Time to boycott Burger King

[Tgo01]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-boycott_n_5710695.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D520384


NEW YORK -- Burger King is getting whopped over its plan to avoid U.S. taxes by fleeing to Canada.

People flooded the fast-food chain’s Facebook page on Monday with threats of a boycott after the company announced talks to merge with Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons. The combined company would be headquartered in Canada.

Burger King is just the latest American company to attempt a so-called tax inversion -- where a bigger U.S. company buys a smaller foreign firm in a country with a lower tax rate, renounces its U.S. corporate citizenship and then reincorporates in the other nation. Politicians and pundits have said the moves amount to little more than unpatriotic ploys to avoid paying taxes. The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35 percent, the highest in the world. Canada's is about 15 percent.

"Move to Canada to avoid paying taxes and I will never darken the door of a Burger King again," Mike Gee, of Magnolia, Arkansas, wrote in a comment. "Does corporate greed in this country ever end?"

Radina Russell, a Burger King spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Taxes aren't Tim Hortons' only appeal to the Miami-based burger chain. The company sells a lot of coffee and doughnuts, and Burger King has struggled to compete with rivals McDonald's and Taco Bell in the fast-food war over breakfast. It's not clear how much the move to Canada would reduce tax costs on the combined company. But the deal would allow it to avoid paying double taxes on profits earned abroad, even though the company would still pay U.S. taxes on domestic sales.

Earlier this month, drugstore giant Walgreen ditched its plan to re-incorporate in low-tax Switzerland after facing intense pressure from politicians and protesters, more than 300,000 of whom signed a petition to boycott the chain. Roger Hickey, the co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, which spearheaded the Walgreen petition, said his group will launch a similar public plea within the next few days.

“On almost every street corner, there’s an alternative fast food restaurant where [consumers] can buy food once they learn what Burger King is doing,” Hickey told The Huffington Post on Monday. “You don’t even have to announce a boycott to let them know that they’re going to lose business.”

Still, it may be hard to convince diners to change their habits, especially over a wonky tax loophole. Out of 10 people HuffPost spoke with on Monday afternoon at a Burger King in Manhattan, just one had even heard about the chain's possible move. Once the concept was explained to them, all of the customers said that they'd still eat at Burger King even if the restaurant went through with the plan.

Long Island resident Debbie Mevlos, who stops in at Burger King to eat a chicken sandwich every once and a while, said she didn't really care that the company was trying to pay less in taxes. In fact, she said the only news that would actually stop her from eating at Burger King would be some kind of food safety or harassment scandal.

Mevlos, 38, added that it doesn't surprise her that the company is doing what makes the most financial sense.

"Nobody wants to pay taxes," she said.

"They're in it to get richer," said Andre Perry, 48. Perry lives in the Bronx, and he said his hankering for Whoppers brings him to Burger King about three times a week. The news that the fast food chain might be trying to lower its tax rate wouldn't stop him from eating there, he said.

"It's not hurting my pocket," he said.

In fact, the possible plan has deepened some pockets on Wall Street. Burger King's stock price soared nearly 20 percent to $32.40 on Monday. Hedge fund titan Bill Ackman's Pershing Square Capital Management made about $161 million on Monday morning on its Burger King stake, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

I rolled my eyes when Walgreens attempted to do this earlier but come on now guys, enough is enough. We recognize the fact that corporations are people and the first thing you want to do is move away to avoid paying US taxes.

[Gelston]

Aren't the majority of Burger Kings in the US privately owned franchisees?

[Androidpk]

Boycotting means you actually give them your business to begin with.

[Back]

Are you going to boycott every American business that does this?

[Gelston]

According to Burger King's corporate website, 90% of all Burger Kings are individually owned and operated.

[Tgo01]

Boycotting means you actually give them your business to begin with.

True....:(


Are you going to boycott every American business that does this?

No, just the ones that are easy to avoid shopping at. Like Burger King.


According to Burger King's corporate website, 90% of all Burger Kings are individually owned and operated.

90%? That's a lot more than I would have guessed.

[Jeril]

Boycotting means you actually give them your business to begin with.

Agreed, I haven't been to a BK in years.

[Candor]

After being yelled at several months ago by some male couples holding a "kiss-in" in front of a Chick-Fil-A for daring to enter the restaurant, I am already boycotting Burger King as I devote most of my fast food business to Chick-Fil-A.

I don't care much if a business moves it's headquarters to another country to avoid paying US taxes. It's not against the law (as far as I know), and if the US tax rates were not so high, it wouldn't be an issue. If Congress would (brace yourself liberals)...gasp...spend less...perhaps a number of problems would be solved.

[Grey]

I don't care much if a business moves it's headquarters to another country to avoid paying US taxes. It's not against the law (as far as I know), and if the US tax rates were not so high, it wouldn't be an issue. If Congress would (brace yourself liberals)...gasp...spend less...perhaps a number of problems would be solved.

Exactly. If those morons could grasp basic economics, they'd understand that they've voluntarily created this "problem."

[Back]

Maybe it is not a matter of spending on social programs. Maybe it's about spending on personal projects? Maybe it's about defense contracting?

Maybe it's a tax? Maybe loopholes are the problem?

[Candor]

Maybe it is not a matter of spending on social programs. Maybe it's about spending on personal projects? Maybe it's about defense contracting?

Maybe it's a tax? Maybe loopholes are the problem?

I believe it is a mixture of overspending on many things, including social programs, personal projects, defense, loopholes, and a number of other issues.

I don't want to be accused of hijacking the thread, so I'll stop here. The point is that I think both liberals and conservatives need to come to a bargaining table with proposed cuts in their favorite programs.

[Grey]

Competitive tax rates with the rest of the world may actually raise government revenues. These things are very tough to estimate. It's not the specifics of the spending driving the anti-business attitudes though. It's political posturing based on class warfare.

[Candor]

Competitive tax rates with the rest of the world may actually raise government revenues.

Exactly.

[Back]

Competitive tax rates with the rest of the world may actually raise government revenues. These things are very tough to estimate. It's not the specifics of the spending driving the anti-business attitudes though. It's political posturing based on class warfare.

Careful. If you say that too loud some people get pissed off.

On both sides.

[poloneus]

Competitive tax rates with the rest of the world may actually raise government revenues. These things are very tough to estimate. It's not the specifics of the spending driving the anti-business attitudes though. It's political posturing based on class warfare.

Haven't I heard this logic before with Simu pricing?

[Candor]

Haven't I heard this logic before with Simu pricing?

I'm not going to argue with the owner of the shop I bought tons of herbs from before moving to Ta'Illistim.

Besides, Simu is it's own world :)

[Jace Solo]

Are you going to boycott every American business that does this?

It wouldn't be American at that point. It'd be Canadian.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-boycott_n_5710695.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D520384

I rolled my eyes when Walgreens attempted to do this earlier but come on now guys, enough is enough. We recognize the fact that corporations are people and the first thing you want to do is move away to avoid paying US taxes.

You have to wonder why companies would want to leave this country. If you owned a business and you could run that business in a place where you can make more money and be more successful.. why wouldn't you?

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/37.jpg

[Fallen]

Is it or is it not true that our effective tax rate is quite low? Do most larger businesses (Whatever qualifies as large 1k+ employees or whatever) pay 39.1% in taxes? Does Burger King Pay 39.1% in taxes?

I'm asking because this is what I hear in response to the argument that our tax rates are so high. I have no idea if said statement is actually true.

Quick google search: "Burger King's effective tax rate was 27.5 percent in 2013"

Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014% 2F08%2F25%2Fus-burger-kg-wld-tim-hortons-mergers-idUSKBN0GP00R20140825&ei=x4z8U_nfN7XMsQS7ooG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHC7DEJD2ejejKzcyLImIyLGmq-7g&sig2=b9U_6jKisXkviSgZfWdZQQ&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cWc

So that's actually below the average posted in PB's graph.

[Ker_Thwap]

Is it or is it not true that our effective tax rate is quite low? Do most larger businesses (Whatever qualifies as large 1k+ employees or whatever) pay 39.1% in taxes? Does Burger King Pay 39.1% in taxes?

I'm asking because this is what I hear in response to the argument that our tax rates are so high. I have no idea if said statement is actually true.

Quick google search: "Burger King's effective tax rate was 27.5 percent in 2013"

Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014% 2F08%2F25%2Fus-burger-kg-wld-tim-hortons-mergers-idUSKBN0GP00R20140825&ei=x4z8U_nfN7XMsQS7ooG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHC7DEJD2ejejKzcyLImIyLGmq-7g&sig2=b9U_6jKisXkviSgZfWdZQQ&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cWc

So that's actually below the average posted in PB's graph.

I don't want to speak for that chart, I have no idea where it's been. But, don't you suppose that other countries also have lower effective tax rates as well? Obviously, they're not going to move to Canada just to save 1%.

It is a balancing act of course, but I do get annoyed by the "tax the rich!" crowd. The rich have the easy ability to take their money elsewhere. Then they move the jobs and corporate headquarters overseas and the same crowd is dumbfounded how this could have happened, oh, it must be loopholes and defense spending! Ugh.

Anyway, this is all old old news. Pretty much every major company has overseas interests in which they juggle funds to lower tax rates and increase profits.

[Sorcasaurus]

I don't want to speak for that chart, I have no idea where it's been. But, don't you suppose that other countries also have lower effective tax rates as well? Obviously, they're not going to move to Canada just to save 1%.

It is a balancing act of course, but I do get annoyed by the "tax the rich!" crowd. The rich have the easy ability to take their money elsewhere. Then they move the jobs and corporate headquarters overseas and the same crowd is dumbfounded how this could have happened, oh, it must be loopholes and defense spending! Ugh.

Anyway, this is all old old news. Pretty much every major company has overseas interests in which they juggle funds to lower tax rates and increase profits.

I haven't read everything yet, but on the highest corporate tax in the industrialized world:

It's why corporate inversions have been on the rise in the past several years. It's also why companies like Apple would rather borrow money locally for stock buy backs than import any of their ridiculous 140ish billion dollar cash flow from overseas.

[Candor]

It is a balancing act of course, but I do get annoyed by the "tax the rich!" crowd. The rich have the easy ability to take their money elsewhere.

I have friends who commute 35 miles to work each day. They live in a neighboring state, just three miles over the border, largely to save on personal and property taxes. They are hardly alone with this approach.

[Parkbandit]

Is it or is it not true that our effective tax rate is quite low? Do most larger businesses (Whatever qualifies as large 1k+ employees or whatever) pay 39.1% in taxes? Does Burger King Pay 39.1% in taxes?

I'm asking because this is what I hear in response to the argument that our tax rates are so high. I have no idea if said statement is actually true.

