[HN Gopher] How to be a consultant, a freelancer, or an independ...
___________________________________________________________________
How to be a consultant, a freelancer, or an independent contractor
(2009)
Author : wofo
Score : 301 points
Date : 2023-07-17 11:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (jacquesmattheij.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jacquesmattheij.com)
| tptacek wrote:
| Don't lowball your consulting rate!
|
| * Your price sends a signal that attracts particular clients, and
| the ones you attract with lowball prices are the worst, most
| demanding kind.
|
| * Your ordinary good clients aren't shopping on price, beyond a
| vague notion of what the normal range of prices for your field
| is. Remember: they're generally not spending their own money.
|
| * Any client big enough to have a purchasing department is never
| going to let you get your rate back; their whole job is to
| prevent vendors from ever raising rates.
|
| * There are a zillion things you're selling as a consultant that
| you don't realize you're selling, from schedule flexibility and
| freedom to fire at will to answering phone calls about the
| project deliverable 3 weeks after the project is done to not
| having to pay benefits and payroll taxes to documentation, and
| you're much more likely to forget to capture this stuff in your
| prices than you are to overcapture it.
|
| I'm not sure I've ever met a new consultant that had
| unrealistically high rates. But _most_ new consultants I 've met
| have had unrealistically low rates.
|
| If a client balks at your rate, you can still get the project
| cost where they need it to be: negotiate on scope instead of
| rate.
|
| Never bill hourly. Hourly is cursed.
| manmal wrote:
| I've been billing hourly for over ten years now, and I agree
| that it is cursed.
|
| But as much as I'd like to switch to daily/weekly billing, it
| feels like I would never allow myself to leave the desk to run
| errands, play with the kids etc - because I promised to work
| the (whole?) day/week.
|
| Even if you don't actively tell clients when exactly you do
| work, clients can see your away/offline status in Slack/Teams,
| or they might call you out of the blue, which would feel to me
| like being caught with pants down - talking about a failed
| deployment on the phone in the supermarket?
|
| And I'd be worried then that the client comes to the conclusion
| "Oh that guy, bills the whole week but doesn't even work in the
| afternoon. What a slacker!".
|
| How do you or other people handle this?
| plugin-baby wrote:
| What's the big problem with hourly? You just listed a bunch
| of benefits and said it's cursed.
| tptacek wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103417
|
| Two overarching principles here:
|
| 1. Sane customers value determinism more than they value
| maximizing the productivity of a single hour. They're
| engaging you because they want a thing done, and the order
| of their concerns is: (i) assurance that the thing gets
| done, (ii) getting the thing on a predictable schedule,
| (iii) getting the thing done sooner, (iv) that they're not
| making a fool out of themselves by paying way over the
| market for the thing and (v) how much they pay. Note how
| far down the list the actual absolute billing number is.
|
| 2. Conduct a thought experiment: imagine you have a project
| that is going to take you a week to finish. Now imagine you
| take 100 Provigils (don't do this) and get the project done
| in 3 days instead. Who should get the economic benefit of
| that efficiency, you or your client?
| plugin-baby wrote:
| This still isn't clicking for me - it feels like you're
| equating daily/weekly billing with per-project billing,
| and hourly billing with metering.
| tptacek wrote:
| Nope, that's another misconception about how T&M billing
| works:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3421770
|
| You're metering, but at a lower level of granularity. You
| don't care about squeezing the maximum customer value out
| of ever hour, or maximizing hours you bill but don't do
| work in, because you're just not tracking hours. You work
| at an ordinary pace. Some days you're going to give your
| client 9 hours worth of productivity because you're in
| flow; sometimes they're going to get 7. It doesn't
| matter.
|
| The only really important thing about your interval is
| that you can't book two clients on the same staffing in
| the same interval. If you bill daily, you as a general
| rule don't book two customers on the same day (really, I
| wouldn't do it in the same week).
| duckmysick wrote:
| It's about managing expectations.
|
| Reasonable clients who hire you to deliver a project three
| months from now don't expect you to work 24/7 for 90 days
| non-stop. They expect you to deliver what was agreed in three
| months. They happily pay for those three months because
| someone calculated it will save/make them more money. They
| don't care what happens in between as long as you keep them
| regularly updated, don't disappear on them, and respond to
| emails and calls in a timely fashion.
|
| Ask yourself if you want the type of clients that obsessively
| check your online status on Slack. Most clients don't have
| time for that because they have other things to worry about.
|
| If you're deploying something, it's prudent to sit tight for
| a while and monitor things. You can shop for celebratory
| champagne later.
|
| If they absolutely expect you to pick up the phone the minute
| they call, hire someone to answer the calls for you. Now they
| have a dedicated account manager. Charge them appropriately.
|
| If you want to read more, the OP of this comment chain,
| tptacek, wrote here a lot about charging daily/weekly vs
| hourly (and other nuggets of wisdom about consulting). Query
| `site:ycombinator.com tptacek hourly` in your favorite search
| engine. Here's an example:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4103417
| mikeegg1 wrote:
| Off topic: do you use a tracking program for your hours and
| if so which program do you use?
| manmal wrote:
| Yes I use mite.de
| tptacek wrote:
| There is no relationship between your billing increment and
| the specific times you're at your desk. You bill a day for
| any day that you do significant work for the client; that's
| it. The notion that billing a day means you've booked 8
| contiguous desk hours for your client is just hourly billing
| thinking; that's part of the reason you want to stop billing
| hourly in the first place.
| toyg wrote:
| "yeah I often work at night"
|
| But tbh, customers aggrieved at your working practices are
| simply not worth having. If they don't trust you enough to do
| the work, they probably won't trust the output of it either,
| which all that it entails (not paying etc).
|
| I've been a consultant in a previous life, and the best
| customers were invariably the ones who just let you get on
| with the job.
| zerr wrote:
| What about non-scoped/indefinite "disguised employment"-like
| arrangements?
| ms4720 wrote:
| That is illegal and if it ever comes to light you are done
| tptacek wrote:
| Huh? Staff augmentation contracts are super common. They're
| definitely not illegal. And the risk in employment
| classification mistakes is to the employer, not the
| contractor.
| klardotsh wrote:
| The "you're done" might be an EU thing: I know Europe has
| all sorts of wild laws around contractor/employee
| differentiation.
|
| In the US, though, yes, the risk is on whoever the IRS
| feels is the "employer" in the situation (hint: it's not
| the contractor).
| angarg12 wrote:
| So I keep hearing this, but I haven't seen it actually working
| in practice.
