Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #784408 20-Mar-2013 13:09
Send private message

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 ...




5699 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #784410 20-Mar-2013 13:15
Send private message

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.




Chorus has spent $1.4 billion on making their xDSL broadband network faster and even more now as they are upgrading their rural Conklins. If your still stuck on ADSL or VDSL, why not spend $195 on a master filter install to make sure you are getting the most out of your connection?
I install - Naked DSL, DSL Master Splitters, VoIP, data cabling and general computer support for home and small business.

 

Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally
Rural Broadband RBI installer for Ultimate Broadband and Full Flavour

 

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


 
 
 
 


Awesome
4883 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #784412 20-Mar-2013 13:20
Send private message

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


532 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #784431 20-Mar-2013 13:44
Send private message

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).

1714 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #784564 20-Mar-2013 16:09
Send private message

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.

1714 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #784567 20-Mar-2013 16:14
Send private message

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.

Banana?
5005 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #784585 20-Mar-2013 16:39
Send private message

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

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

 
 
 
 


1714 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #784595 20-Mar-2013 16:54
Send private message

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 Laughing

532 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #784599 20-Mar-2013 17:04
Send private message

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.

16481 posts

Uber Geek


  #784601 20-Mar-2013 17:08
Send private message

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

1714 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #784603 20-Mar-2013 17:10
Send private message

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... Wink

8414 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #784624 20-Mar-2013 17:38
Send private message

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


1 post

Wannabe Geek


  #784777 21-Mar-2013 06:46
Send private message

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

532 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #784799 21-Mar-2013 08:27
Send private message

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... Wink


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.

3210 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #784800 21-Mar-2013 08:28
Send private message

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
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




News »

Freeview On Demand app launches on Sony Android TVs
Posted 6-Aug-2020 13:35


UFB hits more than one million connections
Posted 6-Aug-2020 09:42


D-Link A/NZ extends COVR Wi-Fi EasyMesh System series with new three-pack
Posted 4-Aug-2020 15:01


New Zealand software Rfider tracks coffee from Colombia all the way to New Zealand businesses
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:35


Logitech G launches Pro X Wireless gaming headset
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:21


Sony Alpha 7S III provides supreme imaging performance
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:11


Sony introduces first CFexpress Type A memory card
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:05


Marsello acquires Goody consolidating online and in-store marketing position
Posted 30-Jul-2020 16:26


Fonterra first major customer for Microsoft's New Zealand datacentre
Posted 30-Jul-2020 08:07


Everything we learnt at the IBM Cloud Forum 2020
Posted 29-Jul-2020 14:45


Dropbox launches native HelloSign workflow and data residency in Australia
Posted 29-Jul-2020 12:48


Spark launches 5G in Palmerston North
Posted 29-Jul-2020 09:50


Lenovo brings speed and smarter features to new 5G mobile gaming phone
Posted 28-Jul-2020 22:00


Withings raises $60 million to enable bridge between patients and healthcare
Posted 28-Jul-2020 21:51


QNAP integrates Catalyst Cloud Object Storage into Hybrid Backup solution
Posted 28-Jul-2020 21:40



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.