In an unexpected and interesting move, Burger King is in talks to buy Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Horton’s Inc., a merger that would be structured as a “tax inversion” which would effectively move Burger King’s headquarters to Canada (more specifically, my hometown of Oakville, Ontario). For those who are unfamiliar with Tim Horton’s, the brand is tantamount to Canada’s version of Dunkin Donuts that could just as easily adopt its own version of the tagline “America Runs on Dunkin” (think “Canada Runs on Tim Horton’s”). Tim Horton’s is no small coffee-shop chain. Tim Horton’s, Canada’s largest coffee-shop chain, has a market capitalization of about $8.4 billion, while Burger King’s market capitalization is about $9.6 billion; the proposed merger would form a new entity worth about $18 billion. The really interesting part to the story however is not the pure fact that an American burger giant is buying up a Canadian national treasure (Wendy’s has previously owned Tim Horton’s for some time), but rather that Canadian corporate tax rates are favorable relative to American corporate tax rates enough to justify a “tax inversion”. A tax inversion occurs when an American company merges with a foreign one and, in the process, reincorporates abroad, effectively entering the foreign country’s tax domicile. An American company that merges with a Canadian target company for share consideration can avoid U.S. residency for tax purposes as long as the shareholders of the Canadian target end up owning at least 20% of the shares of the new parent immediately after the acquisition.
Canada’s corporate tax rate in Ontario of 26.5% (the federal rate of 15% plus Ontario’s provincial corporate tax rate of 11.5%) is considerably favorable to the American corporate tax rate of 35% thanks in large part to the conservative Canadian government led by Stephen Harper. The Harper government lowered the federal tax rate to 15% in 2012 down originally from 28% since it took office in 2006.
In fact, a recent KPMG Report, Focus on Tax, ranked Canada number as the #1 country with the most business-friendly tax structure among developed countries when adding up a wide range of tax costs to businesses from statutory labor costs to harmonized sales tax. When comparing developed countries to what companies pay in the U.S.; Canada came in at 53.6%, the U.K. came in at 66.6%, and the Netherlands at 74.5% of the U.S. corporate tax burden.
My only question is 'If this goes thru, does this also mean that Tim Hortons may be coming to a Burger King near me?'
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-25-2014).]
Probably.. All this to avoid US tax laws... Tims and Wendy's had a merger back in 95 and then Tims became independant agin in 2002. I'm writting this as I'm sipping my Tims large dark roast.
Another US corporation evading paying the very low taxes here. In 1943 Corporate taxes averaged 40% now they average 10% and many big corporations like Citi paid 0% and GE has averaged paying 2.3% for the past 10 years.
Another US corporation evading paying the very low taxes here. In 1943 Corporate taxes averaged 40% now they average 10% and many big corporations like Citi paid 0% and GE has averaged paying 2.3% for the past 10 years.
You are only looking at one part of the equation--read the last few lines of the quote I posted.
n fact, a recent KPMG Report, Focus on Tax, ranked Canada number as the #1 country with the most business-friendly tax structure among developed countries when adding up a wide range of tax costs to businesses from statutory labor costs to harmonized sales tax. When comparing developed countries to what companies pay in the U.S.; Canada came in at 53.6%, the U.K. came in at 66.6%, and the Netherlands at 74.5% of the U.S. corporate tax burden.
The comparison you refer to looks at statutory tax rates, because of loopholes put into law by politicians that they bought and paid for none of them pay the statutory tax rates. We now have a government by and for the large corporations, almost all politicians are "corporatists" Why do you think NAFTA went thru with backing from both parties.
I don't 'think' why NAFTA got wide congressional support, I know. As early as the mid 60s, there was already wide speculation that the rebuilding of Post-war Europe would result in a modern and powerful trading bloc, against which the US would have troule competing. In fact, the 50s era EEC and ECSC were the harbingers of such a powerful trading conglomerate. Post war Europe was a huge boon to both the US and Canada exports, as was the Asian nations of S. Korea and Japan. Once they were all rebuilt to modern state of the art standards, we would be in dire straits an on an uneven keel without a way to directly compete. Canada and the US already had a pretty good trade treaty, and modern industry and agri sectors--the missing link was Mexico's 100+ million population of consumers and it's lack of modern industry. It has always been hoped for/believed, that at some point, Mexico would come into the fold and develope it's industry, infrastructure and consumer base, but due to a very long history of corruption on every level and complacency, they have not, with the exception of the maquiladora industry along the border with the US. They have very few globally recognized brands, very little real industry, and still rely on the Ag sector for most of their exports. As a result, NAFTA thus far has been a failure--Mexico has been happy enough to simply use US companies instead of deveoping into the 3rd spike of the NAFTA trident, and we as a bloc can't overcome both EU free trade organization and ASEAN, the Asian equivalent to the EU. This is especially true now that mainland China has moved into the modern world.