|
| My wife has been (trying to) freelance since we moved to the
| US. She applied the playbook, rejected lowball offers, and
| negotiated higher rates.
|
| The result? She has worked about a total of 2 months out of 1.5
| years. The pipeline is dry and nothing is coming her way. In
| retrospect we regret not accepting some of those lowball
| offers. Sure, the rates suck, but not having a job sucks more.
|
| My cynical take is that blanket statements like that are
| unrealistic and even harmful for some.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > blanket statements like that are unrealistic
|
| I agree. The original advice is very solid, but it applies
| after you're established yourself. Freelancers live and die
| on reputation, and when you're new, you have no reputation
| one way or another.
|
| So the first thing a new freelancer has to do is to establish
| a good reputation. This means having a client history. Never
| forget that the world is smaller than you think, and people
| talk to each other about these things -- even if they're
| competitors.
|
| This means that it can be a good idea to accept jobs that
| don't pay what they should. But the new freelancer still
| needs to get value that offsets the lower financial return,
| and that value is, basically, word-of-mouth and references.
|
| That said, new freelancers (of any sort) have a very strong
| tendency to think that the "going rate" is much lower than it
| actually is. Talk to other freelancers in your area to learn
| what clients are used to paying before even thinking about
| setting a price.
|
| One thing I had success with, and I've seen others have
| success with, is to make a proposal at the going rate, but
| add in an offer to take a substantial discount in exchange
| for permission to use the client's name as a reference, in
| marketing materials, etc. Especially if the client is well-
| known and respected.
|
| The hardest part of being a freelancer is starting out, when
| nobody knows who you are. Once you have a couple of good
| clients under your belt, it gets much easier to find new
| ones.
|
| The basic idea is that you don't want the client to think
| that you're a discount freelancer, but that you're offering
| to get some of your compensation in a different form than
| cash.
|
| Because all of this has to balance out with another
| fundamental truth: people will tend to judge the worth or
| quality of a thing by its price tag. If it just looks like
| you're cheap, you will be perceived as being lower quality.
| And what most clients want is quality work, delivered as
| promised. Your compensation should encourage them to expect
| that, or at least not actively signal the opposite.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| > How to be a Consultant, a Freelancer, or an Independent
| Contractor
|
| It's important to note that:
|
| - Consultant
|
| - Coach (added by me)
|
| - Contractor
|
| - and Freelancer
|
| Are four distinct species, if you will. These titles are
| typically used interchangeably. That's a mistake, often a costly
| one.
|
| Furthermore, the key is to find fit with clients'/projects' needs
| and expectations. For example, the client - not knowing any
| better[1] - could say they're looking for a freelancer, but what
| they really expect is a consultant or a coach. Or you anticipate
| a steady contract engagement and it turns out to be more on/off
| freelance-y and in order to be available to this "great client"
| you end up leaving hours on the table. And then the client
| ghosts?
|
| [1] Or because they know a freelance rate is lower/lowest, and
| then will effectively demand more and better because they can,
| not because that's what they agreed to pay for.
| Tade0 wrote:
| > Hourly rates Your price should be a reflectance of your skills
| level and your reputation. In the beginning of your consultancy
| career I would suggest to lowball the price, but not too much.
|
| I've found that in my case it was beneficial for both parties if
| I asked a rate that made it worth it _for me_.
|
| Worst case scenario they said no.
|
| Every time I lowballed, I regretted it and didn't do my best and
| couldn't help it.
| mcv wrote:
| I lowballed in the beginning just to get a foot in the door and
| get some experience. But once you've had a few jobs that way,
| it's time to stop lowballing and get a bit more selective.
|
| And then there was this one project that I really liked, and I
| ended up taking an enormous cut to continue on that project.
| That was a bad idea. It was a cool project, but being underpaid
| so dramatically did hurt my enjoyment quite a bit. (And it
| wasn't a charity or anything; it was a bank.)
| bob1029 wrote:
| > it was a bank
|
| Ah yes the irony of capitalism.
|
| I feel like banks are one of the _last_ places you should try
| to peddle B2B /SAAS/consulting packages unless you already
| have a gigantic reputation to work with and/or deep domain
| expertise + a professional network.
|
| Many bank execs want to sign contracts with a _minimum_ of 5
| year duration. No one wants to spend all that due diligence
| time & energy on a 12 month contract. So, the stakes are
| really high. They're going to want you to prove you will be
| around in a decade.
|
| If their executive team is worried about your business
| continuity, but still really like the technology idea, that
| is where you run into the undercutting angle. They'll move it
| under a different cost center like "tech research and
| transformation initiatives" as opposed to "principal, line of
| business systems". They'll still talk to you, but it will be
| on entirely different terms than you would desire.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| If you're ok with the pace and general culture, "boring"
| places like banks and insurance companies can be fantastic
| for contractors. Especially if you know some of the niche
| products it's pretty easy to command very respectable rates
| without the stress or grind of sexier companies. Oh, they
| _always_ pay on time and unless you're terrible you can
| usually stay as long as you want.
|
| Disclaimer: the above is my experience in Sweden, but I
| imagine the same applies elsewhere
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I absolutely refuse to be a "contractor" or anything that looks
| like "staff augmentation".
|
| Strategic consulting where I am talking to decision makers and
| people in control of budgets where I'm brought in for expertise
| is different.
|
| When I was a dev lead and saw the difference between what we were
| paying "consultants in name only" staff aug C# developers and
| what we were paying "AWS consultants" who were just old school
| net ops folks who knew how to duplicate on prem infrastructure
| and processes and make it more expensive in the cloud, it changed
| my entire career trajectory.
|
| I knew I could bring more to the table as someone who had a
| development background, knew some about infrastructure if I knew
| "cloud".
|
| I spent the next two years getting experience.
| lizardking wrote:
| I've done a lot of this staff aug work you talk about. How did
| you go about finding your initial contracts there were in the
| dev ops space?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I got a full time job at AWS in the Professional Services
| department where I still work. ;)
|
| And I stay away from any project where it looks like it's
| going to be staff augmentation.
|
| I want to have clear objectives and clear definition of done
| with success criteria not "the customer bought a bucket of
| hours and they will add you to their team and assign tasks".
| jasmer wrote:
| [dead]
| wheresmycraisin wrote:
| Can we separate out the phrase "Consultant, freelancer or
| independent contractor"? It encompasses both experts with deep
| knowledge in some lucrative niche, as well as wordpress devs on
| upwork making $5/day. Not to mention "normal" programmers who are
| indistinguishable from employees, but get paid hourly for some
| reason (often because they are in another country, but often
| because they are being taken advantage of).
