I think it is about growth, but I think it also is about taxes. Burger King is so visible, it puts the focus on the general behavior of corporate America and, in a sense, the contempt that they feel for the average American, and in fact, the United States of America. — Sen. Bernie Sanders
Is the merger between Tim Hortons and Burger King about taxes or not. One wonders; opinions vary widely.
- Sen. Bernie Sanders believes it is about growth, but also about taxes,”
- Vauhini Vara, writing for The New Yorker, notes–In 2011, after 3G Capital acquired Burger King, the new owners set out to attract more customers by making the restaurant’s menu more diverse and opening more franchises abroad. To cut costs, the company offloaded restaurants that it had owned onto franchisees. The plan worked.
- Venessa Wong, writing for Business Week, writes–Unlike Burger King, which relies on franchise royalties and fees and real estate for 80.6 percent of its revenue, Tim Hortons has another important source of revenue: distribution sales. These are sales of products, supplies, and restaurant equipment shipped directly from the company’s warehouses or by third-party distributors to restaurants.
- Jeff Stein, writing for The Ithaca Voice, says it isn’t about taxes and quotes Alex Behring, Burger King’s chairman, to prove his point.
- Amy Miller, writing for Legal Insurrection, quotes Burger King CEO Daniel Schwartz and claims that it is about corporate profits from an “incredibly successful, lucrative corporate brand.” What could be wrong with that?
Martha Robertson reportedly said: “…Burger King is an American company, and it’s downright unpatriotic for them to abandon the country that allowed them to succeed in the first place.” Rep. Tom Reed, Martha’s rival, has so far, perhaps wisely, had no comment.
© William Hungerford – August 2014