Remix clone Hacker News

I am British and have been a consultant.

While permanent IT staff are often regarded as generic office workers, usually in poorly performing small to medium enterprises in backwaters around the country, in London and in Finance this is not really the case.

Consultant IT people can make out like bandits, IR35 or no, and even those perm people in the backwaters are middle class in earning and habits. It’s absolutely not a working class occupation.

Incidentally this attitude from middle management in (mostly) non-London SMEs is a big part of why they are doomed to fail - they value middle-management above skilled workers and end up in a doom spiral of low pay, low productivity and low expectations. If you’re in one of those situations - get out, opportunity is out there. But you won’t find it in a shabby office at the back-end of an industrial estate in Basingstoke.

▲

varispeed 13 days ago | parent [-]

There's a common mistake in equating class with job title or postcode. Being a consultant doesn't automatically make someone middle class—especially when they don't own the means of production, don't control their work, and can't build anything lasting from it. That's the real distinction. Class is about power and autonomy, not just how polished your CV looks or how many screens are on your desk.

Many skilled workers set up limited companies not to "make out like bandits" but to gain a small degree of control in a system that otherwise offers very little. IR35 took that away, not from boardrooms or multinational firms, but from individuals trying to carve out their own space. It wasn't just a policy shift—it was a signal: you're not allowed to operate outside the machine.

This has little to do with London versus the rest. It's about how the economy is increasingly structured to funnel all meaningful work through large gatekeepers, whether private or public. The destruction of small-scale service businesses - especially in the public sector - didn't just hurt livelihoods. It erased entire layers of local innovation, independence, and pride in craft.

The result is exactly what we see now: a drained workforce with no stake in the outcome, no reason to go above and beyond, and no path to build something of their own. That's not a London problem or a Basingstoke problem. That's a systemic one.

▲

Nursie 12 days ago | parent [-]

IR35 didn’t take it away at all, it still thrives unless you’re skirting too close to employment. Contract software is still a huge thing in the UK.

It certainly needs reform, but it hasn’t killed the contracting sector. Far from it. It’s still massively lucrative.

Yes, the public sector restrictions a few years ago changed some things, but from friends in the public sector AFAICT what it changed was that it cut down on a culture of people who were for all intents and purposes employees, who had often been in positions of managerial responsibility in councils and other bodies for years, pretending they were independent businesses and avoiding tax while (comparatively) charging the earth.

However you want to paint it class -wise, when someone is acting as an officer in a company or council for half a decade, they’re not an independent creative struggling to have some control, they’re working a job like any other schmuck.

Honestly, I think the UK tax laws need to be reformed so that it doesn’t matter for income - you make money in a company structure as a contractor, or make it as an employee, tax is the same. Dividend or income, tax is the same. It would sort the unholy mess out and take away the incentives to use contracting as a tax dodge and for HMRC to retroactively fuck up someone’s life.

It’s how it works here in Australia. No IR35 required, for the most part income is income is income and it all counts towards your taxable total. Then you work how it best suits you.

	▲	varispeed 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		The idea that IR35 only affected people "skirting too close to employment" is the exact narrative big consultancies wanted the public to believe. It reframes trust-based, long-term client relationships - the lifeblood of any good business - as suspicious when delivered by individuals, but completely acceptable when delivered by large firms. Here's the reality: a one-person limited company providing services to a council for several years is treated as "dodgy" or "cheating the tax system." But if a big consultancy sends in a contractor to sit at the same desk for the same duration, it's completely exempt from IR35 scrutiny. The only difference? Ownership. The first is worker-owned, the second is not. IR35 doesn't prevent "disguised employment." It just channels it through structures that protect and enrich corporate intermediaries. And those same intermediaries are often billing 2–3x the rate a direct contractor would charge—while extracting value from someone else's labour, then exporting the profits. You also dismiss repeat clients as a sign of disguised employment - but by that logic, any successful small business with loyal customers should be disqualified from existing. Long-term client relationships are the goal of any serious enterprise. It's only when those relationships threaten the margins of large incumbents that they suddenly become suspect. IR35 wasn't about fairness or tax efficiency. It was about reclaiming market share - removing small, independent operators who were too competitive, too flexible, and too accountable to clients, and replacing them with firms who could play the compliance game and charge more for less. So no—IR35 didn’t just "clean up abuse." It entrenched it. It created a two-tier system where actual independence is punished, and corporate dependency is rewarded. That's not reform - that's capture.