• 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

tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not going to doesn't reduce the aggregate demand for food. It just shifts it to other places which would have to hire more workers to deal with the increased demand.
 
MTAtech said:
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.
Click to expand...

Taxes are a part of the profit and loss of any company. All of the expenses, taxes included, are built in to the operation and the prices it charges for its products or services. What that means is that end uses end up paying all the corporate taxes in the end. I'm amazed liberals sit still for corporate taxes because they are regressive. I believe it comes from a hatred of business rather than smart tax policy.
 
newpublius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most nations tax the overseas profits of corps that are incorporated in the borders.
 
MTAtech said:
So you think it's fine that you now have to make up the taxes that BK avoids? How civic-minded of you.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Burger King is a publicly traded company that is about 70% owned by a South American company and generates more than 50% of its profits outside of the USA. I'd say they've been pretty good corporate citizens these past years being headquartered within the US and paying excess taxes. Now that the combined interests of Burger King and Tim Horton's are going to be even more non-USA owned, you want them to remain headquartered in the US and paying excess taxes on Tim Horton's profits which are overwhelmingly Canadian raised?
 
sangha said:
Most nations tax the overseas profits of corps that are incorporated in the borders.
Click to expand...

I mean, the basic problem at issue, irrespective of the national border is why should one corporation ever own a second corporation? If the first corporation earns money and gets taxed on it and pays a dividend to the second corporation, which then pays tax on it, and then pays out dividends to the shareholders, you can quickly see how this turns into the triple taxation regime. In enters the dividend received deduction which isn't complete, depending on the level of ownership of the second corporation.
 
newpublius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Taxes aren't the only reason for choosing C status.
 
Ruined a perfectly good soccer practice.
 
newpublius said:
I mean, the basic problem at issue, irrespective of the national border is why should one corporation ever own a second corporation? If the first corporation earns money and gets taxed on it and pays a dividend to the second corporation, which then pays tax on it, and then pays out dividends to the shareholders, you can quickly see how this turns into the triple taxation regime. In enters the dividend received deduction which isn't complete, depending on the level of ownership of the second corporation.
Click to expand...

As far as repeated taxation, that is nothing new. Taxing money whenever it changes hands is not at all unusual

However, I think you're on to something when you talk about one corp owning another. After all, people can't own another person, right?

Basically, the problem boils down to the nature of corporate existence (ie it's a legal entity) and non-corporeality. Corporations don't "really" exist so they have no true residency. Their residency is a matter of law, not location. So, in the absence of a global tax code (which is unrealistic and unwanted) how do you tax that?
 
jonny5 said:
Those monies are owned by people. Corporations are run by people.
Click to expand...

Yes, and how many ask the stock holders if it's OK to use their money for political means? If an individual uses their personal funds to do ate, that's one thing. When it's a board of directors talking about how to use other people's money for political means, it's another. Corporations can pay for their access, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown calls for Burger King boycott over Tim Hortons deal
Click to expand...

i'm not much into boycotts. that being said, the headquartering scam is really slimy. corporations that do this should have their products tariffed.

i am for lowering the corporate tax rate significantly, though, and collecting it from everyone, not just the little guys.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You are aware that Burger King is a publicly traded company that is about 70% owned by a South American company and generates more than 50% of its profits outside of the USA. I'd say they've been pretty good corporate citizens these past years being headquartered within the US and paying excess taxes. Now that the combined interests of Burger King and Tim Horton's are going to be even more non-USA owned, you want them to remain headquartered in the US and paying excess taxes on Tim Horton's profits which are overwhelmingly Canadian raised?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I just don't see the glee that tres borrachos expressed by going out of his way to eat at BK because of this event.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, and how many ask the stock holders if it's OK to use their money for political means? If an individual uses their personal funds to do ate, that's one thing. When it's a board of directors talking about how to use other people's money for political means, it's another. Corporations can pay for their access, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the corporations you own. That has nothing to do with claiming that corporations should pay taxes because they are people. They arent. They are the tools of people, and people have right to use their tools how they see fit.
 
Helix said:
i'm not much into boycotts. that being said, the headquartering scam is really slimy. corporations that do this should have their products tariffed.

i am for lowering the corporate tax rate significantly, though, and collecting it from everyone, not just the little guys.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a conflicting argument. You think its wrong to tax them so much, but when they agree and do something about it, theyre wrong. How is it slimy for someone to reduce the high cost of doing business, which is high due to abusive govt? Its not a scam, its not illegal, its common sense, and good for owners and investors. They should be praised. Im going to BK for lunch just to cancel out Browns alleged boycott.
 
jonny5 said:
Take it up with the corporations you own. That has nothing to do with claiming that corporations should pay taxes because they are people. They arent. They are the tools of people, and people have right to use their tools how they see fit.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's OK to tax corps in whatever way the people see fit.
 
