Moving to Canada? Good For Burger King

Liberals are aghast with the news that fast food giant Burger King might move its headquarters to Canada if it buys out the Canadian fast food chain Tim Hortons. Libs are mad that BK is doing this to skip out on paying America’s confiscatory taxes. Well, I say good for BK!

The accusation BK is facing from America’s capitalism-hating lefties is that by taking over Tim Hortons and moving its HQ to Canada, BK is skipping out on its patriotic duty to pay the American corporate tax rate–which happens to be the highest tax rate in the industrialized, western world.

First of all, it is nothing short of a crime that Canada… CANADA… has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States of America. That’s right, commie Canada has lower taxes and a better business climate than the country famously built on capitalism.

That fact right there shows that the left in the US is not only truly against every American principle but is also winning the political debate in the USA.

Anyway, the left is attacking BK for trying to take advantage of a thing called “tax inversion.” (For some info on that see a blog post by Nick Gillespie.)

But let me say here that no one should be surprised if people are of a mind to starve the US government of tax money. At this point, Washington so abuses its authority to tax, perpetrates so much fraud and waste in the expenditure, and has ranged so far away from legal, constitutional spending that it shouldn’t surprise anyone if many people might refuse to pay taxes.

Finally, let me say that I am usually not a big fan of BK. About the only item they make that I’ll eat is the regular chicken sandwich. But after this, if BK does really move to Canada, I may have to start eating there more.

Also, a word about Tim Hortons. We don’t have them in Chicago and the first time I ran into them was when I went to Vancouver a few years ago. And have since ran into them in several US airports such as Las Vegas, Minneapolis, and the like, I was as little impressed with its offerings as I am Bk’s. But, again, I may have to reassess.

Oh, and one more thing. This is yet another reason to understand that Democrats are the scum of the earth. They’ve made Canada… CANADA… better than the USA.

Illinois Celebrates Loser Adlai Stevenson, Ignores Ronald Reagan
Finally a Lib 'Journalist' With Guts to Say He Wants Conservatives Banned from TV
  • Brett Buck

    They won’t be aghast. They will call for a world business tax to eliminate “cheats” that move around to avoid taxes. Because they are stupid.

  • GarandFan

    Maybe the left can call on their Obamassiah and ask why Warren Buffett’s investment group will be lending BK $2 BILLION to close the deal. You remember Warren, he complains he doesn’t pay enough in taxes, yet states that he WON’T pay one more dime than he owes.

    Or maybe the left can call King Barack and ask why his “Jobs Czar”, Jeff Immelt doesn’t do something about this. Oh! Wait! Jeff is too busy building General Electric plants in China.

  • Hank_M

    Libs are upset because they prefer to be the ones sending our jobs and money to other countries. I still recall a lot of stimulus money (an oxymoron if I ever saw one when used by the left) going out of the country.
    This Burger King “uproar” is nothing more than having a convenient target to blame for the economic mess they’re created. I imagine it’s only a matter of time before we’re subjected to horror stories about “Big Burger”.

  • JWH


  • Commander_Chico

    Yeah, corporate taxes should be low. You have to collect something for the government services corporations inevitably benefit from, though.

    BK can’t do business in America without being incorporated there, of course.

    BK and Tim Horton’s are the superior businesses in their categories – fast-food burgers and donuts. Dunkin’ Donuts sucks nowadays – stale.

    • yetanotherjohn

      BK doesn’t save money on US corporate taxes on US operations (so the rate is somewhat irrelevant, though I agree it is to high for other reasons). The move makes sense because BK wouldn’t have to pay US corporate tax on non-US operations. So your comment on collecting for government services has about as much reality as most of the left’s view of the world.

      • Commander_Chico

        If you knew the extent to which the US government protects US business interests abroad, you would not say that. For example, they press foreign governments to enforce trademark laws against all of the fake “Burger Kings” around the world.

        • yetanotherjohn

          Once again your logic shows the problem of letting the left govern, even though they tend to think their brains are why they should.

          Let’s start with the facts as you state above.
          1) Corporate rates should be low (no comparative to current rates, but based on this being a response to the above article probably lower than 35%)
          2) But corporations should pay something for the government services they receive.
          3) When it was pointed out to you that the issue is not the tax rate, but that the US corporate tax is a worldwide corporate tax, you bring up the example of Trademarks as an example of government services delivered worldwide to justify the worldwide tax.

          We now have several paths to take given your logic.
          1) So what. If “some” is any amount. then there is already a tax paid in the form of the trademark application fee. Why are you bringing up an example that already meets your stated criteria.
          2) The idea of a worldwide trademark enforcement is of such value that BK should pay the same corporate tax on profits made outside of the US as on the profits made inside the US. This discounts any other service BK receives in the US. The trademark fee alone justifies the rate. Based on this, why should the corporate taxes lower given that trademarks alone justify the taxes.

