• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown calls for Burger King boycott over Tim Hortons deal

Maybe to you. Funny you'd spend so much time on it.

The issue at hand is that companies are leaving to countries with lower taxes. What US companies ACTUALLY pay is irrelevant...what is relevant is that they pay more than they would were they are moving. So, yes, your quibbling over what they actually pay is irrelevant.
 
THat wasnt the question though. You implied that you are not going to go there 'anymore' as a result of this action, but then you say there is nothing wrong with this action. So why are you stating your intention to boycott them?

I didnt say there was nothing wrong with the action, I said they should be allowed to do it, as in it shouldnt be against the law. There is a difference between what I think is right and wrong and what should be legal and illegal.
 
How come conservatives never see a middle ground between "ignore the problem" and "federally mandated food portioning?"

Simple minded folks have problems distinguishing things by degrees. That's why some people lump selective breeding in with genetic engineering.
 
The issue at hand is that companies are leaving to countries with lower taxes. What US companies ACTUALLY pay is irrelevant...what is relevant is that they pay more than they would were they are moving. So, yes, your quibbling over what they actually pay is irrelevant.

Yes to you. I think you've overstated your opinion on it.
 
Just grind up the dead fat people. It's more economical by the pound than elderly corpses and more nutritious.

Don't be ridiculous.



Fat people are where the heating oil is going to come from.
 
Sherrod Brown is nothing but a total IDIOT. He once sent me an email reply saying that NAFTA was started to "create a middle class" in Mexico. How well did that turn out?
 
Don't be ridiculous.



Fat people are where the heating oil is going to come from.


I didn't say they wouldn't be rendered first. Duh-doy!
 
Corporations can spend money and contribute to political campaigns. It's not the personal individuals, as they are covered separately. Corporate monies are used, corporations can pay America for their access to our government.

Those monies are owned by people. Corporations are run by people.
 
According to US law, Corporations are people with all the same rights and responsibilities.

Quote me the law that states the a corporation has the SAME rights as a person. Can a corporation enlist in the military? Adopt a child? Get a passport?
 
As usual, a Dumbocrat misses the point.
How about lowering the Corporate Tax rate, Brownie? Maybe if it wasn't the highest in the industrialized world, Burger King wouldn't be looking to leave the US.
Once again, the STATUTORY corporate tax-rate is the highest in the world. The amount of taxes, after deductions and credits, is not. (see: GAO: Effective Tax Rates Can Differ Significantly from the Statutory Rate) In fact, many profitable corporations pay no taxes.

What BK is doing is taking advantage of a tax loophole that allows for changing a corporate address without changing operations, as a way of avoiding taxes. Thus, a change in the tax code is warranted -- taxing profits where they are earned, regardless of where the corporate headquarters is located.
 
I took my kids to Burger King last night after I collected them all from soccer practice. I never did that before but I felt the need to do it last night.

In your face, Brown.
 
I haven't ate at a Burger King for years. I really don't care anything about BK.


But, I am sadden to hear they bought Tim Hortons as I do love Tim Hortons. It will be only time before they ruin Tim Hortons.
 
I took my kids to Burger King last night after I collected them all from soccer practice. I never did that before but I felt the need to do it last night.

In your face, Brown.
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.
 
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.

No, I don't support intentionally trying to financially hurt innocent people. Apparently you think it's good.

How liberal of you.
 
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.

They're not even avoiding them anymore. They've created an entity whose foreign earnings just aren't subject to US taxation based on jurisdiction alone. BK's operations in the US will still be subject to tax.

Does Toyota Japan avoid US taxation by doing business in Australia or India?

These multinational corporations aren't actually monolithic entities, there is a US Corporation and then foreign subsidiaries which themselves are there own separate corporation. You can personally avoid taxes on dividends by having a corporation right here in the US simply not pay them. The US C Corps who own shares in foreign corporations sufficient to control them are doing exactly that, they're simply not repatriating the profits and there's over a trillion dollars over there and in the case of BK they're not going to allow earnings from India or Australia to be taxed by the US Government, so they moved. <---that's beyond mere avoidance, ie. if I don't buy something in NJ because of sales tax, I'm avoiding the sales tax, if I move out of state, in a very broad sense I'm avoiding NJ taxation, but that's not really what avoidance is about.