Quick google search: "Burger King's effective tax rate was 27.5 percent in 2013"

Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014% 2F08%2F25%2Fus-burger-kg-wld-tim-hortons-mergers-idUSKBN0GP00R20140825&ei=x4z8U_nfN7XMsQS7ooG4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHC7DEJD2ejejKzcyLImIyLGmq-7g&sig2=b9U_6jKisXkviSgZfWdZQQ&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cWc

So that's actually below the average posted in PB's graph.

Correct.. our "effective" tax rate is actually lower.. we're "only" the 2nd highest (after Japan).

So the argument "That graph shows were the highest, but we're not! We're 2nd highest!" is a valid argument...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact

[Buckwheet]

Another reason to move to the flat or flatter tax. I find it ironic that they would consider moving to Canada for 15% and people like myself are asking for a single tax rate of around 12% for everyone. I am pretty sure the "flatter" tax doesn't even really require less programs or budget cuts.

If companies from high tax countries are willing to flee somewhere for a 15% rate..wouldn't they flock to the US for a 12-15% rate in droves?

[Keller]

Can anyone describe for me what an inversion is and why it saves a company money?

I'll hang up and listen.

[Tgo01]

Can anyone describe for me what an inversion is and why it saves a company money?

I'll hang up and listen.

When a corporation loves its money very much...

[Kembal]

I think Keller knows the answer to the question already. :) I'm surprised BK is pursuing an inversion, because it really doesn't get them anything.

PB, the Tax Foundation's point of how sales taxes and property taxes give us a higher effective tax rate is irrelevant to this discussion, because those would still need to be paid whether the company is based in the U.S. or not. They're not relevant to income taxation. Our effective corporate income tax rate is low.

That said, if the statutory rate were to be lowered and loopholes are closed at the same time, I could support it. It would have to be at least revenue-neutral though.

[Tgo01]

I'm surprised BK is pursuing an inversion, because it really doesn't get them anything.

There has to be a reason they are considering doing it then.

[Grey]

Can anyone describe for me what an inversion is and why it saves a company money?

I'll hang up and listen.

A company incorporated in the US pays high tax rates on foreign income. Companies incorporated outside of the US generally do not, depending on that country's laws. Because companies do not like to pay US taxes on monies earned overseas they either avoid repatriating it, invest again overseas, rinse and repeat, or they buy a company incorporated overseas in an area with favorable tax policies and give up their US corporate citizenship. It's just another tax strategy.

[SHAFT]

I've been boycotting Burger King for years, mostly due to the percentage of cockroach meat found in their burgers.

[Tgo01]

I've been boycotting Burger King for years, mostly due to the percentage of cockroach meat found in their burgers.

What's wrong with a little cockroach meat? That's pure protein.

[Buckwheet]

What's wrong with a little cockroach meat? That's pure protein.

Its not horsemeat like Ikea meatballs is the problem.

[Ker_Thwap]

I have friends who commute 35 miles to work each day. They live in a neighboring state, just three miles over the border, largely to save on personal and property taxes. They are hardly alone with this approach.

A 35 mile commute would be a walk in the park to many people. It's interesting with the NH/MA/ME dynamic up here. NH has property taxes. No income taxes. Mass and Maine tax anything that moves, including income earned out of state. Maine used to even tax your spouses income even if that spouse lives and works out of Maine.

Your state needs to get their act together.

[Kembal]

There has to be a reason they are considering doing it then.

I've read it's so that the Canadian government doesn't block the transaction (which they have the ability to, in cases of national interest). Now, generally, I'd think that'd apply to energy resources or something defense-related, but they do love Tim Horton's up there, apparently.

(obviously, I don't actually buy that explanation)

The main reason for an inversion isn't really present in this case. (gobs of cash stuck in overseas subsidiaries that they don't want taxed if brought to the US parent) The other main reason, lower tax rates, is basically 1 or 2 percentage points given BK's current effective tax rate.

I feel like there's something else to this deal.

[Wrathbringer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/burger-king-boycott_n_5710695.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D520384



I rolled my eyes when Walgreens attempted to do this earlier but come on now guys, enough is enough. We recognize the fact that corporations are people and the first thing you want to do is move away to avoid paying US taxes.

I say good for them. Starve the beast. I'll be patronizing them more often with my own tax free income now to show my support for this move.

[Tgo01]

The other main reason, lower tax rates, is basically 1 or 2 percentage points given BK's current effective tax rate.

People do crazy things for 1 or 2 percent, I don't see why it's out of the realm of possibilities for a corporation to do the same thing.

As far as I can tell nothing really changes in an inversion except where the company is technically located. I've read that the actual headquarters in the US usually still acts as the headquarters and everything.

So it's like all an on paper type of thing.

[Tgo01]

I say good for them. Starve the beast. I'll be patronizing them more often with my own tax free income now to show my support for this move.

Oh yeah? Well I'll just boycott them twice as hard!

[Candor]

A 35 mile commute would be a walk in the park to many people. It's interesting with the NH/MA/ME dynamic up here. NH has property taxes. No income taxes. Mass and Maine tax anything that moves, including income earned out of state. Maine used to even tax your spouses income even if that spouse lives and works out of Maine.

Your state needs to get their act together.

I did graduate work in Mass and became very aware of their tax philosophy (have they implemented a tax on breathing yet?).

I didn't realize Maine was so bad though.

[Candor]

A 35 mile commute would be a walk in the park to many people.

I guess I'm spoiled. My company is 2 miles from my house. I get annoyed if my commute takes 10 minutes.

The idea of a 35 mile commute, let alone anything longer, is something I have trouble comprehending.

[Parkbandit]

I've read it's so that the Canadian government doesn't block the transaction (which they have the ability to, in cases of national interest). Now, generally, I'd think that'd apply to energy resources or something defense-related, but they do love Tim Horton's up there, apparently.

(obviously, I don't actually buy that explanation)

The main reason for an inversion isn't really present in this case. (gobs of cash stuck in overseas subsidiaries that they don't want taxed if brought to the US parent) The other main reason, lower tax rates, is basically 1 or 2 percentage points given BK's current effective tax rate.

I feel like there's something else to this deal.

They are choosing Canada because they are merging with Tim Horton's. They probably have synergies like most mergers and they want to take advantage of the savings they can create in combining redundant departments.. but there is a significant savings they can realize in their taxes by moving the entire operations to Canada.

[SHAFT]

What's wrong with a little cockroach meat? That's pure protein.

If I wish to eat cockroach, I know where to go. I used to go to Burger King expecting grade A prime beef in my burger. When I read the report that their burgers contained cockroach meat, I felt cheated. My love of all things whopper and such quickly faded, and I was left with a sour, scorned feeling. Shook me to my very core.

I have yet to forgive and forget.

[Candor]

If I wish to eat cockroach, I know where to go. I used to go to Burger King expecting grade A prime beef in my burger. When I read the report that their burgers contained cockroach meat, I felt cheated. My love of all things whopper and such quickly faded, and I was left with a sour, scorned feeling. Shook me to my very core.

I have yet to forgive and forget.

Wait a minute, I thought you were joking. What report are you referring to?

[Parkbandit]

People do crazy things for 1 or 2 percent, I don't see why it's out of the realm of possibilities for a corporation to do the same thing.

As far as I can tell nothing really changes in an inversion except where the company is technically located. I've read that the actual headquarters in the US usually still acts as the headquarters and everything.

So it's like all an on paper type of thing.

Let's say you live in northern California.. right by the border of Oregon.. and you are looking to purchase a new vehicle. You have your eye on this sweet ass Bentley that costs $100,000.

Are you saying that you wouldn't go up to Oregon and buy that car.. saving yourself a few grand?

DISCLAIMER: I don't even know if Oregon has laws stopping this from happening and I don't know if vehicles have a special type of tax... and I don't care. I know my sister (a die hard liberal) used to shop in Pennsylvania every week to save money.. and she is also probably now against Burger King being "unpatriotic" because she's like most liberals: A flaming hypocrite.

[Tgo01]

Let's say you live in northern California.. right by the border of Oregon.. and you are looking to purchase a new vehicle. You have your eye on this sweet ass Bentley that costs $100,000.

Are you saying that you wouldn't go up to Oregon and buy that car.. saving yourself a few grand?

DISCLAIMER: I don't even know if Oregon has laws stopping this from happening and I don't know if vehicles have a special type of tax... and I don't care. I know my sister (a die hard liberal) used to shop in Pennsylvania every week to save money.. and she is also probably now against Burger King being "unpatriotic" because she's like most liberals: A flaming hypocrite.

I think most states have agreements with most other states that if someone buys a car in their state but registers it in another state then the state where the car was bought collects taxes on behalf of the state where the car is going to be registered.

Regardless I don't have a problem with this because at least that money is being kept in the US.

I just think it's pretty shitty for a company to use all of the benefits afforded to them of growing their business in the US then as soon as they are in a position where they can just up and move their headquarters to another country to save money on taxes.

Don't get me wrong; I feel the same way about people. You live in the US where you're free to pursue your education, grow your business or climb up the corporate ladder, make a lot of money, live a nice life then it's "Oh wait, Mexico is cheaper? I'm there!"

Then these same people still feel entitled to protection as US citizens because they are US citizens and if Mexico ever got so bad that they were rounding up all non native Mexican citizens they would be the first calling up the US government to come get them out of the country.

Don't mind me; this is just a pet peeve of mine.

[Wrathbringer]

I think most states have agreements with most other states that if someone buys a car in their state but registers it in another state then the state where the car was bought collects taxes on behalf of the state where the car is going to be registered.

Regardless I don't have a problem with this because at least that money is being kept in the US.

I just think it's pretty shitty for a company to use all of the benefits afforded to them of growing their business in the US then as soon as they are in a position where they can just up and move their headquarters to another country to save money on taxes.

Don't get me wrong; I feel the same way about people. You live in the US where you're free to pursue your education, grow your business or climb up the corporate ladder, make a lot of money, live a nice life then it's "Oh wait, Mexico is cheaper? I'm there!"

Then these same people still feel entitled to protection as US citizens because they are US citizens and if Mexico ever got so bad that they were rounding up all non native Mexican citizens they would be the first calling up the US government to come get them out of the country.

Don't mind me; this is just a pet peeve of mine.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. If the tax policy provides an incentive to do something, people would be foolish not to take advantage. Besides, if government weren't such a gluttonous financial pig, they wouldn't have to steal so much of our money. No one wants to pay any more taxes than they're forced to pay- even the liberals, which makes them hypocrites as pb so aptly mentioned.

