Summing up the comments on the article about the IP

Thanks to everyone who mentioned in the comments to my first article . It turned out interesting (and, as usual, mentioned a lot of valuable).
For those who do not have time to study all four hundred comments, I collected a brief content under the cat.

Not all factors in favor of IE, which I indicated in the first text , were supported.
The flexibility of contracts really depends more on how much a particular person is important to the company. My experience suggests that cooperation with the PI is usually practiced in those positions where partners are important (and, conversely, work on the TC - where there is a “flow” of personnel). But it really doesn’t say anything about the contracts themselves and about the “average market” situation.
The public is doubtful about the idea of ​​customizing the contract. I can not give general advice - not a lawyer. It is clear that it is impossible to enter sick leave, holidays and other typical abstractions on TK - this was emphasized in the comments. However, it is possible, for example, to add the Contractor’s disease to the list of force majeure, providing for a review of the deadlines (how to make a payment - a separate conversation).
Another point is that the benefit from the status of an IP depends significantly on its annual income, and here, of course, it should be considered in each specific case (and I considered making the decision to open an IP). Contributions to the funds are really obligatory, i.e. they are paid, even if there is no income. But I did not consider the case of income not paying back these payments.

The people are clearly anxious about retirement, but they give up discussions on this topic with policies that I did not plan to touch on. The root of the question is not at all.
If we talk about the particulars, there was a comment in the comments regarding retirement points, which receive individual entrepreneurs or physical persons with the same income on their hands. But as there it was found out, an impressive difference is formed from the fact that the employer pays extra for the “physics”. SP, if desired, can retire points for the same amount. However, in any case, there is a certain pension limit, more of which is not to be received from the state (and it is necessary to live up to the pension).
It is necessary to understand the peculiarities of the economy (at least the fact that there is nothing immutable), bring up financial discipline and think about the future yourself. This is also useful from the point of view of “compensation” of the sick in the absence of such a concept in the contract.

Useful details of taxation and clearance surfaced in the comments.

• On several occasions, commentators focused on the tax deduction for individual entrepreneurs in the simplified taxation system without workers in the amount of payments to funds (with timely payment).
  
• A patent in the IT field for the first 2 years has a tax rate of 0%.
• There are tax holidays for entrepreneurs that open for the first time (with different restrictions of this “attraction of unprecedented generosity”). They are valid for 2 calendar years, which means that those who fall under the conditions are more profitable to open at the beginning of the year.

')
There were also some interesting horror stories not mentioned in the article, which, from my point of view, work in favor of the IP status (well, or at least not to the detriment of it).

• The state seeks to “whitewash” the incomes of citizens: the idea of ​​self-employed is developing (although their applicability to IT is not yet clear), taxation and bureaucracy for individual entrepreneurs are simplified. At the same time, no one guaranteed that sooner or later the officially unemployed would not begin to oppress. Periodically, such thoughts have lawmakers.
• An individual cannot legally work for a non-resident. And in the comments, income in currency is discussed in detail, where to read about it (and most importantly, what will happen, if not “whitewash”). By the way, and on taxation of different countries, too, have gone, but this is already beyond the scope of the topic.
• Responsibility of the property is. Even if it is limited in the contract, the client can theoretically go to court, claiming large losses. It all scares. But not only the PI can be tried. An official or an LLC, as noted in the comments, does not have protection against such a confluence of circumstances (up to landing, if the result of the fakap is human sacrifice). And in my opinion, even if there is a court, the process can be delayed for a long time by hiring a lawyer who will submit the necessary papers in time. And you still try to prove the amount of damage.
  

Finally, I left a point mentioned in the comments against IP - a pack with the transfer of data from the FIU to the FTS from 2017-2018 (contributions from 2014 to 2016). For details, I invite you to the source . I will not retell in detail. But this is far from being touched by everyone, the attitude to the problem is different. Some even expressed positive feedback from this transformation - they say, there is more order in the FSN.
As much as possible to protect yourself from such problems allows you to:

• careful selection of the bank (search for who will warn if it smells fried),
• careful attention to correspondence from the tax.