[V-2]

> > I can't see why a company couldn't have one long-term customer.

> Let's hope you won't find out why that's a very bad idea.

The way you phrased it feels needlessly patronizing (perhaps unintentionally), but more importantly, it does not really address my comment.

I wasn't arguing if it is a good idea or not. I was responding to the argument that having multiple customers is necessary to be regarded as "truly" self-employed in the eyes of the taxman. My point is that it's not uncommon nor unusual for a small company to be invoicing only a single customer. Hence my examples. Whether it is safe business-wise is another story.

> If at the end of the year you've only sent invoices to a single customer then you are simply at risk. You need multiple customers to be stable and secure. Two is better than one and three is really the minimum.

Noone denies that having diversified sources of income is (other things being equal) the safer option. But the subject was legal recognition, not optimal business strategies.

[jacquesm]

It may come across as patronizing because that's roughly how I see this. I'm at the end of my career after a very productive stint and have absolutely nothing to lose by letting you have the benefit of my experience to date, which spans a couple of continents, six countries and a substantial amount of money. Whether you are open to that kind of experience backed input is entirely up to you, I have no upside here, but you do and you also have a possible downside. But: when I was 27 or so I might have still seen things your way so maybe in 30 years you'll be telling someone else the same things. I sincerely hope that you will never find the true measure of how important those things are and if I could give my younger self some advice that would be it.

As for legal recognition: the only reason this is a thing right now is because the social contract is broken, in any other setting you'd be an employee.