I remember way back shortly after NAFTA when Green Giant moved their plant from Texas to Mexico putting a lot of people out of work. They interviewed the plant manager and he said it wasn't that the plant was unprofitable it was very profitable and the wages they were having to pay were not very high, its just that they could pay people $1 per hour in Mexico and make even more money. There's your corporate conscious and that's why in terms of buying power our average wages have decreased for the past 20 years.
This was years ago but I think it was "60 minutes" and I recall the plant managers name. It is pretty common knowledge though that the wages paid at the plants on the Mexican/US border are extremely low, that is why the plants are there.
When the US has destructively high corporate taxes, why would industries stay in the US. One reason I relocated to Florida from NY, was that the local property tax, state income tax and local/state income tax was too high. When you consider that 40+ % of the US population pay no income tax, the US is running out of tax income sources. People walk with their feet from high tax areas and now corporations do the same thing.
The US has a spending problem, especially with the current socialists majority in the senate and the White House.
The bottom line is that the general population ends up paying the corporate taxes with higher prices on goods and services they provide. The corporations to make higher profits for their investors (your 401 plan, IRA and your investments), they move to lower their tax burden. Some feel that corporations should be charitable organizations giving money to the politicians to spend it how the politicians see fit. Which usually is a benefit to that politician or his party.
When I was living in Rochester, NY, working at Eastman Kodak, the city kept raising the taxes on the corporate property and as the companies profits started deteriorating, the company complained and the property was re assessed to a lot lower. (Kodak was paying about 35% of the property taxes to the community) To make up the loss of revenue, the city raised the taxes on the general population. It was a snowball effect rolling down the hill. Kodak's profits deteriorated, the old buildings were torn down lowering the taxable base and they cycle continued. Kodak employment went from 65,000 in the late 80s to 3000 or less today. Smaller tax base and the next failing area, but the politicians still spend like drunken sailors.
When I was living in Rochester, NY, working at Eastman Kodak, the city kept raising the taxes on the corporate property and as the companies profits started deteriorating, the company complained and the property was re assessed to a lot lower. (Kodak was paying about 35% of the property taxes to the community) To make up the loss of revenue, the city raised the taxes on the general population. It was a snowball effect rolling down the hill. Kodak's profits deteriorated, the old buildings were torn down lowering the taxable base and they cycle continued. Kodak employment went from 65,000 in the late 80s to 3000 or less today. Smaller tax base and the next failing area, but the politicians still spend like drunken sailors.
Yup, the death of film and the lack of new/successful products from Kodak screwed the company. As profits went down, the corporation asked for lower taxes, but still needed the services of the city. Someone had to pay for those services. It isn't like you can just cut millions out of a budget and keep the same services. Then add in rising costs, increased crime, movement out of the city, etc.... This happened in Flint, Saginaw, Detroit. Hard to recover when you have the same city, needing the same services, but income is cut and expenses go up.
Tims and Wendy's had a merger back in 95 and then Tims became independant agin in 2002.
That ex-merger explains why it's still quite common to find a Tim's and a Wendy's snuggling in the same facility. It's difficult to imagine that cozy relationship continuing though if BK enters the fray.