[JackWhisper]

I don't know about cockroach meat, but I do know that Burger King illegally contracted a Polish meat supplier that mixed horse meat in the rest of it's meat, and then sold it to Burger King chains in Europe. They also ship overseas. We don't get all our meat domestically for Burger King. Thus, at some point, America ate horses at Burger King. I stopped eating there about eight years ago when I got a half deep fried rat tail in my fry box. No joke, no lie, not even close to embellishing. It was disgusting. I took a picture of it on the phone and made a huge scene in the middle of the restaurant. I also drove over their lawn as I left. I was upset. It was that bad.

[Tgo01]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

I'm gonna hate everyone just in case!

[Atlanteax]

Another article suggesting that the BK+TH merger may be 'legit' about synergies/competitiveness and not about the tax inversion strategy

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/burger-king-wants-deal-tim-hortons

[Grey]

Don't mind me; this is just a pet peeve of mine.

What benefits are US companies getting for their overseas operations that Canada, Ireland or any place else isn't providing?

[Keller]

A company incorporated in the US pays high tax rates on foreign income. Companies incorporated outside of the US generally do not, depending on that country's laws. Because companies do not like to pay US taxes on monies earned overseas they either avoid repatriating it, invest again overseas, rinse and repeat, or they buy a company incorporated overseas in an area with favorable tax policies and give up their US corporate citizenship. It's just another tax strategy.

Pretty decent description.

Inversions are just the newest version of outbound transactions. Like its predecessors, it will be shut down.

I was hoping that one of the liberals would have answered this and said that inverted companies avoid paying taxes, which is blatantly false. Inversions just remove from the US tax net a company's foreign earnings.

[Keller]

What benefits are US companies getting for their overseas operations that Canada, Ireland or any place else isn't providing?

Given the rich natural resources, Canada would be Putin's bitch if they weren't our neighbors.

[Grey]

Given the rich natural resources, Canada would be Putin's bitch if they weren't our neighbors.

Don't sell them short. I still think of them as bitches.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't want to speak for that chart, I have no idea where it's been. But, don't you suppose that other countries also have lower effective tax rates as well? Obviously, they're not going to move to Canada just to save 1%.

It is a balancing act of course, but I do get annoyed by the "tax the rich!" crowd. The rich have the easy ability to take their money elsewhere. Then they move the jobs and corporate headquarters overseas and the same crowd is dumbfounded how this could have happened, oh, it must be loopholes and defense spending! Ugh.Speaking for myself, I'm "tax the rich!" because it works. You always hear people (human or corporate) threaten to leave, threaten to do this, threaten to do that, but when the taxes actually go up the net effect is more revenue.

People are incapable of rapidly or accurately calculating the effects of courses of action, and even if they were they are capable of choosing to go against the optimal path, and even if they weren't there is more to any situation than income taxes. You know a guy who crosses state lines to buy gas. I know what happened to the country for the past 70 years. Which of us has a better sample size?

[Ker_Thwap]

Speaking for myself, I'm "tax the rich!" because it works. You always hear people (human or corporate) threaten to leave, threaten to do this, threaten to do that, but when the taxes actually go up the net effect is more revenue.

People are incapable of rapidly or accurately calculating the effects of courses of action, and even if they were they are capable of choosing to go against the optimal path, and even if they weren't there is more to any situation than income taxes. You know a guy who crosses state lines to buy gas. I know what happened to the country for the past 70 years. Which of us has a better sample size?

You're seriously annoying. Why in the living hell would you infer that I based my statement on a guy who crosses state lines to buy gas? Because Candor mentioned something, and I responded? Do you believe I'm capable of traveling into the future, and then returning to include that in my statement?

You read some data on the internet. I've worked with international corporations as part of my job, had conversations with IRS auditors, have several relatives who are attorneys involved in international corporate tax law for monstrous corporations. I also have access to the same data you have. I'd say I have the the better sample size, and the more pertinent data, and the ability to translate it into meaningful relationships in the real world.

How the hell is increased revenue a pertinent measure? SURELY your not suggesting that there's only one variable in this time frame? If your point is to piss me off, you've temporarily succeeded, but there's just too much bullshit you throw out to take you seriously. I consider it a character flaw that I even answer you.

Consider why you hear the people say "I'm leaving" and then they don't follow through. The ones you hear are the mouthy ones who want attention. The ones you don't hear are the ones who quietly take their business to Switzerland, Ireland and Bermuda hoping that no one notices and continues to buy their widgets.

[Grey]

I consider it a character flaw that I even answer you.

This had me laughing. I've thought the same myself.

[Latrinsorm]

You're seriously annoying. Why in the living hell would you infer that I based my statement on a guy who crosses state lines to buy gas? Because Candor mentioned something, and I responded? Do you believe I'm capable of traveling into the future, and then returning to include that in my statement?I've seen no double blind studies disproving that hypothesis.
You read some data on the internet. I've worked with international corporations as part of my job, had conversations with IRS auditors, have several relatives who are attorneys involved in international corporate tax law for monstrous corporations. I also have access to the same data you have. I'd say I have the the better sample size, and the more pertinent data, and the ability to translate it into meaningful relationships in the real world.

How the hell is increased revenue a pertinent measure? SURELY your not suggesting that there's only one variable in this time frame?This is the fundamental question with all data, yes. No matter how many times a relationship is observed, it could still technically be a coincidence. When a theory goes 4 for 4 for the last four major eras, I can understand how someone can say "it could still be a fluke", four's not that big a sample. I can't understand how someone can believe the opposite of the data, though. Not enough proof for the positive is not in itself proof of the negative.
Consider why you hear the people say "I'm leaving" and then they don't follow through. The ones you hear are the mouthy ones who want attention. The ones you don't hear are the ones who quietly take their business to Switzerland, Ireland and Bermuda hoping that no one notices and continues to buy their widgets.Like I said, it's not a question of what people say. People can't be trusted. I'll look at the bottom line.

[Ker_Thwap]

This is the fundamental question with all data, yes. No matter how many times a relationship is observed, it could still technically be a coincidence. When a theory goes 4 for 4 for the last four major eras, I can understand how someone can say "it could still be a fluke", four's not that big a sample. I can't understand how someone can believe the opposite of the data, though. Not enough proof for the positive is not in itself proof of the negative.

Yes, that's a charming platitude, but let's not attribute it to my statements. As you've stated before, it's not necessarily linear that more tax equals more revenue. There's a balance, like I said in my initial post and you chose to ignore.

Bah, editing: When you used the "it's not necessarily linear" I have no memory of the actual topic. I ended up mixing sentences in a botched cut and paste, and this is what resulted. I don't want to attribute the wrong quote

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, that's a charming platitude, but let's not attribute it to my statements. As you've stated before, it's not necessarily linear that more tax equals more revenue. There's a balance, like I said in my initial post and you chose to ignore.

Bah, editing: When you used the "it's not necessarily linear" I have no memory of the actual topic. I ended up mixing sentences in a botched cut and paste, and this is what resulted. I don't want to attribute the wrong quoteThere is a balance, and the data demonstrates that our current scheme is way, way, way below the point where more tax doesn't equal more revenue. I went back and checked your original post and don't see anything I ignored. Ironically this false accusation is a convenient way for you to ignore the valid points I made, though. :)

[Gelston]

WTF has this thread devolved into.

[Tgo01]

WTF has this thread devolved into.

Latrin's playground.

[Ker_Thwap]

There is a balance, and the data demonstrates that our current scheme is way, way, way below the point where more tax doesn't equal more revenue. I went back and checked your original post and don't see anything I ignored. Ironically this false accusation is a convenient way for you to ignore the valid points I made, though. :)

Don't confuse factual/valid with pertinent. It's a rookie mistake.

[Gelston]

Chicken Fries.

[Kembal]

They are choosing Canada because they are merging with Tim Horton's. They probably have synergies like most mergers and they want to take advantage of the savings they can create in combining redundant departments.. but there is a significant savings they can realize in their taxes by moving the entire operations to Canada.

I don't think so on the tax savings. That New Yorker article linked in this thread says both companies have the same effective tax rate.

Also, if you've never done business in Canada, GST/QST (Canada has a VAT tax system) is a pain. (though economically efficient!) Branding is very different for both companies, so marketing will be separate. I'm sure there will be a few redundant departments cut, but I don't think it'll be much.

To me, this seems like a bad deal for BK. Tim Horton might figure out how to go global with this though.

[Jarvan]

I wonder if all the liberals are boycotting Apple..

[Methais]

I wonder if all the liberals are boycotting Apple..

I'm sure they'll do it in a similar fashion to how they ate at McDonald's and got coffee from Starbucks while protesting big corporations during Occupy Wall Street while tweeting on their iPhones about how they were making a difference.

[Gelston]

Don't forget how much money that V for Vendetta mask company made.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure they'll do it in a similar fashion to how they ate at McDonald's and got coffee from Starbucks while protesting big corporations during Occupy Wall Street while tweeting on their iPhones about how they were making a difference.

You just gave me an idea! Sponsors for protesters!

It would be awesome.

Protesting about police brutality? Nike sponsor! "Run away from them pigs fast with these shoes!"

Protesting about the war in Iraq? Apple sponsor! "We are making our voices heard by utilizing social media!"

Protesting against the 1%? Wal-Mart sponsor! "Only the 99% shop at Wal-Mart!"

[Taernath]

Does that mean Tim Horton's on base? I've heard it's pretty good.

[Warriorbird]

I wonder if all the liberals are boycotting Apple..

I just boycott them because they're overpriced.

[Jarvan]

I just boycott them because they're overpriced.

Another word ending moment.. cause I agree. I also do the same thing.

[Androidpk]

I just boycott them because they're overpriced.

And it's shitty food.

[Gelston]

And it's shitty food.

Apple electronics do make shitty food.

[Jarvan]

Apple electronics do make shitty food.

No one ever accused PK of being smart..

or knowing what's going on.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Correct.. our "effective" tax rate is actually lower.. we're "only" the 2nd highest (after Japan).

So the argument "That graph shows were the highest, but we're not! We're 2nd highest!" is a valid argument...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact

Just to add a little to this. It isn't the billion dollar fortune 500 companies that pay 39.1% taxes - it's the up and coming mom and pop businesses that are on the cusp of being successful, but our country currently likes to penalize success, so we make it harder to actually do so.

[Warriorbird]

Just to add a little to this. It isn't the billion dollar fortune 500 companies that pay 39.1% taxes - it's the up and coming mom and pop businesses that are on the cusp of being successful, but our country currently likes to penalize success, so we make it harder to actually do so.

I'd say it's something other than that. What you're saying isn't that success is penalized but a start is penalized. "Success" often leads to very little paid in effective taxes. Companies lobby for it to stay this way of course. The "free market" loves to eliminate competition.

