R&D tax credit
As part of National’s Research, Science & Technology policy, we announced that the R&D tax credit would be reduced from a 15% credit to a 10% credit. This was because much of the money that will be paid out will effect no change in the level of R&D whatsoever.
The reason for not abolishing the R&D tax credit altogether was that most OECD countries have such tax credits, and they are accepted as part of the international business landscape.
However, given the persistent operating deficits revealed in the PREFU, these tax credits have become a “nice-to-have” item that is simply not affordable any more.
National will, therefore, discontinue the R&D tax credits altogether. The additional saving from discontinuing the tax credits, rather than just reducing them to 10%, totals $619 million over the years 2008/09 to 2011/12.

I am pretty disgusted by this. 

New Zealand has one of the lowest percentages of R & D spend against GDP in the OECD.  We need incentives for R & D. We need innovation.  We need productivity improvements which these bring.

There is nothing in this fiscal policy for business.  When times are tough, the government needs to incentivise ecomonmic growth through business.

Considering the top growth countries in the OECD have 50-150% R & D incentives, 10% or removing all together is a big fail from a long term perspective.

However, given the persistent operating deficits revealed in the PREFU, these tax credits have become a “nice-to-have” item that is simply not affordable any more.

Are they a centre-left or centre-right party?  This smacks of a complete lack of understanding about what New Zealand needs to weather the storm in the current economic climate.

National have now ensured I will not even remotely consider voting for them.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 1:30 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Politics

Sigh... I wonder if he will be charged with assault as well.

Since the cops are being so high and mighty... where the fuck were they?

Posted by Karl Rohde at 6:45 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Law and Order

"Three store workers - two with stab wounds - last night held down the teenager who attacked them until police arrived."

That was the headline opening sentence on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

Now the police have decided to charge the owner of said liquor store with two counts of "injuring with intent to injure"!

Ummm... hello - 4 unruly drunk teenagers enter a liquor store, when asked to leave, they pull a knife and become violent?

The police officer heading the investigation states the following:

"He said the arrest serves a reminder to all that taking the law into their own hands in some circumstances can not be justified."

He follows with:

"Shop keepers and the general public can be reassured that the police will respond with urgency to situations where assistance is needed.

"Ring 111, observe what is happening and let police deal with these situations," Mr Pizzini added.

Where were the police when the poor liquor store owner who lost his life several months ago?  They were a block away waiting for the ok to move in as he bled to death. 

Where where the police when Austin Bernard Hemmings went to the aid of a woman being assaulted?

Had the death been the assailant rather than Mr Hemmings, would he still have been lauded a hero by the police.

It is time the police get a reality check.  If the public can not can not rely on timely responses from the police, incidents like this will continue to occur.

I hope the judge throws it out and tells the police to buck up their ideas, but that would be most unlikely with the current limp-wristed crap coming out of the judicary lately.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 3:30 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Law and Order

"National's research, science and technology policy, issued yesterday, confirms the party would scrap Labour's Fast Forward Fund and reduce research and development tax credits."

I forget, is it labour or national who are supposed to be centre-left?

New Zealand has one of the lowest investments in Research & Development within the OECD.

We have already firmly established that long term, bulk produce agriculture and light manufacturing is not sustainably competitive in the current worl market.

So now they are going to REDUCE the incentive to undertake R &D.

In order to life our productivity and commercial viability, i.e. become a rich, well paid nation, we need to focus on niche high margin products and services.  Essentially, we need to upskill our workforce.

The only way that will happen is for companies to be able to afford to re-invest in R & D.

Currently countries such as France have base credits more than twice what NZ provides.  In addition to this, it has special treatment for initial R & D which in some cases can cover up to 100% of the R & D cost if it can be proven it may benefit the country long term.

New Zealand needs to get out of this bulk produce farming mentality and step up. 

Focus on:

• intellectual property (designs and patents)
• organic produce
• specialist R & D services for foreign entities

Why as a nation to we continually live in the 70s.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 2:00 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Politics

An Auckland primary school teacher is moonlighting as a prostitute, throwing her school bosses into a quandary over her future.

It is causing great debate within our morally immature nation.

Is it okay for a teacher to moonlight as a prostitute?

Here are a few point I think are relevant.

Firstly, the profession would not exist without demand. Saying it is "ethically and morally wrong" is so hypocritical.

Secondly, it shows that the pay of NZ educators is substandard. If you want truly 100% dedicated people teaching our children, pay them what they are worth. Double their salaries, and put your money where your mouth is, so they don't have to put theirs somewhere else.

Thirdly, she has done nothing legally wrong, and the reason to protect her identity is simple. Privacy.

The reason we have many issues in NZ is because we have yet to "grow up". We have a binge drinking culture, a culture of mediocrity and one focused on old school economics. (farming and light manufacturing).

We need to snap out of it, or as Stephen Jennings says, we will continually lose our top talent to overseas markets.

And the question I have is how did the father of one of the students find out? Bloody hypocrite.  I wonder if his wife knows or his children for that matter.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 12:00 am | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0) | Society

Well, that's how it is presented anyway.

What it actually means is Kiwisaver members get higher remuneration that non-Kiwisaver members.

Person A and Person B both do the same job at Acme Trading Company, are equally skilled and produce equal quality.  In theory, they should be paid the same.

Not so say Mr Mallard.  Person B happens to be in Kiwisaver (their choice), but under the new law, the take home pay of both must be the same.

Huh?

Person A and Person B both get paid $50,000 a year.

Person B is obviouslly going to take home LESS than person A because they are putting it into Kiwisaver.

In addition to this, after the $1043 subsidy paid to the employer, any employer contribution is PART OF their total rumaeration, isn't it?

No says Mr Mallard.  Employer's who do this are now breaking the law.

So the person on Kiwisaver actually has remuneration of $957 than the person who is not. (excluding the subsidies)

How is that fair?  Person A is certainly going to be grumpy.  Employment lawyer are probably rubbing their hands with glee as the number of personal grievancies from non-Kiwisaver employee is likely to sky rocket.

As with all of Kiwisaver, this is simply another poorly thought out component that is going to see blood spilt in employment court.

Posted by Karl Rohde at 12:00 am | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Business