Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, after doing some deeper research there needs to be some amendments.

    If we assume 4 hectares would cost £20million. (source)

    20 science parks around 30 hectares big (down from 50 hectares), thus costing £3billion. Cost to the tax payer - £900million or £45million per park.

    Nigel Farage MEP is this to your requirements?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Okay, after doing some deeper research there needs to be some amendments.

    If we assume 4 hectares would cost £20million. (source)

    20 science parks around 30 hectares big (down from 50 hectares), thus costing £3billion. Cost to the tax payer - £900million or £45million per park.

    Nigel Farage MEP is this to your requirements?
    Those costs you have given work but there needs to be financial incentives to encourage investments in the science parks, and training to expand the supply of skilled labour.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Those costs you have given work but there needs to be financial incentives to encourage investments in the science parks, and training to expand the supply of skilled labour.
    Place a 50% tax on patented pharma which doesn't have a part in one of these science parks. There's your financial incentive right there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Place a 50% tax on patented pharma which doesn't have a part in one of these science parks. There's your financial incentive right there.
    No, that will not work, the incentive needs to bring in companies from abroad, the incentive cannot work to encourage companies to move from a city to a science park.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, that will not work, the incentive needs to bring in companies from abroad, the incentive cannot work to encourage companies to move from a city to a science park.
    It does bring in companies from abroad, but in any event, it's still a good thing if science companies move out of cities.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It does bring in companies from abroad, but in any event, it's still a good thing if science companies move out of cities.
    Companies will only move in from abroad if the financial incentives in Britain are better than the financial incentives in other countries, a new tax in Britain on science companies outside science parks does not add an advantage. Companies do better in the cities because everything is compacted to be more efficient, having big cities with all of the business in, with outer towns having the shopping parks, houses, and conveniences is a good set-up for a country.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Companies will only move in from abroad if the financial incentives in Britain are better than the financial incentives in other countries, a new tax in Britain on science companies outside science parks do not add an advantage. Companies do better in the cities because everything is compacted to be more efficient, having big cities with all of the business in, with outer towns having the shopping parks, houses, and conveniences is a good set-up for a country.
    Of course it adds an advantage. If it's the only way of accessing the UK market (which is quite valuable for patented pharmaceuticals given our strong levels of IP protection and generally high wealth), then it suddenly adds a significant boon for companies moving into the UK.

    I accept your point about businesses and cities generally, but it doesn't apply to R&D.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Of course it adds an advantage. If it's the only way of accessing the UK market (which is quite valuable for patented pharmaceuticals given our strong levels of IP protection and generally high wealth), then it suddenly adds a significant boon for companies moving into the UK.

    I accept your point about businesses and cities generally, but it doesn't apply to R&D.
    Your claim rests on the assumption the companies will want to invest in the UK, which many do not, the company invest outside the UK while selling their products designed outside the UK in the UK. Imposing a tax on pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell imported pharmaceutical products in the UK is illegal under EU law, and any import charge will not encourage the pharmaceutical companies to move their development from abroad to the UK, the companies will seek to avoid the tax, or pay the tax but drastically increase the price of their products in the UK.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Your claim rests on the assumption the companies will want to invest in the UK, which many do not, the company invest outside the UK while selling their products designed outside the UK in the UK. Imposing a tax on pharmaceutical companies wanting to sell imported pharmaceutical products in the UK is illegal under UK law, and any import charge will not encourage the pharmaceutical companies to move their development from abroad to the UK, the companies will seek to avoid the tax, or pay the tax but drastically increase the price of their products in the UK.
    It's illegal under EU law, not under UK law.

    Oh wait, did I just make you argue in favour of the EU?

    :O
    Offline

    18
    Aye!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Of course it adds an advantage. If it's the only way of accessing the UK market (which is quite valuable for patented pharmaceuticals given our strong levels of IP protection and generally high wealth), then it suddenly adds a significant boon for companies moving into the UK.

