....will they or they won't kiss? :meh:
There some talks of Burger King acquiring Tim Hortons from what I read on these news sources.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tim-hortons-burger-king-deal-would-base-burger-chain-in-canada-1.2745754
http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/08/25/burger_kingtim_hortons_is_canada_becoming_a_corporate_tax_haven.html
http://globalnews.ca/news/1524621/burger-king-in-talks-with-tim-hortons-to-create-new-company-based-in-canada/
http://time.com/3170198/burger-king-tim-hortons-tax-inversion/
Tim and Wendy got married a few years ago......They are now divorced but a product of that marriage were the Tim Horton's and Wendy's Combo Stores. Wonder what will happen to those?
If this happens, does this mean I'll be able to try these Tim Hortons donuts my Canadian friends seem to swear on in the US?
Makes perfect sense, with Canada's persistent nostalgia for royalty.
Will the Horton's division be run by a Governor General?
I think you're all missing the bigger story. It's not just that Burger King is trying to buy Tim Horton's–so they could re-introduce Tim's to US markets. Rather, Burger King is scheming to reincorporate in Canada to avoid paying US corporate taxes. In this case, Tim Hortons is just a pawn–like the girl in Thunder Bay you married in the '60s so you could burn your draft card.
If this happens, it may or may not result in an increased presence for Tim Horton's in the US. And in case you didn't know, almost a fifth of all Tim's stores are already in the US–mostly in the Great Lakes states and New England.
Quote from: kj3400 on August 25, 2014, 03:48:29 PM
If this happens, does this mean I'll be able to try these Tim Hortons donuts my Canadian friends seem to swear on in the US?
Just go to Michigan. There's a ton of Tim's there already.
Quote from: kj3400 on August 25, 2014, 03:48:29 PM
If this happens, does this mean I'll be able to try these Tim Hortons donuts my Canadian friends seem to swear on in the US?
What I fear is that Tim Hortons would stop its expansion of full-service stores farther south of the border (it's already in some northern-tier states like Minnesota and New York), and settle for setting up "Tim Hortons Express" shops within existing Burger Kings. The Express stores I've seen in the more remote parts of Canada (within general-merchandise stores) offer only coffee, and a thin selection of baked goods, neither of which would do me any good, though serious coffee drinkers might feel differently.
Wendy's and Tim Hortons were a better match, since Tim Hortons could supply a breakfast menu, something Wendy's was never good at.
Timmy's is just like CVS and Walgreens here, there's one on every corner. They really should stick to breakfast; I could murder a box of Timbits, but their sandwiches suck.
I'm pretty sure there are separate divisions for the two countries - their headquarters stayed here in Columbus after Wendy's spun them off.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 25, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
I think you're all missing the bigger story. It's not just that Burger King is trying to buy Tim Horton's–so they could re-introduce Tim's to US markets. Rather, Burger King is scheming to reincorporate in Canada to avoid paying US corporate taxes. In this case, Tim Hortons is just a pawn–like the girl in Thunder Bay you married in the '60s so you could burn your draft card.
If this happens, it may or may not result in an increased presence for Tim Horton's in the US. And in case you didn't know, almost a fifth of all Tim's stores are already in the US–mostly in the Great Lakes states and New England.
And if BK does move to Canada there will be a ton of Facebook idiots calling for a boycott instead of the smart thing, which would be to call for a more competitive corporate tax environment.
Quote from: 6a on August 25, 2014, 05:39:39 PM
And if BK does move to Canada there will be a ton of Facebook idiots calling for a boycott instead of the smart thing, which would be to call for a more competitive corporate tax environment.
I don't know what's going on in Facebook circles, but your senator's already sharpening his pitchfork:
Quote from: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215899-ohio-senator-boycott-burger-king-for-tax-trimming-strategySen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is urging consumers to boycott Burger King over reports that the fast food chain is eyeing a tax-cutting move to Canada
Imagine the horrific scenario if the buyout worked like a tech buyout, and Burger King dismantled Tim Hortons entirely (replacing those stores with Burger King) except for using their coffee at some point in the future.