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Including "consultant" in this list muddies the waters very
| badly. Freelancing and independent contracting are forms of
| entrepreneurship, whereas consulting is often (not always) a
| form of traditional employment where a regular company gives
| you a regular paycheque.
| Thoeu388 wrote:
| Many programmers prefer hourly pay over proper employment. As
| contractor, I can put hardware, my rent, and leisure travel
| into expenses. Real taxation is 15% versus 45%. I can have
| multiple clients...
| pluijzer wrote:
| I am pretty sure that putting leisure travel on your expenses
| is considered fraud.
| [deleted]
| Thoeu388 wrote:
| Not really. I can visit conferences, apply for new gigs,
| market research... There are limits, but if you are not
| greedy, it is perfectly fine. Bringing gf, renting cars,
| beach stay... would ruin it.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| > Bringing gf, renting cars, beach stay... would ruin it.
|
| Not only that, it might not be tax deductible!
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Thought that's what they meant by "ruin it."
| thrawa8387336 wrote:
| [flagged]
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Sorry it was a lame joke. You shouldn't be downvoted
| (downvote my joke instead people)
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| it was a boomer "ball and chain" joke
| [deleted]
| haspok wrote:
| These are not "leisure travel" though. I guess for some
| people private life and business life are so intwined
| they no longer know the difference.
| ghaff wrote:
| It varies by trip but if I take a business trip somewhere
| interesting I'll routinely tack on some personal time.
| But, even if I'm not adding days, I'll try to make a
| little time to explore a place.
| illwrks wrote:
| I was about to say the same thing until I read your
| comment. 100% agree, for some the line between work and
| leisure is very blurred.
| eloisius wrote:
| I'm surprised you're able to expense your rent, but otherwise
| I agree. I like being free to arrange my schedule how I like.
| I've traveled almost 3 months out of 7 this year, take long
| weekends to go diving, etc. When I was W-2, even when I
| ostensibly had unlimited PTO it always felt like I was
| begging for my own time.
| xmcqdpt2 wrote:
| In Canada there is some complicated formula for how much
| you can expense rent, based on the floor size of your
| office compared to that of the living space in your home
| and how much you use it for working etc.
|
| When my partner applied for it, it ended up being a
| ridiculously small amount.
| ghaff wrote:
| My accountant in the US always recommended against it
| because it is a red flag. And, yeah, it would be one room
| in my house and not dedicated for work purposes so it
| wouldn't be a big deduction. When I had a part-time
| software business it made more sense to just find
| reasonable deductions I could offset against my revenues.
| Thoeu388 wrote:
| Technically I still live with my parents, but one of my
| clients requires me to maintain office 300km away. There is
| no trick, I asked at tax office if that would be OK.
| lencastre wrote:
| In certain Latin American countries if 90+ Oct of your revenue
| comes from a single client, the tax office determines that this
| client is de facto your employer and you become entitled to
| severance and other perks when you leave or contract is ended.
| mcv wrote:
| But I don't want severance and other perks. I just want money
| so I can save up my own buffer and buy my own perks.
|
| I think it's very good that the tax service is looking out for
| underpaid freelancers struggling on the edge of poverty (or
| often below it), but highly paid software engineers can take
| care of themselves. If my current client wants to end our
| contract tomorrow, I'm fine with that. That's why he's hiring
| me, and not an employee. And that's why he's paying me as much
| as he is.
|
| I'm all for drawing a line somewhere based on hourly rate.
| Below $50/h (or wherever you want to draw that line), you may
| be entitled to employee benefits, above that line, you're on
| your own, because you can take care of yourself.
| e_i_pi_2 wrote:
| I don't think the pay rate really matters, and you could
| always decline it. I think this is more meant to safely allow
| someone to put most of their eggs in one basket - generally
| that's a risky move and the client could simply refuse to pay
| and put you out of business, but as a client there's a lot of
| value in being the main priority
| germandiago wrote:
| Thank you. This has been useful. I have been wishing to be a
| freelancer for years but never jumped in... yet. I like all this
| advice from practice.
| stared wrote:
| Personally, I think "charge by hour" is not a good piece of
| advice. If you are a low-tier freelancer, there may be no other
| way to go, and you must accept that.
|
| For most things, mid-tier to high-tier, from my experience, it
| works better by day or (even better) by project.
|
| Suppose there are only a few billable hours. In that case, there
| are many times more non-billable, for anything, from negotiating,
| through communication in between, to finalizing and invoicing.
| Also, 8x1h is much more work than 1x8h. The latter is a typical
| workday; the former is exhausting with its context-switching.
|
| See also
| https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/consultin...
| (discussed here numerous times, including
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4805091).
| [deleted]
| ssharp wrote:
| You're going to find a lot of (completely valid) advice on both
| sides -- bill by hour and bill by project. Out in the wild,
| there are a ton of factors that are going to make that advice
| either good or bad.
|
| For example, the book, Million Dollar Consulting, is pretty
| famous for advocating the "charge by value" approach. I think a
| lot of what's stated in that book can make sense when you're 1)
| highly specialized and 2) are in high-demand. You have a lot
| more leverage in those situations and both sides of the
| equation likely know what value you're creating. These are the
| types of situations where managers inside the company you're
| working for are motivated to get through any red-tape your
| "non-standard" pricing models create.
|
| However, in a lot of cases, businesses have policies and
| controls around how they structure contractor pay. You should
| certainly be flexible to not limit yourself, especially if you
| don't have a whole host of companies knocking at your inbox.
|
| I'd suggest really thinking through how much time it takes to
| acquire (pitching, negotiations, other pre-contract meetings) a
| client, how much admin time it takes, and just build that into
| your hourly rate. Setting up retainer agreements is also
| usually a good idea for you and something clients don't
| typically balk at -- e.g. you will be paid a minimum of 10
| hours per week, even if you only worked 5 hours.
|
| For anyone worried about limiting their income by charging
| hourly rates, I'd suggest looking around at what high-end law
| firms, creative agencies, management consultants, accounting
| firms, etc. charge. As a solo consultant, you're ALWAYS going
| to be constrained by hour many hours you're willing to work,
| regardless of how you bill.
| stared wrote:
| Per project or per time is one question, and yes - it depends
| on many things.
|
| My point is that, from my experience, "per day" is strictly
| better than "per hour". In principle, you can say "just build
| it into your hourly rate". In practice, it is only if it is
| agreed beforehand how many hours, how distributed, and what
| is the non-billable overhead. Plus, adding conditions like "I
| am being paid for at least X h a week, I work in blocks of at
| least Y h, etc" , in my experience, added needless friction.
