Why do some companies prefer consultants over salaried employees?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
15
down vote

favorite
9












I am curious as to why a company would rather hire consultants over salaried employees. Aren't consultants more expensive, since there is usually the middleman consultancy firm in between?



And why would you opt to hire someone for just 6 months, and then have an expert(potentially) leave?



I am curious as to the motivations behind hiring consultants. It would seem that the overhead cost for consulting is much more. thanks



So my question is generally - why would you hire consultants if the overhead costs seem so much higher?




consultants job-security




share|improve this question


















  • 3




    Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
    – David K
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16










  • Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
    – user8365
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33










  • In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
    – Pavel
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:43










  • It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 20:03






  • 3




    I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 21:48
















up vote
15
down vote

favorite
9












I am curious as to why a company would rather hire consultants over salaried employees. Aren't consultants more expensive, since there is usually the middleman consultancy firm in between?



And why would you opt to hire someone for just 6 months, and then have an expert(potentially) leave?



I am curious as to the motivations behind hiring consultants. It would seem that the overhead cost for consulting is much more. thanks



So my question is generally - why would you hire consultants if the overhead costs seem so much higher?




consultants job-security




share|improve this question


















  • 3




    Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
    – David K
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16










  • Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
    – user8365
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33










  • In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
    – Pavel
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:43










  • It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 20:03






  • 3




    I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 21:48












up vote
15
down vote

favorite
9









up vote
15
down vote

favorite
9






9





I am curious as to why a company would rather hire consultants over salaried employees. Aren't consultants more expensive, since there is usually the middleman consultancy firm in between?



And why would you opt to hire someone for just 6 months, and then have an expert(potentially) leave?



I am curious as to the motivations behind hiring consultants. It would seem that the overhead cost for consulting is much more. thanks



So my question is generally - why would you hire consultants if the overhead costs seem so much higher?




consultants job-security




share|improve this question














I am curious as to why a company would rather hire consultants over salaried employees. Aren't consultants more expensive, since there is usually the middleman consultancy firm in between?



And why would you opt to hire someone for just 6 months, and then have an expert(potentially) leave?



I am curious as to the motivations behind hiring consultants. It would seem that the overhead cost for consulting is much more. thanks



So my question is generally - why would you hire consultants if the overhead costs seem so much higher?





consultants job-security





share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 30 '15 at 21:47









Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449




96.8k46292449










asked Jul 30 '15 at 18:08









Adel

3,571104180




3,571104180







  • 3




    Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
    – David K
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16










  • Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
    – user8365
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33










  • In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
    – Pavel
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:43










  • It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 20:03






  • 3




    I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 21:48












  • 3




    Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
    – David K
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16










  • Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
    – user8365
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33










  • In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
    – Pavel
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:43










  • It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 20:03






  • 3




    I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 21:48







3




3




Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
– David K
Jul 30 '15 at 18:16




Related - Difference between contract and full-time?
– David K
Jul 30 '15 at 18:16












Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
– user8365
Jul 30 '15 at 19:33




Just curious why you assume all tasks need to be done for the entire life of the company?
– user8365
Jul 30 '15 at 19:33












In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
– Pavel
Jul 30 '15 at 19:43




In Germany, for example, it may be close to legally impossible to make a salaried employee redundant. That makes it cheaper to pay, say, three years for a very expensive consultant, than 30 for a relatively cheaper employee.
– Pavel
Jul 30 '15 at 19:43












It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
– HLGEM
Jul 30 '15 at 20:03




It is a false assumption that consultants are always more expensive to the company. Overhead for employees includes (US-centric answer) contributions for government required things like workman's comp and unemployment and Social Security and Medicare, cost of benefits, cost of company overhead, etc
– HLGEM
Jul 30 '15 at 20:03




3




3




I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 21:48




I edited this slightly, I think it's a great and answerable question but was picking up downvotes.
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 21:48










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
41
down vote



accepted










Why hire consultants instead of FTEs?




What are the pro's of hiring consultants, and when do you need one?




Keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.



Among other reasons:



  • Sometimes you need someone to get the job done.


  • Sometimes you don't have time for developing a skillset.


  • Sometimes you need to borrow the skillset of the consultant to mentor your FTEs.


  • Sometimes you need someone on a short term basis and don't want to deal with the other overhead with FTE (benefits, development, etc). Releasing a consultant/contractor is far "better" from a PR perspective than laying off or firing a FTE.


  • Sometimes you don't know how long you will have funding (maybe you have extra funding). Or the funding is for a specific calendar/fiscal year.


  • Sometimes you want to call a company and say, "get me an [expert / intermediate / novice] person with skills X, Y, Z" and not spend hours/dollars recruiting/interviewing


  • Sometimes budget categories for FTE vs "contingent/consultant" spending are different, you may have no FTE available but can get a consultant (thanks @LaconicDroid!)


  • Sometimes you want someone to "blame" if things go wrong and it's easier to blame (or pursue legal action against) an external company than an internal FTE (thanks @JoelEtherton)


  • Sometimes a manager just wants to work, and jumping through all the hoops required to get a FTE vs contractor just isn't worth it. If it's easier to hire a consultant, that might be the "preferred" way for a hiring manager (thanks @Air)


  • Sometimes business conditions dictate drastic change and most consultants can be dropped on very short notice without paying any severance or unemployment (thanks @Joe Strazzere)


Cost comparison



This part is not for the faint of heart!



Regarding cost, let's consider hiring a consultant costing your company $100/hr. Somewhat senior, but not super senior. The consultant will be paid to work for 40 hours for 46 weeks of the year (vacation/holidays/sick time totals 6 weeks). The total cost your company will pay for that consultant is $100 * 46 * 40 = $184,000.



For the FTE, how much can we pay before we "run out of money" for that year? Here are some estimated costs and losses for that FTE:



  • 2 week training / year (new hire, lots of misc stuff)

  • 3 weeks vacation / year

  • 2 weeks holiday / year (10 days)

  • 1 week sick (or personal) time / year

  • 2 week of FTE related meetings total (~2 hr/week - 1/1s, team meetings, department meetings, teambuilding, etc)

We will generously say total working hours are 40*42 = 1680 hours.



Here are some guesstimates for additional costs or benefits provided to that person as a FTE that are not present for consultants (or less):



  • $5000 company portion for healthcare

  • $1000 training costs

  • $2000 signing bonus

  • $5000 relocation expenses

  • $15000 cost for interview expenses (total reimbursement, wages for management/HR/recruiting, commission to recruiter, etc - this is probably a very low estimate for any sizable company or recruiter costs)

  • $1000 educational benefit/reimbursement

  • $1000 misc travel

That totals $30k in more fixed expenses associated with hiring an FTE. We also will have a bunch of categories that are more percentage based and not completely fixed, such as:



  • FICA taxes (USA only, 7.65% in 2015)

  • Insurance for life, disability, workers comp (1%)

  • Unemployment (1%)

  • Bonus potential (5%)

  • 401k match (4%)

This is an additional 18.65% in cost per year for an FTE.



Additionally, our FTE and the consultant are working different amounts. Notice from above that our FTE has 42 weeks of direct value add hours per year, compared to 46 for the consultant. We will also assume the new FTE is only 90% as effective as a consultant (which is probably reasonably generous to the FTE on average) which results in only 37.8 weeks of "work value" from the FTE.



Hooookay almost there. So we have:



  • $30k extra expenses

  • Only 82% yearly productivity

  • 19% extra "scaled" costs

If we take that initial $184k, we get:



  • Subtracting fixed costs, $184k - $30k = $155k

  • Subtracting productivity cost, $155k*0.82 = $127k

  • Subtracting extra "scaled" costs, $127k*0.81 = $103k

This means for this example, assuming pretty generous inputs biased towards the FTE, the most you could offer in salary is $103k/year to compete with the $100/hr consultant.



Especially since we haven't "charged" the FTE with anything to account for the FTE hiring process taking longer than a consultant. Or the extra overhead for the entire company for a FTE.



Playing with numbers here gives you a lot of explanation for why "overpaid consultants" are not as overpaid as you might think. Especially depending on how effective of an FTE you can hire, if you have to train in a technology take that 90% effectiveness and drop it significantly.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    @Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16







  • 3




    As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
    – Laconic Droid
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:24






  • 1




    @LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:25






  • 1




    And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:59






  • 3




    Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
    – Lilienthal♦
    Jul 31 '15 at 8:02

















up vote
8
down vote













There are several reasons to hire a consultant.



First, in spite of their "high prices", consultants are almost always cheaper than in-house staff. The cost of an employee to a company is much more than just his or her salary. An employee also has a bonus, has benefits, needs training, uses IT infrastructure, takes up a desk in an office building, builds up a retirement, may have significant costs if laid off (e.g. in Europe), etc. All of these increase an employee's cost, and, in large companies, this is significant. It's not unusual for an employee to cost a project significantly more than $250 / hour when you look at the internal accounting system. The high consultant fee includes all (or nearly all) costs for that consultant.



Second, consultants may have expertise in an area that the company does not want to or cannot economically justify building up. For example, if the company's core business is producing beverages, it may make sense for them to hire consultants to build software systems for them. That is, the beverage company may choose to focus on their core business and choose to hire in experts in areas they don't know much about to help them out. It may be more costly or difficult, for example, for them to find and attract IT-savvy management and technical staff to build the necessary infrastructure, and they may only need the majority of that IT expertise long enough to get the system up and running.






share|improve this answer




















  • You forgot a big one -- insurance.
    – Burhan Khalid
    Aug 2 '15 at 8:30

















up vote
2
down vote













From the taxes standpoint, hiring consultants is an "expense" that can get written off. However, for employees you actually have to pay taxes for them, not to mention insurance, benefits, etc.