Quote from: ghYHZ on August 25, 2014, 03:32:48 PM
Tim and Wendy got married a few years ago......They are now divorced but a product of that marriage were the Tim Horton's and Wendy's Combo Stores. Wonder what will happen to those?
They'll be owned by Wendy's during the week and Tim Horton's on the weekend. They'll fight over what to do on holidays.
Closest Tim Horton's to me is in Ashland, Ky. (there are two of them there, plus one in Portsmouth, Ohio) but I have never patronized any of their locations.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 25, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
I think you're all missing the bigger story. It's not just that Burger King is trying to buy Tim Horton's–so they could re-introduce Tim's to US markets. Rather, Burger King is scheming to reincorporate in Canada to avoid paying US corporate taxes.
Quote from: briantroutman on August 25, 2014, 06:07:58 PM
I don't know what's going on in Facebook circles, but your senator's already sharpening his pitchfork:
Quote from: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215899-ohio-senator-boycott-burger-king-for-tax-trimming-strategySen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is urging consumers to boycott Burger King over reports that the fast food chain is eyeing a tax-cutting move to Canada
If the United States had a more reasonable tax policy, businesses and individuals would not seek tax havens.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 25, 2014, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215899-ohio-senator-boycott-burger-king-for-tax-trimming-strategySen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is urging consumers to boycott Burger King over reports that the fast food chain is eyeing a tax-cutting move to Canada
If the United States had a more reasonable tax policy, businesses and individuals would not seek tax havens.
[/quote]
+1, and Sen. Sherrod Brown should check himself in the mirror, lots of Hollywood movies are filmed...outside of Hollywood. More about his "rant"
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/08/26/dem-senator-calls-for-boycott-of-burger-king-tells-consumers-to-eat-at-wendys-white-castle/http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2014/08/26/dem-senator-calls-for-boycott-of-burger-king-tells-consumers-to-eat-at-wendys-white-castle/
Burger King.... yuck X-(
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 26, 2014, 11:26:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 25, 2014, 10:26:45 PM
Quote from: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215899-ohio-senator-boycott-burger-king-for-tax-trimming-strategySen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is urging consumers to boycott Burger King over reports that the fast food chain is eyeing a tax-cutting move to Canada
If the United States had a more reasonable tax policy, businesses and individuals would not seek tax havens.
+1, and Sen. Sherrod Brown should check himself in the mirror, lots of Hollywood movies are filmed...outside of Hollywood. More about his "rant"
[/quote]
QuoteBrown called for a creation of a global minimum tax rate.
Hooooo boy, that's sure to end well.
iPhone
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 26, 2014, 11:26:14 AMlots of Hollywood movies are filmed...outside of Hollywood.
Often in high-tax Europe...
Star Wars 7 is a Pinewood production, filmed in a studio there, just north west of Heathrow (surrounded by lots of very suspicious security guards). I'm sure they'll use Silicon Valley's finest for the CGI though...
Quote from: 6a on August 26, 2014, 12:51:14 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 26, 2014, 11:26:14 AM
Brown called for a creation of a global minimum tax rate.
Hooooo boy, that's sure to end well.
Hasn't the E.U. tried something like that, within its own boundaries?
Quote from: english si on August 26, 2014, 12:55:57 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 26, 2014, 11:26:14 AMlots of Hollywood movies are filmed...outside of Hollywood.
Often in high-tax Europe...
Star Wars 7 is a Pinewood production, filmed in a studio there, just north west of Heathrow (surrounded by lots of very suspicious security guards). I'm sure they'll use Silicon Valley's finest for the CGI though...
Lots of places give special tax incentives to filmmakers, including Sen. Brown's state of "We ought to be shot!" Ohio.
With the star wars thing, there is actually another level to it.
George Lucas quit the union in 1981. The union wanted him to NOT put the opening crawl at the start of Empire Strikes Back. they wanted a traditional credit sequence...argument for it "people don't watch the credits." Now he is a non union director and writer, so he cannot use a unionized studio...since to the union at the studio he is a Scab. He wanted Jeremy Irons for a role in star wars....Mr. Irons turned Lucas down...why, just because Lucas is non union. The film union system is crazy like that, to get a union card you have to work in a union film as an actor, to get a job as an actor....you have to have that card, or else you are just an extra. In Star Trek IV (1986) a woman gave a funny line...and was just a random passerby on the street while they were filming a scene of a Russian asking "where are the nuclear wessels" "i think they're accross the bay, in alameda" is what she said. They had to track her down and get her to fill out paperwork just to make the union happy.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/UnionsInHollywood
http://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/globalruleone
Rule One for all SAG-AFTRA members states that "No member shall work as a performer or make an agreement to work as a performer for any producer who has not executed a basic minimum agreement with the guild which is in full force and effect."
Originally, this rule was enforced only within the U.S. and its territories. However, since May 1, 2002, due to a rapidly changing global entertainment industry, Screen Actors Guild has expanded Rule One to ensure that the protections of the Guild contracts follow its members wherever they work. As such, Global Rule One now extends Rule One of the union's membership rules beyond the U.S. borders to all shooting locations around the world.
Now back to Burger King. I wonder if the company was in a bad state of existance before this, like the taxes were actually getting to be too much for them to exist as a company.
Boycott Burger King? Nonsense. I'm actually starting to go there more frequently - they just brought back chicken fries and those things are like crack. I ate soooo many of them in college and was quite disappointed when they got discontinued a few years ago.
As for romantic relationships and corporate acquisitions, you've missed a far more obvious joke. Is Tim Hortons going to wake up with The King? ;-)
Quote from: oscar on August 26, 2014, 01:29:09 PMHasn't the E.U. tried something like that, within its own boundaries?
It wants to, but hasn't succeeded yet in the way it wants (EU taxation).
It did demand VAT (sales tax) in countries that didn't have it, setting a minimum level too. Plus it removed MEPs and Eurocrats from their national taxation systems (except those of Britain and maybe another country) and put them into a low-rate EU tax on their earnings from the EU (low-rate as the only people who pay it are the ones who have a say in setting rates - that'll change when they get a federal income tax)
Quote from: oscar on August 26, 2014, 01:36:41 PMLots of places give special tax incentives to filmmakers, including Sen. Brown's state of "We ought to be shot!" Ohio.
Britain does too - looking, most Marvel films get a lot of studio work done at Shepperton. With Pinewood, there's probably more 'Hollywood' blockbusters shot in London studios than in LA studios currently.
Interesting about Lucas being a scab because the bundle of sticks are asses... Surely working for him violates Global Rule One? And can't he be 'fi-core' (ie paying the union almost all the dues anyway and getting non of the benefits, other than being able to work) and use unionized studios - even if they hate it and consider him a scab?
Wait a second, isn't BK owned by a Brazilian company anyway? Why wasn't Brown calling for a boycott of that? (Rhetorical question btw)
Quote from: 6a on August 27, 2014, 07:16:13 PM
Wait a second, isn't BK owned by a Brazilian company anyway? Why wasn't Brown calling for a boycott of that? (Rhetorical question btw)
Sort of. Burger King is publicly traded and is owned by a lot of people and companies. But 51% of it is owned by a Brazillian company named 3G Capital, yes, which means they call all the shots (since they can't be outvoted by other shareholders) even though they don't own it all.
This is different from being a wholly-owned subsidiary, where the entity calling the shots owns 100% of the company.
This sort of situation where a company is and isn't owned by another company is actually quite common, there are a lot of firms out there with "Capital" in their name that don't actually do anything except invest in other companies (and/or commodities, bonds, etc.). In some cases the Capital company may hold a majority stake in another company, thus making 100% of the decisions although not collecting 100% of the profits.
If you've got a few billion dollars burning a hole in your pocket, you too can start one of these companies and make more money just by playing with the money you already have.
If that's too expensive for you you can always just invest your spare cash in the stock market, albeit you won't really have a voice in the decision-making processes of the company if you only own a teensy tiny fraction of it.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 26, 2014, 09:33:17 PM
Boycott Burger King? Nonsense. I'm actually starting to go there more frequently - they just brought back chicken fries and those things are like crack.
OMG, are you serious!? I'm definitely making it a point to stop at a BK sometime today.
Is the rodeo burger gone?
You can argue the semantics of it all you want, but BK is doing this to avoid taxes, rather than pay their share. According to Bernie Sanders, corporate taxes only make up 9% of total US tax collections today, vice 33% a few decades ago (and it seems they were doing a lot better then anyway). No wonder people are hurting...Congress has shifted the tax burden from corporations to individuals.
But the bigger concern, IMO, is that I think Burger King will ruin Tim Horton's. And that would be a downright shame. If BK can't hack it in the burger market, they sure as hell won't make it in the coffee and donuts market.
I wonder how many people really boycott the places they say they're going to boycott.
Back when Chick-fil-a was making the news, I read many comments from people saying that they don't live near a Chick-fil-a, but if they did, they'd boycott it.
Way to send a message there buddies...I'm sure if Chick-fil-a publically reported their numbers (they are privately held, so they don't have to), they would have a line item that said sales dropped 0% where they don't have a restaurant.
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2014, 08:30:50 AM
But the bigger concern, IMO, is that I think Burger King will ruin Tim Horton's. And that would be a downright shame. If BK can't hack it in the burger market, they sure as hell won't make it in the coffee and donuts market.
It all depends how they want to line up their corporate structures. They can keep both completely separate to the point where no one (other than investors) are even aware the two companies are owned under the same umbrella.
Surprising to most people - at one point, McDonalds owned Boston Market (throughout much of the early 2000's). McDonalds even worked hard to expand the Boston Market chain, which had struggled in the 90's. There wasn't a single thing in Boston Market that would even hint at a suggestion of the relationship though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2014, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2014, 08:30:50 AM
But the bigger concern, IMO, is that I think Burger King will ruin Tim Horton's. And that would be a downright shame. If BK can't hack it in the burger market, they sure as hell won't make it in the coffee and donuts market.
It all depends how they want to line up their corporate structures. They can keep both completely separate to the point where no one (other than investors) are even aware the two companies are owned under the same umbrella.
Surprising to most people - at one point, McDonalds owned Boston Market (throughout much of the early 2000's). McDonalds even worked hard to expand the Boston Market chain, which had struggled in the 90's. There wasn't a single thing in Boston Market that would even hint at a suggestion of the relationship though.
It could be more like the Pilot/Flying J Merger, both companies kept seperate in terms of operating range, you will see both divisions on the same exit of the interstate. Flying J is more full service than Pilot. There are shared branding items inside the store, but you will rarely see a Flying J with just fast food, and you will rarely see a Pilot with full service food. With this merger i see something like that, both companies will remain as seperate companies in the sense of, you won't find products from one company in the other. But, if Tim Horton's has a Pepsi contract, i expect that to become a Coke contract.
To the guy to said that Tim Horton's has a presence in New England, this intrigues me. I've only seen one in Maine. I don't know of any in NH, MA or VT.
A Tim Horton's expansion into New England would mean competing with Dunkin, which would not end well for them.
According to Google Maps, there are a few in Maine. Tim Horton's is everywhere in western NY/the Finger Lakes as well as the northwesternmost part of PA. These areas have so many locations that they're liable to be annexed by Canada any day now.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 29, 2014, 03:58:33 PM
To the guy to said that Tim Horton's has a presence in New England, this intrigues me. I've only seen one in Maine. I don't know of any in NH, MA or VT.
A Tim Horton's expansion into New England would mean competing with Dunkin, which would not end well for them.
Up until a few years ago, Tim Hortons had roughly 50 stores across Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine. My last New England Tim's experience was along I-84 in Vernon, CT in 2010. I didn't know they had closed so many locations, but according to a Portland
Press Herald article (http://www.pressherald.com/2013/12/05/tim_horton_s_closes_six_stores_in_maine_/) from this past December, only about 25 locations are still open, all in Maine.
I make it a point to go to Tim Hortons when I'm near one, particularly in Canada. I don't know why...perhaps because it's something I can't get in my area. And I suppose they benefit from a halo of my positive feelings toward Canada in general. But being completely objective, I've never found the donuts or anything else there to be exceptionally good. The products are passable, and the service is usually quite friendly, so I'm satisfied.
On a broad level, though, Dunkin' continues to disappoint me. My hometown in central PA has two Dunkin' Donuts stores that have been there since they were converted in the Mister Donut buyout of the early '90s. They're run by a longtime manager who takes great pride in her stores and her products, and it shows. In my opinion, their donuts are among the best on the planet. Outside of my hometown, it's a different story. I find that quality is all over the map. And Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. seems to be focusing efforts at combination Dunkin'/Baskin stores and "express" locations in gas stations, malls, and airports–all of which sell some of the worst donuts I've ever encountered.
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2014, 08:30:50 AM
According to Bernie Sanders, corporate taxes only make up 9% of total US tax collections today, vice 33% a few decades ago (and it seems they were doing a lot better then anyway). No wonder people are hurting...Congress has shifted the tax burden from corporations to individuals.
Worth pointing out here: Personal income tax goes up and down a bit but it's represented between 40% and 50% of federal revenue for the last 70 years (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822) and there isn't a noticeable recent uptick. What has happened instead is that as the contribution of the corporate income tax has diminished, the contribution of the payroll tax has grown to replace it.
Since payroll tax is shared between employer and employee, that represents a net increase in individual burden, yes. But to speak merely of the corporate tax income numbers is misleading since it fails to capture the whole picture.
As for Burger King "paying their fair share", meh. What they are doing is perfectly legal. Don't like it? Fix the tax code.
Here's the basic issue: companies located in the US are required to pay US taxes on
all of their income, regardless of what country it was earned in. Companies operating in the US but not located in the US only pay US taxes on US income.
The converse, meanwhile, is not true if a company relocates: the United States is
the only country in the developed world that taxes foreign income of companies incorporated here. Combine this with the fact that the US has a corporate income tax rate that's higher than most other countries, and relocating to another country if you have any significant amount of foreign income just makes sense. Located in the US, BK is taxed on all of its non-US income twice, at a rate which is rather high in the greater scheme of things. Located in Canada, it will not be taxed on any of its income twice and will only have to pay the US' high tax rate on its US income.
So, before you decry that they should pay their fair share, consider that international norms say the United States has an excessive concept of just what their fair share is.
While the US has a higher tax rate, I think we also have a lot more deductions than every other country. The only people who pay the full US tax rate are those who are too young or poor to claim deductions. The more money you have, the more deductions you can claim. It was the great compromise: the liberals got a high rate on paper, and the conservatives got a low effective rate. It's not that way in many other countries.
The "pay on foreign income" thing is also a problem for individuals as well. But just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Lower rates with most/all deductions eliminated and no tax on foreign income is what we need.
Another thing worth noting is that individual Burger King locations are owned by United States corporations and those stores will be paying taxes just as they did before. BK's income is from franchise fees.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 31, 2014, 02:22:44 AM
As for Burger King "paying their fair share", meh. What they are doing is perfectly legal. Don't like it? Fix the tax code.
Here's the basic issue: companies located in the US are required to pay US taxes on all of their income, regardless of what country it was earned in. Companies operating in the US but not located in the US only pay US taxes on US income.
The converse, meanwhile, is not true if a company relocates: the United States is the only country in the developed world that taxes foreign income of companies incorporated here. Combine this with the fact that the US has a corporate income tax rate that's higher than most other countries, and relocating to another country if you have any significant amount of foreign income just makes sense. Located in the US, BK is taxed on all of its non-US income twice, at a rate which is rather high in the greater scheme of things. Located in Canada, it will not be taxed on any of its income twice and will only have to pay the US' high tax rate on its US income.
So, before you decry that they should pay their fair share, consider that international norms say the United States has an excessive concept of just what their fair share is.
Also don't forget to note that if tax is paid on the foreign portion of the US income, the corporation is entitled to a credit up to or equal to the amount of their US tax burden that is covered by that foreign tax. In reality, this is only penalizing companies that operate in low tax countries - given most foreign entities don't give any kind of deductions like we do here, most US companies aren't paying a whole lot of US tax on their foreign operations, if they pay any at all. Most of the returns I've seen with foreign activity sees the foreign tax credit limited to the US tax on the foreign portion of income, not the foreign tax actually paid (and you get a carryforward, just in case it goes down).
Basically, the point? BK isn't going to be saving as much money doing this as Fox News will report they are.