| I have learned to avoid the friction by saying "I don't have
| an hourly rate; my daily rate is X" and, if needed, adding
| that I am open to splitting some days in half.
|
| > You should certainly be flexible to not limit yourself,
| especially if you don't have a whole host of companies
| knocking at your inbox.
|
| I hope "you should" is rhetorical - I know what I am doing.
| Sure, there is a balance between how many clients are
| interested and how well I set conditions of collaboration
| with them. Obviously, in terms of when you set the balance,
| YMMV.
|
| > For anyone worried about limiting their income by charging
| hourly rates, I'd suggest looking around at what high-end law
| firms, creative agencies, management consultants, accounting
| firms, etc. charge.
|
| Agencies work on a very different basis than solo
| freelancers/contractors, including (but not limited to) the
| fact that on the bill, there are hours of many people
| involved.
| plugin-baby wrote:
| > My point is that, from my experience, "per day" is
| strictly better than "per hour".
|
| This seems to be a popular and strongly-held opinion on
| every thread about consulting on HN, but I don't get it. If
| I spend 12 hours on-site with a client, I bill them 12
| hours, not 1 day. If I decide to take a couple of hours off
| to walk the cat, I don't bill the time and don't feel
| guilty.
| Johnythree wrote:
| The push for employees to become a "Consultant, freelancer or
| independent contractor" was the hope from companies that they
| could unload many costs of business to their ex-employees. Things
| like phone rental, insurance, car running costs, tools, etc.
|
| However, people quickly learnt that unless the remuneration was
| increased in proportion, then the ex-employee was much worse of.
|
| Plus the Tax Man quickly got involved and ruled that many
| Contracting arrangements were actually a sham.
|
| There are now a list of standard tests to determine if a supposed
| contractor is actually an employee.
| resonious wrote:
| There definitely are companies that do this "strategically".
| But then there are employees who intentionally become
| freelancers for their own benefit.
| varispeed wrote:
| > Plus the Tax Man quickly got involved and ruled that many
| Contracting arrangements were actually a sham.
|
| That's not entirely true. The tax man was lobbied by big
| consultancies that were losing talent. Because quite often, an
| employee of consultancy would have found they could make more
| money by working with the consultancy client directly and
| cutting out the middleman.
|
| If these arrangements were "a sham" then tax man would have
| included big consultancies in the scope of relevant
| legislation, like IR35 here in the UK.
| Lio wrote:
| > _There are now a list of standard tests to determine if a
| supposed contractor is actually an employee._
|
| Not in the UK there's not.
|
| HMRC refuse to provide a definitive list or say how they
| determine if a contractor is "acting as a disguised employee"
| (BTW you're still not an "employee" even if you're working
| Inside the IR35 regulations).
|
| Instead they provide a vague tool that gives you some
| suggestions but reserve the right to arbitrarily decided later
| who is and isn't an independent contractor. They can, and have,
| retrospectively change the rules even for accepted tax returns.
|
| That puts a lot of risk on anyone doing contract work. When the
| government changed the rules to shift some of that risk the
| customer, many customers just decided to drop small external
| contractors all together rather than work to a vague set of
| suggestions that they can't definitively say if they're
| complying with.
|
| For small contractors it's difficult to get insurance for IR35
| risks because of this. You _can_ get it but it 's not cheap or
| easy compared to other liabilities.
|
| The contract market in the UK has been slowly dying since the
| tabloids first decided that contractors where another group
| they could demonise and the Tories gleefully went along with
| it.
| Nursie wrote:
| IR35 is an absolute clusterfuck and I'm glad I left the UK
| and contract in Australia now.
|
| It's a huge financial risk being held over your head at every
| turn. If HMRC decide to investigate that can cost you and
| you're likely to be on the hook for all sorts of legal fees
| to fight them.
|
| If the courts side with them and decide that you are, in
| fact, caught by the legislation, they don't seem to work out
| liabilities based on what you paid in corporation tax,
| dividend tax etc, and what would have been owed under PAYE
| and NI, no, you get sicced with the whole lot again AFAICT.
| Neither does your determination as an employee entitle you to
| the employment benefits you would have had - pension
| contributions, paid time off etc - under that status. The
| whole thing is a big "fuck you" to the contractor.
|
| IMHO it only exists because of the imbalance in taxes in the
| UK between earned and invested income. The system is broken
| and in response, instead of fixing it, they decided to fuck
| over small players by putting them in jeopardy.
| iamflimflam1 wrote:
| IR35 was full of good intentions. Businesses were abusing
| the system by forcing low paid workers into self employment
| and contracting. This allowed them avoid paying national
| insurance or any normal employment benefits.
|
| Unfortunately highly paid consultants have been swept up
| into very badly implemented legislation.
| Nursie wrote:
| Yeah I don't disagree entirely with the intent - stop tax
| dodging by dodgy companies and by dodgy contractors.
|
| But the implementation, my god, it's a mess, and it seems
| to put the liability all in the wrong place, on the
| weakest party in the relationship.
|
| And as I said elsewhere, the root cause of the difference
| in taxation for the contractor is that investment income
| is taxed less than earned income, something I find pretty
| hard to accept in principle.
| pydry wrote:
| The intention _was_ to sweep up the consultants. They
| even bragged about getting an extra PS1 billion out of
| these people.
|
| It was mostly about enforcing a clearer class distinction
| between dirty workers and good clean capitalists (who are
| handed a lower tax bill).
|
| The list of rules actually has an interesting historical
| parallel - the Soviet Union would deport peasants ruled
| "outside ir35" to siberia and confiscate their assets in
| a process known as dekulakization.
| varispeed wrote:
| It's a classic corrupt regulatory capture. Big
| consultancies are not bound by IR35 despite operating the
| same business model.
|
| Guess what kind of business our PM's wife is involved
| in...
| Lio wrote:
| You mean the PM's wife who, until it became politically
| embarrassing for her husband, was dodging millions in tax
| as a non-domiciled foreign national?
|
| No idea but wasn't he the Chancellor of the Exchequer
| last time the IR35 rules were changed too?
|
| Strange the coincidences in life. ;)
| intelVISA wrote:
| As an AI language model you aren't supposed to notice
| those things.
| varispeed wrote:
| You are assuming there were good intentions. The real
| reason for this legislation was the fact that big
| consultancies were losing talent. Why should someone work
| through a big consultancy if they could work with the
| client directly.