[Tgo01]

We won! (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/26/burger-kings-acquiring-canadian-doughnut-chain-tim-hortons/20952608/?icid=maing-grid7|maing15|dl22|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D520867)


Burger King announced Tuesday that it purchased Canadian doughnut maker Tim Horton's but will keep its headquarters in the U.S. after outrage over speculation it would move up north to avoid taxes.

Experts believed the Miami-based company wanted to acquire the chain to move corporate offices to Canada because of significantly lower tax rates, but the nation's second-largest fast food chain shot down the rumors in a Facebook post.

"We hear you. We're not moving, we're just growing and finding ways to serve you better," said the Facebook post. "Our headquarters will remain in Miami where we were founded more than 60 years ago and... BKC will continue to pay all of our federal, state and local U.S. taxes."

The two entities will have common ownership but continue to be run as separate brands, the chain said.

Speculation ran rampant the move was to avoid high American taxes because of the gulf in tax rates between the two countries.

The combined amount of taxes between the federal, state and local levels in the U.S. average about 40 percent, according to the Washington Post. Similar corporate taxes in Canada add up to a measly 26 percent.

Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the U.S. ranks first in taxes and Canada ranks below even Luxembourg, a European enclave known mainly for being a tax and banking haven.

A 14 percent discount on taxes for a behemoth the size of the combined Burger King – Tim Horton's would have allowed The King to line his royal pockets with enough savings to potentially pay for the acquisition in only a few years.

http://portal.aolcdn.com/o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/6ba8529820a31af027f48584759b6641/200643977/640x384xTax-rate-Tax-rate_chartbuilder.png.pagespeed.ic.WoUPUy73ia.png

About 25 percent of the roughly $10 billion takeover is being financed by billion Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffet, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This curiously put the "Oracle of Omaha" in a position to potentially help an American company avoid paying taxes after decades of saying everyone, companies included, needs to pay their fair share.

Burger King's move up north would have been part of a growing trend of U.S. corporations fleeing the States to avoid the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.

Dozens of companies have reincorporated abroad since the 1980s as they look to avoid Uncle Sam's growing tax burden. The moves started as a relative trickle, but have become more of a flow in the last decade.

Burger King would have been the 48th company to immigrate abroad – known as a corporate inversion – since 2005, according to Congressional Research Service data compiled earlier this year by the Post.

More than 70 have made the move since 1983.

That's not to say taxes are the only reason Burger King may shift its headquarters up north.

Breakfast menus are also the most rapidly growing segment of the fast food business, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the industry's revenue growth from 2007 to 2012, according to trade publication Burger Chain.

But that doesn't mean the company did not at least consider the benefits of a lower tax bill despite Tuesday's announcement.

[Gelston]

Rofl, they never planned on moving in the first place is what they are saying, right?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

We won! (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/26/burger-kings-acquiring-canadian-doughnut-chain-tim-hortons/20952608/?icid=maing-grid7|maing15|dl22|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D520867)

The fact that politicians are considering making laws to prevent inversions instead of addressing the root cause means we lost though.

[Tgo01]

Rofl, they never planned on moving in the first place is what they are saying, right?

Sure, that's what they're saying after we won.


The fact that politicians are considering making laws to prevent inversions instead of addressing the root cause means we lost though.

Hey, paying taxes in patriotic.

[Gelston]

I don't consider us "winning", or even my involvement in it. I didn't eat at BK anyways because its location here sucks. It is on a street that you can only turn right onto.

[Warriorbird]

Rofl, they never planned on moving in the first place is what they are saying, right?

This does have the air of "Announce merger in dramatic way that gets people stirred up then generates goodwill."

[Androidpk]

No one ever accused PK of being smart.

Wrong. Plenty of people have.

[crb]

Can anyone describe for me what an inversion is and why it saves a company money?

I'll hang up and listen.

The US is unique in the world in that we tax worldwide earnings, pretty much every other country on the planet taxes territorial earnings.

For instance, Tim Hortons is taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, and taxed in the US on earnings made in the US. Because Tim Hortons is a Canadian company.

Burger King, in contrast, is taxed in the US on earnings in the US, and taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, AND taxed in the US on earnings made in canada if they try to repatriate any of those canadian dollars to reinvest in the US. Because the US is stupid.

So every company that does an inversion still pays taxes on every dime they make in US territory, what they're doing is trying to get to where they can use their revenue from say China for general corporate strategic purposes WITHOUT paying US tax on it. They're not skipping out on paying taxes on money they make in the US, they're trying to avoid paying US taxes on money they make overseas, the US being the only developed country in the world that tries to tax our homegrown companies on money they make overseas.

Which is really, really, stupid when you think about it, it gives foreign companies a competitive advantage on our home turf over domestic companies.

In many cases the US is not really losing out on tax revenue, since companies have been keeping the money overseas and not repatriating it hoping out for corporate tax reform, but I guess they just got tired of waiting. Ultimately it isn't a big deal, just another sign of the times.

[Thondalar]

The "free market" loves to eliminate competition.

This is so wrong. Not that we've actually had a free market any time this century, but it's the people already in power using petty government regulations to keep innovation out of the market. Look at all the special licensing you have to have almost everywhere in order to be a hairdresser or taxi driver. They gussy it up by saying these regulations protect the consumer, but all they're really doing is protecting the establishment.

[Warriorbird]

This is so wrong. Not that we've actually had a free market any time this century, but it's the people already in power using petty government regulations to keep innovation out of the market. Look at all the special licensing you have to have almost everywhere in order to be a hairdresser or taxi driver. They gussy it up by saying these regulations protect the consumer, but all they're really doing is protecting the establishment.

Lobbyists don't exist. You're right!

Seriously though. Much like anarchy breeds government a free market breeds an unfree market. We need careful regulation to prevent it.

[Thondalar]

...a free market breeds an unfree market. We need careful regulation to prevent it.

Jealousy breeds an unfree market. It's fine. Keep destroying our economy and driving away businesses with your "careful regulation". Maybe after this house of cards collapses we can pick ourselves up out of the rubble and start over.

[JackWhisper]

Holy SHIT.

Gelston is Zoolander's mortal enemy?!

Let me guess. You can't turn right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_EacLppMW0

Guy knows ALLLL about the right-only street!

[Warriorbird]

Jealousy breeds an unfree market. It's fine. Keep destroying our economy and driving away businesses with your "careful regulation". Maybe after this house of cards collapses we can pick ourselves up out of the rubble and start over.

Companies act to prevent little companies from rising. You are willfully blind if you don't see it. I purposefully suggested earlier in this thread that taxes should be lower for these companies than established businesses but you're clinging to dogma right now because you can't cope with the idea that the free market is assaulted by the very companies that make it up.

Why did the Progressives have to exist? Monopolies were crushing our country under your beloved laissez faire economics.

[Sorcasaurus]

The US is unique in the world in that we tax worldwide earnings, pretty much every other country on the planet taxes territorial earnings.

For instance, Tim Hortons is taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, and taxed in the US on earnings made in the US. Because Tim Hortons is a Canadian company.

Burger King, in contrast, is taxed in the US on earnings in the US, and taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, AND taxed in the US on earnings made in canada if they try to repatriate any of those canadian dollars to reinvest in the US. Because the US is stupid.

So every company that does an inversion still pays taxes on every dime they make in US territory, what they're doing is trying to get to where they can use their revenue from say China for general corporate strategic purposes WITHOUT paying US tax on it. They're not skipping out on paying taxes on money they make in the US, they're trying to avoid paying US taxes on money they make overseas, the US being the only developed country in the world that tries to tax our homegrown companies on money they make overseas.

Which is really, really, stupid when you think about it, it gives foreign companies a competitive advantage on our home turf over domestic companies.

In many cases the US is not really losing out on tax revenue, since companies have been keeping the money overseas and not repatriating it hoping out for corporate tax reform, but I guess they just got tired of waiting. Ultimately it isn't a big deal, just another sign of the times.


Just to add a little to this - When you see headlines about companies moving HQ outside the US, there's a good chance it's for this purpose. It's done with mergers and buyouts, and they sometimes call it a restructuring.

It's dumb and whoever is trying to preserve the system should feel bad about themselves. To continue with the apple example, in one of their more recent stock buy backs they borrowed about 30-40 billion dollars despite the company having 140 billion in cash flow. When asked why they borrowed money for it, (I forget which exec) said they'd rather pay the 1-3% interest on a loan than 30%+ in taxes on the same amount.

[Ker_Thwap]

Thondalar: This is so wrong. Not that we've actually had a free market any time this century, but it's the people already in power using petty government regulations to keep innovation out of the market. Look at all the special licensing you have to have almost everywhere in order to be a hairdresser or taxi driver. They gussy it up by saying these regulations protect the consumer, but all they're really doing is protecting the establishment.

WB: Lobbyists don't exist. You're right!

Seriously though. Much like anarchy breeds government a free market breeds an unfree market. We need careful regulation to prevent it.

Are you two arguing about agreeing? Lobbyists are the mechanism by which the government protects the establishment, one way they do this is through "careful" regulation.

[Warriorbird]

Thondalar: This is so wrong. Not that we've actually had a free market any time this century, but it's the people already in power using petty government regulations to keep innovation out of the market. Look at all the special licensing you have to have almost everywhere in order to be a hairdresser or taxi driver. They gussy it up by saying these regulations protect the consumer, but all they're really doing is protecting the establishment.

WB: Lobbyists don't exist. You're right!

Seriously though. Much like anarchy breeds government a free market breeds an unfree market. We need careful regulation to prevent it.

Are you two arguing about agreeing? Lobbyists are the mechanism by which the government protects the establishment, one way they do this is through "careful" regulation.

Destruction of the "free market" comes from two sides. He only sees one of them. I see both, though I think Thondalar, SHM, yourself and others overstate one of them. So yes, there's agreement there.

[Ker_Thwap]

Destruction of the "free market" comes from two sides. He only sees one of them. I see both, though I think Thondalar, SHM, yourself and others overstate one of them. So yes, there's agreement there.

Yeah, the thing is, you're way too quick to jump into other people's heads and tell everyone what we're thinking and what our beliefs are in every single circumstance.

I know that I have all kinds of differing ideas on various economic principles and governments, applied in practice and in theory, both on moral or purely pragmatic grounds. I'll occasionally post when a specific combination of events strikes my fancy; I'm quite frankly amazed that you claim to know what's in my head in this circumstance. I can't speak for Thondalar or SHM of course.

[Parkbandit]

Destruction of the "free market" comes from two sides. He only sees one of them. I see both, though I think Thondalar, SHM, yourself and others overstate one of them. So yes, there's agreement there.

You are the pillar of unbias posting here... no way do you blame companies for most of society's economic problems...

We should all strive to be just like you....

