regular employment pay tax by PAYE in the UK or on a T4 in Canada. They have little flexibility in their financial arrangements.

People who are contractors establish little companies and are paid via the company or companies, this allows them to deduct expenses from income and/or to pay themselves in different ways; as income in order to use up personal deductions, as dividends, as bonuses, according to the tax laws in place each year. I don't know what my tax bill would be as an employee, I suppose it might be a third of my income, as a contractor I don't usually pay any tax but last year had to shell out .0416% of my gross income, some to the Federal government, some to the Provincial one.

The tax difference, 33% vs less than half a percent, is what makes contracting attractive. In the face of such a difference it's fatuous to talk of job security and benefits. Just to make the point precisely, in 1984 I was an employee, I was paid around $85,000 for the year (+ benefits), I took home $40,000+. In 1986 I was a contractor paid $120,000 (no benefits), I took home $120,000. The cost to the employer was about the same, that's how we worked out the rate for the contract.

The contractor offers less to society, in the form of taxes, than the employee. The contractor's disposability threatens the security of the employee. The contractor's position, in short, me! me! me!, is reprehensible. Still, I had a nice house in 1986.

The problem lies with the tax system, not the contractor. The contractor's fiscal contribution to society is made indirectly through the higher profitability of their employer. If the corporate avoids tax, problem lies with tax system again. Blame the politicians. Interesting read nonetheless you rich custard.

IMO, everyone, regardless of employment status and with gross earnings above say, designated poverty level, should be required to pay income tax, notwithstanding available deductions/expenses, which can easily be manipulated. Witness the shenanigans by members of the upper chambers in Canada and the UK. In essence such tax avoiders are welfare recipients as they're living on the backs of other taxpayers.
I can think of no good reason why such a situation exists and it definitely should not be. The Government needs to close this loophole.

That's a stretch, especially in Canada. This is a branch plant economy, the employer (technically not an employer but a client to the contractor) typically repatriates any profits.

Obviously I don't blame contractors for taking advantage, that's how the game is set up, but they could be a bit shamefaced about it.

I'm not rich btw, not at all, one can go through any amount of money if one has a mind to.

Indeed

The law already exists. The CRA has the power to deem a corporation a personal services corporation if it believes the corporation exists to obscure an employer/employee relationship. This is a danger to any contractor who has serial clients, especially if they work at the clients premises or otherwise under the client's control. Personal services corporations do not get the tax breaks available to other active businesses and any tax advantage over being an employee is lost.

Of course, whether or not a relationship is employer/employee or business/contractor is a matter of interpretation of facts. People tend to interpret facts in a way that is most convenient to them.

The CRA has been hinting for a while that it will make personal services corporations an audit project. They haven't yet.

Your expenses totalled 99.9584% of your gross income and CRA accepted this? Well done you. I take it you don't attend many lunches as, as you are aware, only 50% of those are deductible

What's the chance they look at their own work a few years down the line and go "er what?"

I don't really know what's deductible and what isn't, I have a man for that. I assume that the 35% of gross that goes in alimony is somehow deductible and that makes my numbers slightly better than most contractors can achieve.

Spousal support reduces your personal income for tax purposes but not that of the corporation. You may have to introduce me to your man.

The relevance to the corporation is that it allows more money to be taken out without incurring personal income tax and that gets the corporation closer to the goal of making no profit.