Now that is a very good point. Yes our R&D spend is embarrassing, and the grant system has no discernible merits. I think we all should be lobbying every party to get this onto their agenda. But why penalise established companies with a successful track record? Thats the bit I don't quite understand. Care to elaborate on that point Bruce?joeseph wrote:The tax-credit system sounds like a good one, although systems would need to be in place so that people couldn't simply fold a company and continue with another start-up purely for the purpose of getting a tax break.
They don't get the tax break if they have been in existence for 5 years. That sounds like a penalty to me. Won't that lead to a rebranding every 5 years? Although as the engineer turned novelist Nevil Shute observed, there are "starters" and "runners". He was a natural "starter" and started many small businesses, but once they got big and successful he lost interest and sold them to some "runners" so he could focus on his next brainwave. I suspect such a system would suit you very well Bruce. Start a company to commercialise pulse jets, after 5 years flick it off and start again with sense&avoid technology, then after 5 years flick it off and start again with another idea from your notebook...aardvark_admin wrote:It doesn't penalise existing companies
Before 1 July 2011, the R&D tax concession allowed companies to claim a tax deduction in their income tax return of up to 125% (and in some cases up to 175%) of eligible expenditure on R&D activities.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest