Free Marmite From Countdown?

Forums › Off topic › Free Marmite From Countdown?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#784408 20-Mar-2013 13:09

Sparky787: On another note, I would like to try the South African stuff... Is it any good? Which "mite" is it most similar to?

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

They sell it in the South African shop in Auckland. Springbok Butchery and On Trays in Wellington also stock it.

Better than Vegemite too

My taste preferance

1) South African Marmite
2) UK Marmite
3) Vegamite
4) Kiwimite ...

coffeebaron

6231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#784410 20-Mar-2013 13:15

I'm now installing Marmite master filters, these will filter out all inferior yeast spreads and increase your broadband performance. Partially funded with contributions from Sanatarium charitable trust.

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784412 20-Mar-2013 13:20

John2010:Do you feel the same way about many, many businesses owned by non-religious charities and which also distribute their profits charitably?

If you do then you will find that their are many, many worthy community causes that benefit from these distributions that will disagree with you.

If you don't, why pick on religious charitable trusts?

Note, I am not religious at all and have no such affiliations, am just wondering about your (and others) reasoning.

I'm not aware of any other big business who are run by charitable trusts, tho I don't doubt they exist.

I'm quite happy for businesses to donate their profits to charitable trusts, and for those to be exempt from Tax, but the business itself should have to pay tax on its own profit before it distributes anything, just like every other business.

Twitter: ajobbins

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784431 20-Mar-2013 13:44

ajobbins:
...I'm quite happy for businesses to donate their profits to charitable trusts, and for those to be exempt from Tax, but the business itself should have to pay tax on its own profit before it distributes anything, just like every other business.

In actual fact, in New Zealand, businesses do not have to pay tax on their own profit before they distribute to a charity or other public good. Such distributions do not come from profit.

Such distributions are allowed as deductions to be treated in the same way as wages and the costs of other inputs to the business i.e. they have the effect of reducing profit and tax is only paid on that reduced profit and distributions do not come from profit.

So, for example, a business could make distributions which added to their operating costs means they make no profit at all and so pay no tax. However, if they make distributions that create a loss they cannot carry that loss forward into future years.

So, essentially, businesses are at no disadvantage compared to a charitable trust and charitable trusts have no advantage over businesses that choose to be charitable insofar as tax is concerned.

It has been this way since 2008 (if my recall of the date is correct).

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784564 20-Mar-2013 16:09

John2010:
ajobbins:
old3eyes: 1. I don't like Marmite.
2. I seem to remember reading that Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church and don't pay any company tax..

Yep. I much prefer Vegemite to Marmite, and generally avoid Sanitarium products as much as possible as I do not support the idea of religious organisations paying no tax on business profits.

Do you feel the same way about many, many businesses owned by non-religious charities and which also distribute their profits charitably?

If you do then you will find that their are many, many worthy community causes that benefit from these distributions that will disagree with you.

If you don't, why pick on religious charitable trusts?

Note, I am not religious at all and have no such affiliations, am just wondering about your (and others) reasoning.

I take issue with it because the company I work for is in the same situation. We are a plastics manufacturer and one of the items we make are large plastic tank (in the 10,000's L range). One of the churches (I can't remember which) owns a competitor who also makes tanks. The competitor can sell their tanks significantly cheaper than we can due to the fact they don't pay tax. Is that fair in the market place?

Why should such companies, making millions in profits, not have to pay tax - especially when not having to pay tax gives them a competitive advantage in the market?

WOW - this has gotten off topic!

Back on topic - I am one of those who'll eat either product, so I've not missed Marmite at all. Now that it is back I will occasionally buy it, but I won't be going out of my way to have it.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784567 20-Mar-2013 16:14

John2010:
ajobbins:
...I'm quite happy for businesses to donate their profits to charitable trusts, and for those to be exempt from Tax, but the business itself should have to pay tax on its own profit before it distributes anything, just like every other business.

In actual fact, in New Zealand, businesses do not have to pay tax on their own profit before they distribute to a charity or other public good. Such distributions do not come from profit.

Such distributions are allowed as deductions to be treated in the same way as wages and the costs of other inputs to the business i.e. they have the effect of reducing profit and tax is only paid on that reduced profit and distributions do not come from profit.