:lolwave:

[Keller]

The US is unique in the world in that we tax worldwide earnings, pretty much every other country on the planet taxes territorial earnings.

For instance, Tim Hortons is taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, and taxed in the US on earnings made in the US. Because Tim Hortons is a Canadian company.

Burger King, in contrast, is taxed in the US on earnings in the US, and taxed in canada on earnings made in canada, AND taxed in the US on earnings made in canada if they try to repatriate any of those canadian dollars to reinvest in the US. Because the US is stupid.

So every company that does an inversion still pays taxes on every dime they make in US territory, what they're doing is trying to get to where they can use their revenue from say China for general corporate strategic purposes WITHOUT paying US tax on it. They're not skipping out on paying taxes on money they make in the US, they're trying to avoid paying US taxes on money they make overseas, the US being the only developed country in the world that tries to tax our homegrown companies on money they make overseas.

Which is really, really, stupid when you think about it, it gives foreign companies a competitive advantage on our home turf over domestic companies.

In many cases the US is not really losing out on tax revenue, since companies have been keeping the money overseas and not repatriating it hoping out for corporate tax reform, but I guess they just got tired of waiting. Ultimately it isn't a big deal, just another sign of the times.

A few notes - the US is not the only country that taxes worldwide income.

BK's tax paid on Canadian income is credited with taxes paid in Canada. Many companies secure large tax refunds by manipulating their foreign tax credits. So it would actually HURT many multi-nationals tax-effected net revenue for the US to stop taxing worldwide income.

Foreign companies don't have any competitive advantage via tax in the US over domestic companies. Both pay U.S. corporate income tax on income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business (e.g., income earned in the US).

Inversions present a lot of opportunities outside of moving foreign-earned income outside of the US tax net. Most notably, the US can move its IP (which generally is the most valuable asset it owns) out of the US. That's probably the single biggest factor in inversions - the ability to outbound U.S. assets without paying taxes. People focus on the ability to "repatriate" cash - but those people are missing the forest for the trees.

[Latrinsorm]

Jealousy breeds an unfree market.I'm not sure you thought this comment through. WB's argument is that if we start with a free market, by definition someone will succeed and become rich, so by definition they will become powerful, and (in their jealousy) some will inevitably use that power to destroy or maybe just maim competitors. They do not need any government to do this; in fact, only the government has proven able to stop these uses of power without bloody conflict. It also so happens that our kind of government is especially good at doing this and not doing the opposite. It used to be worse when we let state legislatures elect the Senate, I don't know what asshole came up with that idea but it's gone now anyway.

Consider all the fears you have about my perfect universal surveillance plan. You insist over and over that the government is made of people and they will abuse that power. Can't you see how companies are made up of people, and will do the same? The free market by definition will not keep people in balance, because the free market does not reset after each round of competition. Your only hope as an individual is to pit the inevitable rich against an eternally equal foe, and because it can't be done economically it must be done either through force of arms or force of law. Your good buddy Thomas Jefferson really liked the former path, probably because he never got within 100 miles of a martial conflict, but history tells us the latter is a safer bet.

[Warriorbird]

You are the pillar of unbias posting here... no way do you blame companies for most of society's economic problems...

We should all strive to be just like you....

:lolwave:

I just suggested that both companies and the government were responsible for the destruction of the free market. It must be difficult being unable to read.

[Parkbandit]

I just suggested that both companies and the government were responsible for the destruction of the free market. It must be difficult being unable to read.

You have a posting history on this forum that says you are anything but the unbiased pillar you are attempting to craft yourself out as.

[Thondalar]

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban left school with no money and no job prospects. He managed to become a billionaire by creating several businesses from scratch. I asked him if he could do it again today, and he said, "No ... now there's so much paperwork and regulation, so many things that you have to sign up for that you have a better chance of getting in trouble than you do of being successful."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/30/american-dreaming-stifled-by-government#ixzz3BctiJbqP

[Methais]

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/30/american-dreaming-stifled-by-government#ixzz3BctiJbqP

Sounds about right.

[Wrathbringer]

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/30/american-dreaming-stifled-by-government#ixzz3BctiJbqP

Yay government!

[Warriorbird]

You have a posting history on this forum that says you are anything but the unbiased pillar you are attempting to craft yourself out as.

There's a big difference from holding a particular political affiliation and understanding that different forces threaten the freedom of the market.


http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/30/american-dreaming-stifled-by-government#ixzz3BctiJbqP

I tend to think that the quite rich Stossel and extremely rich Cuban maybe protesteth too much to try to sway policy and preach to a choir. People have become billionaires from scratch much more recently.

[Thondalar]

Sounds about right.

It's totally right. I really don't think most Americans understand what is going on right under their noses. We elect people to positions of power, and then just trust that they'll do the right thing. Even when we have overwhelming evidence that they aren't, we somehow placate ourselves with the idea that we can change things on election day. Ask yourself why IRS agents are training with "assault" rifles. Can you come up with a logical reason? The Chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee is looking in to it, I wonder what he'll find.

[Thondalar]

I tend to think that the quite rich Stossel and extremely rich Cuban maybe protesteth too much to try to sway policy and preach to a choir. People have become billionaires from scratch much more recently.

So you don't think the thousands of pages of regulations, many contradictory to each other depending on which agency enforces them, has a negative effect on a person's chances of living the American Dream? People have become billionaires from scratch much more recently...who?

[Keller]

Can anyone explain to me why regulations exist? What do they do, who authorizes their existence, and why do they do that?

[Methais]

Can anyone explain to me why regulations exist? What do they do, who authorizes their existence, and why do they do that?

It's to protect us from ourselves because only government knows what's best for us!

[Keller]

I don't know.

Hopefully someone can help us and explain it.

[Warriorbird]

So you don't think the thousands of pages of regulations, many contradictory to each other depending on which agency enforces them, has a negative effect on a person's chances of living the American Dream? People have become billionaires from scratch much more recently...who?

You're missing the point again. Regulations can certainly stifle businesses. I'm not disagreeing with that. Simultaneously businesses can too, and one of the best protections from that happening IS government.

There's quite a few who made it more recently than Cuban. 1999 is fifteen years ago. Zuckerberg, Bezos, and many other Americans are more recent.

[Thondalar]

Hopefully someone can help us and explain it.

I see what you're trying to get at, and I'm going to nip it in the bud. Nobody is saying ALL regulations are bad. Some amount of regulation is necessary, simply because people are people. To this end I agree with the Sherman Act almost completely, and to lesser degrees the Clayton and FTC Acts. I'm almost completely against the Robinson-Patman Act as well as the Celler-Kefauver Act.

The point is that government has done what government does. It's never satisfied. It keeps getting bigger and bigger unless the people put a stop to it.

[Thondalar]

You're missing the point again. Regulations can certainly stifle businesses. I'm not disagreeing with that. Simultaneously businesses can too, and one of the best protections from that happening IS government.

There's quite a few who made it more recently than Cuban. 1999 is fifteen years ago. Zuckerberg, Bezos, and many other Americans are more recent.

The effect of government stifling in the last 100 years is WAY more evident than "business stifling". Zuckerberg and Bezos invented things that didn't exist before, they didn't open a small business and work hard to grow it into a successful enterprise. These are two completely different things.

[Thondalar]

I'm sure with a touch of effort you can think of stifling businesses. The easiest one to think of is Walmart.

Neither created something that hadn't existed before. Way to shift those goalposts though.

By your "terms" Cuban wouldn't count either.

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't shift anything...the original quote was from Cuban, who didn't invent anything or create something that didn't exist before. He started a business. That's my entire point. Unless you do invent something that's never been done before, just starting a business is almost out of the question now.

As to Wal-Mart, let's see...Costco came into being many years after Wal-mart, and they seem to be doing just fine. Wal-mart itself came into being several years after Target...60 years, in fact. Apparently they did it better, and deserve their position.

[Latrinsorm]

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/30/american-dreaming-stifled-by-government#ixzz3BctiJbqPCui bono, Thondalar? You have some experience with human beings, is a human being more likely to advocate for another out of the goodness of their heart or advocate for their own personal self-interest?

You may not have experience with Mark Cuban specifically, so let's look at exactly how he made his billions: he sold a website in 1999. Obviously he wouldn't expect to have the same success today, but how exactly is the government to blame for that? Certainly we agree that bubbles are bad, and I think we would also agree that the government could not engineer a continuous series of bubbles even if it wanted to, built as they are on organic hysteria.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't shift anything...the original quote was from Cuban, who didn't invent anything or create something that didn't exist before. He started a business. That's my entire point. Unless you do invent something that's never been done before, just starting a business is almost out of the question now.

As to Wal-Mart, let's see...Costco came into being many years after Wal-mart, and they seem to be doing just fine. Wal-mart itself came into being several years after Target...60 years, in fact. Apparently they did it better, and deserve their position.

They both started businesses. You claimed they didn't to act like it was tougher for people to become billionaires now than in 1999.

As for Walmart you have this failing of only looking at large businesses. The Walmart onslaught on small business is still palpable.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I didn't shift anything...the original quote was from Cuban, who didn't invent anything or create something that didn't exist before. He started a business. That's my entire point. Unless you do invent something that's never been done before, just starting a business is almost out of the question now.

As to Wal-Mart, let's see...Costco came into being many years after Wal-mart, and they seem to be doing just fine. Wal-mart itself came into being several years after Target...60 years, in fact. Apparently they did it better, and deserve their position.You've got to watch your tenses, though. Wal-Mart DID it better, therefore no one can compete with them NOW... but that doesn't necessarily mean Wal-Mart DOES anything better. It's exactly like sports contracts, you get paid today for what you did years ago, this can obviously become hugely inefficient (c.f. Kobe). This is the inevitable result of the free market, and one that stifles competition far more effectively than any government regulation.

[Thondalar]

Cui bono, Thondalar? You have some experience with human beings, is a human being more likely to advocate for another out of the goodness of their heart or advocate for their own personal self-interest?

More likely? In general, their own self-interest. But that opens a unique can of worms...what exactly is that self-interest? I'm trying to figure out what this portion of your post even relates to...how does it benefit either Stossel or Cuban to say that current regulations are stifling to business development? Stossel, I could see, because that's pretty much his bread-and-butter now, but I'm not sure what Cuban's motivation would be. Also, these aren't even nearly the only two people saying these same things. I could give you at least 10 personal accounts, and that's only in little-old Lakeland, Florida.


You may not have experience with Mark Cuban specifically, so let's look at exactly how he made his billions: he sold a website in 1999. Obviously he wouldn't expect to have the same success today, but how exactly is the government to blame for that?

While Cuban initially made money from an internet start-up, he used that money to finance more mundane business ventures in other areas that eventually grew his wealth into what it is today. I'm assuming that this is what he's talking about, but that's just a (somewhat) educated guess.