|
| Like, why earn PS50k at consultancy if you can make PS500
| a day without them. It's a no brainer.
|
| So these big firms lobbied Treasury and government and
| they used tax avoidance as a vehicle for the "reform".
| It's funny though how the fact that big consultancies are
| actually avoiding paying tax is never brought in.
|
| Like tax yield from a big consultancy employee on PS50k
| is substantially lower than from a contractor on PS500 a
| day, even if they pay themselves the mythical low salary
| + dividend (which is a result of PAYE being not fit for
| purpose, but I digress).
|
| Currently IR35 actually _enables_ abuse of low paid
| workers, because they can get hired on inside IR35 and
| can't get any employment protections.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| So in Ireland, you basically pay exactly the same tax as
| a contractor as you would as an FTE.
|
| If you want to try the dividend trick, well then enjoy a
| special 5% tax on the gross value of the dividend, plus
| your personal income rates.
|
| As a result, contracting is essentially (from a tax
| perspective) equivalent to full time, which means no
| IR35.
|
| Mind you, the only difference between Ireland and Greece
| (apart from the weather) is our tax collection agencies,
| so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
| madsbuch wrote:
| forgive me if I am wrong. what I can see from rudimentary
| search on IR35 is that it is meant to make people pay the
| same tax whether. employed or working as a contractor.
|
| personally I find that reasonable. the government should
| subsidize contractors.
|
| so if a contractor just sets aside the same amount as they
| would have had to pay in a salaried job (including
| employers contribution) then all should be good?
|
| obviously this should be factored into the cost of doing
| business, but if a person deems themselves fit for
| contracting, then they are also fit for this administrative
| overhead.
| Nursie wrote:
| > forgive me if I am wrong. what I can see from
| rudimentary search on IR35 is that it is meant to make
| people pay the same tax whether. employed or working as a
| contractor.
|
| Yes, it is meant to, and that's perfectly reasonable as a
| starting point. That's how things are here in Australia
| AFAICT, without the need for this sort of legislation. If
| you are found to be inside the equivalent legislation in
| Aus, it mostly just affects what sort of expenses you can
| claim.
|
| In the UK though, there is a legitimate question about
| why tax should be different if (for example) I go into
| business selling my skills and sell them to a client
| company vs IBM selling my skills to a client company. Why
| should the big firm get to pay its people a salary with a
| part of their fees, then give profits to its shareholders
| as dividends, if a one-person operation cannot do the
| same?
|
| Also, as a contractor I am _not_ an employee. I do not
| get employment benefits. I do not get pension
| contributions. I do not get paid leave or cover for
| illness. Does this mean I should pay less tax? Perhaps
| not, but it does mean that the concerns are different.
|
| That all said, _in general_ , I agree with you, the same
| rough tax rate should apply. I didn't do
| contracting/consultancy as a tax dodge.
|
| The root cause of the issue that the government is
| addressing here, very badly, is that the tax rates are
| badly coded and favour investment income over earned
| income, something which I think is _deeply_ wrong in UK
| society anyway. Normalise these and the whole issue goes
| away.
|
| > so if a contractor just sets aside the same amount as
| they would have had to pay in a salaried job (including
| employers contribution) then all should be good?
|
| No, as I called out in my comment above, the outcomes of
| status investigations are not "make up the difference",
| it's "pay all the tax without taking into account
| _anything_ that 's already been paid". And that's before
| we get into legal and accountancy fees, the fact that
| expenses incurred in doing business will be re-evaluated
| and likely denied as ineligible, and you won't get any of
| the benefits you would have been owed by the business or
| by the government as an employee. You'd have to put a lot
| more aside than the difference, it ruins people. And it
| costs a lot more people money - there are a variety of
| forms of insurance people take out to cover the costs of
| investigations, court proceedings and even the eventual
| liabilities.
| madsbuch wrote:
| As written elsewhere, I can appreciate the differencen
| between the tax codes in different countries.
|
| When I contribute to my tax-exempt pension in Denmark, I
| can deduct that in whatever income I have, whether that
| is from an employment or profits of my own company.
|
| > forgive me if I am wrong.
|
| I think I need to defer to this one. I am completely
| ignorant on these things.
| Nursie wrote:
| As a contractor in the UK you can do that too, contribute
| pre-tax earnings up to a certain amount per year into
| your pension. Definitely a good plan.
|
| But yes, the difference seems to be that if you're caught
| out it's way worse than just paying back the difference,
| and the whole thing is very murky.
| germandiago wrote:
| I'd say that a freelancer or contractor should be free to
| choose the level of taxing (and services!) provided.
|
| That way more people can survive from their own effort
| and more activity is generated.
| Lio wrote:
| > _forgive me if I am wrong. what I can see from
| rudimentary search on IR35 is that it is meant to make
| people pay the same tax whether. employed or working as a
| contractor._
|
| It's not that you're wrong, it's that what you're
| suggesting is naive.
|
| There is no "equivalent" tax rate when working through a
| limited company and when IR35 applies per contract and
| not per worker.
|
| That's just not how tax works here. Instead you pay an
| accountant to estimate your accounts, hand them to HMRC
| and they either accept them as correct or hold a tax
| investigation.
|
| HMRC can't and won't tell you what you should pay, they
| just say yes or no to the estimate you provide them.
|
| There is no way to know what a potential future fine
| might be because they could reopen all previous year's
| tax returns.
|
| If they can't tell you then how can anyone else know what
| they should set aside?
| madsbuch wrote:
| I have also worked as a contractor (In Denmark, though).
| Working as a contractor in software development is rather
| forgiving, as there are only insignificant expenses.
| Therefore I can report most / all of my revenue as
| profits and pay full income tax. Knowing the basics of
| the Danish tax code, I can estimate my contribution and
| just pay it on a monthly basis to SKATs (Danish IRS) bank
| account. EOY I will report all my deductions, banks
| report all my capital gains, etc. and SKAT calculates the
| tax true rate and automatically pays me back within a
| week. If I forgot something, I can change merely change
| my reporting and everything is recalculated instantly.
|
| However, hearing about the systems in other countries
| makes me appreciate the Danish system.
| varispeed wrote:
| > what I can see from rudimentary search on IR35 is that
| it is meant to make people pay the same tax whether.
| employed or working as a contractor.
|
| Yes, this is used as a vehicle to make this legislation
| palatable to the voter. The truth is, big consultancies
| who operate the same business model as a contractor are
| exempt from the legislation. So if big consultancy
| charges PS500 a day for a worker, they don't have to pay
| PAYE on that PS500, even though their worker work as de
| facto employees at the client's, but contractor would
| have to.
