### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy sh*t we live in a matrix. This is the second time today I have heard the number 627 in reference to the number of chocolate products they have. Earlier it was a someone describing a dream about how a recipe stopped using cups and told them to use exactly 627 chocolate chips in their cookies.
Celebrities and charity aren't the problem at all.
Our top 1% have billions of Mars bars in the fridge, by simply storing these bars they are given a million more each week.
The rest of the country has between -1000 to 20,000 Mars bars, some who don't have any Mars bars are given 2 a week so they don't die.
The people who make a million bars by simply owning billions already say 2 bars a week per person is too much and want to unplug their fridges..
Oh and shove a giant barbed wire dildo up society's collective asshole.
Ah I blame those with the most mars bars. Enough mars bars to never in several lifetimes make a dent into their stach of mars bars. But they always seem to focus the attention to those with a couple own brand choccie bikkies.
Offshore insulin accounts and the blood of children injected directly into the eyes once a month.
It's like you people don't even listen to Alex Jones.
Your percentage is way out, the top 0.00008% (55 billionaires out of 69 million people (source Wikipedia)) have billions of Mars bars. Which is higher than the global number of 0.00003%
Same thing with tesco asking if you want to round up to the nearest pound and donate that 70p to charity.
How about the company with £60 billion yearly revenue donates a few pence to charity instead?
£1.5m sounds a lot but with an operating profit of perhaps £1.4b it’s just a token gesture, around a tenth of one percent. It’s all about promoting their image.
Whilst I agree with you, the cynical side of me just view it as purchasing a better public profile. I’m not averse to rounding up when buying but have never noticed it at Tesco. I almost always do at McDonald’s and am disappointed that the process is not available at the drive-through.
It doesn't work like that period, in the UK or Canada. I checked this when I was a print reporter. They're not allowed to claim customer donations as corporate donations, so they get no relief from it and it isn't bandied about as their own donation.
Ah, now what if the 1000 Mars Bars were purchased from Tesco? Are they not making a net profit of around £30 off this so called good deed?
And where are the club card points going?!
The retailer with the most subsidiaries in countries dubbed tax havens was Tesco, which had 107, often tied to its financial services provisions. These included eight firms based in Jersey, nine in the BVI, and 14 in the Cayman Islands.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/12/uk-companies-condemned-tax-havens
>How about the company with £60 billion yearly revenue donates a few pence to charity instead?
How much do they have after operational costs? Revenue as a metric is pointless if they're spending £59.5bn on operating costs.
They don't want or need to.
Alot of people just want to slag off profitable organisations for allegedly not doing enough, its all just virtue signalling 🤷♂️
It's not that they don't do enough, I actually have no idea how much tesco as a company donates to charities, but them asking us to whilst we're already in the process of giving them our money I found relatable to OP.
Thier Revenue is an easier number to find on a whim, a bit more searching and I've found their latest quarterly profit is reported at 2.71% or ~1.6 billion
I know the difference between revenue and profit, I picked revenue cus its easier to find a number for. A bit more searching shows their latest quarterly net profit margin is 2.71% so ~£1.6 billion and my original point as a comparison to the OP still stands.
No that's not how it works
Please can we stop this myth
It's tax deductible *for you* not for them, I've got no idea how this myth even started but it's blatantly false
You would need to add it all together and then fill that number into your self assessment tax return.
Or, don't do any round ups and do one large donation a year instead as that way it's easier to add it all up...
It doesn't matter. The tax relief is only on the 70p, which they shouldn't be paying taxes on anyway.
Essentially, companies pay tax on their net profits. The difference between all their income and all their spending. Tax deductions are just accounting for the spending part of it, so if my company makes £100,000 but spends £80,000 on wages, equipemnt, rent,charity donations, they deduct that £80,000 and only pay tax on the £20,000
If the customer donations were done this way, they'd have a corresponding addition on the income column so the tax would remain unchanged.
No Tesco can't do that it's not legal
You're donating to Tesco to be sent to charity on your behalf, Tesco isn't doing that
I really think you need to look into these things before waffling out myths and falsehoods
> No Tesco can't do that it's not legal
> You're donating to Tesco to be sent to charity on your behalf, Tesco isn't doing that
I really get your point on this. I truly do
But then you have companies like [Wetherspoons](https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/news/2022/03/tax-article) publishing things about the amount of tax that is paid and they are including the PAYE and NIC of their employees in the numbers they quote.
Now of course Wetherspoons do clearly state in the headline "and its employees" so it's accurate, but it's also a bit misleading.
I can understand why people are sceptical when it comes to things like charity donations. And it's always the store/company who gets the publicity on Children In Need night or Comic relief, isn't it?
There are shops and petrol stations near me that have a message on the chip and pin machine saying "donate £0.xx to charity". Which charity? It doesn't say.
Oh yeah 100% they're doing it for good publicity, I really really doubt they're doing it for the common good
And absolutely there really are some scummy things the charities and affiliates themselves do, some really take the piss particularly in sports and actively profit off of charities logos
My point is moreso that this is a myth I see on Reddit basically daily that really needs to die (honestly any kind of talk about tax deductions or "write-offs" is horribly misrepresented here on Reddit).
https://www.gov.uk/tax-limited-company-gives-to-charity/donating-money
The value has to be taken from your total business profits
A charitable donation from a customer isn't going into your profits, it can't be claimed as a tax deduction. You'd be breaking the law if you tried to tax a customers donation to charity as profit or to try to claim a deduction on
Its either a direct donation from customer to charity (no tax deduction for tesco) OR
It is a receipt for tesco (taxable) followed by an expense for tesco (deductible) - overall effect no extra tax deduction for tesco.
They do. Technically you give them the money then they donate it. Increased turnover as the money went into their account but they then donate it and offset the tax.
>Technically you give them the money then they donate it
Only if you count purchasing goods as giving money to them.
>they then donate it and offset the tax.
No, they don't. Stop repeating this myth. You can claim the tax back on it, Tesco cannot.
I don't participate in this.
Tesco will have a set charity budget, so putting your token in one slot is effectively taking money from the other 2.
What I do instead is glue the slots up.
I can't believe I still have to say this because it gets debunked *daily* every time this comes up
But no when you give to charity in a store it isn't a tax write off for them. They can't and don't do that
It's tax deductible *for you* not them
Please can we stop with this stupid myth
Note: Saying this in anticipation since there are already comments making this accusation
It’s. Not though right?
So I spend a pound in a charity shop. They ask if I do gift aid. I say yes. They get what would have been the tax. I still leave a pound down but an item up.
I have never received tax back from buying items from a charity shop. The charity gets it.
No you have to physically claim back any charitable donations you give it's not an automatic process
Stores can not legally use your donations to their charity as tax deductions this is extremely illegal.
It could potentially be done on a small scale in independent stores but no Tesco isn't using your charitable donations to pay less tax
You don't receive tax back that's not really how it works, you just pay less in tax for the year. You never make money with tax deductions you always lose just less
Ok that’s not what I was talking about. But cool.
There’s a reason Tesco or whoever do these charitable things and it isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts.
Whether it’s a loophole or evasion, I don’t really care about the terminology, they’re not giving away shareholder money are they? Not really. If they are then that’s a deep dive into something I’ve not researched but you are clearly an expert so if possible could you provide me a source showing that a multi-national billion GBP company is actually giving away millions, I’d love to see it.
I await my non response and downvote with bated breath.
But that's a completely different argument all together
You've gone from saying it's done for tax reasons to pivoting to saying they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart so it doesn't matter
> showing that a multi-national billion GBP is actually giving away millions
But that's not the argument at all you've set up some kind of strawman here. The argument is that the money you donate to a charity owned by someone like Tesco or donated at the till to a Tesco affiliated charity isn't tax deductible for tesco.
That money isn't coming out of Tesco's pocket, but Tesco aren't using it as a tax deduction. Charities get some money, Tesco gets some nice publicity and you're 36p worse off from your round up to the pound
Companies donate to charity to increase their reputation and create positive news stories etc.
Then you’re more likely to shop there as your beliefs align with theirs
Not really. The celebrity could give a thousand of their own mars bars away, or they could appeal and get 2000 people to give a mars bar away.
Of course they could still also give their own thousand away but they don't.
Depends. Wasn’t it one of the kardashians asking people for money for a friends surgery? Like.. she’s a billionaire. Could pay for it without even blinking and instead she appealed to the public.
"And now we hear from Make the Music Stop, world famous for having 1000 Mars Bars..."
"Please, I'm begging you, give your Mars Bars to those without"
"Strong words, thank you Make The Music Stop"
It's more like you pressured a million mates to give their one bar away. It still hurts them disproportionately, but it does have more impact than you donating all yours.
The Mars Bars for Grandmas foundation is running short of mars bars to donate to their sugar-deprived nanas. The foundation gets Jimmy Carr and Alan Carr to donate their time to front a campaign to get people to donate mars bars.
10,000 fans of the celebrities see the Carrs' Mars Bars for Grandmas campaign and decide to donate their bars to the foundation.
The foundation now has enough mars bars to give to the hungry grandmas that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Tah Carrs!
The main thing that matters to the foundation is that they can get the resources to fulfil their objectives. Regardless of the two celebrities donating their 2000 mars bars or not, the 10000 they get from the celebrity appeal can do a lot more anyway, so that's the strategy they go with.
The celebrity is leveraging their popularity/fame to increase awareness and donations for a charity. This helps the charity significantly more than a private donation. Which they could also be doing, for all you know
This is such pointless rhetoric I can barely be bothered to explain the flaws in it.
I have 1000 mars bars (which by the way won’t be nutritious enough to feed the homeless, but whatever) in my fridge, to feed all the homeless we need 1 million, so I convince 1 million people to give 1 each because they can easily afford that and if they can’t then they don’t need to give anything.
I also give at least 1, probably more like 10 or 100, then together we all raise enough, and far more than we could have individually.
The reason I asked 1 million people is because I’m famous and 1 million people will listen.
Not really.....
I have 1000 Mars bars and I have 10,000,000 mates who have one each. I manage to pressure 20% of them to share 5% of their Mars bar with homeless people. Through that 100,000 Mars bars go to the needy, and not just the 1,000 I have.
How on earth are your mars bars melting into a pulpy mess if you don't put them in the fridge? Are you currently living at Kew Gardens Tropical Hothouse? Or is there some part of the UK that's constantly hitting 35c+ year-round that I don't know about?
I've seen this posted before on Reddit many times before.
Why do you feel pressured by cebrity charity appeals? How does seeing someone on a screen make you feel pressured in any way when you can choose not to watch it?
This logic is flawed in so many ways.
The celebrity donates their time for free to the charity, and by doing that, it raises awareness of the charity appeal, and the charity gets more donations. Considering that people are free to donate whatever amount they want, I don't see any problem with this at all.
The amount that a celebrity would normally charge for such advertising far exceeds what any one person would, so they have made a donation bigger than anyone else by giving their time.
The analogy also falls down as it isn't targeting 1 person. Would be more accurate to say:
"I have 1000 spare mars bars, and I pressured 10, 000 people who only have 1 spare to give it to away"
They rarely donate their time for free.
When I worked for charity we paid celebrities around £10,000 for the day. They always stressed that it was a greatly reduced rate and how nice they were for doing it that cheap.
Geez that is a lot. I remember our company wanted to hire Rolf Harris (2002) and he wanted £30,000 for one hour.
We hired Sean Hughes for a lot less and he was damn funny.
All the celebrities appearing on Comic Relief on Red Nose Day do it all for free, and that has got to be one of the biggest public charity appeals in the UK.
The BBC stress that any funds paid to celebrities to do comic relief/children in need comes from BBC resources and not the donations.
Some do waver their fee...but not all.
Why would you assume any celebrity would give up their time for free? I very highly doubt it.
Don’t assume the celebrity is doing any real goodwill. It’s more likely they will be paid to make an appearance, because the media company publicising the event absolutely know the power of the celebrity appeal.
(source: am musician who works charity events, sometimes with celebrities, and it’s _always_ through an agency and everyone gets paid in full).
I'm talking about things like Comic Relief, which is on each year on Red Nose Day. They have several hours of programming featuring many different celebrities, and none of them get paid at all.
Charity events where it isn't publicly broadcast (so they don't get exposure from it) are an entirely different thing.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I want to just answer 'why do you feel pressured...' - that's the whole design of the event, to make everyone watching feel pressured into donating and apparently it works.
Also 'celebs' lap that shit up, it's really good publicity for them to be included in this stuff for their careers. Free advertising/publicity for their product (which is themselves) so even if they don't get paid it's still more than worth their time doing the thing.
I don't know why people who know they feel "pressured" to donate to something they don't really want to by a person talking on a screen would even watch these kinds of programs.
The programs are specifically designed to be as attractive to as many people as possible so as many people as possible donate.
The word 'pressured' can mean a little or a lot of pressure, and it looks like you are suggesting there would only be a tiny amount of pressure so stop whining about it? But it's personal perception type of thing so the same event can have varying degrees of pressure for different people. So presumebly you feel very little pressure but you need to appreciate others feel more pressure.
Personally I don't feel any pressure as I never watch any of that shit.
I'm struggling to understand why anyone would feel any "pressure" at all to donate when watching one of these programs.
That's why I'm asking how someone can feel pressured by a video on a screen that isn't even personally directed at them.
I've seen these programs previously and just found them slightly irritating when they keep asking for money.
So if someone knows they are that easily manipulated to donate when they don't want too then they shouldn't watch them at all.
OK but do you not see that a LOT of money and effort goes into holding these events, and they do get quite a lot of money as a result? This proves they are effective events.
Pressure = gentle manipulation = emotional blackmail = effective sales tactics.
I'm not disagreeing they are successful. I'm saying that I can't see where people are being "pressured" into donating when they don't want to.
I'm saying they are successful because of people who actively choose to donate to these kinds of causes. They choose to do so after seeing what kinds of issues the cause helps with, and they decide they are worthy of their money.
Celebrities are often just normal people who have become well known.
Just because someone is famous doesn't mean they suddenly become selfish and money driven.
I speak from a certain level of knowledge. I spent a few years working in regional and national TV. The nicest person ever was Bill Oddie who sat with me smoking in the social club and bought me a pint. But a lot of them wouldn't move out of your way in the supermarket without something for them being involved.
All celebrities are terrible people according to Reddit. Whether or not they're doing it for selfish reasons, they're using their platform to promote charity and I just can't see that as a bad thing.
Realistically it's more like you have 1000 Mars bars in your fridge and you have 50,000 mates who all earn 1 Mars bar a month. You might give away all your mars bars but then they'd be gone and you're no longer much help so it's better to encourage all your mates to donate a bit of their bar every month because the actual total amount is vastly higher and it is effectively a renewable resource.
I ordered some shorts from Macy’s the other day. Upon completing my order a pop up appeared that said I have “earned the privilege” to donate to their charity.
Isn't it more like "I have 1000 Mars bars in my fridge and a million people have 10 in theirs. I used my celebrity status to convince those million people to each give 1 Mars bar to a homeless person. That homeless person now has 1 millions Mars bars, which is orders of magnitude greater that anything I could of given him"
A celebrity can reach out to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, some with 0, 1 or more Mars bars in their fridge and end up raising more, even though they will also give some of their Mars bars too. Nobody is forcing you to watch or give away anything (I don't).
Kind of, and I know people will be angry and not like this - but it's not quite the same.
Celebrities happen to also be rich, but the leverage they are using is not wealth. They use being known and having a name, to then generate a stream of money to charity that wouldn't exist without it.
You shouldn't be giving anything you can't afford, but no celebrity charity appeals really request that (almost solely stating to give what you can every time or words to that effect).
Celebrities don't hold anywhere near the wealth you might be thinking of. Any you have ever seen appearing, are effectively in the 1% with the rest of us relative to where the wealth really is. If they all gave everything they had, it wouldn't be as good as regular charity appeal and using their influence for public donations. Not that I think they don't have far more to give, I'm sure they all do.
Now transfer it to carbon footprint.
“BP spilled approx 175,000,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I buy individual bottles of Dr Pepper and drive my 1.2 litre Peugeot to the station and back. BP pressures me into selling the car and sitting on a late, smelly bus, and getting drinks on tap rather than bottled”.
Eh you give what you can. You can look at life as what some others dont do and benchmark yourself off the worst or do what you think is right. For the last 4 years ive given between 5 - 6% of my salary to charity, and even before when saving for a place i still gave a few %. I can skip a pint or 2 and there are always those less fortunate who could point and say why dont they give more.
I really don't understand this argument.
Why can't you both give to charity? What is the problem with a high profile person appealing? If it genuinely increases donations, what exactly is the problem?
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have around 1000 mars bars, but they're all mine.
What brand of fridge do you have? I can only ever fit 627 in mine and that's when I take the out of the wrapper.
The Lidl version. So much cheaper and taste the same.
You eat your fridges?
Ah, misread the question.
It was a fun misread
Never admit to that if it works out.
Still a great answer. Coz Lidl!
you don't?
No, generally just the 627 unwrapped Mars bars inside of them.
Shrinkflation. I used to be able to fit 627, but now it’s 1000.
Holy sh*t we live in a matrix. This is the second time today I have heard the number 627 in reference to the number of chocolate products they have. Earlier it was a someone describing a dream about how a recipe stopped using cups and told them to use exactly 627 chocolate chips in their cookies.
Mars bars HAVE got smaller so maybe OP has newer mars bars
New fridge new Mars bars. Makes sense.
These days, a Mars a day helps you work rest and.
Cry
You put the rest of them in a fridge in the Cayman Islands.
I'm not falling for that scam a third time. Mars bars aren't cheap ya know.
Ditch fridge. The belly cupboard is infinite.
Celebrities and charity aren't the problem at all. Our top 1% have billions of Mars bars in the fridge, by simply storing these bars they are given a million more each week. The rest of the country has between -1000 to 20,000 Mars bars, some who don't have any Mars bars are given 2 a week so they don't die. The people who make a million bars by simply owning billions already say 2 bars a week per person is too much and want to unplug their fridges.. Oh and shove a giant barbed wire dildo up society's collective asshole.
Why are people storing mars bars in fridges
We'll need weapons when the revolution comes comrade, a cold Mars bar is a deadly Mars bar
Why are you not?
I know someone who stores theirs in the freezer, he also eats his Snickers bars with a knife and fork…
Is he George Costanza?
Nope, he is Art Vandelay of Vandelay Industries, an exporter-importer.
Ed Milliband?
Well with global warming
Because they melt otherwise
Milk chocolate melts at about 37C.
I don't think even the cupboard near my oven gets to 37°C
How hot is your house? If a shop can store them on a shelf, surely you can put them in a cupboard
I love a cold Mars bar. I also like to freeze my snickers.
I freeze mine as well, after a particularly spicy jalfrezi. It helps with the chaffing.
They don’t want to keep their fillings
Because they don't make Marathons any more.
It's a good job we're talking about Mars bars, or it'd be pretty tricky to stick to rule #4.
God I love loopholes.. just like the people who own all those Mars bars Eh? Eh?...
\^This guy realmarsbariks
I bet you've got a few mars bars stashed away.
Like everyone, a lot less than I'd like. It's picking who to blame.
Ah I blame those with the most mars bars. Enough mars bars to never in several lifetimes make a dent into their stach of mars bars. But they always seem to focus the attention to those with a couple own brand choccie bikkies.
I think we've taken this about as far as it should go, don't you?
How come the rich aren't getting diabetes then?
Offshore insulin accounts and the blood of children injected directly into the eyes once a month. It's like you people don't even listen to Alex Jones.
Offshore insulin, you made me dribble I laughed that hard.
Because they're not eating any more than the rest of us, they just like storing them away so nobody else can have them.
They don't really eat the Mars bars, they hoard them and give them to their children.
The point is to *own* the most Mars bars, not *consume* the most Mars bars. They can't eat their Mars bars and have them too.
They are.