Certainly we agree that bubbles are bad, and I think we would also agree that the government could not engineer a continuous series of bubbles even if it wanted to, built as they are on organic hysteria.

I actually don't agree that bubbles are bad. I think that they're a natural course of economic development, and creative destruction is ultimately a good thing. The problem with government is they try to stop these bubbles by artificial means. This creates an unreasonable expectation on the part of the consumer that they can make poor decisions and not have to worry about the full brunt of poor results. I do agree that they're mostly caused by organic hysteria...the stock market crash of 1929 is a perfect example. 90% of Americans didn't own stock, and the day after Black Tuesday most of America went on about their normal lives. It wasn't until almost a year later, when the bank scare kicked off and everyone tried to empty their bank accounts at relatively the same time, that the shit really hit the fan.

[Thondalar]

They both started businesses. You claimed they didn't to act like it was tougher for people to become billionaires now than in 1999.

You're ignoring the fact that I'm talking about starting a home-grown business as opposed to inventing something that didn't exist before. There will always be a market for the latter, but I think even you would admit that it's a much harder thing to accomplish.


As for Walmart you have this failing of only looking at large businesses. The Walmart onslaught on small business is still palpable.

I'm not failing at looking at this at all. I agree that Wal-mart has probably put thousands of small business out of business. That's the nature of the competitive market. The question is, did they do this by some sort of nefarious means, or did they do it simply by providing a better product at a cheaper price?

edit: consider also that large corporations like this have the ability to provide their employees with matching 401k's, health insurance, paid vacation, and other benefits that small-town, mom-and-pop places couldn't. Isn't that better for the average American worker?

[Warriorbird]

You're ignoring the fact that I'm talking about starting a home-grown business as opposed to inventing something that didn't exist before. There will always be a market for the latter, but I think even you would admit that it's a much harder thing to accomplish.



I'm not failing at looking at this at all. I agree that Wal-mart has probably put thousands of small business out of business. That's the nature of the competitive market. The question is, did they do this by some sort of nefarious means, or did they do it simply by providing a better product at a cheaper price?

edit: consider also that large corporations like this have the ability to provide their employees with matching 401k's, health insurance, paid vacation, and other benefits that small-town, mom-and-pop places couldn't. Isn't that better for the average American worker?

I think starting a home grown business is not more difficult. Now that I'm starting a business in the EU I think we are positively spoiled in comparison.

Once Walmart enters the rate of entitlement use skyrockets. Much like the regulations you hate, small business is discouraged.

[Thondalar]

I think starting a home grown business is not more difficult. Now that I'm starting a business in the EU I think we are positively spoiled in comparison.

How so? I'm genuinely curious.


Once Walmart enters the rate of entitlement use skyrockets.

What do you base this on? That one news report already proven to be false about the number of wal-mart employees on government assistance? Or are you saying that since Wal-mart was incorporated in 1962, entitlement usage has steadily increased?

Either of those would be terrible arguments for anything, although for different reasons.


Much like the regulations you hate, small business is discouraged.

Wal-Mart is a different breed. I have never disagreed that a business of that nature would be difficult to start under any circumstances, to compete with the giants (Target, Wal-Mart, CostCo, etc)...simply because of supply issues. Shipping and procurement are HUGE costs for resellers, and having a network already in place is a great advantage that isn't easily overcome. No amount of regulation would help that. Much like telecommunications, it's a market that is difficult to get in to simply because of the nature of the business. Get off of that straw man for a few minutes and focus on the real issue. There are hundreds of other types of businesses that are completely stifled by regulation to the point that innovation is impossible.

[Thondalar]

I know this is the wrong place for this but I really don't care, I'm already here and this just happened and was too funny, I have to tell someone...my son (21 months old) saw me using a can opener and insisted I give it to him...no sharp edges or anything, so sure...I gave it to him, and he immediately went to trying to use it to "open" the baby gate.

[Warriorbird]

I know this is the wrong place for this but I really don't care, I'm already here and this just happened and was too funny, I have to tell someone...my son (21 months old) saw me using a can opener and insisted I give it to him...no sharp edges or anything, so sure...I gave it to him, and he immediately went to trying to use it to "open" the baby gate.

Smart kid! You and your regulations!



What do you base this on? That one news report already proven to be false about the number of wal-mart employees on government assistance?

There's a few more than one. The clickbaity national ones were indeed overblown. The one based on actual figures from Wisconsin? Not so much.

Some of the more damning entitement figures are the subsidies they get everywhere. Walmart doesn't need subsidies to make a profit.


How so? I'm genuinely curious.

Tariffs. Specific EU import/export restrictions (It'd be like if only some states could import/export certain products). Paying the government ridiculous fees solely to be able to store alcohol. Required minimum tax payments to form certain businesses (which of course also includes alcohol). VAT on business expenses. American ID requirements and delivery restrictions are much more strenuous. Everything else is worse.

[Thondalar]

Smart kid! You and your regulations!

Lol.


There's a few more than one. The clickbaity national ones were indeed overblown. The one based on actual figures from Wisconsin? Not so much.

As usual there are several sides to every story. Does this Wisconsin story compare Wal-mart employees to other employees making the same pay rate in different jobs? That's the underlying thing here...it's not a Wal-Mart thing. It's a wage thing. Is it surprising to you that people making 10 dollars an hour require government assistance when they have children and only 1 employed parent? What does that have to do with Wal-Mart? How many people here buy anything at Wal-Mart because it's cheaper than other options, but then lambast the company for paying their employees what they do?

Although my wife worked for Wal-Mart for 7 years, and was quite happy with her employment conditions, I can't presume that's the normal for the entire employee base. I can, however, relate it to my own experiences in the restaurant industry...in the sense that, even as an entry-level, stocking position...my wife made the same base rate starting out as I was making after 5 years in restaurants...and she had 401k, paid leave, and insurance options I simply didn't.


Some of the more damning entitement figures are the subsidies they get everywhere. Walmart doesn't need subsidies to make a profit.

In this I am your ally. But this is what our system breeds...kickbacks for the entitled. Government-approved kickbacks. It's the rotten core of our system, and regulation breeds it.


Tariffs. Specific EU import/export restrictions (It'd be like if only some states could import/export certain products). Paying the government ridiculous fees solely to be able to store alcohol. Required minimum tax payments to form certain businesses (which of course also includes alcohol). VAT on business expenses. American ID requirements and delivery restrictions are much more strenuous. Everything else is worse.

Not many details here, but it seems to me like you're trying to open a bar of some sort in an EU country? Try opening one in America...you'll find similar roadblocks, and then some. A very good friend of mine was a bartender for 20 years at a local pool hall, it's where I met him originally...he's opening his own bar/pool hall in a couple months. Besides the VAT (which is paid by the consumer regardless, and is therefore a non-issue in this case), I don't see your story as being any way dissimilar from his.

[Warriorbird]

Not many details here, but it seems to me like you're trying to open a bar of some sort in an EU country? Try opening one in America...you'll find similar roadblocks, and then some. A very good friend of mine was a bartender for 20 years at a local pool hall, it's where I met him originally...he's opening his own bar/pool hall in a couple months. Besides the VAT (which is paid by the consumer regardless, and is therefore a non-issue in this case), I don't see your story as being any way dissimilar from his.

We're opening a specialized alcohol import/export business in Denmark/The EU. I've been involved in a winery since I was young. It is way more punitive. The tax breaks in Virginia for opening a farm winery were extraordinary.

RE: The VAT, we're forced to make certain purchases which you'd assume would be business purchases as individuals due to quotas. The tariff differences alone makes doing import/export in Europe more difficult than America. Restriction wise, imagine trying to import and export if only certain states were allowed to sell certain products. The winery has to pay no fees to warehouse wine. There are no minimum tax payments to open a business.

Tax payments will be nearly 25% higher than what my grandfather typically pays.

It's still worth it though. The ability to run a bottle service like a pizza joint is an extraordinarily compelling idea that basically can't work in America, and that will be one of the primary parts of the business.

[Keller]

I see what you're trying to get at, and I'm going to nip it in the bud. Nobody is saying ALL regulations are bad. Some amount of regulation is necessary, simply because people are people. To this end I agree with the Sherman Act almost completely, and to lesser degrees the Clayton and FTC Acts. I'm almost completely against the Robinson-Patman Act as well as the Celler-Kefauver Act.

The point is that government has done what government does. It's never satisfied. It keeps getting bigger and bigger unless the people put a stop to it.

You seem to be conflating regulations and statutes. They are not the same.

Again - why do we need regulations, who allows them to exist, and why to they ask for them?

[Methais]

You seem to be conflating regulations and statutes. They are not the same.

Again - why do we need regulations, who allows them to exist, and why to they ask for them?

Greed and/or soccer mom mentality.

[Keller]

Greed and/or soccer mom mentality.

What is a federal regulation?

[Methais]

What is a federal regulation?

A regulation by the federal.

[Keller]

Is there anything worse than someone that is highly opinionated and simultaneously willfully ignorant.

[Grey]

You seem to be conflating regulations and statutes. They are not the same.

Again - why do we need regulations, who allows them to exist, and why to they ask for them?

I'm confused. Why is the source of law important? Administrative regulations carry force of law just like statutes. They're all part of the regulatory framework.

[Keller]

I'm confused. Why is the source of law important? Administrative regulations carry force of law just like statutes. They're all part of the regulatory framework.

Regulations absolutely do not carry the force of law like statutes. A statute > regulations. Period.

The point I was hoping someone might make (so I'm just just talking to myself here), is that federal regulations are promulgated through legislative delegation to the executive branch.

Congress makes a law and grants to the executive branch that authority to issue regulations interpreting that law. The law, which is passed by congress, is the law. The regulations are just refining the law.

Regulations are necessary because Congress cannot (and should not) be responsible for the minutiae of rules. A law passed by Congress is highly imprecise because the English language in imprecise. As a lawyer, my job is just as much about advising my clients what is NOT in a law, as what is in it. I capitalize on imprecision. Therefore, it is the unenviable job of the executive branch to create a labyrinth of rules that will carry out the intent of Congress - which often requires them to write what seem like assinine (and lengthy) rules, but are necessary because, without them, people will flaunt the rule of law.

[Grey]

Regulations absolutely do not carry the force of law like statutes. A statute > regulations. Period.

Okay, that's dead wrong. Statutes have supremacy over regulations.

Constitutional law trumps federal statues which trump state statutes which trump administrative regulations which trump common law.

If you believe that administrative regulations do not carry force of law, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Before we fall back on the "but I'm a lawyer" bit, please browse http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw, specifically the part that says "Regulations have the force of law when an administrative agency properly promulgates them."

[Keller]

Okay, that's dead wrong. Statutes have supremacy over regulations.

Constitutional law trumps federal statues which trump state statutes which trump administrative regulations which trump common law.

If you believe that administrative regulations do not carry force of law, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Do you realize you've backtracked from "carry the force of law like statutes" to "carry the force of law."

Either you have a problem admitting you're wrong, or you have little attention to detail.

In either case - an apology is in order. I'll wait.

[Keller]

Just to be clear - saying "carried the force of law just like statutes" is completely inconsistent with the point I was trying to make (and, consequently, is why your statement is wrong).

Regulations are confined to carrying out the purpose of the statute enabling them. They are a subset of the rule and are not at all similar to a statute.

[Grey]

Do you realize you've backtracked from "carry the force of law like statutes" to "carry the force of law."

Either you have a problem admitting you're wrong, or you have little attention to detail.

In either case - an apology is in order. I'll wait.

I haven't backtracked. Regulations carry the force of law, just like statutes. Supremacy doesn't matter. Yes, state statutes also carry force of law, even though federal statutes trump them. You're a terrible "lawyer" if you think "force of law" (compulsion) has tiers based on primacy. Regulations carry lawful compulsion... just like statutes!

[Grey]

Just to be clear - saying "carried the force of law just like statutes" is completely inconsistent with the point I was trying to make (and, consequently, is why your statement is wrong).

Regulations are confined to carrying out the purpose of the statute enabling them. They are a subset of the rule and are not at all similar to a statute.

The statement is entirely correct. Just like a law, regulations carry force of law.

[Keller]

I'm not getting pulled down to your level. Sorry.

Statutes are not the same as regulations. Regulations are administrative guidance authorized by a statute to interpret that statute. They do not carry the same weight as a statute.

I will not be trolled by "but they are law just like statutes!!!11" You're either trying to pick a fight, you're drunk, or both.

[Grey]

I'm not getting pulled down to your level. Sorry.

Statutes are not the same as regulations. Regulations are administrative guidance authorized by a statute to interpret that statute. They do not carry the same weight as a statute.

I will not be trolled by "but they are law just like statutes!!!11" You're either trying to pick a fight, you're drunk, or both.

Nobody said that they're the exact same, or carried the same exact weight, nor said "but they are law just like statutes." You said


Regulations absolutely do not carry the force of law like statutes. A statute > regulations. Period.

And you were dead wrong. You're correct on supremacy, but dead wrong on force of law. You're either a "lawyer" or a "lawyer."

Regulations still carry the force of law just like statutes. Please start advising your "clients" that they don't.

[Tgo01]

You're either a "lawyer" or a "lawyer."

I don't get it. Is this something you have to be a lawyer to understand? :/

[Keller]

Question for you - have you ever read Chevron? If not, you might try to read that. It might help you better understand the role of administrative regulations in the federal legislative scheme.

[Keller]

I don't get it. Is this something you have to be a lawyer to understand? :/

Not at all. She's just trying to get under my skin.

[Keller]

Here is the wiki - you can get the citation from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_ Council,_Inc.

[Grey]

I'm a man, and supremacy and standards of review still doesn't mean that administrative regulations do not have force of law.

Thanks for the wiki. Is that your "research department?"

[Keller]

Regulations still carry the force of law just like statutes. Please start advising your "clients" that they don't.

I've written numerous opinions for my clients that a regulation is invalid. I was able to write those opinions BECAUSE REGULATIONS DO NOT CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW LIKE STATUTES.

[Keller]

I'm a man, and supremacy and standards of review still doesn't mean that administrative regulations do not have force of law.

Sorry, I assumed you were menstruating.

[Grey]

I've written numerous opinions for my clients that a regulation is invalid. I was able to write those opinions BECAUSE REGULATIONS DO NOT CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW LIKE STATUTES.

And you're still wrong! Would you like a list of statutes that have been overturned for being unconstitutional? A list of state statutes that conflict with federal statutes? That still has nothing to do with force of law and everything to do with supremacy.

Why you continue to insist that there's some spectrum of force of law baffles me. Either you're compelled to follow it, or it is optional. Regulations are not optional.

[Keller]

If I can advise my client they can ignore a law because another law trumps that law - the first law does not have the force of law like the second. That is an uncontested fact.

I'm sorry you're wrong, mostly because it's wasting my time. But you are. Deal with it.

[Grey]

Continue to latch onto "regulations aren't exactly the same as statutes!" narrative if it makes you feel better, the fact remains that it was limited to being force of law, which regulations still carry. I'm sorry that you got hung up on conflicting regulations and statutes, but that still has absolutely no relevance to the statement.

[Keller]

So Grey. I'm going to bed. Here is what I propose.

First, stop editing posts and including entirely new paragraphs. It is exhausting keeping up with new posts, let alone re-reading old posts to see whether people have edited them.

Second, I understand you have some highly defined term "force of law" that you think means "is a rule" and does not have anything to do with the authority of that rule. You seem like a relatively bright girl. - I like you and I'd like you to stick around. So if it will slow your eventual exit from the PC (we have a tendency to eat our own), I'll apologize for not understanding your highly defined meaning.

Next time you intend to define a term as having a meaning other than its common meaning, maybe state that up front. It will save all of us some time.

Cheers.

[JackWhisper]

... I thought Grey was Greycrown.

[Grey]

Next time you intend to define a term as having a meaning other than its common meaning

That's hilarious, because that's exactly what you are are doing. Keep calling me a girl. I'll continue thinking you're a paralegal.

I am, Jack.

P.S. Any monkey capable of googling "force of law" or "full force and effect of law" can find multiple documents confirming just how off base you are.

[JackWhisper]

Oh, ok. My world is back on an even keel.

[Thondalar]

.It's still worth it though. The ability to run a bottle service like a pizza joint is an extraordinarily compelling idea that basically can't work in America, and that will be one of the primary parts of the business.

Hmm. A business that "basically can't work in America".....do tell.

[Warriorbird]

Hmm. A business that "basically can't work in America".....do tell.

Our drinking age is 21. You can't ID people here with just a credit card. The drinking age is 18 there. If a credit card is used in the transaction you don't have to ID.

[Thondalar]

So Grey. I'm going to bed. Here is what I propose.

First, stop editing posts and including entirely new paragraphs. It is exhausting keeping up with new posts, let alone re-reading old posts to see whether people have edited them.

Second, I understand you have some highly defined term "force of law" that you think means "is a rule" and does not have anything to do with the authority of that rule. You seem like a relatively bright girl. - I like you and I'd like you to stick around. So if it will slow your eventual exit from the PC (we have a tendency to eat our own), I'll apologize for not understanding your highly defined meaning.

I just had a good giggle reading the last couple pages of this thread since my last post (well, before the one to WB just now....the pages before that)...I must say, Keller, I used to have some amount of respect for you before all this. Although you generally post something negative in response to my posts (which I'll be honest, I really don't understand the hostility since we're both flaming liberals), you usually have something intelligent to say about them. Finding out now that you claim to be a lawyer makes this specific part of the conversation that much more intriguing (re: vomit-inducing).

Let me make sure we're on the same page here...you're stating that "regulations" issued by various government agencies don't carry "force of law" because they are not, in fact, laws? I'm just a lay-person trying to figure this out...that's what you're saying, right? So my mother, who is looking to purchase some land for her retirement goat farm (I'm sadly not making this up) doesn't need to worry about the fact that the EPA is telling her that 8 of the 20 acres she wants to buy can't be built on because it may or may not be protected wetlands, even though it's currently privately-held property? I'm sure a good lawyer will clear that right up, right? At what cost? Probably about the same amount she intends to spend on the land.

There is what is, and there is what should be. If you can't see the difference, you're making the problem worse.

[Thondalar]

Our drinking age is 21. You can't ID people here with just a credit card.

Oh, so, you're in favor of less regulations on who can or can't drink based on your desire to start a business based on drinking. Do tell.

[Warriorbird]

Oh, so, you're in favor of less regulations on who can or can't drink based on your desire to start a business based on drinking. Do tell.

An entertaining notion, really, but I'm actually suffering through more regulations in return for one particular less regulation.

[Thondalar]

An entertaining notion, really, but I'm actually suffering through more regulations in return for one particular less regulation.

But you can't enumerate them. So far you've come up with a VAT (which doesn't directly effect the business owner) and the fact that we check legal drinking ages in the US with an ID. Have you actually tried to start a business here? If you're here, and you suppose it's easier here, why are you trying it over there? Oh, right, your girlfriend is from there. Or something.

C'mon, man.

[Grey]

He's arguing semantics, claiming that regulations do not carry the force of law like statutes because regulations defer to statutes when they're in conflict. He's wrong on a semantic level as well. He's trying to stratify the term "force of law" into saying statutes have greater force, which is in opposition to, well, everybody. Google "force of law" or "full force and effect of the law" and see just how full of shit he is.

[Warriorbird]

But you can't enumerate them. So far you've come up with a VAT (which doesn't directly effect the business owner) and the fact that we check legal drinking ages in the US with an ID. Have you actually tried to start a business here? If you're here, and you suppose it's easier here, why are you trying it over there? Oh, right, your girlfriend is from there. Or something.

C'mon, man.

I already listed quite a few and pointed out why the VAT's an issue but you just want to brush them off. I've started two businesses here, one which continues, one which failed, and been part of the tremendous increase of somebody else's business. I know where the costs have been higher and relative bureaucracy has been far more annoying. I know where there are many many more loopholes/tax breaks to pay less for things. You can try really hard but you're not going to convince me that America is somehow more stifling to small business than far more socialist countries are. We find more regulatory annoyances on a regular basis too. It's the little things. We can't even target advertising to customers on review sites who have reviewed our competitors negatively because that would violate Danish law. We have to pay tariffs on everything we import and export for a much increased cost of business. We can only get whiskey from certain countries and we're barred from acquiring "champagne"/sparkling water from California completely.

[Sorcasaurus]

Inversions present a lot of opportunities outside of moving foreign-earned income outside of the US tax net. Most notably, the US can move its IP (which generally is the most valuable asset it owns) out of the US. That's probably the single biggest factor in inversions - the ability to outbound U.S. assets without paying taxes. People focus on the ability to "repatriate" cash - but those people are missing the forest for the trees.

Hardly, it's just the easiest way to relate the point. Everyone said it was for tax benefits and used repatriating cash flow to have a numerical example and relate scale.

Some of this post (the whole post, not just what I quoted) makes me question your knowledge base on the topic. You're using lots of the correct words, but it reads like you're trying to talk above people with those words and hope they don't call you out on inaccuracies.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

...I must say, Keller, I used to have some amount of respect for you before all this. Although you generally post something negative in response to my posts (which I'll be honest, I really don't understand the hostility since we're both flaming liberals)

Not so much on the topic but this stood out to me. I never really put Keller in the "flaming liberal" category, assuming that means an extreme liberal or similar. I've always though he was a liberal, but a mostly moderate one. I haven't really been keeping up here though, so maybe I'm wrong.

[Keller]

Let me make sure we're on the same page here...you're stating that "regulations" issued by various government agencies don't carry "force of law" because they are not, in fact, laws?

Nope.

Happy to clear that up for you.

[Keller]

Hardly, it's just the easiest way to relate the point. Everyone said it was for tax benefits and used repatriating cash flow to have a numerical example and relate scale.

Some of this post (the whole post, not just what I quoted) makes me question your knowledge base on the topic. You're using lots of the correct words, but it reads like you're trying to talk above people with those words and hope they don't call you out on inaccuracies.

If there were any inaccuracies, I'm happy to be called out on them.

There are lot of people who are better at what I do than me. I doubt they post on the PC, but if they do, I'm always happy to learn.

[Keller]

That's hilarious, because that's exactly what you are are doing. Keep calling me a girl. I'll continue thinking you're a paralegal.

I am, Jack.

P.S. Any monkey capable of googling "force of law" or "full force and effect of law" can find multiple documents confirming just how off base you are.

Your persistence, Jackie, is exhausting.

Sincerely,
Your favorite paralegal.

[AnticorRifling]

Bro, are you questioning someone's ability to google and then claim expertise?! The nerve.

[Keller]

Bro, are you questioning someone's ability to google and then claim expertise?! The nerve.

For what it's worth - he has an argument that is correct. It completely ignores everything I've said in this thread and relies on a highly specialized definition of "force of law" - but he does have an argument.

[Grey]

It's not highly specialized. It's the normal definition. You're the one attempting to change it.

And I can scan you my handwritten notes Anti. It's not just on the web. I thought the guy who cites cases on Wikipedia could appreciate an electronic source, seeing as how every single one in the entire world disagrees with him.

[Ker_Thwap]

Nope.

Happy to clear that up for you.

That was a cruel set up and kill... but pretty funny.

[Keller]

It's not highly specialized. It's the normal definition. You're the one attempting to change it.

And I can scan you my handwritten notes Anti. It's not just on the web. I thought the guy who cites cases on Wikipedia could appreciate an electronic source, seeing as how every single one in the entire world disagrees with him.

Oh, we've got a 3L who has his admin law notes. I now understand what I'm dealing with here.

[Grey]

And you're either bullshitting about being a lawyer or simply a terrible lawyer. Impressive!

[crb]

Companies act to prevent little companies from rising. You are willfully blind if you don't see it. I purposefully suggested earlier in this thread that taxes should be lower for these companies than established businesses but you're clinging to dogma right now because you can't cope with the idea that the free market is assaulted by the very companies that make it up.

Why did the Progressives have to exist? Monopolies were crushing our country under your beloved laissez faire economics.

You're right, but you're wrong when you say companies that make up a free market are working against it. You're conflating a free market with corporatism or crony capitalism. You're saying "Look, a free market gives us corporations trying to use the government to further their own agenda by passing laws or regulations or tax policies that favor entrenched businesses at the expense of start ups." And you're right about all that happening, but you're wrong that it is caused by the free market. It is caused by the government being too involved in the economy.

Suppose the government, for instance, completely abolished the department of agriculture. Got rid of the whole thing. Would the amount of lobbying by big agribusiness go up, or go down?

It is hard to blame a company for acting in their own self interest and when they can get a better ROI from lobbying a congress critter than they can from investing in new technology, that is a problem. The solution is not to tell the companies to stop it, the solution is to tell the government to stop it.

When you put out a trough of slop you can't really blame the pigs if they start to feed. Stop putting out the slop.

[Gelston]

Can anyone tell me how the current conversation relates to Chicken Fries?

[Warriorbird]

You're right, but you're wrong when you say companies that make up a free market are working against it. You're conflating a free market with corporatism or crony capitalism. You're saying "Look, a free market gives us corporations trying to use the government to further their own agenda by passing laws or regulations or tax policies that favor entrenched businesses at the expense of start ups." And you're right about all that happening, but you're wrong that it is caused by the free market. It is caused by the government being too involved in the economy.

Suppose the government, for instance, completely abolished the department of agriculture. Got rid of the whole thing. Would the amount of lobbying by big agribusiness go up, or go down?

It is hard to blame a company for acting in their own self interest and when they can get a better ROI from lobbying a congress critter than they can from investing in new technology, that is a problem. The solution is not to tell the companies to stop it, the solution is to tell the government to stop it.

When you put out a trough of slop you can't really blame the pigs if they start to feed. Stop putting out the slop.

It certainly can involve crony capitalism. That isn't the only way it happens though. Large corporations can cause tremendous amounts of stasis without any help from the government at all. Deregulation can make the process even worse. These businesses can crush smaller companies even more than government actions/crony capitalism can.

[crb]

Keller is right that inversions are a big deal with IP, but that is going to be more for things like pharmaceutical companies or software companies, you know, people with IP. I'm not sure how applicable it is to Burger King. It isn't as if they have licensing revenue on The Whopper.

[crb]

It certainly can involve crony capitalism. That isn't the only way it happens though. Large corporations can cause tremendous amounts of stasis without any help from the government at all. Deregulation can make the process even worse. These businesses can crush smaller companies even more than government actions/crony capitalism can.

Monopolies sure. People like to paint libertarians or free market proponents as anarchists as some sort of strawman, but in reality we do enjoy some government regulations (and rule of law, a legal system for the enforcement of contracts, etc). Regulations against monopolies are right up there - which is why we also hate labor monopolies (aka unions).

[Keller]

Keller is right that inversions are a big deal with IP, but that is going to be more for things like pharmaceutical companies or software companies, you know, people with IP. I'm not sure how applicable it is to Burger King. It isn't as if they have licensing revenue on The Whopper.

I don't know off hand what percentage of BK's stores are franchises, but I think I read 90 percent in this thread. Obviously royalties from US franchises are US-source income, but they get to keep all the foreign-source royalty income out of the US tax net.

[Keller]

And you're either bullshitting about being a lawyer or simply a terrible lawyer. Impressive!

I thought we already established I am a paralegal, Jackie?

[Warriorbird]

I think the 3L with time on her hands is hitting on you Keller.

[Latrinsorm]

More likely? In general, their own self-interest. But that opens a unique can of worms...what exactly is that self-interest? I'm trying to figure out what this portion of your post even relates to...how does it benefit either Stossel or Cuban to say that current regulations are stifling to business development? Stossel, I could see, because that's pretty much his bread-and-butter now, but I'm not sure what Cuban's motivation would be. Also, these aren't even nearly the only two people saying these same things. I could give you at least 10 personal accounts, and that's only in little-old Lakeland, Florida.Cuban has more money than he could ever spend, even taking Chandler Parsons' contract into account. It follows that he seeks a non-financial benefit, and judging from some of his other behavior I think the obvious choice is attention, in much the same way that Stossel benefits from preaching to this particular choir.
While Cuban initially made money from an internet start-up, he used that money to finance more mundane business ventures in other areas that eventually grew his wealth into what it is today. I'm assuming that this is what he's talking about, but that's just a (somewhat) educated guess.We can call it a draw until he elaborates. I would say the part where he got a billion dollars is the key ingredient in his success, though.
I actually don't agree that bubbles are bad.Perhaps you misheard me... >:-(
I think that they're a natural course of economic development, and creative destruction is ultimately a good thing. The problem with government is they try to stop these bubbles by artificial means. This creates an unreasonable expectation on the part of the consumer that they can make poor decisions and not have to worry about the full brunt of poor results. I do agree that they're mostly caused by organic hysteria...the stock market crash of 1929 is a perfect example. 90% of Americans didn't own stock, and the day after Black Tuesday most of America went on about their normal lives. It wasn't until almost a year later, when the bank scare kicked off and everyone tried to empty their bank accounts at relatively the same time, that the shit really hit the fan.Let us agree that there is such a thing as creative destruction. How does the Great Depression (for example) qualify?
I don't get it. Is this something you have to be a lawyer to understand? :/Lawyers who include ending punctuation in quotation marks get wedgies from other, better lawyers.
You're right, but you're wrong when you say companies that make up a free market are working against it. You're conflating a free market with corporatism or crony capitalism.
Monopolies sure. People like to paint libertarians or free market proponents as anarchists as some sort of strawman, but in reality we do enjoy some government regulations (and rule of law, a legal system for the enforcement of contracts, etc). Regulations against monopolies are right up there - which is why we also hate labor monopolies (aka unions).I am not sure, but I think we agree: it is not that the initial companies in the initial free market work against it, it is that over time (static accounting fail? :D) one or few companies will come to dominate. They can use the power of government to pursue and further that dominance, or we can use the power of government to block and lessen it. Like guns, the government is not evil. It is merely a tool used to destroy people, and sometimes that's for the greater good.

[Keller]

It certainly can involve crony capitalism. That isn't the only way it happens though. Large corporations can cause tremendous amounts of stasis without any help from the government at all. Deregulation can make the process even worse. These businesses can crush smaller companies even more than government actions/crony capitalism can.

I get your point that large, established businesses are more efficient (and can negotiate better prices) than start ups. But I'm not sure what solution there is for that. But the fact is, the megastore's efficiency applies not only to its commercial endeavors, but also to its compliance mechanisms. Walmart can comply with federal regulations for pennies on the dollar because they can centralize the function and repeating a process for thousands of stores is pretty cheap. So regulations are only going to exacerbate the competitive advantage that megastores have.

[Warriorbird]

I get your point that large, established businesses are more efficient (and can negotiate better prices) than start ups. But I'm not sure what solution there is for that. But the fact is, the megastore's efficiency applies not only to its commercial endeavors, but also to its compliance mechanisms. Walmart can comply with federal regulations for pennies on the dollar because they can centralize the function and repeating a process for thousands of stores is pretty cheap. So regulations are only going to exacerbate the competitive advantage that megastores have.

I think we can do our best to offer them some protections without doing too much at the same time. While building this somewhat outlandish current Danish/EU business I appreciate the relative ease of American small business more and more.

[Latrinsorm]

I get your point that large, established businesses are more efficient (and can negotiate better prices) than start ups. But I'm not sure what solution there is for that. But the fact is, the megastore's efficiency applies not only to its commercial endeavors, but also to its compliance mechanisms. Walmart can comply with federal regulations for pennies on the dollar because they can centralize the function and repeating a process for thousands of stores is pretty cheap. So regulations are only going to exacerbate the competitive advantage that megastores have.Bust 'em. I ain't afraid of no trust.