I'm Done Eating At Burger King

[bayoubill]

When an American Company moves its headquarters out of the nation to avoid paying taxes then it is no longer an American company and not worthy of my business.

Burger King to buy Tim Hortons with help from Warren Buffett move headquarters to Canada - NY Daily News

I ain't got the time to tell you what a dumb **** you are regarding this issue...

mebbe later...

 

[jon_berzerk]

When an American Company moves its headquarters out of the nation to avoid paying taxes then it is no longer an American company and not worthy of my business.

Burger King to buy Tim Hortons with help from Warren Buffett move headquarters to Canada - NY Daily News

Burger King has jointed a long list of business that have move overseas. Chances are you're doing business with many of them now.

most likely

i was surprised one day not so long ago

that read on the label of a Hershey bar

made in Mexico

 

[bripat9643]

How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?

"Effective tax rate" = taxes paid / income x 100. It's the percentage of income actually paid in taxes, after deductions, shelters and everything else.

Wrong. The rate you pay is a percentage of your income, which is defined as gross revenues minus expenses (deductions, in other words). One has to wonder what you're calling "income" in your equation. You can have gross revenues of $100 billion and income of $1.00 and pay income taxes of $0.39. That doesn't make your "effective rate" 0.000000000001%. It makes your effective rate 39%

I don't see how anything you've posted contradicts what I said...

You said the "effective tax rate" is the rate you get by substracting tax deductions from income. However, income is calculated by subtracting deductions (expenses) from gross revenue, so your calculation subtracts deductions twice.

It doesn't work that way.

 

[Tresha91203]

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

 

[Pogo]

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

 

[paulitician]

So do the confused Obamabots still love Obama and Warren Buffet?

 

[Pogo]

So do the confused Obamabots still love Obama and Warren Buffet?

So the confused Randbot infected with ODS is still looking for a place to plug in the O'bama heater device?

Sad little man. That must be a struggle.

 

[Flopper]

I don't eat much fast food, but I prefer Burger King when I do.

Yep, they got the best burgers. So they pay corporate taxes to Canada. There are many US food chains operating in Canada paying corporate taxes in the US.

 

[Tresha91203]

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?

"Effective tax rate" = taxes paid / income x 100. It's the percentage of income actually paid in taxes, after deductions, shelters and everything else.

Wrong. The rate you pay is a percentage of your income, which is defined as gross revenues minus expenses (deductions, in other words). One has to wonder what you're calling "income" in your equation. You can have gross revenues of $100 billion and income of $1.00 and pay income taxes of $0.39. That doesn't make your "effective rate" 0.000000000001%. It makes your effective rate 39%

I don't see how anything you've posted contradicts what I said...

You said the "effective tax rate" is the rate you get by substracting tax deductions from income. However, income is calculated by subtracting deductions (expenses) from gross revenue, so your calculation subtracts deductions twice.

It doesn't work that way.

No, that's not what I said at all.

 

[Peach]

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

My town had both Starbucks & Elianos. After starbucks arrived, Elianos closed down. Mcdonalds, BK, and Hardees are all in the coffee drink business also. As for doughnets, I like (now once a week) Krispy Creme, my small town has a private bakery, plus Winn Dixie & WalMart.

 

[Pogo]

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

TH is already in the US, to a degree. Burger King meanwhile was forced to divest its holdings in Canada. And I don't know what BK's numbers are here but TH has 4592 locations in Canada alone (and over 5400 total; I had understated previously), plus they just don't have a competition there analogous to Burger King's competition of McDonald's and Wendy's and the rest; BK and TH don't use quite the same market niche -- TH has much more a monopoly as far as a corporate giant scale. So in terms of a business' percentage of that market niche, whatever that's called, I'm sure TH is much higher for its part.

 

[paulitician]

So do the confused Obamabots still love Obama and Warren Buffet?

So the confused Randbot infected with ODS is still looking for a place to plug in the O'bama heater device?

Sad little man. That must be a struggle.