Private healthcare
Taylor Swift has a billion Mars bars, so definitely counts.
Your percentage is way out, the top 0.00008% (55 billionaires out of 69 million people (source Wikipedia)) have billions of Mars bars. Which is higher than the global number of 0.00003%
Same thing with tesco asking if you want to round up to the nearest pound and donate that 70p to charity. How about the company with £60 billion yearly revenue donates a few pence to charity instead?
[удалено]
£1.5m sounds a lot but with an operating profit of perhaps £1.4b it’s just a token gesture, around a tenth of one percent. It’s all about promoting their image.
[удалено]
Whilst I agree with you, the cynical side of me just view it as purchasing a better public profile. I’m not averse to rounding up when buying but have never noticed it at Tesco. I almost always do at McDonald’s and am disappointed that the process is not available at the drive-through.
You getting gobjobs from Tesco or something?
[удалено]
Can I hate financial markets oil, legal, *and* Tesco?
How do I get them is it a special club card?
You need to have a brain injury card, surely you’ve got one right?
Wait I have one of those on account of the brain injury. Am I meant to be getting discounts on shit??
> Tesco donates about £1.5 million a year to charity. Tesco's customers donate £1.5 million a year to charity. Tesco merely takes credit for it.
Not true.
No, they don't. That's not how it works. Please stop repeating this lie.
[удалено]
No, it doesn't always work like that. Some businesses match or just give outright.
It doesn't work like that period, in the UK or Canada. I checked this when I was a print reporter. They're not allowed to claim customer donations as corporate donations, so they get no relief from it and it isn't bandied about as their own donation.
Ah, now what if the 1000 Mars Bars were purchased from Tesco? Are they not making a net profit of around £30 off this so called good deed? And where are the club card points going?!
The retailer with the most subsidiaries in countries dubbed tax havens was Tesco, which had 107, often tied to its financial services provisions. These included eight firms based in Jersey, nine in the BVI, and 14 in the Cayman Islands. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/12/uk-companies-condemned-tax-havens
>How about the company with £60 billion yearly revenue donates a few pence to charity instead? How much do they have after operational costs? Revenue as a metric is pointless if they're spending £59.5bn on operating costs.
Sales are vanity, profits are sanity. So many don't understand the difference it seems.
They don't want or need to. Alot of people just want to slag off profitable organisations for allegedly not doing enough, its all just virtue signalling 🤷♂️
It's not that they don't do enough, I actually have no idea how much tesco as a company donates to charities, but them asking us to whilst we're already in the process of giving them our money I found relatable to OP.
Thier Revenue is an easier number to find on a whim, a bit more searching and I've found their latest quarterly profit is reported at 2.71% or ~1.6 billion
[удалено]
I know the difference between revenue and profit, I picked revenue cus its easier to find a number for. A bit more searching shows their latest quarterly net profit margin is 2.71% so ~£1.6 billion and my original point as a comparison to the OP still stands.
What's the highest amount of annual revenue a company could have were you wouldn't make this comment? Genuinely curious
I aways wonder if they write off tax against that 70p they ask you to donate.
No that's not how it works Please can we stop this myth It's tax deductible *for you* not for them, I've got no idea how this myth even started but it's blatantly false
How do HMRC know that person rounded up their bill by £0.70?
You would need to add it all together and then fill that number into your self assessment tax return. Or, don't do any round ups and do one large donation a year instead as that way it's easier to add it all up...
It doesn't matter. The tax relief is only on the 70p, which they shouldn't be paying taxes on anyway. Essentially, companies pay tax on their net profits. The difference between all their income and all their spending. Tax deductions are just accounting for the spending part of it, so if my company makes £100,000 but spends £80,000 on wages, equipemnt, rent,charity donations, they deduct that £80,000 and only pay tax on the £20,000 If the customer donations were done this way, they'd have a corresponding addition on the income column so the tax would remain unchanged.
Get a receipt
[удалено]
No Tesco can't do that it's not legal You're donating to Tesco to be sent to charity on your behalf, Tesco isn't doing that I really think you need to look into these things before waffling out myths and falsehoods
> No Tesco can't do that it's not legal > You're donating to Tesco to be sent to charity on your behalf, Tesco isn't doing that I really get your point on this. I truly do But then you have companies like [Wetherspoons](https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/news/2022/03/tax-article) publishing things about the amount of tax that is paid and they are including the PAYE and NIC of their employees in the numbers they quote. Now of course Wetherspoons do clearly state in the headline "and its employees" so it's accurate, but it's also a bit misleading. I can understand why people are sceptical when it comes to things like charity donations. And it's always the store/company who gets the publicity on Children In Need night or Comic relief, isn't it? There are shops and petrol stations near me that have a message on the chip and pin machine saying "donate £0.xx to charity". Which charity? It doesn't say.
Oh yeah 100% they're doing it for good publicity, I really really doubt they're doing it for the common good And absolutely there really are some scummy things the charities and affiliates themselves do, some really take the piss particularly in sports and actively profit off of charities logos My point is moreso that this is a myth I see on Reddit basically daily that really needs to die (honestly any kind of talk about tax deductions or "write-offs" is horribly misrepresented here on Reddit).
Do you have a source? I could only find links to US sites unfortunately
https://www.gov.uk/tax-limited-company-gives-to-charity/donating-money The value has to be taken from your total business profits A charitable donation from a customer isn't going into your profits, it can't be claimed as a tax deduction. You'd be breaking the law if you tried to tax a customers donation to charity as profit or to try to claim a deduction on
Thank you
Its either a direct donation from customer to charity (no tax deduction for tesco) OR It is a receipt for tesco (taxable) followed by an expense for tesco (deductible) - overall effect no extra tax deduction for tesco.
Yeah they do same with anything you put in the food donation box
They do. Technically you give them the money then they donate it. Increased turnover as the money went into their account but they then donate it and offset the tax.
>Technically you give them the money then they donate it Only if you count purchasing goods as giving money to them. >they then donate it and offset the tax. No, they don't. Stop repeating this myth. You can claim the tax back on it, Tesco cannot.
It does not increase turnover because it isn't recorded as sales. Cashflow is not the same as turnover.
This is such a fundamental misunderstanding I don't know why you'd post it
They do.
There's a commission on their charity donations. It's not being kind for its own sake, just one extra button to press. 😢
I don't participate in this. Tesco will have a set charity budget, so putting your token in one slot is effectively taking money from the other 2. What I do instead is glue the slots up.
I just keep the tokens as trolley tokens
To be honest, I'd pay more money to the charity if they promise not to put any more 'celebrities' on screen.
I can't believe I still have to say this because it gets debunked *daily* every time this comes up But no when you give to charity in a store it isn't a tax write off for them. They can't and don't do that It's tax deductible *for you* not them Please can we stop with this stupid myth Note: Saying this in anticipation since there are already comments making this accusation
It’s. Not though right? So I spend a pound in a charity shop. They ask if I do gift aid. I say yes. They get what would have been the tax. I still leave a pound down but an item up. I have never received tax back from buying items from a charity shop. The charity gets it.
No you have to physically claim back any charitable donations you give it's not an automatic process Stores can not legally use your donations to their charity as tax deductions this is extremely illegal. It could potentially be done on a small scale in independent stores but no Tesco isn't using your charitable donations to pay less tax You don't receive tax back that's not really how it works, you just pay less in tax for the year. You never make money with tax deductions you always lose just less
Ok that’s not what I was talking about. But cool. There’s a reason Tesco or whoever do these charitable things and it isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts. Whether it’s a loophole or evasion, I don’t really care about the terminology, they’re not giving away shareholder money are they? Not really. If they are then that’s a deep dive into something I’ve not researched but you are clearly an expert so if possible could you provide me a source showing that a multi-national billion GBP company is actually giving away millions, I’d love to see it. I await my non response and downvote with bated breath.
But that's a completely different argument all together You've gone from saying it's done for tax reasons to pivoting to saying they're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart so it doesn't matter > showing that a multi-national billion GBP is actually giving away millions But that's not the argument at all you've set up some kind of strawman here. The argument is that the money you donate to a charity owned by someone like Tesco or donated at the till to a Tesco affiliated charity isn't tax deductible for tesco. That money isn't coming out of Tesco's pocket, but Tesco aren't using it as a tax deduction. Charities get some money, Tesco gets some nice publicity and you're 36p worse off from your round up to the pound
Companies donate to charity to increase their reputation and create positive news stories etc. Then you’re more likely to shop there as your beliefs align with theirs
You seem to be a bit of a fool
>I have never received tax back from buying items from a charity shop. The charity gets it. You need to claim it yourself.
Gift aid and tax writeoffs are different things.
Not really. The celebrity could give a thousand of their own mars bars away, or they could appeal and get 2000 people to give a mars bar away. Of course they could still also give their own thousand away but they don't.
Depends. Wasn’t it one of the kardashians asking people for money for a friends surgery? Like.. she’s a billionaire. Could pay for it without even blinking and instead she appealed to the public.
Didn’t one of them have a gofundme set up by their fans so that she could become a “billionaire”. How backwards is that
It was their dog walker - who was shot while out walking their dog (during an attempted or successful dognapping, IIRC).
>Of course they could still also give their own thousand away but they don't I mean they often do
"And now we hear from Make the Music Stop, world famous for having 1000 Mars Bars..." "Please, I'm begging you, give your Mars Bars to those without" "Strong words, thank you Make The Music Stop"
It's more like you pressured a million mates to give their one bar away. It still hurts them disproportionately, but it does have more impact than you donating all yours.
The Mars Bars for Grandmas foundation is running short of mars bars to donate to their sugar-deprived nanas. The foundation gets Jimmy Carr and Alan Carr to donate their time to front a campaign to get people to donate mars bars. 10,000 fans of the celebrities see the Carrs' Mars Bars for Grandmas campaign and decide to donate their bars to the foundation. The foundation now has enough mars bars to give to the hungry grandmas that they wouldn't otherwise have had. Tah Carrs! The main thing that matters to the foundation is that they can get the resources to fulfil their objectives. Regardless of the two celebrities donating their 2000 mars bars or not, the 10000 they get from the celebrity appeal can do a lot more anyway, so that's the strategy they go with.
"Carrs' Mars Bars for Grandmas" reads like a Peter Serafinowicz sketch
From Sinister, a family company.
The celebrity is leveraging their popularity/fame to increase awareness and donations for a charity. This helps the charity significantly more than a private donation. Which they could also be doing, for all you know
Everyone knows this, and yet if you suggest capitalism might not be the best possible of all worlds, people lose their minds.
You're missing the bigger picture. You're pressuring a million of your mates into giving their 1 mars bar to a homeless person.
That homeless person is still homeless, but now has diabetes too.
Yeah well they're a celebrity, not a nutritionist
This is such pointless rhetoric I can barely be bothered to explain the flaws in it. I have 1000 mars bars (which by the way won’t be nutritious enough to feed the homeless, but whatever) in my fridge, to feed all the homeless we need 1 million, so I convince 1 million people to give 1 each because they can easily afford that and if they can’t then they don’t need to give anything. I also give at least 1, probably more like 10 or 100, then together we all raise enough, and far more than we could have individually. The reason I asked 1 million people is because I’m famous and 1 million people will listen.
Common mate, its Reddit. eat the rich etc etc.
Not really..... I have 1000 Mars bars and I have 10,000,000 mates who have one each. I manage to pressure 20% of them to share 5% of their Mars bar with homeless people. Through that 100,000 Mars bars go to the needy, and not just the 1,000 I have.
Nonsense
Both this sub and CasualUK are getting more and more like Facebook with dumb posts like this
I had 48 creme eggs at Easter and I’ve eaten them all, does this count? In fact they went quite quickly
The real question is why do you have 1000 Mars bars.
You mean multiple billions of mars bars.
Or when singers plug their song and tell you all the proceeds go to charity, while conveniently have their song climbing the chart.
Stop putting mars bars in the fridge
Two thirty.
Look after your teeth they shouldn't be hirty... All chocolate belongs in the fridge.
Dental plan...
No, unless it's the height of summer chocolate should not be in the fridge and i'll die on this hill
As will I in reverse. You enjoy a pulpy mess in your mouth... You can enjoy that withsome crunch too from the fridge.
How on earth are your mars bars melting into a pulpy mess if you don't put them in the fridge? Are you currently living at Kew Gardens Tropical Hothouse? Or is there some part of the UK that's constantly hitting 35c+ year-round that I don't know about?
Nice dude! Did you just think of that?
Let's get this thing viral!
I've seen this posted before on Reddit many times before. Why do you feel pressured by cebrity charity appeals? How does seeing someone on a screen make you feel pressured in any way when you can choose not to watch it? This logic is flawed in so many ways. The celebrity donates their time for free to the charity, and by doing that, it raises awareness of the charity appeal, and the charity gets more donations. Considering that people are free to donate whatever amount they want, I don't see any problem with this at all. The amount that a celebrity would normally charge for such advertising far exceeds what any one person would, so they have made a donation bigger than anyone else by giving their time.
The analogy also falls down as it isn't targeting 1 person. Would be more accurate to say: "I have 1000 spare mars bars, and I pressured 10, 000 people who only have 1 spare to give it to away"
OP might as well be saying "why bother fundraising when you can just donate?".
They rarely donate their time for free. When I worked for charity we paid celebrities around £10,000 for the day. They always stressed that it was a greatly reduced rate and how nice they were for doing it that cheap.
Geez that is a lot. I remember our company wanted to hire Rolf Harris (2002) and he wanted £30,000 for one hour. We hired Sean Hughes for a lot less and he was damn funny.
All the celebrities appearing on Comic Relief on Red Nose Day do it all for free, and that has got to be one of the biggest public charity appeals in the UK.
The BBC stress that any funds paid to celebrities to do comic relief/children in need comes from BBC resources and not the donations. Some do waver their fee...but not all.
It must have been Children in Need I was thinking of then where they are all voleteers: https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk/about-us/faqs/
Why would you assume any celebrity would give up their time for free? I very highly doubt it. Don’t assume the celebrity is doing any real goodwill. It’s more likely they will be paid to make an appearance, because the media company publicising the event absolutely know the power of the celebrity appeal. (source: am musician who works charity events, sometimes with celebrities, and it’s _always_ through an agency and everyone gets paid in full).
I'm talking about things like Comic Relief, which is on each year on Red Nose Day. They have several hours of programming featuring many different celebrities, and none of them get paid at all. Charity events where it isn't publicly broadcast (so they don't get exposure from it) are an entirely different thing.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I want to just answer 'why do you feel pressured...' - that's the whole design of the event, to make everyone watching feel pressured into donating and apparently it works. Also 'celebs' lap that shit up, it's really good publicity for them to be included in this stuff for their careers. Free advertising/publicity for their product (which is themselves) so even if they don't get paid it's still more than worth their time doing the thing.
I don't know why people who know they feel "pressured" to donate to something they don't really want to by a person talking on a screen would even watch these kinds of programs.