          But neither of those paths are the correct one because yet again you have shown the ability of the left to misunderstand the world they live in.
          Trademarks are enforced based on the local countries jurisdiction and laws. The US is part of a multi-country treaty that allows for trademark applications/approvals in one country to be valid in multiple countries. This is akin to the treaty that allows me to get a Texas drivers license and rent a car/drive in several foreign countries. My driving is subject to the local laws, not US law when driving internationally. Of course Texas does impose the same personal income tax rate on income earned internationally as on income earned in Texas. I will leave it to your wit to figure out why that is reasonable.
          Canada is one of the signatories of that treaty. BK will continue to have just as much international trademark protection in Canada as they do in the US. Somehow, Canada is able to provide this government service without imposing a tax on worldwide profits.
          Your logic, besides being based on faulty understanding of trademark law, has at its core the problem of the left to understand that authorities reach isn’t based on how wonderful the authority is, but rather on the scope of the authorization. A second of thought should have at least made you stop and consider your statement. Did you really think that a US law on trademarks would be applied in foreign countries? That somehow those other foreign countries are not sovereign to make up their own laws, but subservient to US law. Obama too seems to have a problem in recognizing that the US constitution limits what he can do,

          Now the smart thing to do when you find yourself in a hole over your head is to stop digging. How smart are you Chico?

          • Jimpithecus

            Good points but a little less invective would be nice.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Your right.I shouldn’t let my emotions carry me away. I just get so frustrated with the leftist thought that lacks a foundation in reality.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Actually, BK wouldn’t skip paying US corporate income tax on its US operations.It would just avoid paying US corporate income tax on all its non-US operations. Leaving the US would mean it would just pay taxes in each country (most of which are lower than the US).

    What this really means is the left can’t face the reality that there is a real world out there that deals rationally with real world issues. The blue state model of spending money you don’t have, feeding the left’s political machine with tax dollars by way of public unions, etc. eventually runs out of steam. In the words of Heinlein, this is known as bad luck.

    If you could move across the street and significantly lower your tax bill, wouldn’t you? Then why be surprised that the real world incentives we put in place are going to have similar effects.

    If you want a really crazy idea, change the incentives so that companies want to put their HQ in the US. Naaah. That might actually grow the pie for everyone.

    • jim_m

      Correction. ALL other countries have lower corporate income taxes than the US.

      • yetanotherjohn

        I can’t name a country with a higher corporate tax, but I also don’t deal with enough countries to definitively say none are higher. Zimbabwe or Albania may have a higher rate for all I know. Certainly no major country or emerging country that I know of has a higher rate.

        • jim_m

          I have seen it cited in multiple places, including the WSJ, that the US is the highest. I don’t see the point in pretending that it might not be.

          • yetanotherjohn

            Lots of people have told me global warming is true, but that doesn’t make it true. You made me curious enough to check. KPMG (major accounting firm) shows the US with a 40% corporate tax rate (35% fed and 5% for local state taxes). They show one country, United Arab Emirates with a higher rate at 55%. Quite a few 35% also. Albania was actual at 15%, so sorry for maligning them earlier.

            The left spews out enough talking points that won’t hold up to scrutiny. No reason for the right to do the same. Unless I research or know by other means, I try not to make categorical statements.

            WSJ is better than most MSM, but the state of journalism today is such that if they tell you the sun rises in the east, wake up early and confirm it.

            The underlying point remains the same, we set the rules and BK is rationally responding to them. The wonder is not in what BK is doing, but why anyone is surprised that BK is doing it.

          • jim_m

            Fine. Highest amongst developed nations then. You could move your company to some backwater nation or a tiny oasis in the ME, but these are not considered part of the developed world. Even in the UAE, once you get outside of Dubai and Abu Dabi you have nothing developed at all. These are effectively city states and little else.

  • LiberalNightmare

    If corporations aren’t people, how can they have a “patriotic duty to pay the American corporate tax rate”?

    • Never known a progressive who considered themselves bound by logical consistency.

  • westcoastwiser

    So, Mr. Hutson, what do you know about the current ownership of Burger King? From your diatribe here, You don’t seem know that Burger King is owned by a Brazilian Hedge Fund, not shareholders from any other country, including the USA.

  • jim_m

    The idiot obama claims that companies have a patriotic duty to stay in the US. But he claims that companies are not people, so how can a company feel patriotism?

    In fact, if a company has any duty it is to be profitable for its shareholders and to be successful for its employees so it can guarantee their employment, increase their wages and provide them opportunities for advancement.

    If companies did what obama asks they would be doing the opposite of those duties. By moving out of the US they are becoming more profitable and more stable.

    What companies are figuring out is that it is cheaper to relocate overseas than it is to lobby the government for tax breaks. Instead of fixing the problem obama chooses to double down and respond with increasingly fascist and totalitarian rhetoric.

  • Retired military

    And who is behind the funding for BK’s move? Obama’s butt buddy Buffett.

  • Paul Hooson

    Neither party has reformed taxes to really benefit even small businesses. If a small mom and pop shop saves every penny beyond their basic expenses to expand their inventory, then at tax time they’re asked to do an inventory and then pay an estimated tax for investing in their inventory or even trying to expand to provide jobs for others. And then when products actually sell, these same small shop owners are hit with taxes again on the actual profits. – This country kills business investment and job growth through regressive taxes like this that discourage business investment in expansion or jobs. – We wonder why the Chinese or European economies are running circles around us. It’s not always that they are much smarter at business than Americans as much as they operate in environments that encourage and not discourage business like here in the U.S.

  • Michael Lang

    The strange thing is that Buger King is owned by a Brazilian company.