So you do still love Obama and Warren Buffet? This is their baby, no?

 

[Tresha91203]

I've lived in South Louisiana, the Pacific Northwest and Vancouver BC (briefly). Maybe I just hit all the coffee cultures. There are a dozen coffee or coffee/doughnut shops in every city I've ever lived in.

 

[Tresha91203]

I don't know anything about TH in the US. There's definitely a strong market down Western Washington, one in the Gulf South, and I bet in the Carolinas and across the Rockies.

Perhaps my bias is too strong. TH >>>>>>>BK

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

TH is already in the US, to a degree. Burger King meanwhile was forced to divest its holdings in Canada. And I don't know what BK's numbers are here but TH has 4592 locations in Canada alone (and over 5400 total; I had understated previously), plus they just don't have a competition there analogous to Burger King's competition of McDonald's and Wendy's and the rest; BK and TH don't use quite the same market niche -- TH has much more a monopoly as far as a corporate giant scale. So in terms of a business' percentage of that market niche, whatever that's called, I'm sure TH is much higher for its part.

 

[Peach]

I don't know anything about TH in the US. There's definitely a strong market down Western Washington, one in the Gulf South, and I bet in the Carolinas and across the Rockies.

Perhaps my bias is too strong. TH >>>>>>>BK

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

TH is already in the US, to a degree. Burger King meanwhile was forced to divest its holdings in Canada. And I don't know what BK's numbers are here but TH has 4592 locations in Canada alone (and over 5400 total; I had understated previously), plus they just don't have a competition there analogous to Burger King's competition of McDonald's and Wendy's and the rest; BK and TH don't use quite the same market niche -- TH has much more a monopoly as far as a corporate giant scale. So in terms of a business' percentage of that market niche, whatever that's called, I'm sure TH is much higher for its part.

North Florida, south Georgia are also saturated.

 

[LiberalMedia]

I love how self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" are embarrassing themselves beyond belief in this thread by implying that Burger King will never ever pay any taxes at all to any entity in the U.S. ever again. It really shows that the only thing you people are conservative about is your education.

 

[Pogo]

So do the confused Obamabots still love Obama and Warren Buffet?

So the confused Randbot infected with ODS is still looking for a place to plug in the O'bama heater device?

Sad little man. That must be a struggle.

So you do still love Obama and Warren Buffet? This is their baby, no?

No. See perhaps the post that lands directly above this one -- there's your problem.

 

[Pogo]

1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.

2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.

3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.

4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.

As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.

Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.

Buying Tim Horton's was a no-brainer( IMO). I think it came first. If the US had a reasonable corporate tax structure, we'd be discussing the uproar over Tim Horton's corporate headquarters move to Miami.

The original announcement noted that they will centre (Canadian spelling) in Canada because that will end up to be the resulting company's largest market.

Yeah, so they say, but I don't see how bringing more BK into Canada is somehow a bigger market than bringing Tim Hortons to the US. It seems the opposite to me. There is a huge market in the US for Tim Hortons.

TH is already in the US, to a degree. Burger King meanwhile was forced to divest its holdings in Canada. And I don't know what BK's numbers are here but TH has 4592 locations in Canada alone (and over 5400 total; I had understated previously), plus they just don't have a competition there analogous to Burger King's competition of McDonald's and Wendy's and the rest; BK and TH don't use quite the same market niche -- TH has much more a monopoly as far as a corporate giant scale. So in terms of a business' percentage of that market niche, whatever that's called, I'm sure TH is much higher for its part.

I don't know anything about TH in the US. There's definitely a strong market down Western Washington, one in the Gulf South, and I bet in the Carolinas and across the Rockies.

Perhaps my bias is too strong. TH >>>>>>>BK

Haven't seen them in this Carolina, but I've seen them in Kentucky and Ohio. And of course the border states.

And having patronized both, no I don't think your bias is too strong. Sadly neither is their coffee.

 

[Tresha91203]

I'd like one here, never liked Starbuck's and CC's is too bitter.