# In defense of Burger King **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651 "2014-08-27T17:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/21 "2014-08-27T23:11:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If any company wants to be treated as a foreign company, so be it. > > Let’s see how they like being a non-American company for purposes of doing business with the U.S. Government. Why should a non-American company have sweet deals to set up restaurants on U.S. military bases, for example? Seems like American companies should have first crack at those opportunities. > > I recently read that Ingersoll Rand has lucrative contracts to maintain U.S. military bases, even though it moved its headquarters to Bermuda 13 years ago. If they don’t think maintaining a U.S. identity is worth it for tax purposes, they also shouldn’t get government contracts if a U.S. company is capable of doing the same work. I wish Ingersoll Rand the best of luck in winning those big-dollar contracts to maintain Bermudan military bases, however. I think some of that runs afoul of various treaty obligations we have. I know we’ve gotten in trouble before for not treating Boeing (domestic) and Airbus (foreign) the same in DoD contracts because we have various treaty agreements not to specifically favor domestic companies. > [@RitterSport](#): > > Yes, hopefully we’ll see more of this, because I’m looking forward to my personal income taxes going up to make up for less corporate tax revenue. You’re confusing tax incidence and tax burden. Individuals shoulder corporate tax burdens already. It’s just not the same incidence as an income tax, the same way property taxes are not the same tax incidence as income taxes, and the same way excise taxes (sales taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, hotel taxes etc) are not the same incidence as personal income taxes. But the burden is shouldered by individuals, and not even necessarily by the desired individuals. I think the strongest evidence is that corporate taxation is mostly born by consumers in the form of higher prices, it is born of course also by employees of corporations who may face lower wages/layoffs, and of course the owners and shareholders of corporations (“the bad guys” in SDMB speak.) But I think there’s good evidence the primary burden of corporate taxes falls to consumers of the corporation’s products and services. So if it’s a Wal-Mart that means poor people, if it’s Tiffany’s, that’s a different economic group etc. I think managing tax incidence is important, which is why a “pyramid” of government revenue should be made up of property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. When you weight too heavily to any of those you are more susceptible to wild swings in revenue. With the underlying economy being the primary determinant of all government revenues there is already some inherent and unavoidable swing in revenues, that is only exacerbated by a poor tax structure. So I’m not saying abolish corporate taxes because consumers bear the burden already, but I do think that if you recognize we need to look at tax policy more broadly in terms of total revenue and a balanced tax incidence the proper corporate tax rate is almost always going to be “the one that is the most competitive.” Because it is the tax that can most easily and effectively be changed for a foreign version of the same tax, due to how easy it is to move a corporation versus how difficult it is for an American to immigrate to Canada or Europe. Further, due to all the various economic benefits of having corporations headquartered in your country it makes sense to have lower corporate taxes relative to other countries. It also makes sense to do away with a system which massively punishes the company’s that cannot claim tons of tax credits. These companies face a tax rate of 35%, the average is around 12%, but some companies have to pay the full 35% and they are often companies in fields we really want to keep. Our tax system is set up to specifically favor companies that are in traditional heavy industries, and specifically punish those that aren’t, which is really pretty backward. More reasonable still is a flat 15% corporate income tax rate on income before depreciation. So as long as you’re profitable you pay 15% of every dollar of profit you make, no ifs ands or buts. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/22 "2014-08-27T23:14:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think some of that runs afoul of various treaty obligations we have. I know we’ve gotten in trouble before for not treating Boeing (domestic) and Airbus (foreign) the same in DoD contracts because we have various treaty agreements not to specifically favor domestic companies. If you’re referring to the thing I think you are, Airbus established a presence in Alabama specifically to comply with Buy America Act requirements. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/23 "2014-08-27T23:42:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You just provided me a cite that says that Labor disagrees with a treaty under negotiation that would allow US companies to take over the NHS, IF the treaty is approved; and Labor wants to exclude those US firms from the UK if that treaty were approved. It also says that one US health care company plans to open a private clinic in London. Both positions are just peachy by me. > > I hate when I have to summarize the cites to show that they say something other than what was to be “proven.” You asked for details about how many contracts US firms have with the NHS. I do not have the time to search for a detailed list of such deals. Instead, I posted a link which stated US firms already have such contracts, and that some future contracts may be under political threat. The link was an adequate summary of the position US companies hold in the NHS, and the political debate in the UK surrounding the issue. You really are trying too hard to be a smart arse. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/24 "2014-08-28T00:32:26Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Assume you stop a British company(for whatever reason) from bidding on NASA contracts. The British Government are kinda screwed if it limits its retaliation to preventing US companies bidding on British aerospace contracts. But it will retaliate by preventing US companies from bidding on things such as NHS contracts. Thats the great thing about human nature, it can think of allsorts of creative ways to be complete bastards. Actually the French might — if they could bring themselves to be utter bastards — but most British governments **do** listen to their master’s voice, and would run along bleating: ‘_Mr. President ? Have we offended you in some way ? Please give us another chance, we’re so sorry. Clean your car, Mister ? Shine your shoes ?_’ They are getting rid of the jobpoints made by an American firm ( computerized machines that show & print jobs ) in jobcentres, but this is because **[EDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Systems)**, a company founded by Mr. Perot, and bought by HP as a Shirt of Nessus ( **[losing $8 billion in four years](http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240161906/How-did-EDS-lose-8bn-in-value-in-four-years)** ) has not been all that it can be. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/25 "2014-08-28T00:36:43Z")
The IRS is allowed to tax the income from whatever source of all U.S. citizens who have left the U.S., why not corporations? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/26 "2014-08-28T00:45:49Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > The IRS is allowed to tax the income from whatever source of all U.S. citizens who have left the U.S., why not corporations? They can - that’s why these companies are basically renouncing their citizenship. Like Zuckerberg did last year. The question is why the IRS is allowed to do that to individuals or companies at all. Is there any other western country that does that? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/27 "2014-08-28T00:55:59Z")
Sorry. I guess it was Eduardo Saverin who renounced. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/28 "2014-08-28T02:52:20Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > The IRS is allowed to tax the income from whatever source of all U.S. citizens who have left the U.S., why not corporations? The IRS is allowed to tax income, over the exclusion amount (it goes up I believe with inflation and is around $100k at the moment) earned by _citizens_ abroad. Same for corporations, money earned abroad is taxed here. No other major country does this, I don’t want to speak out of hand but I think it’s possible no other country _period_ does this. Primarily because it is well understood both individuals and corporations pay domestic taxes in the country where they are generating revenue, so taxing them American taxes on top of that is just plain nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/29 "2014-08-28T04:59:09Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The IRS is allowed to tax income, over the exclusion amount (it goes up I believe with inflation and is around $100k at the moment) earned by _citizens_ abroad. Same for corporations, money earned abroad is taxed here. No other major country does this, I don’t want to speak out of hand but I think it’s possible no other country _period_ does this. Primarily because it is well understood both individuals and corporations pay domestic taxes in the country where they are generating revenue, so taxing them American taxes on top of that is just plain nonsense. You get a tax credit for taxes paid overseas. So you end up paying the higher of US taxes (with a 100K deduction), or local foreign taxes. So its not really nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/30 "2014-08-28T05:00:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > They can - that’s why these companies are basically renouncing their citizenship. Like Zuckerberg did last year. The question is why the IRS is allowed to do that to individuals or companies at all. Is there any other western country that does that? You mark your assets to market so all built in gains are taxed as if you sold and repurchased everything at the market price. You also become a sort of persona non grata in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/31 "2014-08-28T07:15:20Z")
I am failing to see how that was a response to my post. Did you quote the wrong person? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/32 "2014-08-28T09:01:03Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The IRS is allowed to tax income, over the exclusion amount (it goes up I believe with inflation and is around $100k at the moment) earned by _citizens_ abroad. Same for corporations, money earned abroad is taxed here. No other major country does this, I don’t want to speak out of hand but I think it’s possible no other country _period_ does this. Primarily because it is well understood both individuals and corporations pay domestic taxes in the country where they are generating revenue, so taxing them American taxes on top of that is just plain nonsense. We need to not confuse two issues here: the location of the taxpayer, and the source of the earnings. **Individuals** **US resident individuals** are taxable on their worldwide earnings. They get a deduction or a credit against their US tax for any foreign income tax paid on foreign earnings. Further relief may be provided under the terms of a double taxation agreement between the US and the country where the income is earned. This is pretty much the same treatment position that every other developed country takes with respect to the taxation of resident individuals. **Individuals who are not resident in the US** are taxable on their earnings in the US. Again, relief may be provided under the terms of a double taxation agreement between the US and the country where the individual is resident. Again, this is similar to the position of many other countries. **US citizens who are not resident in the US** are taxable on their worldwide earnings. As Martin Hyde points out, some relief is provided by the “exempt amount” of about $100k in non-US earnings. This taxation of the non-US income of non-resident citizens is very unusual; I don’t think any other developed country does it, and very few less-developed countries do. I don’t honestly know what the principled argument in favour of taxing non-resident citizens is, but I presume somebody has at some point advanced one. **Corporations** Corporations may be capable of being _persons_ for the purposes of the US Constitution, but they are not _citizens_, so there is no exact analogy to taxation on the basis of citizenship. Most countries tax corporations either on the basis of place of incorporation or on the basis of place of central management and control. Confusingly, both of these tests are often referred to as “residence”. So most countries will tax _any_ corporation on the income from a trade or business conducted within the country, and they will tax a _resident_ corporation on the profits of its trade or business throughout the world (subject to any relief available under tax treaties). And by “resident” they mean any corporation incorporated in the country, or any corporation whose central management and control is exercised in the country, or any corporation meeting either of these two tests. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure exactly where the US comes down here. Is a corporation taxable in the US on worldwide income if it is formally incorporated in the US? Or if it is managed and controlled within the US? Or is some other test applied? Whatever it is, Burger King apparently hopes to avoid liability on US tax on its worldwide income by shifting its centre of gravity one way or another to Canada. This isn’t really abandoning US citizenship, since it doesn’t have US citizenship to begin with. But it’s analagous to abandoning citizenship for an individual, since it’s taking steps to avoid liability to US tax on worldwide income. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/33 "2014-08-28T10:11:44Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I don’t know that it’s a simple tax inversion. Apparently Burger King & Tim Hortons are roughly equal sized companies, and the merger will mean that the majority of their business is done in Canada, so it does make sense to move the headquarters there for that reason. > > Plus, the tax rate of both companies is about 27%, so it’s not like they’re getting much of a break moving to Canada, if at all. > > [Is the Burger King-Tim Hortons Deal About More Than Taxes? | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/burger-king-wants-deal-tim-hortons) I want to make sure this didn’t get missed. This does not appear to be a tax reduction strategy. Here’s [another cite](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/inversion-critics-and-investors-may-be-misjudging-burger-king-deal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) if you’re interested. Not that I think there’s anything at all wrong with an inversion strategy to minimize taxes. Our corporate tax system is outrageous, though it does serve to satisfy the sensibilities of those who think corporations are monolithic greedheads with a bottomless supply of money. You know, the same people who out of one side of their mouths say corporations are not people and therefore should not be afforded any first amendment liberties, then out of the other side of their mouth shriek over the lack of patriotism such strategies imply. Corporations have to behave legally in serving the interests of their shareholders. Period. You don’t want corporations to renounce their citizenship? Don’t create a tax system that encourages them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/34 "2014-08-28T12:27:21Z")
Keep in mind that Burger King is owned by a Brazilian hedge fund, so it’s not like it has some ineffably American identity to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/35 "2014-08-28T12:31:43Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You’re confusing tax incidence and tax burden. Individuals shoulder corporate tax burdens already. It’s just not the same incidence as an income tax, the same way property taxes are not the same tax incidence as income taxes, and the same way excise taxes (sales taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, hotel taxes etc) are not the same incidence as personal income taxes. > > But the burden is shouldered by individuals, and not even necessarily by the desired individuals. I think the strongest evidence is that corporate taxation is mostly born by consumers in the form of higher prices, it is born of course also by employees of corporations who may face lower wages/layoffs, and of course the owners and shareholders of corporations (“the bad guys” in SDMB speak.) But I think there’s good evidence the primary burden of corporate taxes falls to consumers of the corporation’s products and services. … I’m really not. I can choose to which sales taxes and sin taxes I pay by choosing what to buy and where to shop. I cannot choose which income tax rate I’m going to pay. If corporate income tax receipts go down, personal income tax receipts will have to go up. And, \ to your parenthetical up there. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > …It also makes sense to do away with a system which massively punishes the company’s that cannot claim tons of tax credits. These companies face a tax rate of 35%, the average is around 12%, but some companies have to pay the full 35% and they are often companies in fields we really want to keep. Our tax system is set up to specifically favor companies that are in traditional heavy industries, and specifically punish those that aren’t, which is really pretty backward. More reasonable still is a flat 15% corporate income tax rate on income before depreciation. So as long as you’re profitable you pay 15% of every dollar of profit you make, no ifs ands or buts. And, no one who is defending BK is suggesting that we eliminate corporate tax deductions. They are applauding them for being an amoral corporation and striving to maximize their shareholder value. That’s great and all, and a show of consumer disgust could show them that abandoning the US is not a good way to maximize shareholder value. That is, their tax burden will go down, but if their sales in the US go down even further, then their shareholders will be upset. Their are ways to cut expenses and some ways will sit better with their customer base than others. This one doesn’t sit well with me. And, those saying that it’s not for tax reasons – I don’t buy it. It’s not just the differential between US and Canadian taxes, it’s all of their foreign income that won’t be taxed at US rates. I further find it difficult to believe that the combined company will have the same amount of sales in Canada as they do in the US, but I’m willing to change my mind on that point with a cite (not a statement from a CEO furiously trying to defend this decision). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/36 "2014-08-28T13:36:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > They can - that’s why these companies are basically renouncing their citizenship. Like Zuckerberg did last year. The question is why the IRS is allowed to do that to individuals or companies at all. Is there any other western country that does that? No. But then there’s also no other (significant) Western country whose policies are as business-friendly as ours beyond the tax issue - not to mention any market as large as us. We’re talking about companies that still conduct the majority of their operations in the US and are headquartered elsewhere only on paper (though that is not true of the proposed Burger King/Tim Hortons post-merger entity.) They want all the benefits of US “corporate citizenship” but not the drawback. Put it this way: even BK/TH stock isn’t going to be traded on the TSX. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/37 "2014-08-29T01:33:46Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I am failing to see how that was a response to my post. Did you quote the wrong person? Well, people are not slaves to the place of their birth and once someone has renounced citizenship we have no further claim on any of their future income. HOWEVER we do have some claim to the income that they earned while they were citizens. A lot of that income has not yet been taxed because they have not recognized the income yet. When you renounce your citizenship, you are treated as selling all your assets at a price equal to the market value and recognizing all the built in gains in your assets and then immediately repurchasing them again at the same price. In this way, you are being taxed for any income you have earned while you were subject to US taxes. And any future income you may have will be subjected to the tax regime of your new nation. The same holds true for corporations. The problem right now with corporate inversions is that countries around the world have engaged in a race to the bottom. We have seen a resurgence of mercantilism, austerity, beggar thy neighbor, race to the bottom mentality that will ultimately fail for the same reasons they failed the first time. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/38 "2014-08-29T01:49:44Z")
Yeah ok but that still really has nothing to do with what I posted. Anyways, these inversions mostly only seem to make sense for American corporations with large overseas operations as they are meant to avoid America’s global taxation policy. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/39 "2014-08-30T18:30:47Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Actually I would like to see spending reduced to halt the inexorable rise of taxes. > [@RitterSport](#): > > Hey, me too. And, I’d like a pony as well. > > Since defense spending isn’t going down any time soon, and SS and Medicare never gets touched, and we have to keep up our interest payments, that leaves not much room to cut, and cutting most of that space hurts the little guy (medicaid, food stamps, welfare, unemployment, pre-school, college aid, housing aid, infrastructure, etc.) Defense spending could go down sometime soon, if our political leaders had the courage to make that happen. There is no iron law of the universe that says that we have to spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the planet combined. Our political leaders simply choose to spend that amount. I would agree with you that there’s little chance of our current crop of politicians opting for a big decrease in military spending soon, but there also isn’t much call for it from the people. If millions of Americans started pelting Congress and the President with phone calls, letters, petitions, protests, and other types of action to demand a smaller and less expensive military, the politicians would respond. Likewise for Social Security and Medicare. Right now they’re losing money and on a path towards eventual bankruptcy. That could change, if our politicians had the courage to tackle the problem. If enough American voters demanded that our politicians tackle the problem, they would. Right now it’s not happening. As for other cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, that could happen too. After all, 18 months age we passed the “sequester” with across-the-board cuts to every federal program. Despite hysterical warnings from fans of big government, it did not lead to a financial disaster. No planes falling from the sky due to air traffic control towers being shut down. No starving hoards roaming the streets due food stamp cuts. No one dropping dead due to health care cuts. We could do another, larger sequester if we wanted to. Once again, there just isn’t any call for it. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651/40 "2014-08-30T23:48:10Z")
Hmmm. Do I support Burger King’s planned acquisition of Tim Horton’s and inversion to a Canadian corporation? I’ll have to wait on that answer until I find out if they’re going to start offering poutine along with curly fries on the menu board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defense-of-burger-king/696651.md?page=3)