- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How Burger King pleases the 1 percent, screws its workers
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:16 pm to inadaze
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:16 pm to inadaze
quote:So why would BK, a company with worldwide presence, choose Canada for a tax inversion? Is it because of Stupid leadership in the BK corporate offices? Did BK have no other opportunities? What's your thesis?
I know Buffett is involved with the deal, and I knew what he said about it before I posted that.
1
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:17 pm to inadaze
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Warren Buffett disagrees. But then again Buffett's probably just a voice in the wilderness compared to you and Moore. Right?
By the way, you could give a similar sarcastic response to any of the posters who are saying that BK is fleeing the higher tax rates in the US -- for example, bigblake's post:
quote:
It's about taxes, so what?
They're all going much further than I am with regard to the inversion.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:20 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
What "trade-off?"
Making $15 per hour vs. receiving government benefits.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:21 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
I think most people who are receiving benefits would prefer not to, and if $15 per hour could make that a reality, I think most would make that trade-off.
What "trade-off?"
He's thinking people would take a cut in benefits (housing, food, etc) if their wages increase from 9-15/hour. These cuts are usually not proportional, and those that get benefits would probably lose more in the tradeoff.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:26 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yeah, I don't think you've had much dealing with folks on the lower end of the income scale.
Well, you're wrong about that Shrubber.
What I'm saying is that, in my experience, most people who receive government assistance aren't proud about it, and they'd prefer not to. If they had an opportunity to work for a living-wage, they'd take that living-wage job. I'm not saying this would be the case across the board, but in my experience, most people.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:26 pm to inadaze
What is your solution? Which section of the code do you think needs to be amended?
Or is this a minimum wage issue? Or fiduciary issue?
What needs to change?
Or is this a minimum wage issue? Or fiduciary issue?
What needs to change?
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
By not paying us taxes on income derived outside of the us? You will have to explain that to me
Only in the good old US are corporations required to pay income tax on their foreign earnings. No other country on the planet does this.
Now do you see why corporations go the inversion route? Basically the US government is killing the golden geese that pay the bills.
LC
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:29 pm to Eurocat
"For the past year, I’ve worked at a Burger King in Tampa, Florida, making $9 an hour."
typical democrat voter. didn't bother to get an education or learn a trade. now he wants $15 an hour cause that would more fair.
dude needs to figure out FAIR is just another four letter F-word.
typical democrat voter. didn't bother to get an education or learn a trade. now he wants $15 an hour cause that would more fair.
dude needs to figure out FAIR is just another four letter F-word.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:34 pm to inadaze
quote:
Making $15 per hour vs. receiving government benefits.
Does not sound like a trade-off, unless the value of the benefits is less than what $15/hour gets you.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:35 pm to inadaze
quote:
how is that clear
He says BK won't be paying their fair share of US taxes. BK is still paying US taxes on their US income. So it's clear he doesn't understand inversions.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:36 pm to inadaze
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/5/15 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:39 pm to NC_Tigah
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 on 12/27/14 at 10:42 pm to inadaze
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?
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 on 12/27/14 at 10:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What is your solution?
I can't say that I have a perfect solution. There are a lot of complicated variables involved. But, higher wages could get some of these people off of government assistance, and grow the economy in certain ways. I know the response will be layoffs -- again, I don't have all the answers.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:48 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Does not sound like a trade-off, unless the value of the benefits is less than what $15/hour gets you.
I think even if the value was a little more, many people will take the higher wage because they can have more dignity about that. What percentage would that be? I don't know, but I'd like to say most.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:49 pm to inadaze
quote:
a perfect solution
hell get a Mexican to do if for 8 bucks and hour.
ok, not perfect.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:49 pm to inadaze
I'm out for the night, guys.
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:50 pm to inadaze
quote: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.
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.
Again, what would that rationale be? Self-flagellation?
This post was edited on 12/27/14 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 12/27/14 at 10:50 pm to inadaze
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News