So, for example, a business could make distributions which added to their operating costs means they make no profit at all and so pay no tax. However, if they make distributions that create a loss they cannot carry that loss forward into future years.

So, essentially, businesses are at no disadvantage compared to a charitable trust and charitable trusts have no advantage over businesses that choose to be charitable insofar as tax is concerned.

It has been this way since 2008 (if my recall of the date is correct).

But it gives them a market advantage - the advantage for them is that if they give all their profit away, and therefore do not have to pay tax, it allows them to account that they won't have tax to pay and therefore to sell their products at a low price than a competitor would have to.

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#784585 20-Mar-2013 16:39

Yep, I'm bi-mite. Any Mite'll do.

I guess I could be tri- or quad-mite - quite like Promite and Bovril too.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784595 20-Mar-2013 16:54

trig42: Yep, I'm bi-mite. Any Mite'll do.

I guess I could be tri- or quad-mite - quite like Promite and Bovril too.

LMAO - ah, that's what it's called - being Bi-Miteal

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784599 20-Mar-2013 17:04

keewee01:
But it gives them a market advantage - the advantage for them is that if they give all their profit away, and therefore do not have to pay tax, it allows them to account that they won't have tax to pay and therefore to sell their products at a low price than a competitor would have to.

That argument is a complete fallacy.

First, as I have already pointed out, companies that make charitable donations DO NOT give any of their profit away as you say they do. The donation is, in fact, a deductible expense.

Second, a company that is not a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit to its shareholders (its "beneficiaries") within the bounds as to what it feels its social obligations are. It may decide to reduce its profit in order to compete in the market by accepting a lower margin over costs. There are also not-for-profit companies which are not trusts (for example, co-operatives), who, of course, do not pay tax-I assume you don't like them either.

Equally, a company that is a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit so that it maximises its distribution to its charitable recipients (its "beneficiaries"). Again, it may choose to reduce its profit (and hence distributions) by accepting a lower margin over costs in order to compete in the market in just the same way as any other company.

AND, the cost of inputs to production to both are the same.

So, they compete equally, no question about it. You are assuming that a charitable trust is more prepared to reduce its distributions to its "beneficiaries" than a company is to reduce its dividends to its "beneficiaries".

Where there may be an anomaly is in the likes of the Salvation Army Family Stores (called thrift stores in most other places, I think) where the cost of their inputs is not established in a market, so not the same, because their material inputs are all or mostly donated goods as may be some labour, and their outputs are charged for. Yet they compete with second hand shops who do not have those advantages. I assume you have a poor opinion of Salvation Army Family Stores too?

But as you say it is off topic and so I'll leave it to the chattering classes who love to knock with their uninformed opinions big business, multinationals, those that hold religious beliefs other than their own, etc, etc.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#784601 20-Mar-2013 17:08

It was a great marketing trick, but kind of really sick of hearing about it now. Has turned me off it.

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#784603 20-Mar-2013 17:10

John2010:
keewee01:
But it gives them a market advantage - the advantage for them is that if they give all their profit away, and therefore do not have to pay tax, it allows them to account that they won't have tax to pay and therefore to sell their products at a low price than a competitor would have to.

That argument is a complete fallacy.

First, as I have already pointed out, companies that make charitable donations DO NOT give any of their profit away as you say they do. The donation is, in fact, a deductible expense.

Second, a company that is not a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit to its shareholders (its "beneficiaries") within the bounds as to what it feels its social obligations are. It may decide to reduce its profit in order to compete in the market by accepting a lower margin over costs. There are also not-for-profit companies which are not trusts (for example, co-operatives), who, of course, do not pay tax-I assume you don't like them either.

Equally, a company that is a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit so that it maximises its distribution to its charitable recipients (its "beneficiaries"). Again, it may choose to reduce its profit (and hence distributions) by accepting a lower margin over costs in order to compete in the market in just the same way as any other company.

AND, the cost of inputs to production to both are the same.

So, they compete equally, no question about it. You are assuming that a charitable trust is more prepared to reduce its distributions to its "beneficiaries" than a company is to reduce its dividends to its "beneficiaries".

Where there may be an anomaly is in the likes of the Salvation Army Family Stores (called thrift stores in most other places, I think) where the cost of their inputs is not established in a market, so not the same, because their material inputs are all or mostly donated goods as may be some labour, and their outputs are charged for. Yet they compete with second hand shops who do not have those advantages. I assume you have a poor opinion of Salvation Army Family Stores too?

But as you say it is off topic and so I'll leave it to the chattering classes who love to knock with their uninformed opinions big business, multinationals, those that hold religious beliefs other than their own, etc, etc.

WOW - you are amazingly good at making assumptions! You make so many of them above... and we all know that saying John...

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#784624 20-Mar-2013 17:38

Klipspringer:
old3eyes:
2. I seem to remember reading that Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church and don't pay any company tax..

I take it you don't eat Weet-Bix and Sanitarium peanut butter either?

Eat Vitabrits and can't stand Peanut Butter..

Regards,

Old3eyes

sunshine45

1 post

Wannabe Geek

#784777 21-Mar-2013 06:46

I didnt know about this and i went shopping at countdown yesterday and was happy when i was given a free jar of marmite , thnx countdown

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#784799 21-Mar-2013 08:27

keewee01:
John2010:
keewee01:
But it gives them a market advantage - the advantage for them is that if they give all their profit away, and therefore do not have to pay tax, it allows them to account that they won't have tax to pay and therefore to sell their products at a low price than a competitor would have to.

That argument is a complete fallacy.

First, as I have already pointed out, companies that make charitable donations DO NOT give any of their profit away as you say they do. The donation is, in fact, a deductible expense.

Second, a company that is not a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit to its shareholders (its "beneficiaries") within the bounds as to what it feels its social obligations are. It may decide to reduce its profit in order to compete in the market by accepting a lower margin over costs. There are also not-for-profit companies which are not trusts (for example, co-operatives), who, of course, do not pay tax-I assume you don't like them either.

Equally, a company that is a charitable trust seeks to maximise its profit so that it maximises its distribution to its charitable recipients (its "beneficiaries"). Again, it may choose to reduce its profit (and hence distributions) by accepting a lower margin over costs in order to compete in the market in just the same way as any other company.

AND, the cost of inputs to production to both are the same.

So, they compete equally, no question about it. You are assuming that a charitable trust is more prepared to reduce its distributions to its "beneficiaries" than a company is to reduce its dividends to its "beneficiaries".

Where there may be an anomaly is in the likes of the Salvation Army Family Stores (called thrift stores in most other places, I think) where the cost of their inputs is not established in a market, so not the same, because their material inputs are all or mostly donated goods as may be some labour, and their outputs are charged for. Yet they compete with second hand shops who do not have those advantages. I assume you have a poor opinion of Salvation Army Family Stores too?

But as you say it is off topic and so I'll leave it to the chattering classes who love to knock with their uninformed opinions big business, multinationals, those that hold religious beliefs other than their own, etc, etc.

WOW - you are amazingly good at making assumptions! You make so many of them above... and we all know that saying John...

If there is anything technically wrong with what I have said, please point it out. I suspect your sweeping dismissal means that you have no understanding of the matters said.

It also occurs to me from your views that some may not be aware as to how taxes are handled with respect to distributions to shareholders. As we know a company pays tax on its profit but the dividend to shareholders is distributed with tax credits (imputation) to the extent of the tax paid by the company. This is in effect to the shareholder the same as if the company had paid no tax on the profit but distributed it all in cash with no tax credit. So, insofar as distributed profit is concerned companies are at no disadvantage when compared to ones operating as charitable trusts.

The company does have a disadvantage in that by having paid tax on its undistributed profit retained for capital or working capital (usually much less than the distributed) it has less immediately available to it for those purposes. However, that is only to the extent of the NPV of the depreciation of the assets it is used for over subsequent years and I would suggest that companies enjoy benefits that charitable trusts do not - perhaps, for example, easier access to equity.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#784800 21-Mar-2013 08:28

Klipspringer:

Its like the UK marmite. Its called Marmite in South Africa, not SAmite. They were forced to rebrand the imported product here in NZ because Sanitarium made a stink.

For the billionth time, Sanitarium didn't "make a stink". A trademark holder is literally legally required to act on any breach of their trademark no matter how small, or face their trademark being declared Generic and invalidated. Ironically, the manufacturers of the original Marmite (UK? SA? I can't remember which) would be the ones infuriated by this, as they license said trademark to Sanitarium and losing it to a generic declaration would be very bad for them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5