Keeping manufacturing in Canada is possible. Canada Goose has their factory creating the quality jackets that fill up Harry Rosen at the beginning of Fall but is it in China? No.
Canada Goose is committed to producing in Canada and were told their costs would not be possible to cover competing against Made in Japan and China products.
Dani Reiss decided he would take the challenge that his paretns set with their appreciation of quality they had known in Europe. Canadian quality would be as wonderful.
Canada Goose has worked to attract the high fashion people, but also the outdoor buffs and above all, the working guys out in the cold. Dani Reiss took a risk and then worked to get the jackets on film sets over the winter and on TV Olympics. He also took up the cause of the polar bear and other innovative projects that project the Canada Goose brand.
I see the jackets on Bay Street and they always look smart. Well done, Dani, for winning the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award. It was a long road with icy patches! You deserve it for building a genuine Canadian business. Nice guys finish first.
Wealth Management
Voted #6 on Top 100 Family Business influencer on Wealth, Legacy, Finance and Investments: Jacoline Loewen My Amazon Authors' page Twitter:@ jacolineloewen Linkedin: Jacoline Loewen Profile
November 29, 2011
Why business should investigate R D tax credits
To get companies growing, research and development is required and Canada has a strong R&D credit although SREDS has a very low uptake still. Here are some other countries and their incentives from The Atlantic.
Innovation, along with entrepreneurship, involves a lengthy process of research and development, one that inevitably entails risk for firms and industries. There are three main categories of risk: regulatory, innovation and monetary. My research and others' shows that lucrative reward systems and regulatory structures directly influence the level of R&D activities. Tax credits are one way to effectively reduce the risks inherent in conducting R&D.
Some readers will be surprised to learn that France has the most generous tax incentives for R&D among the OECD countries. The government is continually expanding the scope of the tax credit, and the amount of funding available nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008. A company can receive up to 50 percent of its R&D costs the first year; 40 percent is covered the second and 30 percent in the third. There is a mechanism that allows funding to be "fast-tracked" for small- and medium-size enterprises, and in most cases, the waiting period for approval is only three months. Lastly, the tax credit is either deducted from the annual corporate tax or reimbursed after three years, providing greater flexibility. The tax subsidy rate per $1 of R&D in France averages 43 cents, while in the U.S. it is a paltry 7 cents.
Finland serves as another example of using policy solutions to transform its economy from resource-based to knowledge-based through consistently increasing gross expenditure on R&D. Simultaneously it has also pursued international scientific collaboration, university/industry partnerships, and enhanced venture capital availability. On a per capita basis, Finland now claims double the OECD average of patent output.
November 28, 2011
Why our government does need to help business
Innovation is something the government is trying to jump start. It begins at school and with the Canadian education system, although it is not too shabby, there are human capital investments that could be made. Our teachers' union is very powerful so these are probably a non-starter and since the majority of teachers are now female and so are university graduates, merit is a touchy subject.
Equity of input and outcomes is over riding merit and reward for effort.
Singapore paid attention to human capital and focused on merit. I believe their per capita GDP has now passed Canada.
Is the social cost of rewarding young people based on merit worth it?
Here is The Atlantic:
Equity of input and outcomes is over riding merit and reward for effort.
Singapore paid attention to human capital and focused on merit. I believe their per capita GDP has now passed Canada.
Is the social cost of rewarding young people based on merit worth it?
Here is The Atlantic:
In 1960 Singapore had a per capita GDP of $2,300, roughly equal to Jamaica's. Singapore focused on becoming a financial services and research hub, while Jamaica concentrated on tourism. Fifty years later Singapore's per capita GDP was $43,100, while Jamaica's is slightly above $5,000.
The difference was investment in human capital. Singapore's education system is heavily subsidized by its Ministry of Education to ensure a meritocratic principle that identifies and nurtures bright young students for future leadership positions. In the '60s, Singapore attracted foreign capital by targeting labor-intensive manufacturing to create jobs. As its workforce became better educated through its investment strategies in the '70s, it began attracting higher value-added industries such as petrochemicals, electronics and data storage. Today, Singapore is a leader in a host of knowledge-based industries, including the biomedical sciences. In just the past decade, the number of scientists has leapt from 14,500 to 26,600, a gain of more than 80 percent. In the most recent Global Competitiveness Report put out by the World Economic Forum, Singapore ranked 1st in the quality of its math and science education.
November 26, 2011
How does a VC pitch get taken seriously?
Pitching your business is critical whether you are on BNN The Pitch or at the holiday cocktail party.
Here is a terrific, snappy TV Show with two business owners asking for $5 million equity investment into their business. How do they get taken seriously?
Watch the show here:
http://watch.bnn.ca/the-pitch/#clip573383
Here is a terrific, snappy TV Show with two business owners asking for $5 million equity investment into their business. How do they get taken seriously?
Watch the show here:
http://watch.bnn.ca/the-pitch/#clip573383
November 25, 2011
Is equality the best big goal for a society
Equality or equal opportunity for all? Equality in a society is a major goal for many - I get emails and Facebooked about this topic all the time.
So is equality for all the best goal? What are the long term consequences? I know when I see my tax bill, I often want to put my resume on Monster and get a union or government job.
I am not sure if this is a true story, but it resonates with me - a business owner, a job creator and a tax payer.
So is equality for all the best goal? What are the long term consequences? I know when I see my tax bill, I often want to put my resume on Monster and get a union or government job.
I am not sure if this is a true story, but it resonates with me - a business owner, a job creator and a tax payer.
An economics
professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single
student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer.
The
professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on
Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the
same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting
grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by
all).
After
the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who
studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the
second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even
less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they
studied little.
The
second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the
3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the
tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and
name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the
benefit of anyone else.
To their
great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would
also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is
great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want
to succeed.
It could
not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
Remember,
there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These
are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this
experiment:
1. You
cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of
prosperity.
2. What
one person receives without working for, another person must work for without
receiving.
3. The
government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first
take from somebody else.
4. You
cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When
half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other
half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that
it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work
for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)