I don't 'think' why NAFTA got wide congressional support, I know. As early as the mid 60s, there was already wide speculation that the rebuilding of Post-war Europe would result in a modern and powerful trading bloc, against which the US would have troule competing. In fact, the 50s era EEC and ECSC were the harbingers of such a powerful trading conglomerate. Post war Europe was a huge boon to both the US and Canada exports, as was the Asian nations of S. Korea and Japan. Once they were all rebuilt to modern state of the art standards, we would be in dire straits an on an uneven keel without a way to directly compete. Canada and the US already had a pretty good trade treaty, and modern industry and agri sectors--the missing link was Mexico's 100+ million population of consumers and it's lack of modern industry. It has always been hoped for/believed, that at some point, Mexico would come into the fold and develope it's industry, infrastructure and consumer base, but due to a very long history of corruption on every level and complacency, they have not, with the exception of the maquiladora industry along the border with the US. They have very few globally recognized brands, very little real industry, and still rely on the Ag sector for most of their exports. As a result, NAFTA thus far has been a failure--Mexico has been happy enough to simply use US companies instead of deveoping into the 3rd spike of the NAFTA trident, and we as a bloc can't overcome both EU free trade organization and ASEAN, the Asian equivalent to the EU. This is especially true now that mainland China has moved into the modern world.
Now, you understand. Green Giant was importing labor from south Texas and South of the border, housing and feeding them, guaranteeing them income even if rainouts occured and still paying less labor costs than hiring locals from the Dayton area would have cost. But that eventually began cutting into profits and they took the next logical step--go where the labor was cheaper. It's not Green Giant's fault that Americans have based their standard of living requirements on an unsustainable anomally--the post ww2 period of growth when we (and Canada) were the only industrialized and agri business sector left untouched by the ravages of war for about 30-35 years. Even my father, who was in the military during ww2 stated more than once in the 50s and 60s, that "these good times won't last forever, and we'll never see this happen again".
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-25-2014).]
This was years ago but I think it was "60 minutes" and I recall the plant managers name. It is pretty common knowledge though that the wages paid at the plants on the Mexican/US border are extremely low, that is why the plants are there.
I remember another "60 Minutes" show about the labor cost in the assembly of RayBan sunglasses. The Taiwan plant labor cost was 25 cents per pair at the time but by moving to mainland China, their labor cost would be reduced to 18 cents per pair. The reduction in labor cost increased profits by millions of dollars.
Burger King is now majority owned by a Brazilian company. I thought they were still owned by a British company but that was all the way back in 2002. They were purchased by an American group in 2002 and taken public in 2006. It wasn't long till that deal went sour and the Brazilian company purchased majority shares in 2010.
I think that goes to prove that the only thing a corporation worries about is the bottom line, no such thing as corporate ethics or responsibility. Like they say "follow the money"
Seriously, thought.... let them move. Whatever. If people want to change things, then stop buying their products.
boycott? they rarely work with multinational companies. Over the decades, I've seen Walmart boycotted, Exxon boycotts, Disney boycotts, Citgo (Uncle Hugo's US company) boycotts, and none have made any significant impact whatsoever.
I think that goes to prove that the only thing a corporation worries about is the bottom line, no such thing as corporate ethics or responsibility. Like they say "follow the money"
A company will do what it has to do to stay in business and make a profit. Why is it that some people continue to think that the only reason a you start up a business is to create jobs? Creating jobs is an added bonus. But if a company needs to relocate or cut some positions in order to continue to stay in business, they'll do it instead of riding the death spiral of losses in order to postpone the inevitable. Making a profit is not greedy. It's good business practice. Personal ethics and business ethics are not the same.
boycott? they rarely work with multinational companies. Over the decades, I've seen Walmart boycotted, Exxon boycotts, Disney boycotts, Citgo (Uncle Hugo's US company) boycotts, and none have made any significant impact whatsoever.
A boycott works if everyone does it.... People sure complain, but they are not willing to change their habits. If BK lost half of their customer base here in the US, they would change, by either leaving or keeping headquarters here. If they leave... no big deal, as another company will step in and sell their product.
Burger sector is pretty well saturated already, just as is the fried chicken thing. Boycotts work better on small businesses than on larger ones. The current boycott against the northeast's DeMoulas Market Basket grocery stores is having the desired effect, but it began as an employee protest partly because of the firing of it's CEO and 2 other top execs by the board of directors and the new ceo bent on reducing employee hrs, getting rid of part time employees and basically gutting the assets of the stores for his own personal gain. The employees have gotten a pretty good response when they asked MB customers to boycott the store chain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...ud_and_2014_protests
(not to be confused with a Tex/La Market Basket chain--completely unrelated to the one in the NE)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-26-2014).]