Or in my company's case, it's just hard to hire the right candidate that has the expertise we want. So although we want to hire full time, it's hard to compete with the bigger companies for talent, so we have no choice.






share|improve this answer






















  • Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
    – Adel
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:29






  • 1




    You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
    – CleverNode
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:11






  • 1




    @Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
    – Dan
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33










Your Answer







StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50401%2fwhy-do-some-companies-prefer-consultants-over-salaried-employees%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest












StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;

var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);

)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();


);
);






3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
41
down vote



accepted










Why hire consultants instead of FTEs?




What are the pro's of hiring consultants, and when do you need one?




Keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.



Among other reasons:



  • Sometimes you need someone to get the job done.


  • Sometimes you don't have time for developing a skillset.


  • Sometimes you need to borrow the skillset of the consultant to mentor your FTEs.


  • Sometimes you need someone on a short term basis and don't want to deal with the other overhead with FTE (benefits, development, etc). Releasing a consultant/contractor is far "better" from a PR perspective than laying off or firing a FTE.


  • Sometimes you don't know how long you will have funding (maybe you have extra funding). Or the funding is for a specific calendar/fiscal year.


  • Sometimes you want to call a company and say, "get me an [expert / intermediate / novice] person with skills X, Y, Z" and not spend hours/dollars recruiting/interviewing


  • Sometimes budget categories for FTE vs "contingent/consultant" spending are different, you may have no FTE available but can get a consultant (thanks @LaconicDroid!)


  • Sometimes you want someone to "blame" if things go wrong and it's easier to blame (or pursue legal action against) an external company than an internal FTE (thanks @JoelEtherton)


  • Sometimes a manager just wants to work, and jumping through all the hoops required to get a FTE vs contractor just isn't worth it. If it's easier to hire a consultant, that might be the "preferred" way for a hiring manager (thanks @Air)


  • Sometimes business conditions dictate drastic change and most consultants can be dropped on very short notice without paying any severance or unemployment (thanks @Joe Strazzere)


Cost comparison



This part is not for the faint of heart!



Regarding cost, let's consider hiring a consultant costing your company $100/hr. Somewhat senior, but not super senior. The consultant will be paid to work for 40 hours for 46 weeks of the year (vacation/holidays/sick time totals 6 weeks). The total cost your company will pay for that consultant is $100 * 46 * 40 = $184,000.



For the FTE, how much can we pay before we "run out of money" for that year? Here are some estimated costs and losses for that FTE:



  • 2 week training / year (new hire, lots of misc stuff)

  • 3 weeks vacation / year

  • 2 weeks holiday / year (10 days)

  • 1 week sick (or personal) time / year

  • 2 week of FTE related meetings total (~2 hr/week - 1/1s, team meetings, department meetings, teambuilding, etc)

We will generously say total working hours are 40*42 = 1680 hours.



Here are some guesstimates for additional costs or benefits provided to that person as a FTE that are not present for consultants (or less):



  • $5000 company portion for healthcare

  • $1000 training costs

  • $2000 signing bonus

  • $5000 relocation expenses

  • $15000 cost for interview expenses (total reimbursement, wages for management/HR/recruiting, commission to recruiter, etc - this is probably a very low estimate for any sizable company or recruiter costs)

  • $1000 educational benefit/reimbursement

  • $1000 misc travel

That totals $30k in more fixed expenses associated with hiring an FTE. We also will have a bunch of categories that are more percentage based and not completely fixed, such as:



  • FICA taxes (USA only, 7.65% in 2015)

  • Insurance for life, disability, workers comp (1%)

  • Unemployment (1%)

  • Bonus potential (5%)

  • 401k match (4%)

This is an additional 18.65% in cost per year for an FTE.



Additionally, our FTE and the consultant are working different amounts. Notice from above that our FTE has 42 weeks of direct value add hours per year, compared to 46 for the consultant. We will also assume the new FTE is only 90% as effective as a consultant (which is probably reasonably generous to the FTE on average) which results in only 37.8 weeks of "work value" from the FTE.



Hooookay almost there. So we have:



  • $30k extra expenses

  • Only 82% yearly productivity

  • 19% extra "scaled" costs

If we take that initial $184k, we get:



  • Subtracting fixed costs, $184k - $30k = $155k

  • Subtracting productivity cost, $155k*0.82 = $127k

  • Subtracting extra "scaled" costs, $127k*0.81 = $103k

This means for this example, assuming pretty generous inputs biased towards the FTE, the most you could offer in salary is $103k/year to compete with the $100/hr consultant.