| tome wrote:
| > big consultancies who operate the same business model
| as a contractor are exempt from the legislation
|
| What aspect of the legislation makes them exempt?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Being able to substitute staff. If you can accept a
| contract and then send your next door neighbour to do the
| work then that is a strong signal that you are outside
| IR35.
| varispeed wrote:
| This is entirely irrelevant unfortunately. You could be
| able to send substitute and still be in-scope of IR35.
| It's ultimately down to the client's risk appetite.
| varispeed wrote:
| It basically only applies to workers who also own the
| company they work through.
|
| > a worker who provides their services through _their
| own_ intermediary to a client
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| It really is a disaster for innovation. If a startup wants
| to launch or a company want to start a new product then
| they need a flexible workforce. They are going to end up
| with system integrators or nothing.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Yes, contracting was an easy step towards building a
| product business for me. I doubt I could do the same
| thing now.
| flir wrote:
| They can't provide a definitive list because case law can
| always overturn it.
|
| I guess the best they can offer is "if you do this, we will
| choose not to go after you". But even that can change, as you
| point out. They don't have the resouces to chase even close
| to everyone, so they have to rely on media messaging to do a
| lot of the policing for them (hence going after high-profile
| targets like TV presenters).
| retrac98 wrote:
| Sounds obvious, but broadly speaking the trick is to operate
| like a business, not an employee.
|
| A good accountant/tax advisor can help here. They _do_ know
| how HMRC categorise disguised employees and can help you not
| get burned.
| Lio wrote:
| They _don 't_ know that at all.
|
| A good accountant will make suggestions about things like
| control over work and deliverables but they can't tell you
| for sure if a contract is Inside or Outside.
|
| They don't know that because HMRC don't publish that
| information and their online tool only makes suggestions
| that you _maybe_ inside or you _maybe_ outside.
|
| You might think "just operate like a business not an
| individual" but that's not as easy as you might think.
|
| IR35 applies per contract not per worker. So having
| multiple concurrent customers doesn't protect you.
|
| If, say, you set up deliverables for a piece of software,
| deliver it to schedule and provide support during a testing
| period.
|
| Is that Inside or Outside IR35?
|
| The work has deliverables so that sounds like you're
| operating Outside. Hang on though, it also has a time-base
| component where you're providing support. I'm afraid time-
| base is probably Inside.
|
| Your accountant does not know for sure and they won't
| provide you with any real form of indemnity for their
| advice because of that.
|
| Only HMRC could say for sure but they don't.
| [deleted]
| hluska wrote:
| There is a big world outside of the UK. In Canada, for
| example, that advice would actually be quite good.
| mcv wrote:
| Netherland also still doesn't have clear rules about
| that. A couple of years ago they tried several things,
| and people and companies rebelled against some of those,
| and now they're mostly ignoring the whole issue again, I
| think.
|
| At least in my field, where contractors are paid far
| better than employees. There are also obvious, blatant
| cases where companies do use this as a loophole to reduce
| costs. And sometimes they do that with permission from
| the tax service, even! PostNL, the Dutch postal service
| fired all their mail deliverers and hired them back as
| contractors, but they still had to follow the schedules
| set by PostNL, wear their uniform, etc. Yet the tax
| service approved that.
|
| I don't get it. I think that's a blatant case of the
| abuse they're supposed to fight. But at least they're
| leaving me alone for now. I think the unspoken rule is
| that if you're paid well, it's probably fine, and they're
| focusing on cases where people are underpaid and unable
| to save up for retirement. Because those are the cases
| where this is going to cause problems.
| Nursie wrote:
| > A good accountant/tax advisor can help here.
|
| Until that accountant gets evaluated as a Managed Service
| Company provider because they gave too much advice, and you
| get hit that way instead.
|
| The whole space in the UK is a minefield.
| varispeed wrote:
| > the trick is to operate like a business, not an employee.
|
| That's not how it works. Actually the changed legislation
| made it irrelevant. What matters is the client's appetite
| for risk.
|
| That being said, it's peculiar that big consultancies were
| excluded from this legislation - they operate exactly the
| same business model after all.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It's not that peculiar when you consider who the Prime
| Minister is married to and her father's business.
| saurik wrote:
| > people quickly learnt that unless the remuneration was
| increased in proportion
|
| I mean, not only is this my experience, but that's the trope,
| no? You get fired and then hired back as a consultant for twice
| the cost? Regardless, if that isn't happening, this doesn't
| seem like a problem we should be fixing using government. No
| matter how you are classified, you need to make sure the net
| compensation you are receiving for doing the job is worth all
| the costs (which includes not only any time and materials you
| are supposed to be bringing to the job yourself, but also
| indirect stuff like occupational risk exposure).
|
| To put this story in reverse: somehow in the United States
| we've pawned off the problems we SHOULD be solving using
| government--stuff like health care, retirement planning, and
| disability leave--to private companies to each separately
| manage for their individual pool of employees, which has
| resulted in a system that privileges larger companies that can
| have larger and more amortized employee pools and has created
| this ridiculous idea that there is this concept of an
| "employee" that must be mandated and enforced. It is all a
| massive misdirection that helps lock in and prevent collective
| action.
| mcv wrote:
| In Netherland, being a consultant, freelancer or independent
| contractor is the only way to get paid your worth. Salaries for
| programmers are often terrible. Well, maybe not terrible, but
| lower than they should be.
|
| I had a project at a bank, where I created the initial
| prototype for a new, vague idea and guided the project (through
| constantly changing product owners and other team changes) to
| become very successful. Because the tax service was being
| difficult about the difference between a self-employed
| contractor and an employee, the bank had a rule that self-
| employed contractors couldn't stay for more than two years, but
| after two years, I wasn't done with that project yet. So I
| became an employee.
|
| The bank has pay scales for employees, and I had to fit in
| there. Software engineers could have a pay scale from 8-12,
| product owners, scrum masters, business architects and other
| people I worked with had pay scales from 10-13. One freelancer-
| turned-employee that I spoke to came from a very similar hourly
| rate to scale 12 (as product owner). I figured I was worth
| scale 12 too, but it turned out they had no programmers in
| scale 11 or 12 at all, and 10 was the maximum that was used,
| despite the fact that 10 was the minimum for pretty much every
| other job at that department.
|
| Later at a department-wide meeting, the manager had the gall to
| complain that all their senior engineers would leave.
|
| Many other companies pay similar rates for programmers as
| employees, but have no problem paying much more for you when
| you're a contractor or freelancer of some sort.