This is what an Ohio Senator worries about?

:roll:

Hey idiot Senator?

If you want Burger King to stay then make the corporate tax laws/regs more corporate friendly.

Do you really think Burger King is leaving for ANY other reason then financial? Or do you think they have a sudden passion for hockey, poutine and more snow?

Moron.
 
MTAtech said:
Not at all. I just don't see the glee that tres borrachos expressed by going out of his way to eat at BK because of this event.
Click to expand...

Tres Borarchos is a she. That's why I have a little pink thing in my panel over there <--------------------------

Of course you don't get the glee. That's because you want BK to fail so that lots of people suffer financially, and because you think whatever any Democratic politician says is Gospel.
 
tres borrachos said:
Tres Borarchos is a she. That's why I have a little pink thing in my panel over there <--------------------------

Of course you don't get the glee. That's because you want BK to fail so that lots of people suffer financially, and because you think whatever any Democratic politician says is Gospel.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the former (BK failing)...but I definitely agree with the latter.

MTAtech does not strike me as politically 'open minded'...quite the contrary.


Personally, I did not even know he was a Dem when I typed my above post.

I assume both parties are full of morons.


Btw...I cannot rep you for some reason.

Your 'repper' does not work.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Take it up with the corporations you own. That has nothing to do with claiming that corporations should pay taxes because they are people. They arent. They are the tools of people, and people have right to use their tools how they see fit.
Click to expand...

Take it up with the government. Corporations are taxed.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I posted this on another thread on this issue, so I'll post it here as well for stereophonic effect.

The liberal backlash against this move is quite puzzling but not unexpected.

People are aware, I hope, that Burger King is actually currently 70% owned by a South American company, not American owned.

People are aware, I hope, that more than 50% of Burger King's profits are earned outside of America, and yet they pay significantly higher corporate tax on those external profits than their competitors world-wide pay.

People are aware, I hope, that Burger King's operations within America are still paying the going tax rate in place in whichever State they operate and they still employ tens of thousands of people throughout America.

People are aware, I hope, that unlike some other companies that can offshore their manufacturing and production, Burger King is basically a local enterprise that purchases goods and services in the communities they operate in.

People are aware, I hope, that a South American company and a Canadian company merging is likely to take advantage of preferential tax laws in whichever countries they operate in. Large, publicly traded enterprises don't become successful and profitable, and enrich their shareholders, many of which are pension and mutual fund administrators, by overpaying taxes in some misguided debt to excessive government intervention.
Click to expand...

What is the difference in whether a US firm is owed by 7% or 70% by foreign investors? People don't want to spend the time reading the prospectus on a corporation before they go get a freaking burger for lunch.

Based here, pays taxes here, wants my dollar. BK charges me tax on my meal, do I get a discount if I claim to be 75% Japanese?
 
Phoenix said:
Fox News Link


I am wondering how his constituents that are employed by Burger King feel about this. Way to throw them under the bus Sherrod.
Click to expand...

Democrats and Obama haven't a moral leg to stand on after forcing a sale of Chrysler to Fiat.
 
MTAtech said:
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.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that profits are taxed where they are earned, but in the US, we tax repatriated profits that were already taxed in other countries. This is why so much profits are still sitting offshore thereby avoiding the double taxation. Are you aware of anything that indicates that this isn't the case today?
 
jonny5 said:
That seems to be a conflicting argument. You think its wrong to tax them so much,
Click to expand...

incorrect; i think it's poor policy, given the competition from other nations. personally, i'd support cutting it down really low, collecting it from every corporation, and increase revenue by taxing individuals instead of corporations. for example, i support taxing all individual income as income above a cap, including investment income.


jonny5 said:
but when they agree and do something about it, theyre wrong. How is it slimy for someone to reduce the high cost of doing business, which is high due to abusive govt? Its not a scam, its not illegal, its common sense, and good for owners and investors. They should be praised. Im going to BK for lunch just to cancel out Browns alleged boycott.
Click to expand...

it's slimy because they are using a bunch of loopholes to duck out of taxes when the little guy can't afford to do that and has to pay it. Apple doing its little pretend corporation scam to avoid taxes is slimy, too.
 
tres borrachos said:
Tres Borarchos is a she. That's why I have a little pink thing in my panel over there <--------------------------

Of course you don't get the glee. That's because you want BK to fail so that lots of people suffer financially, and because you think whatever any Democratic politician says is Gospel.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that little pink thing is small on my screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom