Three ways the Government can help entrepreneurs I don't think that Government should provide start-up finance: part of the entrepreneurial challenge is to find people who are willing to back your idea. Government is too often the source of dumb money and a business of the type that I describe should be able to raise the initial capital, either through the founder or through family and friends. However, Government can act as an aggregator and facilitator. I would like the Government to create a category of SMEs called "Growth Companies." Not everyone who starts a company could have this designation. It would not be designed for the sole trader or a true cottage industry but would be aimed at people who wanted to start a business that had a plan to create 20 jobs within three years and achieve a turnover of £1m. These companies would have to apply for this status, with a business plan and a commitment to report back each year on progress to maintain that status. If accreditation is given, then this should give the company access to the following credits and incentives. First, there is the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), which needs reforming. The problem with the current construct is that the founder has to subscribe equally alongside the investors. This means that, if you want to start a business, have the skills, energy and risk appetite but no money, the EIS will raise you the capital but the founder will have a very small equity stake - that is not an incentive to start a business. Also, you cannot use the scheme to raise subsequent funding, to grow the business - it only applies at the outset. Entrepreneurs should be able to raise both initial and subsequent capital using the scheme and do so in a way that ensures they can maintain a reasonable equity interest. Second, there is the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) regime, which needs enhancing. Entrepreneurs start businesses because they like the challenge and to make money. To achieve this they will risk everything for a period of time, work every hour obsessively and even when they are not working they will be thinking about the business. Founders of businesses are rare creatures and should be rewarded as such. Founders" shares should attract CGT of 10pc up to £10m and 20pc from £10m to £20m. Thereafter, CGT on these shares should be at the normal rate. To qualify for growth company status the founder must commit to putting 5pc of the company into trust for the employees of the business. And no, George, I am not going to swap some of my precious equity for an easier way of firing an employee. Founders" income tax rate should be reduced for three years: 10pc for the first year; 20pc in the second year; 30pc in the third year. Most people leave an established well-paid job to start a new business. In the early years the founder's income takes a big drop until the business becomes established but outgoings often stay the same. A reduced tax rate would help in these early days. Third, there should be incentives for hiring staff. Every young business needs to be able to hire really good people to help to compete with and to beat established players. The people we need are often expert in their fields, highly regarded and highly paid and they probably work for our competitors. Many of them share the entrepreneur's ambitions but are financially comfortable and more risk averse. They can be attracted by the opportunity of working for a young company in which they can play a vital role and to make some capital. We need help to hire these people. Each growth company could be allowed to hire up to 10 people and offer them "second generation" equity. This would attract similar tax treatments as Founder Shares. CGT would be 10pc on the first £5m of gain and 20pc from £5m to £10m. Thereafter, CGT would be at the normal rates. They should also be offered a reduction in income tax to join - 20pc for the first three years. However, this should not be a gift from the Chancellor: the reduction should be paid by the company they are joining. If they are good enough to hire, then the shareholders in the company should be prepared to shoulder some of the cost of hiring them. A limit of four people a year with a maximum number of 12 people per company could be applicable for this scheme and it should only be available while the business employs fewer than 50 people and has an average turnover for three years of less than £10m. As entrepreneurs, we know that if we want to be successful we need to serve our customers better than anyone else, hire good people and create an environment that ensures they stay and perform. We need to mind our costs and our cash and we need to seek out growth wherever we can. It was this search for growth that led Tulchan, in the depths of the downturn here, to open an office in Singapore. It struck me as ironic that the only direct help that the Government's policies has ever given Tulchan is to allow us to offset all our start-up costs in Singapore against our profits here. So the Government is paying me to build a business in a country 6,000 miles away in which no one is a UK taxpayer. There must be a better way. Andrew Grant is the founder of Tulchan Communications