| wofo wrote:
| This is one of the reasons why I'm contracting in The
| Netherlands! Though also because of the flexibility (3
| billable days / week)...
| ttymck wrote:
| Which tax man in what countries? Based on your vague
| description I see a picture of labor protection asking
| employers to pay their fair share, not the tax man.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Yes that's the problem. People often work exclusively for a
| single employer but call this contracting because supposedly
| it's a deal between two companies (a real company, and a one-
| person shop). But no, that's still an employment contract,
| this is determined by the nature of the relationship, not by
| specific words written in the contract or rituals such as
| issuing an invoice.
| flir wrote:
| The core difference is contract of service vs contract for
| service (in the UK anyway). How many employees you have, or
| how many clients you have, doesn't enter into it because
| the decision is made on a per-contract basis.
|
| If you think the length of the contract should be the
| determinant of the relationship, I have to ask what you
| think the maximum should be? I assume you still want to be
| able to hire a builder for three weeks to build an
| extension without going to the trouble of paying his tax
| for him, but you think three months for an IT contract
| turns you into a disguised employee. So where's the line?
| puszczyk wrote:
| Is this a problem though? I a lot of countries you can open
| a 1 shop company, and any two companies can sign whatever
| they agree on into the contract. Of course some higher
| level laws may void (parts of) the contract.
|
| Do you think that "nature of the relationship" is more
| important than wording of contract? Why?
|
| If countries hate the idea of 1 person shop contractors
| they can still ban the "shadow employment" via higher level
| laws. If they don't I don't understand how this is a
| problem.
| Thoeu388 wrote:
| If you work as a contractor in EU, you absolutely need
| multiple clients. Single client sets many red flags in
| tax office, and should be avoided.
| skatanski wrote:
| Not currently in Poland. There were attempts to do so
| though. All in all certain presumptions can trigger red
| flags for the tax office, all and any of the following:
| 40h a week, paid days off (especially 20/26 days), work
| in the same place, at the same time, under supervision.
| With IT its safest to contract for a company without
| entity in Poland. Also you'll find many people who still
| cover a lot of the above and never been bothered by the
| tax man. So I'd say its just being extra careful.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Not in all of EU: at least in Finland, the tax office
| clarified a long time ago that if the papers (business
| registration, contracts, insurances etc.) are done
| properly, the number of clients doesn't matter.
| ant6n wrote:
| > If countries hate the idea of 1 person shop contractors
| they can still ban the "shadow employment" via higher
| level laws. If they don't I don't understand how this is
| a problem.
|
| They do. The problem is deciding whether you are a
| contractor or an employee under such laws, and the risk
| that the tax man (and employment insurance system
| including health care and pensions) will retroactively
| deem you a factual employee, thus creating a large set of
| potential liabilities for all involved.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| That's easily remedied. Many companies will not work with 1099
| contractors and will only work with third party consulting
| companies.
|
| When I was a dev lead, my manager wanted "another me". I had a
| friend looking for work and he wanted $80/hour. My manager
| didn't have a problem with the hourly rate. He was willing to
| pay $110 per hour to the consulting agency we were going
| through so they could hire him and we could work through them.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| True. Germany has strict rules against _scheinselbstandigkeit_
| (shadow employment) as well. However many intrepid consultants
| find ways to skirt around it.
| qwertox wrote:
| It's officially called `bogus self-employment`. The linked-to
| site also lists an example case.
|
| https://www.eu-gleichbehandlungsstelle.de/eugs-
| en/practical-...
| kodah wrote:
| Agree to an extent. Contractor relationships are abused at many
| companies, but this is usually the case with mid to low level
| positions. People who make it through senior ranks and go on to
| become consultants get treated very differently. The latter is
| also incredibly lucrative.
| josephg wrote:
| Can confirm. Senior consultants are also very valuable to
| companies because they can say and do things that are
| necessary but politically taboo within the organisation. -
| Like pointing out underperforming teams and managers to upper
| management.
| mkl95 wrote:
| One of the best House MD plot lines was when House was
| fired, then hired as a consultant because the other guys
| were not that good.
| antupis wrote:
| It is not that simple and varies country to country. Here
| Finland best software developers usually go
| consulting/freelancing in their later career because that is
| where big money is in our software ecosystem and it has some
| rather big tax benefits.
| mikeegg1 wrote:
| Off topic: can you talk more about the tax benefits?
| distances wrote:
| Same in Germany. You can get about twice the pay (if you
| manage to stay fully booked), though you don't save anything
| in taxes -- unless you count in VAT free equipment purchases
| and avoiding the public pension scheme.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Are you saying you can't get any of your business revenue
| classified as capital gains, or that capital gains are not
| taxed lighter than salaries in Germany?
|
| In Finland, you actually have to participate in the public
| pension scheme even as an enterpreneur - this is part of
| the mandatory social security system.
| [deleted]
| distances wrote:
| In Finland, the first part of the dividend is taxed very
| lightly. That's not the case in Germany, where all
| dividends are taxed at the regular capital gains rate.
| Which yes is generally lower than your income tax rate.
|
| But you're also paying corporation tax, which pushes the
| tax rate a bit above what you'd pay if you just paid the
| regular income tax. And then you're in another level of
| bureaucracy and accounting.
|
| That was the rough situation when I was considering
| incorporation and abandoned the idea. Others have taken
| the company route and may have found ways to make it work
| for them.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| basically same in DK, although also ageism in the industry I
| think means you often have to go consulting.
|
| There are a lot of companies that seem willing to hire me as
| a consultant, not so many as a permanent employee.
| WJW wrote:
| Here in the Netherlands I've seen this too. It's somewhat
| confusing to speak about freelancers as a single group
| because they stretch all the way from doordash drivers making
| minimum wage (and sometimes less) to well-paid someware
| developers making about twice what a employed senior dev
| would. One of those is economically precarious and needs
| (government) assistance, the other is doing just fine.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| also I should note for being a consultant to make any sense
| you should really make twice as much as a permanent
| employee since you have to take care of your own pension,
| vacation, often have to pay for meals where employees get
| them paid for, and have the chance of going some months
| without work when a contract gets over.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Also sick days, public holidays etc. Yeah, twice the rate
| is just about right to compensate all the added stress
| and potential to have 0 income for months, without much
| of a social safety net. Good year and you will come on
| top easily, a bad one can literally wipe you off the face
| of Earth. Also depending on given system pension savings
| can be minimal.
