Started By
Message

re: How Burger King pleases the 1 percent, screws its workers

Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:39 pm to
Posted by inadaze
Member since Aug 2010
4867 posts
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:39 pm to
quote:

So why would BK, a company with worldwide presence, choose Canada for a tax inversion?


What? BK is saying it's not about dodging taxes. So is Warren Buffett, as you said. They are saying it's really about growth, (using Tim Hortons' breakfast items to increase BK's breakfast sales in the US, expanding BK outside of the US, etc.).

quote:

What's your thesis?


My only original point was that you were misrepresenting Moore's position. Now I'm just responding to a handful of posters who apparently don't like what I'm saying.

Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48753 posts
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:42 pm to
What do you think Moore means when he says BK needs to pay its "fair share". Of taxes?

What do you think he means when he says because of the move Burger King is taking money from taxpayers?
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:45 pm
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124234 posts
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:50 pm to
quote:

So why would BK, a company with worldwide presence, choose Canada for a tax inversion?



What? BK is saying it's not about dodging taxes.
It was/is "about" increasing BK market cap from about $9.5Bn to $18Bn. THAT is what this was "about". Once the merger is designed, implementation strategies are employed. To make a valid point, you'd have to demonstrate fiduciary rationale for headquartering the new company in the US.

Again, what would that rationale be? Self-flagellation?
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:51 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram