Cameron Tax Dodger

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

It is not what the agency staff are paid directly that matters it is what the agency charges the customer. That really depends on how much of a shortage you have in the job type, how many are competing for a job and how the agency prices the staff available. In some cases the cost of employing agency staff is as little as about a 25% mark up but many are 40-60% and a proportion more than this. There is no standard it is just what the market will sustain. But you also have to factor in the costs of contracting such staff on a relatively short term basis. Either way it will be as much and most likely significantly more than the costs of employing a public sector worker.

That would be an issue of public servants being bad at their jobs. In this case procurement.

Part of my role is procurement where I regularly tender sand award contracts for agency staff. Rates I award at are markups of 5%- 15%max with max payable only for highly specialised roles.

You shouldn't use an example of the public sector doing something badly as a reason to pay people more money.

60% mark up if true is rediculous.

chewmylegoff

because public sector bodies are pretty much invariably not vat registered business they cannot reclaim the input vat added on top of the contractors rate which makes it significantly more expensive.

Obviously this is a zero sum game as the vat comes back to the government, but eg the NHS has to pay that vat whereas central government receives it so it does make the agency worker significantly more expensive at the local budget level when compared to a vat registered business in the private sector doing the same thing.

Tromking

Mistermeaner wrote: »

That would be an issue of public servants being bad at their jobs. In this case procurement.

Part of my role is procurement where I regularly tender sand award contracts for agency staff. Rates I award at are markups of 5%- 15%max with max payable only for highly specialised roles.

You shouldn't use an example of the public sector doing something badly as a reason to pay people more money.

60% mark up if true is ridiculous.

I'm not sure your experience of procurement applies in the same way as it does with the hiring of temporary staff in the public sector.
In hospitals (and prisons), tasks have to be done and staff and agencies are in an increasingly very strong position when it comes to extracting cash from desperate admin staff. This state of affairs is a direct result of Government policy, not some inefficient public servant not knowing how to tender properly.

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

I'm not sure your experience of procurement applies in the same way as it does with the hiring of temporary staff in the public sector.
In hospitals (and prisons), tasks have to be done and staff and agencies are in an increasingly very strong position when it comes to extracting cash from desperate admin staff. This state of affairs is a direct result of Government policy, not some inefficient public servant not knowing how to tender properly.

which government policy is that?

is that the one that lets an unlimited number of immigrants hence creating extra demand on services?

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

That would be an issue of public servants being bad at their jobs. In this case procurement.

Part of my role is procurement where I regularly tender sand award contracts for agency staff. Rates I award at are markups of 5%- 15%max with max payable only for highly specialised roles.

You shouldn't use an example of the public sector doing something badly as a reason to pay people more money.

60% mark up if true is rediculous.

That might be due to the sort of skill levels are you speaking about and the demand for them? 15% might work in some areas but, even then, as has been noted, there is the issue of VAT for government.

If you need more highly skilled people, with specific professional knowledge or accreditations, perhaps only UK Nationals too, your choices are more limited. The rates also depend on what demand exists for the same skills in the private sector.

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

That might be due to the sort of skill levels are you speaking about and the demand for them? 15% might work in some areas but, even then, as has been noted, there is the issue of VAT for government.

If you need more highly skilled people, with specific professional knowledge or accreditations, perhaps only UK Nationals too, your choices are more limited. The rates also depend on what demand exists for the same skills in the private sector.

What type of people are you assuming I recruit?

And you seem to be confusing the rate the person demands with the mark up charged by the agency.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

I suspect corporate tax avoidance will do nothing but increase in future decades with an increasingly globalised economy.

Confident enough of this to predict the eventual death of corporate taxation.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5448770

Albeit this will take a while....

Governments will certainly resist any move towards imposing a transparent tax regime where consumers see the true cost of the tax burden without governments being able to hide so much of it as stealth taxes on business.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

which government policy is that?

is that the one that lets an unlimited number of immigrants hence creating extra demand on services?

Partly yes.
3.3 million EU citizens with the right to access UK public services must have an impact. Perhaps the cuts to the MoJ budget would not be so swingeing if 10% of the prison population weren't foreign nationals.

Fella

Who'dda thunk it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/15/tony-blair-used-secret-fund-to-manage-multi-million-pound-fortun/

I suspect Corbyn (the high sparrow) calling for mandatory publication of tax returns may backfire. It won't take long for the Tories to suggest that if it's mandatory for MPs it should also be mandatory for say, extremely high-paid union officials. That won't play out well, the people who want to hate Tories for being rich already do so & won't be affected much by having it confirmed. It may raise a few eyebrows though if those same people have it rammed home to them that the people who shout loudest about evil rich tories are actually on 6-figure salaries themself.

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What type of people are you assuming I recruit?

And you seem to be confusing the rate the person demands with the mark up charged by the agency.

I am referring to the rate charged by the supplier of the resource when they employ the resourse on a sub-contract basis.

No idea who you recruit.

I note that the NHS is trying to consult on applying a "cap" of 55% above the scale max for agency staff but with a right to go above for safety reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486331/Agency_price_caps_your_questions_answered__16_December.pdf

How would you suggest they achieve the 15% max you achieve?