Especially since we haven't "charged" the FTE with anything to account for the FTE hiring process taking longer than a consultant. Or the extra overhead for the entire company for a FTE.



Playing with numbers here gives you a lot of explanation for why "overpaid consultants" are not as overpaid as you might think. Especially depending on how effective of an FTE you can hire, if you have to train in a technology take that 90% effectiveness and drop it significantly.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    @Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16







  • 3




    As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
    – Laconic Droid
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:24






  • 1




    @LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:25






  • 1




    And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:59






  • 3




    Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
    – Lilienthal♦
    Jul 31 '15 at 8:02














up vote
41
down vote



accepted










Why hire consultants instead of FTEs?




What are the pro's of hiring consultants, and when do you need one?




Keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.



Among other reasons:



  • Sometimes you need someone to get the job done.


  • Sometimes you don't have time for developing a skillset.


  • Sometimes you need to borrow the skillset of the consultant to mentor your FTEs.


  • Sometimes you need someone on a short term basis and don't want to deal with the other overhead with FTE (benefits, development, etc). Releasing a consultant/contractor is far "better" from a PR perspective than laying off or firing a FTE.


  • Sometimes you don't know how long you will have funding (maybe you have extra funding). Or the funding is for a specific calendar/fiscal year.


  • Sometimes you want to call a company and say, "get me an [expert / intermediate / novice] person with skills X, Y, Z" and not spend hours/dollars recruiting/interviewing


  • Sometimes budget categories for FTE vs "contingent/consultant" spending are different, you may have no FTE available but can get a consultant (thanks @LaconicDroid!)


  • Sometimes you want someone to "blame" if things go wrong and it's easier to blame (or pursue legal action against) an external company than an internal FTE (thanks @JoelEtherton)


  • Sometimes a manager just wants to work, and jumping through all the hoops required to get a FTE vs contractor just isn't worth it. If it's easier to hire a consultant, that might be the "preferred" way for a hiring manager (thanks @Air)


  • Sometimes business conditions dictate drastic change and most consultants can be dropped on very short notice without paying any severance or unemployment (thanks @Joe Strazzere)


Cost comparison



This part is not for the faint of heart!



Regarding cost, let's consider hiring a consultant costing your company $100/hr. Somewhat senior, but not super senior. The consultant will be paid to work for 40 hours for 46 weeks of the year (vacation/holidays/sick time totals 6 weeks). The total cost your company will pay for that consultant is $100 * 46 * 40 = $184,000.



For the FTE, how much can we pay before we "run out of money" for that year? Here are some estimated costs and losses for that FTE:



  • 2 week training / year (new hire, lots of misc stuff)

  • 3 weeks vacation / year

  • 2 weeks holiday / year (10 days)

  • 1 week sick (or personal) time / year

  • 2 week of FTE related meetings total (~2 hr/week - 1/1s, team meetings, department meetings, teambuilding, etc)

We will generously say total working hours are 40*42 = 1680 hours.



Here are some guesstimates for additional costs or benefits provided to that person as a FTE that are not present for consultants (or less):



  • $5000 company portion for healthcare

  • $1000 training costs

  • $2000 signing bonus

  • $5000 relocation expenses

  • $15000 cost for interview expenses (total reimbursement, wages for management/HR/recruiting, commission to recruiter, etc - this is probably a very low estimate for any sizable company or recruiter costs)

  • $1000 educational benefit/reimbursement

  • $1000 misc travel

That totals $30k in more fixed expenses associated with hiring an FTE. We also will have a bunch of categories that are more percentage based and not completely fixed, such as:



  • FICA taxes (USA only, 7.65% in 2015)

  • Insurance for life, disability, workers comp (1%)

  • Unemployment (1%)

  • Bonus potential (5%)

  • 401k match (4%)

This is an additional 18.65% in cost per year for an FTE.



Additionally, our FTE and the consultant are working different amounts. Notice from above that our FTE has 42 weeks of direct value add hours per year, compared to 46 for the consultant. We will also assume the new FTE is only 90% as effective as a consultant (which is probably reasonably generous to the FTE on average) which results in only 37.8 weeks of "work value" from the FTE.



Hooookay almost there. So we have:



  • $30k extra expenses

  • Only 82% yearly productivity

  • 19% extra "scaled" costs

If we take that initial $184k, we get:



  • Subtracting fixed costs, $184k - $30k = $155k

  • Subtracting productivity cost, $155k*0.82 = $127k

  • Subtracting extra "scaled" costs, $127k*0.81 = $103k

This means for this example, assuming pretty generous inputs biased towards the FTE, the most you could offer in salary is $103k/year to compete with the $100/hr consultant.



Especially since we haven't "charged" the FTE with anything to account for the FTE hiring process taking longer than a consultant. Or the extra overhead for the entire company for a FTE.



