Remix clone Hacker News

> I don't consider those "working class" occupations. In general in the UK those are quite often middle to upper middle class.

IT has been one of the only modern trades where working-class people could genuinely break through - without inherited privilege, connections, or expensive qualifications. All it took was a computer, determination, and skill. For decades, it offered an alternative route to upward mobility that wasn't gatekept by traditional class boundaries.

To say those people aren't "working class" anymore simply because they found success in a high-paid field is to misunderstand how class mobility works - and to dismiss the significance of what's been lost. IR35 didn't just hit a few middle-class professionals - it cut off a rare path to independence that was uniquely accessible to people from working-class backgrounds.

That's what makes it so damaging. It's not just about tax or regulation - it's about who's allowed to build something for themselves, and who gets pushed back into being a compliant employee for a large organisation.

> Still do run small limited companies AFAICT

You're absolutely right—tradespeople doing B2C work are largely unaffected, because IR35 targets B2B relationships, especially when the client is a medium or large company. But that actually reinforces the concern: it's access to the broader market - especially corporate and public sector clients - that’s been cut off.

For working-class professionals who moved into areas like IT, healthcare, or consulting, IR35 has closed the door to operating as a small business in those spaces. They can still work - but now only as employees or through intermediaries, with fewer rights and no control. They’re denied the same freedom tradespeople still have in B2C, despite offering equally legitimate, client-driven services.

So yes, plumbers and electricians can run limited companies - but if someone from a similar background wanted to build a small IT consultancy or contract directly with the NHS, that’s now a legal minefield. The playing field isn’t level - it’s skewed in favour of large firms, and that restriction disproportionately hurts those without generational wealth or corporate safety nets.

▲

Nursie 13 days ago | parent [-]

There is no such thing as a working class professional!

It’s clear we’re talking past each other. I disagree that IR35 has had a specific effect on social mobility, but am happy to leave the conversation here!

▲

varispeed 13 days ago | parent [-]

Fair enough. Though saying there's no such thing as a working-class professional is a deeply classist take - and kind of proves my point. All the best!

▲

Nursie 12 days ago | parent [-]

How is that classist?

If someone is a professional, they are engaged in a middle class job on a middle class income. Unless you consider “working class” to be something that is indelibly stamped on someone’s soul at birth…

Being a professional or in management is pretty much the definition of middle class - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_K...

This is what I mean by talking past each other - I don’t think we’re working from the same dictionary.

▲

varispeed 11 days ago | parent [-]

The issue is that you're treating class as a static category based purely on occupation or income - effectively saying that once someone earns a decent wage or becomes "a professional", they're no longer working class. That's a very narrow, top-down view, and ironically, it erases one of the few success stories of social mobility.

Many working-class people entered fields like IT, engineering, or contracting not because they were "born middle class", but because those were accessible paths that didn't require elite credentials, family connections, or private education. They built businesses, gained skills, and carved out independence - often still without the security, assets, or cultural capital traditionally associated with the middle class.

By your definition, the moment they succeed, they're no longer working class - which conveniently absolves the system of any responsibility for making life harder for them. It's circular: "If you’re struggling, you're working class. If you succeed, you were never working class." That's what's classist—defining people's identity by a fixed socioeconomic role and then erasing their background the moment they transcend it.

Social class isn't just about job title - it's about access to capital, power, mobility, and resilience in the face of economic shocks. IR35 disproportionately affected people who were just starting to get a foothold in those areas - often without the safety net others take for granted.

And yes, we may be using different definitions - but mine accounts for lived experience and systemic barriers, not just an abstract Wikipedia definition from a table written decades ago.

▲

Nursie 10 days ago | parent [-]

> "If you’re struggling, you're working class. If you succeed, you were never working class."

That's not what I've been saying at all, and IMHO that's pretty disingenuous. It doesn't absolve anyone of anything, it's a definition.

You do you though I guess.

	▲	varispeed 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's a critique of the logic embedded in the definition you're using. You said earlier that being a professional or in management is "pretty much the definition of middle class." That is treating class as a static category tied to job role and income, not history, autonomy, or access to power. My point is: when you define class that narrowly, it becomes easy to dismiss systemic barriers people face once they gain a bit of success. It makes it seem like they've escaped and no longer face structural disadvantages, which just isn't true for many. Especially when policies like IR35 are designed to push them out of ownership and back into dependency.