Burger King and Tim Hortons, sitting on a tree....

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[SteveG1988]

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.

[The Nature Boy]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[briantroutman]

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 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.

[Duke87]

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 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.

[vdeane]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[exit322]

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.