Playing with numbers here gives you a lot of explanation for why "overpaid consultants" are not as overpaid as you might think. Especially depending on how effective of an FTE you can hire, if you have to train in a technology take that 90% effectiveness and drop it significantly.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    @Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16







  • 3




    As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
    – Laconic Droid
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:24






  • 1




    @LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:25






  • 1




    And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:59






  • 3




    Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
    – Lilienthal♦
    Jul 31 '15 at 8:02












up vote
41
down vote



accepted







up vote
41
down vote



accepted






Why hire consultants instead of FTEs?




What are the pro's of hiring consultants, and when do you need one?




Keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.



Among other reasons:



  • Sometimes you need someone to get the job done.


  • Sometimes you don't have time for developing a skillset.


  • Sometimes you need to borrow the skillset of the consultant to mentor your FTEs.


  • Sometimes you need someone on a short term basis and don't want to deal with the other overhead with FTE (benefits, development, etc). Releasing a consultant/contractor is far "better" from a PR perspective than laying off or firing a FTE.


  • Sometimes you don't know how long you will have funding (maybe you have extra funding). Or the funding is for a specific calendar/fiscal year.


  • Sometimes you want to call a company and say, "get me an [expert / intermediate / novice] person with skills X, Y, Z" and not spend hours/dollars recruiting/interviewing


  • Sometimes budget categories for FTE vs "contingent/consultant" spending are different, you may have no FTE available but can get a consultant (thanks @LaconicDroid!)


  • Sometimes you want someone to "blame" if things go wrong and it's easier to blame (or pursue legal action against) an external company than an internal FTE (thanks @JoelEtherton)


  • Sometimes a manager just wants to work, and jumping through all the hoops required to get a FTE vs contractor just isn't worth it. If it's easier to hire a consultant, that might be the "preferred" way for a hiring manager (thanks @Air)


  • Sometimes business conditions dictate drastic change and most consultants can be dropped on very short notice without paying any severance or unemployment (thanks @Joe Strazzere)


Cost comparison



This part is not for the faint of heart!



Regarding cost, let's consider hiring a consultant costing your company $100/hr. Somewhat senior, but not super senior. The consultant will be paid to work for 40 hours for 46 weeks of the year (vacation/holidays/sick time totals 6 weeks). The total cost your company will pay for that consultant is $100 * 46 * 40 = $184,000.



For the FTE, how much can we pay before we "run out of money" for that year? Here are some estimated costs and losses for that FTE:



  • 2 week training / year (new hire, lots of misc stuff)

  • 3 weeks vacation / year

  • 2 weeks holiday / year (10 days)

  • 1 week sick (or personal) time / year

  • 2 week of FTE related meetings total (~2 hr/week - 1/1s, team meetings, department meetings, teambuilding, etc)

We will generously say total working hours are 40*42 = 1680 hours.



Here are some guesstimates for additional costs or benefits provided to that person as a FTE that are not present for consultants (or less):



  • $5000 company portion for healthcare

  • $1000 training costs

  • $2000 signing bonus

  • $5000 relocation expenses

  • $15000 cost for interview expenses (total reimbursement, wages for management/HR/recruiting, commission to recruiter, etc - this is probably a very low estimate for any sizable company or recruiter costs)

  • $1000 educational benefit/reimbursement

  • $1000 misc travel

That totals $30k in more fixed expenses associated with hiring an FTE. We also will have a bunch of categories that are more percentage based and not completely fixed, such as:



  • FICA taxes (USA only, 7.65% in 2015)

  • Insurance for life, disability, workers comp (1%)

  • Unemployment (1%)

  • Bonus potential (5%)

  • 401k match (4%)

This is an additional 18.65% in cost per year for an FTE.



Additionally, our FTE and the consultant are working different amounts. Notice from above that our FTE has 42 weeks of direct value add hours per year, compared to 46 for the consultant. We will also assume the new FTE is only 90% as effective as a consultant (which is probably reasonably generous to the FTE on average) which results in only 37.8 weeks of "work value" from the FTE.



Hooookay almost there. So we have:



  • $30k extra expenses

  • Only 82% yearly productivity

  • 19% extra "scaled" costs

If we take that initial $184k, we get:



  • Subtracting fixed costs, $184k - $30k = $155k

  • Subtracting productivity cost, $155k*0.82 = $127k

  • Subtracting extra "scaled" costs, $127k*0.81 = $103k

This means for this example, assuming pretty generous inputs biased towards the FTE, the most you could offer in salary is $103k/year to compete with the $100/hr consultant.



Especially since we haven't "charged" the FTE with anything to account for the FTE hiring process taking longer than a consultant. Or the extra overhead for the entire company for a FTE.



Playing with numbers here gives you a lot of explanation for why "overpaid consultants" are not as overpaid as you might think. Especially depending on how effective of an FTE you can hire, if you have to train in a technology take that 90% effectiveness and drop it significantly.






share|improve this answer














Why hire consultants instead of FTEs?