Another US corporation evading paying the very low taxes here. In 1943 Corporate taxes averaged 40% now they average 10% and many big corporations like Citi paid 0% and GE has averaged paying 2.3% for the past 10 years.
A partial truth hides a lie. All those corporations you claim pay 0% in taxes also pay taxes overseas. You refer to only the US portion as though it's their total tax burden. That's incomplete, misleading, and dishonest. If the US tax structure (among other factors) was so beneficial to businesses, companies would be moving here instead of leaving.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-26-2014).]
Seldom, but I wish they still made the Angry Whopper. I've never even seen a Tim Hortons.
Yup, I used to like BK, but something changed.... and I am not sure what it is. I guess I don't see the value in their food anymore. I am liking Wendy's more, as their food tastes fresher.
(Tim Hortons.... eh... like Starbucks... for Canadians)
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-26-2014).]
As a person who lives in Dunkin Donuts mecca of the north east, and has had Tim Hortons when I go to Canada. I will only say, that I would crawl through broken glass, rubbing alcohol and past all the DD's to get to Tim's. I would rather drink conveniece store coffee befor Dunkin Donuts.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Whatever. If people want to change things, then stop buying their products. A boycott works if everyone does it.... People sure complain, but they are not willing to change their habits. If BK lost half of their customer base here in the US, they would change, by either leaving or keeping headquarters here.
Why would I complain that they are leaving. I don't blame them. I would not boycott them and in fact may visit more often. If the IRS loses half of it's tax base ... they are on the way ... maybe they will change.
Why would I complain that they are leaving. I don't blame them. I would not boycott them and in fact may visit more often. If the IRS loses half of it's tax base ... they are on the way ... maybe they will change.
Unfortunately, they won't see what's happening and, instead raise everyone else's taxes to compensate for any losses. Didn't you know that you can spend your way out of debt?
Unfortunately, they won't see what's happening and, instead raise everyone else's taxes to compensate for any losses. Didn't you know that you can spend your way out of debt?
Yup, sort of like trying to win a war in the Middle East
Why would I complain that they are leaving. I don't blame them. I would not boycott them and in fact may visit more often. If the IRS loses half of it's tax base ... they are on the way ... maybe they will change.
Yeah, the american dream.... move your business headquarters to a low/zero tax country, while maintaining your profit centers within the States, so as to take advantage of doing business in a safe/secure/stable political environment. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it... just as long as that cake is free.
But hey, let them do what they want. I am not a customer and I doubt this buyout will help either company, in the long run.
I tried that thing and it was terrible. Maybe in your neck of the woods it was good, but here, it was terrible. Our McDs does a great job and it is hard to beat. Prices are also reasonable, vs BK. They still sell $1 32oz drinks and the $1 menu still has a nice selection.
I tried that thing and it was terrible. Maybe in your neck of the woods it was good, but here, it was terrible. Our McDs does a great job and it is hard to beat. Prices are also reasonable, vs BK. They still sell $1 32oz drinks and the $1 menu still has a nice selection.
You disagree with me even on fast food. Can't say I'm surprised.
You disagree with me even on fast food. Can't say I'm surprised.
The BK mac clone is just a rip-off product.... I wonder how long it took them to say "hey.. I have a great idea... lets copy the Big Mac!"
And yes, it was poorly done, in my area, as I said. Maybe in your area they are the best in the world.... but I am not driving to SC to get a Big Mac want-to-be. Frankly, for the price I would rather just get a big mac, good fries and soda.... for less than what BK sells the same thing. If I want something different... I go to Wendy's. They are better than BK or McD, in my area.
( I guess I don't understand why I have to like what you like when it comes to food. Unless there is some political reasoning behind fast food choices. Does BK give more to the GOP vs other fast food chains and I am supposed to support their business because of it? If so, I didn't get the memo from the GOP/Tea Party.)
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 08-26-2014).]
Yeah, the american dream.... move your business headquarters to a low/zero tax country, while maintaining your profit centers within the States, so as to take advantage of doing business in a safe/secure/stable political environment. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it... just as long as that cake is free.
But hey, let them do what they want. I am not a customer and I doubt this buyout will help either company, in the long run.
