Author Topic: Burger King, eh?  (Read 11223 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40815
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #100 on: August 29, 2014, 05:05:36 PM »
the ft link i put up earlier is subscriber only.  this one makes some of the same points, amidst other verbiage, and can be accessed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-26/the-burger-king-tim-hortons-deal-isnt-about-taxes
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 11:52:56 PM by sys »
"a garden city man wondered in april if the theologians had not made a mistake in locating the garden of eden in asia rather than in the arkansas river valley."

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45952
  • big roas man
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #101 on: August 30, 2014, 12:36:19 AM »
Tim Hortons is so awful.  No one has even mentioned that yet.

The first time I went to one I was :excited: by the time I left I was :Yuck:

Offline EllRobersonisInnocent

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 7690
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #102 on: August 30, 2014, 12:48:19 AM »
Is Tim Hortons basically a Canadian Hardees?

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #103 on: August 30, 2014, 01:16:51 AM »
The whopper is a underated fast food burger, better than mcd's, good changeup from wendys, and they get better the drunker you are.
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #104 on: August 30, 2014, 08:01:11 AM »
the ft link i put up earlier is subscriber only.  this one makes some of the same points, amidst other verbiage, and can be accessed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-26/the-burger-king-tim-hortons-deal-isnt-about-taxes

Simply merging with TH, if that's all BK was doing, would not be about taxes. But that's not all BK is reportedly going to do. BK is not relocating it's corporate HQ to Canada for the weather. If you actually believe that taxes did not play a role in BK moving to Canada, well, I can't help you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 54002
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #105 on: August 30, 2014, 08:26:04 AM »
the ft link i put up earlier is subscriber only.  this one makes some of the same points, amidst other verbiage, and can be accessed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-26/the-burger-king-tim-hortons-deal-isnt-about-taxes

Simply merging with TH, if that's all BK was doing, would not be about taxes. But that's not all BK is reportedly going to do. BK is not relocating it's corporate HQ to Canada for the weather. If you actually believe that taxes did not play a role in BK moving to Canada, well, I can't help you.

It's definitely taxes, and their execs probably want the Canadian healthcare.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7834
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #106 on: August 30, 2014, 09:29:28 AM »
I doubt anyone is actually moving there.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38136
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #107 on: August 30, 2014, 09:37:30 AM »
Is Tim Hortons basically a Canadian Hardees?

I thought Hardees was the canadian Hardees?  :dunno:

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38136
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #108 on: August 30, 2014, 09:39:21 AM »
KC news radio reported the BK move as one to establish a completely new company that would own/manage the two brands, so yeah, taxes.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55997
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #109 on: August 30, 2014, 10:05:22 AM »
the ft link i put up earlier is subscriber only.  this one makes some of the same points, amidst other verbiage, and can be accessed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-26/the-burger-king-tim-hortons-deal-isnt-about-taxes

They have a 33 year old CEO? :surprised:

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Burger King, eh?
« Reply #110 on: August 31, 2014, 11:31:23 AM »
Even neo-soc and mezzanine financier Warren Buffet has admitted the primary purpose for the corporate restructure is taxes. Why are idiots denying this?

If that piece of crap wasn't gorging all the benefits of the restructure and likely diluting shareholders (the common man he supposedly fights to protect, lol what an bad person) in the process, I'd probably buy stock in this venture.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 11:36:44 AM by Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) »
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd