[tommyd]

> Had my own Ltd, took home about 65% of my day rate. No funny business

What do you define as "no funny business"? Just curious what you mean by that.

I operate a Ltd, take a low salary and the rest dividends (as recommended by my accountant), claim the odd lunch and transport as expenses and that is about it, which I think is fine (both legally and morally) as at the end of the day, I am operating as a company rather than an employee, and am following the letter of the law.

I actually don't think the difference in tax paid is that significant if you operate that way, I've not worked it out exactly but I suspect I pay around the same amount of tax as a contractor with an Ltd as I would in an equivalent permanent position (in the sense that the perm salary would be lower but the tax a bit higher), so I don't really feel bad about my contribution back in terms of taxation.

Of course, I've worked with people who do take the p*ss and will put anything and everything through as expenses and find all the tax loopholes they can - seems like a lot of effort and risk and not sure I'd feel morally great about it, but each to their own I guess!

[d_t_w]

My approach was exactly the same as yours and proportionally I paid roughly (within 2-3%) as much tax as I would if I had earned the same amount as a full time employee. About the only thing you are 'dodging' with a low salary as a Director of a Ltd. company and dividends is NIC contributions, which would likely be in the order of £2-3000/year.

The main advantages as I saw them to contacting were:

- day rate roughly twice what I would have earned salary - honest, mercenary working relationship

What do I mean by funny business? I worked in the City of London for a decade, contracting at some fantastic places and with some great colleagues. I would say I was literally the only person I know (of say, 20 colleagues who's affairs I was aware of) who paid tax the entire time. Most never paid any.

An absolute majority of my colleagues entered into the following arrangement, which will be completely familiar to anyone who worked as a contractor in the UK finance sector between 2000/2010:

1. Invoice via an umbrella company which is based offshore 2. Umbrella preferably based inside Europe outside the EU, Northern Cyprus was very common 3. Umbrella company is owned by a trust 4. As a beneficiary of the trust you will be paid a 'loan' roughly every six weeks, since that's not a salary, right? 5. Loans are not taxable. 6. HMRC completely, totally aware of these arrangements. 7. Figure it out, everyone not on PAYE was in on it.

Via this arrangement you can often get 85%+ of your date rate returned to you as 'loans'. I know people who were on these schemes for a decade and dodged in the hundreds of thousands of pounds in personal income tax.

HMRC has sent letters offering to settle cases with 16,000 people, of the people I know I assume they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a couple of years, but overall are supremely better off for never having paid tax for the most productive times of their lives.

These are people who often came through state education, drive on state roads, use public services, in the UK which has a rich left/socialist history and have absolutely compunction whatsoever in shirking all and every responsibility they have to contribute in any way.

And as some people in this thread comment - "well, if I wanted to I could write a check to a charity". I heard that so many times from colleagues who had children at local schools, born in the NHS, earning £150k a year, for ten years, who had never pay a cent in tax.

Enjoy being poor plebs, tax is optional. I chose to pay mine.

In the end, some of these people are still my closest friends, we just have very different principles.

I'm relatively wealth in my peer group (disregarding the non-tax-payers who I'm clearly behind). I could be wealthier, but I'm not a fucking parasite.

[tommyd]

Got you - I completely agree, I think that is a disgusting attitude. I wasn't sure if you were referring to people saving a few extra £k a year by running a Limited company and expensing things in a totally legal way, or something more drastic - I was assuming the OP was referring to the former, probably read it wrong.

And I absolutely agree about the advantages. I like the fact that I can work for smaller companies on interesting projects who wouldn't be able to pay the kind of permanent salary I would be looking for, and I like the flexibility and potential for variety. I've always found leaving permanent jobs, even for good reasons, a horrible experience - almost as if you are breaking up with them! - so while I'm in a period of my life where I would like as much varied experience as possible, I think contracting makes sense, as long as you are willing to put in the work a) to deliver good results for clients and b) to keep yourself up to speed with technologies.

One thing I haven't seen many people mention on here is that as a contractor, you're much more responsible for your own personal development. If you aren't a motivated self-learner (chances are, if you are reading HN then you at least somewhat match that description though) then you could easily get stuck doing one set of technology and not learning much new (which suits some people well, of course), as companies are a lot less likely to "take a punt" on a contractor who doesn't know their tech stack - they don't want to invest money in getting someone up to speed who is only there for a short time period.

By the same token, I wouldn't expect any significant training to be provided to you as a contractor, so if that kind of thing is important to someone, maybe contracting is not for them. I've been quite lucky so far and been able to move into new areas/technology based on evidence that I can pick new things up, but some places definitely aren't interested in you unless you are already well versed in their tech stack.