benefits
-
Posts
-
a company’s aim is to make profit, not employ people.
company A should follow company B’s example to be competitive…. but company A should be following a different business model if it has 4 times the workers, as it should be looking for different customers who want quality rather than price. e.g. aston martin v a ford fiesta.
amazon are breaking even on it’s e readers and tablets, it’s the printer syndrome, they make the money on the books, videos and software, just like the printer manufacturers make their money on the ink.
i don’t think amazon, google or facebook should pay tax because they are not based in the UK.
google, facebook and amazon all pay national insurance on their uk employees.
taking a leaf out of the possible scottish whisky tax, why can’ there be a transaction tax/levy paid by UK consumers and businesses when they purchase something online from the UK.
Vat for all google, facebook and amazon is a different kettle of fish altogether.
company’s aim is to make profitable business, not just to make profit..
profitable business means tangible and intangible profit/benefits..tangible profit is what you refer to as profit and intangible profit is what I refer to as investing in people and paying a share to the society they making their money out of..
As I said sacking people to make more profit should not be an option, you find them something to do or spend on training and developing them, however, if you decided to go with the less employees option, then based on the new tax rate the tax man should be able get from you what you were suppose to be spending on the workers you sacked, but you still have a profit to walk away with.
Woolworths went down, employees walked away empty handed..two months after that we all found Woolworths back online with what’s called a trade mark new owner, starting all over again free of all the previous commitments.
HMV will be the same..just wait..employees walk away empty handed, then the brand will be sold and bought and will go online up and running.
Online business needs to be controlled and the only way to control it is with the tax man knocking on their doors.No, a company’s aim is to make profit and money for its shareholders, I think this is even written into most company documents. And as long as we live in a capitalist world, that has to be the case or the company goes broke and so does the country.
a company should not invest in people/ an employee’s training unless of course it’s an asset that means the company retains or increases it’s profits on that employee. If it proven that the company keeps staff that make profit by giving staff free gym membership they should do it. If it means it keeps staff that make profit by giving them money to get MAs they should do it.
woolies went bankrupt, all its assets/stock were sold to pay its debts. Two of the assets were its name and domain name. so the administrators sold them off too, so it could pay more money to its creditors.
at this stage, hmv is in administration (bankruptcy protection would be better name for it.) it may or may not go bankrupt (most likely it will, but all the assets & stock will be sold off.) HMV’s debt has also ready been sold to another company with a view that this company will buy the rest of hmv’s assets and stock including it’s name. that’s business, that’s capitalism.
Online businesses are controlled already. Any online company that is based in the uk should pay vat and then there is an grey area caused by politicians dithering and/or self interest that an internet company that sells more than 70k a year to the uk should register for vat. one example is advertising as no politician would ever put vat on adverts because they would get a mauling by the newspapers.
Exactly, capitalism, and based on that, company A should follow company B methodology, not follow your advice (you mentioned in post 11) because it is a shorter and simpler and lower cost way to make money..
The generation that currently controls mid-sized businesses in the UK, is the generation that still believe in shops,premises and the traditional way of doing business with moving wisely online, however the next generation isn’t like that, and in 20 years time you will see what impact this move will have on the society.
Don’y understand me wrong, I am not against the online business, it does help me finding cheaper products and it helps traders ,specially people who make fair living out of it, lone parents selling on Ebay, that’s a good thing.
still distance trade needs to be controlled in more efficient way.You mentioned something about trademarks being sold by the administrator, I can tell this is just ridiculous and it does not belong to capitalism or fair trade in anyway. Trademark for failing entities should not be sold individually, they should be sold along with the debts.This is business.
we’re just going to have to disagree on the subject of selling brand names & trademarks. For me anything that means the creditors get more of their debt backshould be entertained. if the administrators believe they can get more cash for the creditors by splitting up a comapnies assets they should.
re: there is always a place for company a and b, but generally company a will go to the wall before company b, if both companies’ aim of sales are generated on price.
However if company b will go to the wall first if the sales are generated on quality and image..
e.g. if tata brought out a car that was similar to aston martin at half the price, people would still buy the aston martin rather than the tata copy.
the online generation: one of the greatest challenges for business especially local businesses is to stay competitive or attractive. They can be succeed, if they are more customer service based in their approach. They won’t and quite frankly they shouldn’t succeeed if they base their brand image just on price.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
