2 ms·

Although I worked for several startups that benefited from SRED credits, I always found the system appalling and prefer the way it works in US with VCs. No gove

Although I worked for several startups that benefited from SRED credits, I always found the system appalling and prefer the way it works in US with VCs. No government should take hard working folks's money and give them to white middle-upper class, well educated founders that will possibly just get wealthy even more and the class division cycle will continue. I would bet if you pay this money directly to the engineers themselves they will create much more value. Anyways I found that writing everyday what I did in a way it looks more as a research just so SRED accountants don't question the company, as extremely annoying to my day flow.

lazyant 12y ago
I can agree with you in general but not on the "white middle-upper class", if you've ever been in any startup event in Toronto, about half of the people are not white, see for ex https://www.facebook.com/startupweekendtoronto/photos_albums https://www.facebook.com/startupweekendtoronto/photos_albums
logfromblammo 12y ago
A while ago, I daydreamed the possibility that some government could, by way of international competitive advantage, establish by law a favorable tax situation for corporations that had a "Gov Class" stock. This would represent no less than 10% of the total ownership interest, and would be proxyless and nonvoting, but would have preferred treatment for dividends. Any distributions to Gov Class shareholder would be deductable from any taxes otherwise owed to it, but would not be refundable. That would allow the government, or anyone in its federation or confederation or otherwise under it in the hierarchy, to invest in startup businesses in such a way that favors local development and limits tax jurisdiction shopping. If Chicago bought 15% of a new local company as Gov Class shares, it retains 15% of the value of the company and 15% of the profits, at the expense of tax revenues, even if the company moves to San Francisco. In that case, taxes would ordinarily drop to nothing, but as a stockholder, the municipal government retains its investment. But perhaps the State of California buys out City of Chicago to sweeten the deal. Chicago now has that money back to reinvest, instead of pissing away tax dollars to develop companies that just leave when they get big enough. Of course, that assumes governments could be responsible investors, which is a proposition very difficult to prove. As it is, straight subsidies seem like a far stupider and more bureaucratic way to just waste tax money and enrich business owners without producing the intended effects. If the government is enriching the business owners anyway, wouldn't it be more cost effective to actually be one of the owners?

lazyant 12y ago

I can agree with you in general but not on the "white middle-upper class", if you've ever been in any startup event in Toronto, about half of the people are not white, see for ex https://www.facebook.com/startupweekendtoronto/photos_albums https://www.facebook.com/startupweekendtoronto/photos_albums

logfromblammo 12y ago

A while ago, I daydreamed the possibility that some government could, by way of international competitive advantage, establish by law a favorable tax situation for corporations that had a "Gov Class" stock. This would represent no less than 10% of the total ownership interest, and would be proxyless and nonvoting, but would have preferred treatment for dividends. Any distributions to Gov Class shareholder would be deductable from any taxes otherwise owed to it, but would not be refundable. That would allow the government, or anyone in its federation or confederation or otherwise under it in the hierarchy, to invest in startup businesses in such a way that favors local development and limits tax jurisdiction shopping. If Chicago bought 15% of a new local company as Gov Class shares, it retains 15% of the value of the company and 15% of the profits, at the expense of tax revenues, even if the company moves to San Francisco. In that case, taxes would ordinarily drop to nothing, but as a stockholder, the municipal government retains its investment. But perhaps the State of California buys out City of Chicago to sweeten the deal. Chicago now has that money back to reinvest, instead of pissing away tax dollars to develop companies that just leave when they get big enough. Of course, that assumes governments could be responsible investors, which is a proposition very difficult to prove. As it is, straight subsidies seem like a far stupider and more bureaucratic way to just waste tax money and enrich business owners without producing the intended effects. If the government is enriching the business owners anyway, wouldn't it be more cost effective to actually be one of the owners?