|
| Once you have kids and whole family to feed and pay
| various expenses for, the pressure to keep earning is
| non-trivial. There is some envy from perm employees
| towards better paid contractors, but I always tell them
| to try that. A lot of 'but but XYZ' reasoning for why it
| can't be done now happens afterwards.
| intelVISA wrote:
| > potential to have 0 income for months
|
| Depends on the domain. IME there are niches outside of
| CRUD where you can be backlogged for years: you'll have
| to solve hard problems though which is not a good fit/WLB
| for everyone.
| WJW wrote:
| > a bad one can literally wipe you off the face of Earth
|
| This is where living in western Europe helps a lot. But
| yes, you have to take care of more things yourself. If
| you cannot maintain a financial buffer of at least a few
| months, I would not advise starting off on your own just
| yet.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I write this from Western Europe perspective, it goes all
| downhill on social help from there anywhere else you look
| :)
|
| You don't have that much of social safety net when
| working on your own, thats mostly for perm employees.
| Financial buffer is obvious, but what if you end up with
| some horrible accident or illness that will drain it and
| need more. The amount of continuous stress is much higher
| compared to perm employees, additional bureaucracy, the
| need to chase next employment, overall insecurity etc.
| mcv wrote:
| Even in western Europe, being self-employed means you're
| opting out of a lot of the things that are so well-
| arranged for employees. No paid sick leave, no paid
| vacation days, no unemployment benefits, you have to save
| up for your own retirement and get your own disability
| insurance.
|
| And yet, for me it works. I'm much happier this way
| somehow.
| systemtest wrote:
| I live in The Netherlands and work as a contractor. I
| would have to sell my house, my car and eat through all
| of my savings including most of my retirement fund before
| I am eligible for long-term unemployment (bijstand). And
| there isn't any other form of safety net for contractors.
| Not really an option for me.
|
| We do have private insurance so that you don't bankrupt
| yourself in case you get cancer.
| ghaff wrote:
| Because much of Western Europe has a better social safety
| net (especially healthcare) than many other places, a lot
| of people seem to think that being out of work for an
| extended period really isn't a big deal.
| ensocode wrote:
| Lots of good, valid information in this article. After more than
| 10 years in this field I would add, that it can be beneficial to
| do the book keeping yourself. It is useful to get a feeling for
| your numbers and expenses which helps you when doing financial
| decisions.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| > This time should be removed from the log, it's still there but
| it is your time, not your customers time.
|
| Oof, lost me here. Guess what? It is the customer's time.
|
| Software is huge. Huge huge. Gargantuan. I don't have an eidetic
| memory and if the customer wants a developer with eidetic memory
| they're free to look for one.
|
| I will always be learning and re-learning. It's a big field with
| lots of long small pitfalls. If you have a non-standard system,
| it means I'm digging and re-learning some shit I thought I had
| the luxury to forget. That is _definitely_ on the customer.
| xupybd wrote:
| Work 8-10 hours a day 6 days a week. How can you do that with a
| family?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Just bill your family by the hour.
| bartvk wrote:
| I live in Europe as a subcontractor and I work 32 hours per
| week. That's billable hours, which excludes travel/commute,
| bookkeeping, trainings, and searching for new projects. It
| works fine with family. I do my own bookkeeping and taxes.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| But 32 hours a week is far less than 8-10 hours a day for 6
| days. Not sure what you are getting at.
| velosol wrote:
| How do those 32 hours end up by day (ie 6, 8, 6, 8, 6)?
| dgb23 wrote:
| With or without a family, the reality is that you work in
| spikes.
|
| You have times where you work much less than that on client
| projects, maybe just 50% of that, and use some of the "free"
| time to tinker, learn, improve your internal tooling etc. And
| of course spend more time with family and friends.
|
| Then there are times where you have to squeeze in as much
| (billable) work into a week as possible. Deadlines need to be
| met, quality & testing needs to be rock solid.
|
| Then there are times where you spike up with work and start
| neglecting family and friends. It's just how it goes. No amount
| of planning can prevent these spikes completely.
|
| I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally you are in part
| hired for your flexibility and high engagement. You give
| certain guarantees that employees don't and you make absolutely
| sure that those expectations are met.
|
| But again, it's an ebb and flow thing. Or it should be. There
| needs to be times where you decompress for a while, look at the
| big picture and sharpen your tools.
| jlnho wrote:
| Simple, you neglect your family!
| zer0tonin wrote:
| I have never done that when working as an independent
| contractor.
| ricksunny wrote:
| Interested in what the community thinks of his post's sub-bullet
| on self discipline
|
| https://jacquesmattheij.com/be-consultant/self-discipline/
| wofo wrote:
| > Work 6 days per week. Use that saturday to work on things
| that are harder to do during the week because of interruptions.
|
| In my own case I haven't found it necessary to overwork. In
| fact, if overworking was the only way to make it I'd probably
| become an employee. My current schedule is 4 days / week,
| consisting of 8 hour work days. Three of those days are for
| billable work, one for other stuff (bookkeeping, sales,
| blogging, keeping up with HN :P). I plan to write a proper
| article with more details by the end of this year, when I feel
| I have enough things to tell.
| azlev wrote:
| > that this skill is marketable
|
| That's the hardest part to me. How do I know that? Looking at
| others consultants?
| 10g1k wrote:
| If you can put in the effort to get good (better than average) at
| one marketable skill, present yourself well, and commit to it,
| you'll do ok as a contractor/freelancer.
| russnes wrote:
| this has been my experience so far, being 3 years into it
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| It's not hard. Most people suck. Honestly, if you just answer
| the phone and reply to emails, people will think you're some
| kind of god.
| yuvadam wrote:
| I lol'd, but this is very true.
| ehnto wrote:
| Good communication is 80% of the job for sure. Managing
| expectations is your own secret weapon. A good communicator
| can give themselves plenty of time and the client will be
| happy about it. Poorly communicating timeframes will have
| people distrusting and frustrated, and you'll be under
| pressure to boot.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _How To Be a Consultant, a freelancer or an independent
| contractor (2009)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2255463
| - Feb 2011 (7 comments)
|
| _How to run a small consultancy / freelancing business_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=848370 - Sept 2009 (63
| comments)
| jmconfuzeus wrote:
| As a programmer, it's always a few months of work before the
| client stops spending on development. At that point, I can go up
| to 3 months without work, which means high anxiety because if I
| wasn't able to save much, I have to scurry around trying to find
| work. Sometimes I get a referral or two but it'd be nice to have
| about the same stability as being employed.
|
| How do you programmers here manage to land a constant amount of
| work while freelancing?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-18 23:03 UTC)