A Quote by Jamshyd Godrej

We have to develop the whole system of early stage investors and a tax system around it. For every Google that has come on the scene, there are hundred entrepreneurs who never did.
Every specific tax, as well as the nation's whole tax system, becomes self-defeating above a certain height of the rates.
It is all about finding the entrepreneurs who we believe in. Entrepreneurs who have the wherewithal, the enthusiasm, the passion, the expertise, and the network to take early-stage ideas down the path of success. And it's not always obvious, just because someone has years of experience, or fantastic people in their eco-system, or they have fantastic capital. It is the combination of all of those things, with the right attitude. And for us attitude is crucial.
This is the free enterprise system. The only place in the world that I can recall where companies never failed was the old Soviet Union. This is what investors do in free enterprise and capitalism system. [...[ And, yes, free enterprise system can be cruel. But the problem with this administration is that small businesses are the one who had suffered the most, the kind that need investors, the kinds that don't need the hundreds of pages, thousands of pages of regulations that continue to plague them and have them hold back on the hiring investment.
Fundamentally, I've always been a fan of actually looking at our whole state tax system and really figuring out how we reform our tax system so that everyone's paying their fair share but we don't have a lot of nickel and diming with 100 taxes that end up hitting people that maybe can't bear it the most.
A system is said to be coherent if every fact in the system is related every other fact in the system by relations that are not merely conjunctive. A deductive system affords a good example of a coherent system.
I guess it's like trying to put through the flat tax, which is probably my favorite one of all.... if we did pass it, all of a sudden, what do you have? You have the whole tax system run by a little old lady on a home computer, doing the work of all these thousands of bureaucrats and accountants. Passing that would be amazing, wouldn't it?
When building a complex system, having crackerjack programmers (who can make any design work, even a bad one) can be a liability. The result, after lots of effort, is a working system that cannot be easily maintained or upgraded. Good -but not great- programmers would fail early, causing a realization that the system must be redesigned, and then reimplemented. The extra cost is paid once, early in the system's cycle (when it is cheap), instead of repeatedly paid late in the system's cycle (when it is more expensive).
If you look at the minutes of the constitutional convention - which we have - Madison who was the main framer, proceeded to develop a system in which - as he put it - power would be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men and who recognize the need to protect the rights of property owners. That's why in the constitutional system, the most powerful part of the whole system is the senate.
We've been prepared to make the arguments for lowering corporation tax, which is all about encouraging risk takers, encouraging entrepreneurs, and I observe that for the vast majority of the Labour government we had a top rate of 40 per cent income tax. It's now higher, and I think we should look to get to a simpler, lower tax system.
People can yawn all they want when a conservative mentions the tax system. But there is no doubt that when we have a tax system that punishes businesses and workers for producing then it becomes financially advantageous for everyone just to import cheaper goods from abroad.
I talk to golfers, I talk to my grand kids about their game, and tell them to develop a system, Now, when they're young. And if they develop that system, it will be the crutch they need to be good. To know that system and make it work for you, know what it is and make it work.
What we need to do is learn to work in the system, by which I mean that everybody, every team, every platform, every division, every component is there not for individual competitive profit or recognition, but for contribution to the system as a whole on a win-win basis.
I'm a big believer in the system, but I just don't think we follow our own system and laws very well. I think ultimately we'll see the system collapse. Because no system has ever stayed around forever.
The industrial leader of the 20th century was a system-builder. He was a visionary in terms of what could be built; got the capital together; certainly convinced investors that it was possible; and then ran a high-volume production system that would spew out a vast array of almost identical goods and services. They would be changed from time to time; there was research and development, to be sure. But the system was built around production, not innovation.
Apparently, sir you Chinese are far ahead of us in every respect, except that you don’t have entrepreneurs. And our nation, though it has no drinking water, electricity, sewage system, public transportation, sense of hygiene, discipline, courtesy, or punctuality, ‘’does’’ have entrepreneurs. Thousands and thousands of them. Especially in the field of technology. And these entrepreneurs—"we" entrepreneurs—have set up all these outsourcing companies that virtually run America now.
Our experience is that most entrepreneurs are able to attract debt, even for risky and early stage investments. There are investors who provide debt, but very few who fund through equity.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!