    I accept your point about businesses and cities generally, but it doesn't apply to R&D.
    The UK market is simply not big enough for a multinational pharmaceutical company to relocate any substantial chunk of their R&D to a science park as proposed by this bill. A 50% tax on patented drugs not developed in one of these parks will simply mean that prices increase and either the NHS pays a lot more or patients miss out on drugs developed in the past 20 years. Your ideas are laughable.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    The UK market is simply not big enough for a multinational pharmaceutical company to relocate any substantial chunk of their R&D to a science park as proposed by this bill. A 50% tax on patented drugs not developed in one of these parks will simply mean that prices increase and either the NHS pays a lot more or patients miss out on drugs developed in the past 20 years. Your ideas are laughable.
    Fine, a tax plus price controls. The variable costs on pharma are extremely low so loss of access to any market is a loss for any pharma company. We thus just need to set the tax at such a level that a company incurs a net loss by not investing in these parks, whether the best alternative is not providing to the UK market or paying the tax.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Fine, a tax plus price controls. The variable costs on pharma are extremely low so loss of access to any market is a loss for any pharma company. We thus just need to set the tax at such a level that a company incurs a net loss by not investing in these parks, whether the best alternative is not providing to the UK market or paying the tax.
    There already are tax relief options for home developed R&D - look at patent box.

    I'm not sure what your proposed solution is - forcing companies to incur a loss for no reason? They're not going to suddenly relocate R&D from other places which probably have similar tax incentives.

    You're trying to attract the wrong investors. You want spin outs etc not giant multinational pharma companies.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    The UK market is simply not big enough for a multinational pharmaceutical company to relocate any substantial chunk of their R&D to a science park as proposed by this bill. A 50% tax on patented drugs not developed in one of these parks will simply mean that prices increase and either the NHS pays a lot more or patients miss out on drugs developed in the past 20 years. Your ideas are laughable.
    R and D is only about 14℅ of revenue.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    R and D is only about 14℅ of revenue.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ??

    R&D is expenditure. Revenue is income.

    The key issue here is that the UK is a small player internationally. Tax breaks here won't inventivise a costly move. Science parks should be aiming to attract start ups and spin outs.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    ??

    R&D is expenditure. Revenue is income.

    The key issue here is that the UK is a small player internationally. Tax breaks here won't inventivise a costly move. Science parks should be aiming to attract start ups and spin outs.
    R&D is a part of expenditure (and, for large multinational pharma, a relatively small cost compared to what it once was - increasingly, they're gaining access to new drugs through acquisitions). Nobody's asking them to move all their operations to the UK, merely to begin a small portion of their development in the UK. For instance, had Pfizer actually bought AstraZeneca, and AstraZeneca had invested in one of these science parks, they would avoid the penalty.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by illusionz)
    There already are tax relief options for home developed R&D - look at patent box.

    I'm not sure what your proposed solution is - forcing companies to incur a loss for no reason? They're not going to suddenly relocate R&D from other places which probably have similar tax incentives.

    You're trying to attract the wrong investors. You want spin outs etc not giant multinational pharma companies.
    I partly disagree, do not underestimate the power of tax breaks on large multinationals, there are cases of large multinationals relocating to Britain to take advantage of tax breaks, for instance Disney Cruise Lines in domiciled in the UK where the tax works out a better deal than in another country. I support a low-tax economy where corporation tax is set at 5%, or a little higher at 7%, the idea being to set tax levels where the tax commitment for a company is below the costs of using elaborate avoidance schemes, or slightly above the cost of elaborate tax avoidance schemes but still low enough to make the minimal savings of tax avoidance schemes a waste of resources. There will be more total tax revenue with lots of multinationals paying 5%, than few multinationals paying 20%; tax business tends to weaken business.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    FWIW I don't actually support the policy I suggested due to it being contrary to EU law, but I am strongly against a subsidy being provided to private companies.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This is in cessation
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 29, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.