What are the pro's of hiring consultants, and when do you need one?




Keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.



Among other reasons:



  • Sometimes you need someone to get the job done.


  • Sometimes you don't have time for developing a skillset.


  • Sometimes you need to borrow the skillset of the consultant to mentor your FTEs.


  • Sometimes you need someone on a short term basis and don't want to deal with the other overhead with FTE (benefits, development, etc). Releasing a consultant/contractor is far "better" from a PR perspective than laying off or firing a FTE.


  • Sometimes you don't know how long you will have funding (maybe you have extra funding). Or the funding is for a specific calendar/fiscal year.


  • Sometimes you want to call a company and say, "get me an [expert / intermediate / novice] person with skills X, Y, Z" and not spend hours/dollars recruiting/interviewing


  • Sometimes budget categories for FTE vs "contingent/consultant" spending are different, you may have no FTE available but can get a consultant (thanks @LaconicDroid!)


  • Sometimes you want someone to "blame" if things go wrong and it's easier to blame (or pursue legal action against) an external company than an internal FTE (thanks @JoelEtherton)


  • Sometimes a manager just wants to work, and jumping through all the hoops required to get a FTE vs contractor just isn't worth it. If it's easier to hire a consultant, that might be the "preferred" way for a hiring manager (thanks @Air)


  • Sometimes business conditions dictate drastic change and most consultants can be dropped on very short notice without paying any severance or unemployment (thanks @Joe Strazzere)


Cost comparison



This part is not for the faint of heart!



Regarding cost, let's consider hiring a consultant costing your company $100/hr. Somewhat senior, but not super senior. The consultant will be paid to work for 40 hours for 46 weeks of the year (vacation/holidays/sick time totals 6 weeks). The total cost your company will pay for that consultant is $100 * 46 * 40 = $184,000.



For the FTE, how much can we pay before we "run out of money" for that year? Here are some estimated costs and losses for that FTE:



  • 2 week training / year (new hire, lots of misc stuff)

  • 3 weeks vacation / year

  • 2 weeks holiday / year (10 days)

  • 1 week sick (or personal) time / year

  • 2 week of FTE related meetings total (~2 hr/week - 1/1s, team meetings, department meetings, teambuilding, etc)

We will generously say total working hours are 40*42 = 1680 hours.



Here are some guesstimates for additional costs or benefits provided to that person as a FTE that are not present for consultants (or less):



  • $5000 company portion for healthcare

  • $1000 training costs

  • $2000 signing bonus

  • $5000 relocation expenses

  • $15000 cost for interview expenses (total reimbursement, wages for management/HR/recruiting, commission to recruiter, etc - this is probably a very low estimate for any sizable company or recruiter costs)

  • $1000 educational benefit/reimbursement

  • $1000 misc travel

That totals $30k in more fixed expenses associated with hiring an FTE. We also will have a bunch of categories that are more percentage based and not completely fixed, such as:



  • FICA taxes (USA only, 7.65% in 2015)

  • Insurance for life, disability, workers comp (1%)

  • Unemployment (1%)

  • Bonus potential (5%)

  • 401k match (4%)

This is an additional 18.65% in cost per year for an FTE.



Additionally, our FTE and the consultant are working different amounts. Notice from above that our FTE has 42 weeks of direct value add hours per year, compared to 46 for the consultant. We will also assume the new FTE is only 90% as effective as a consultant (which is probably reasonably generous to the FTE on average) which results in only 37.8 weeks of "work value" from the FTE.



Hooookay almost there. So we have:



  • $30k extra expenses

  • Only 82% yearly productivity

  • 19% extra "scaled" costs

If we take that initial $184k, we get:



  • Subtracting fixed costs, $184k - $30k = $155k

  • Subtracting productivity cost, $155k*0.82 = $127k

  • Subtracting extra "scaled" costs, $127k*0.81 = $103k

This means for this example, assuming pretty generous inputs biased towards the FTE, the most you could offer in salary is $103k/year to compete with the $100/hr consultant.



Especially since we haven't "charged" the FTE with anything to account for the FTE hiring process taking longer than a consultant. Or the extra overhead for the entire company for a FTE.