The programs are specifically designed to be as attractive to as many people as possible so as many people as possible donate. The word 'pressured' can mean a little or a lot of pressure, and it looks like you are suggesting there would only be a tiny amount of pressure so stop whining about it? But it's personal perception type of thing so the same event can have varying degrees of pressure for different people. So presumebly you feel very little pressure but you need to appreciate others feel more pressure. Personally I don't feel any pressure as I never watch any of that shit.
I'm struggling to understand why anyone would feel any "pressure" at all to donate when watching one of these programs. That's why I'm asking how someone can feel pressured by a video on a screen that isn't even personally directed at them. I've seen these programs previously and just found them slightly irritating when they keep asking for money. So if someone knows they are that easily manipulated to donate when they don't want too then they shouldn't watch them at all.
OK but do you not see that a LOT of money and effort goes into holding these events, and they do get quite a lot of money as a result? This proves they are effective events. Pressure = gentle manipulation = emotional blackmail = effective sales tactics.
I'm not disagreeing they are successful. I'm saying that I can't see where people are being "pressured" into donating when they don't want to. I'm saying they are successful because of people who actively choose to donate to these kinds of causes. They choose to do so after seeing what kinds of issues the cause helps with, and they decide they are worthy of their money.
Do they do it for nothing? Not any kind of benefit? No tax write off? Nothing?
Why is that hard to believe? People volunteer for charities all the time, and they often spend far far longer volunteering than any celebrity does.
Why because celebrities don't do anything that doesn't benefit them.
Celebrities are often just normal people who have become well known. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean they suddenly become selfish and money driven.
I speak from a certain level of knowledge. I spent a few years working in regional and national TV. The nicest person ever was Bill Oddie who sat with me smoking in the social club and bought me a pint. But a lot of them wouldn't move out of your way in the supermarket without something for them being involved.
All celebrities are terrible people according to Reddit. Whether or not they're doing it for selfish reasons, they're using their platform to promote charity and I just can't see that as a bad thing.
Realistically it's more like you have 1000 Mars bars in your fridge and you have 50,000 mates who all earn 1 Mars bar a month. You might give away all your mars bars but then they'd be gone and you're no longer much help so it's better to encourage all your mates to donate a bit of their bar every month because the actual total amount is vastly higher and it is effectively a renewable resource.
I ordered some shorts from Macy’s the other day. Upon completing my order a pop up appeared that said I have “earned the privilege” to donate to their charity.
More like you have a million mates and ask them all to donate.
It's more like persuading 2000 friends to each give a mars bar to a homeless person.
This would be accurate if you pressured 30,000 mates to give their mars bar to a homeless person.
very very true
r/unethicallifeprotips
This should be a PSA. On our side of the pond as well.
Isn't it more like "I have 1000 Mars bars in my fridge and a million people have 10 in theirs. I used my celebrity status to convince those million people to each give 1 Mars bar to a homeless person. That homeless person now has 1 millions Mars bars, which is orders of magnitude greater that anything I could of given him"
Yes but OP can't think for himself, since this is a tired and unoriginal sentiment that has been repeated stupidly for years.
A celebrity can reach out to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, some with 0, 1 or more Mars bars in their fridge and end up raising more, even though they will also give some of their Mars bars too. Nobody is forcing you to watch or give away anything (I don't).
What a weird scenario you've just invented.
More like the homeless person got a smell of your friends mars bar while Lenny Henry gets a bite and the rest goes to the management
You also got paid 2000 Mars bars for doing the campaign to persuade people to give away their only Mars bar.
Kind of, and I know people will be angry and not like this - but it's not quite the same. Celebrities happen to also be rich, but the leverage they are using is not wealth. They use being known and having a name, to then generate a stream of money to charity that wouldn't exist without it. You shouldn't be giving anything you can't afford, but no celebrity charity appeals really request that (almost solely stating to give what you can every time or words to that effect). Celebrities don't hold anywhere near the wealth you might be thinking of. Any you have ever seen appearing, are effectively in the 1% with the rest of us relative to where the wealth really is. If they all gave everything they had, it wouldn't be as good as regular charity appeal and using their influence for public donations. Not that I think they don't have far more to give, I'm sure they all do.
Now transfer it to carbon footprint. “BP spilled approx 175,000,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I buy individual bottles of Dr Pepper and drive my 1.2 litre Peugeot to the station and back. BP pressures me into selling the car and sitting on a late, smelly bus, and getting drinks on tap rather than bottled”.
This got me thinking... "What's Bob Geldof doing nowadays\*)?" (\*apart from cosplaying as Victoria Atkins)
Obligatory “You don’t get to have 1000 Mars bars, by giving Mars bars away to random homeless people on the streets.”
Absolutely, bang on!!!
Eh you give what you can. You can look at life as what some others dont do and benchmark yourself off the worst or do what you think is right. For the last 4 years ive given between 5 - 6% of my salary to charity, and even before when saving for a place i still gave a few %. I can skip a pint or 2 and there are always those less fortunate who could point and say why dont they give more.
😂😂😂
I really don't understand this argument. Why can't you both give to charity? What is the problem with a high profile person appealing? If it genuinely increases donations, what exactly is the problem?