The C-Corporation is the single worst tax structure to be in in the US and internationally its taxed by the US government in a way that gives a strong disincentive to ensure that the US C-Corp will not be the 'hub' of a multinational corporation.
 
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.

You have to understand that it is a CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments if possible. It is part of his job and duty to the shareholders. The U.S. is in competition with other countries economically. It always has been. So it needs to understand that the high corporate tax rate (which is eventually paid by you and me anyway) will cause some companies to move. Quite a few companies have left California for states with lower taxes as well.

The government needs to decide what pays better - higher corporate taxes and fewer companies to pay them or vice versa. It is a classic business decision. Boycotts won't change it. If the government wants to reduce inversion then it needs to have a competitive tax rate for businesses. Pretty simple.
 
The C-Corporation is the single worst tax structure to be in in the US and internationally its taxed by the US government in a way that gives a strong disincentive to ensure that the US C-Corp will not be the 'hub' of a multinational corporation.

I believe it is the best option for companies with less than $70K in net profit.
 
You have to understand that it is a CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments if possible. It is part of his job and duty to the shareholders. The U.S. is in competition with other countries economically. It always has been. So it needs to understand that the high corporate tax rate (which is eventually paid by you and me anyway) will cause some companies to move. Quite a few companies have left California for states with lower taxes as well.

The government needs to decide what pays better - higher corporate taxes and fewer companies to pay them or vice versa. It is a classic business decision. Boycotts won't change it. If the government wants to reduce inversion then it needs to have a competitive tax rate for businesses. Pretty simple.

While it may be the CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments, it's is not our responsibility to enable them by frequenting BK more, as a reward for moving their HQ abroad, as tres borrachos did.
 
While it may be the CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments, it's is not our responsibility to enable them by frequenting BK more, as a reward for moving their HQ abroad, as tres borrachos did.

I support the companies that support each individual Burger King. You know, like the cleaning companies who rely on that income, and the landscapers who mow the lawns and plow the driveways. Let's just let BK go out of business. That'll show them! And how neat it will be to have all the BK employees and all the suppliers to BK to go belly up, and then we can have more people on welfare. Perfect!

That's a great plan you got there, MTA.
 
While it may be the CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments, it's is not our responsibility to enable them by frequenting BK more, as a reward for moving their HQ abroad, as tres borrachos did.

Of course, you have the right to eat wherever you like. My point was that a boycott won't change anything. An adjustment in tax rate will.
 
I believe it is the best option for companies with less than $70K in net profit.

Not really relevant for a multinational corporation of course, but at that level you are unequivocally better off in a sole proprietorship/partnership, LLC or S Corp. As a lawyer, I naturally wouldn't recommend the sole proprietorship/partnership, but a C-Corp for a startup is basic masochism. You really shouldn't be doing it unless you're raising money from the public and are forced to.
 
While it may be the CEO's responsibility to reduce tax payments, it's is not our responsibility to enable them by frequenting BK more, as a reward for moving their HQ abroad, as tres borrachos did.

Nobody is saying you have to eat there of course, you created a tax policy and sure enough, yet again, its proven that taxes have consequences. If I purposefully avail myself of NJ's jurisdiction, its fair that I pay taxes here, but with respect to BK's foreign operations, those foreign operations are not availing themselves of the protections of the US government, they pay taxes there, and when avoidance is cost free to the tax payer (the difference is semantic in the form of the organization), then they will almost invariably do it. BK will still need to pay taxes here based on its operations here. It could avoid that by not doing business here, but then its giving up doing business here. BK can 'avoid' the US tax on foreign earnings without having to give up doing business in that foreign jurisdiction.

The US is one of the few countries that thinks there is equity in taxing worldwide earnings.
 
Back
Top Bottom