Playing with numbers here gives you a lot of explanation for why "overpaid consultants" are not as overpaid as you might think. Especially depending on how effective of an FTE you can hire, if you have to train in a technology take that 90% effectiveness and drop it significantly.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jul 31 '15 at 1:06

























answered Jul 30 '15 at 18:12









Elysian Fields♦

96.8k46292449




96.8k46292449







  • 1




    @Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16







  • 3




    As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
    – Laconic Droid
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:24






  • 1




    @LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:25






  • 1




    And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:59






  • 3




    Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
    – Lilienthal♦
    Jul 31 '15 at 8:02












  • 1




    @Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:16







  • 3




    As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
    – Laconic Droid
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:24






  • 1




    @LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
    – Elysian Fields♦
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:25






  • 1




    And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
    – HLGEM
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:59






  • 3




    Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
    – Lilienthal♦
    Jul 31 '15 at 8:02







1




1




@Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 18:16





@Adel keep in mind that there will be a multitude of employment laws/regulations/etc that vary based on country and region (or even government). These can make hiring an FTE vs consultant a very important decision.
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 18:16





3




3




As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
– Laconic Droid
Jul 30 '15 at 18:24




As well as all the excellent points above, consultants salaries are typically funded from a different budget. So when FTE salaries aren't available, consultants can be paid from a different pool.
– Laconic Droid
Jul 30 '15 at 18:24




1




1




@LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 18:25




@LaconicDroid thanks! I added that as well!
– Elysian Fields♦
Jul 30 '15 at 18:25




1




1




And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
– HLGEM
Jul 30 '15 at 19:59




And depending on what benefits you offer employees, it may cost more to make someone a permanent employee, there is far more cost to permanent employees than just salary.
– HLGEM
Jul 30 '15 at 19:59




3




3




Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
– Lilienthal♦
Jul 31 '15 at 8:02




Excellent answer as usual enderland. I particularly appreciate seeing you break down the numbers. Obviously it's a rough estimate and will vary a lot by country but it's interesting to see a summary for the US. As a European I'd add that the overhead for an FTE here is probably closer to 100% than 50%.
– Lilienthal♦
Jul 31 '15 at 8:02












up vote
8
down vote













There are several reasons to hire a consultant.



First, in spite of their "high prices", consultants are almost always cheaper than in-house staff. The cost of an employee to a company is much more than just his or her salary. An employee also has a bonus, has benefits, needs training, uses IT infrastructure, takes up a desk in an office building, builds up a retirement, may have significant costs if laid off (e.g. in Europe), etc. All of these increase an employee's cost, and, in large companies, this is significant. It's not unusual for an employee to cost a project significantly more than $250 / hour when you look at the internal accounting system. The high consultant fee includes all (or nearly all) costs for that consultant.



Second, consultants may have expertise in an area that the company does not want to or cannot economically justify building up. For example, if the company's core business is producing beverages, it may make sense for them to hire consultants to build software systems for them. That is, the beverage company may choose to focus on their core business and choose to hire in experts in areas they don't know much about to help them out. It may be more costly or difficult, for example, for them to find and attract IT-savvy management and technical staff to build the necessary infrastructure, and they may only need the majority of that IT expertise long enough to get the system up and running.






share|improve this answer




















  • You forgot a big one -- insurance.
    – Burhan Khalid
    Aug 2 '15 at 8:30














up vote
8
down vote













There are several reasons to hire a consultant.



First, in spite of their "high prices", consultants are almost always cheaper than in-house staff. The cost of an employee to a company is much more than just his or her salary. An employee also has a bonus, has benefits, needs training, uses IT infrastructure, takes up a desk in an office building, builds up a retirement, may have significant costs if laid off (e.g. in Europe), etc. All of these increase an employee's cost, and, in large companies, this is significant. It's not unusual for an employee to cost a project significantly more than $250 / hour when you look at the internal accounting system. The high consultant fee includes all (or nearly all) costs for that consultant.



Second, consultants may have expertise in an area that the company does not want to or cannot economically justify building up. For example, if the company's core business is producing beverages, it may make sense for them to hire consultants to build software systems for them. That is, the beverage company may choose to focus on their core business and choose to hire in experts in areas they don't know much about to help them out. It may be more costly or difficult, for example, for them to find and attract IT-savvy management and technical staff to build the necessary infrastructure, and they may only need the majority of that IT expertise long enough to get the system up and running.






share|improve this answer




















  • You forgot a big one -- insurance.
    – Burhan Khalid
    Aug 2 '15 at 8:30












up vote
8
down vote










up vote
8
down vote









There are several reasons to hire a consultant.



First, in spite of their "high prices", consultants are almost always cheaper than in-house staff. The cost of an employee to a company is much more than just his or her salary. An employee also has a bonus, has benefits, needs training, uses IT infrastructure, takes up a desk in an office building, builds up a retirement, may have significant costs if laid off (e.g. in Europe), etc. All of these increase an employee's cost, and, in large companies, this is significant. It's not unusual for an employee to cost a project significantly more than $250 / hour when you look at the internal accounting system. The high consultant fee includes all (or nearly all) costs for that consultant.



Second, consultants may have expertise in an area that the company does not want to or cannot economically justify building up. For example, if the company's core business is producing beverages, it may make sense for them to hire consultants to build software systems for them. That is, the beverage company may choose to focus on their core business and choose to hire in experts in areas they don't know much about to help them out. It may be more costly or difficult, for example, for them to find and attract IT-savvy management and technical staff to build the necessary infrastructure, and they may only need the majority of that IT expertise long enough to get the system up and running.






share|improve this answer












There are several reasons to hire a consultant.



First, in spite of their "high prices", consultants are almost always cheaper than in-house staff. The cost of an employee to a company is much more than just his or her salary. An employee also has a bonus, has benefits, needs training, uses IT infrastructure, takes up a desk in an office building, builds up a retirement, may have significant costs if laid off (e.g. in Europe), etc. All of these increase an employee's cost, and, in large companies, this is significant. It's not unusual for an employee to cost a project significantly more than $250 / hour when you look at the internal accounting system. The high consultant fee includes all (or nearly all) costs for that consultant.



Second, consultants may have expertise in an area that the company does not want to or cannot economically justify building up. For example, if the company's core business is producing beverages, it may make sense for them to hire consultants to build software systems for them. That is, the beverage company may choose to focus on their core business and choose to hire in experts in areas they don't know much about to help them out. It may be more costly or difficult, for example, for them to find and attract IT-savvy management and technical staff to build the necessary infrastructure, and they may only need the majority of that IT expertise long enough to get the system up and running.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Jul 30 '15 at 18:17









Eric

4,11911125




4,11911125











  • You forgot a big one -- insurance.
    – Burhan Khalid
    Aug 2 '15 at 8:30
















  • You forgot a big one -- insurance.
    – Burhan Khalid
    Aug 2 '15 at 8:30















You forgot a big one -- insurance.
– Burhan Khalid
Aug 2 '15 at 8:30




You forgot a big one -- insurance.
– Burhan Khalid
Aug 2 '15 at 8:30










up vote
2
down vote













From the taxes standpoint, hiring consultants is an "expense" that can get written off. However, for employees you actually have to pay taxes for them, not to mention insurance, benefits, etc.



Or in my company's case, it's just hard to hire the right candidate that has the expertise we want. So although we want to hire full time, it's hard to compete with the bigger companies for talent, so we have no choice.






share|improve this answer






















  • Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
    – Adel
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:29






  • 1




    You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
    – CleverNode
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:11






  • 1




    @Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
    – Dan
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33














up vote
2
down vote













From the taxes standpoint, hiring consultants is an "expense" that can get written off. However, for employees you actually have to pay taxes for them, not to mention insurance, benefits, etc.



Or in my company's case, it's just hard to hire the right candidate that has the expertise we want. So although we want to hire full time, it's hard to compete with the bigger companies for talent, so we have no choice.






share|improve this answer






















  • Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
    – Adel
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:29






  • 1




    You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
    – CleverNode
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:11






  • 1




    @Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
    – Dan
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









From the taxes standpoint, hiring consultants is an "expense" that can get written off. However, for employees you actually have to pay taxes for them, not to mention insurance, benefits, etc.



Or in my company's case, it's just hard to hire the right candidate that has the expertise we want. So although we want to hire full time, it's hard to compete with the bigger companies for talent, so we have no choice.






share|improve this answer














From the taxes standpoint, hiring consultants is an "expense" that can get written off. However, for employees you actually have to pay taxes for them, not to mention insurance, benefits, etc.



Or in my company's case, it's just hard to hire the right candidate that has the expertise we want. So although we want to hire full time, it's hard to compete with the bigger companies for talent, so we have no choice.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Jul 30 '15 at 18:28









Adel

3,571104180




3,571104180










answered Jul 30 '15 at 18:21









CleverNode

66556




66556











  • Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
    – Adel
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:29






  • 1




    You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
    – CleverNode
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:11






  • 1




    @Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
    – Dan
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33
















  • Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
    – Adel
    Jul 30 '15 at 18:29






  • 1




    You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
    – CleverNode
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:11






  • 1




    @Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
    – Dan
    Jul 30 '15 at 19:33















Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
– Adel
Jul 30 '15 at 18:29




Is that in the USA mainly, where you can write off taxes ?
– Adel
Jul 30 '15 at 18:29




1




1




You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
– CleverNode
Jul 30 '15 at 19:11




You claim them as company expenses... which is true, if it's a consultancy. It's in a lot of countries.
– CleverNode
Jul 30 '15 at 19:11




1




1




@Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
– Dan
Jul 30 '15 at 19:33




@Adel It's the same in the UK. General concept is that you pay tax on Earnings minus Expenses. A consultant will be considered a straightforward expense - the same as the cost of a piece of equipment. Employees have their own set of (complicated) tax rules which very quickly narrows the cost gap
– Dan
Jul 30 '15 at 19:33












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50401%2fwhy-do-some-companies-prefer-consultants-over-salaried-employees%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest




































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

List of Gilmore Girls characters

Image
The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
Read more

One-line joke

A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
Read more