Ship of Fools: Any Canadians actually sentimental about Tim Hortons?

Thread: Any Canadians actually sentimental about Tim Hortons? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027744

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

With news of the recent merger, of course the media has been full of stories about how the donut-chain is a much-beloved Canadian institution that has succeeded by tapping deep into Canadians' sense of patriotism and blah blah blah.

But does anyone actually feel that way about the company, or even know someone who does? I've always been pretty cynical about it myself. I mean, I'll happily go there when I'm back in Canada and someone suggests meeting up, but that's about it. No emotional connection beyond that.

And in none of the comments sections or message boards have I seen people writing stuff like "No! No! Not Tim Horton's, sold down the river to the American Empire!" Even as the featured article informs us that "Canadians love their Timmies."

Granted, the chain must be doing something right, because as far as I know their profits are through the roof(low-paid T4Ws probably help as well). But my guess is that the patriotism in the ads is more just something to grab attention, and put the brand name in peoples' heads, rather than establish any long-lasting affection, even at a subconcious level. Sorta like you remember the name of a stereo store because their ads have a hot chick in a bikini, even though you don't actually go there expecting to see her.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

My only worry will be that whatever quality Tim's has had will be flushed away by bean-counters. Various other (American-based) coffee&donut chains have tried here and foundered because of that attitude.

Anecdotally, I have never seen coffee shops as dirty as the few Dunkin' Donuts I have tried. And, at the silly level, I can recall trying to buy a donut at DD in Skowhegan on July 4, but they had run out of them...at 3 PM! No Tim's would be that slovenly.

I'm sure that the marketing will continue to be aimed for Canadians in Canada, and adjusted for Americans in their space, and that is OK.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Alas, the Tim Horton food in the United States will probably be adjusted to be the new Breakfast Menu for Burger King. [Frown]

If you've ever had the Burger King attempt at a bagel (Think injection molded hamburger bun in the shape of a bagel you can guess what that means.

A lot of the motivation for the merger is to shield Burger King's profits from American taxes by pretending it's a Canadian corporation. Since a number of big companies are doing this, it may not be useful if Congress changes tax laws and the American income is once again taxed. At that point it will be kept solely based on profits.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Not really. The Hudsons Bay Company seemed more significant.

"This land ain't your land, this land ain't my land
This Canada, this pie in the sky land
While we are sighing, America is buying
This land that was made for you and me."

or maybe we should read "China" or the "1%" for America in this (?)

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

Unlike the United States, Canada (and the rest of the G7) has moved to a territorial taxation system. It also has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States. Yes, shock/horror, Canada along with the rest of the developed world has recognized that an onerous corporate tax structure makes you hugely anti competitive in a global economy. Burger King gets something like 40% of its revenue outside the United States. The territorial taxation aspect, aside from the lower rate, stand to put Burger King (whose food is terrible) in a much better competitive position. It is responsible to its shareholders to be as profitable as possible.

[ 29. August 2014, 01:14: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Yup, and that awesome responsibility to the shareholders is why they'll probably eventually relocate to Ireland, Luxemburg or the Cayman Islands where it's understood that Corporations shouldn't pay significant taxes.

But that responsibility to shareholders just amplifies my point that if there isn't a tax dodge they'll cheerfully do what ever is better for the stockholders with no concern on what's good for America or Canada.

[ 29. August 2014, 01:22: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

No, not really. Tim Horton's was owned by Wendy's for ten years with no ill effect; the only actually result was a bunch of co-locations.

Wendy's sold Tim's in an IPO five years ago that was of course massively popular with Canadian investors. Burger King's owners probably view that as a put option so that if their investment doesn't work out for them, especially re the tax thing, they can offload Tim's through an IPO on the Toronto Stock Exchange whence it came.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It was made very clear to me by our own Mr John Holding that my visit to Canada would not be complete without a visit to Tim Hortons.

I actually think it ended up being a couple of visits, so I can't have minded the first time. As best I can recall, they had quite decent coffee which is something that chain stores in North America appear to struggle with.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

As far as the OP is concerned, I have not heard anyone speak about it, but there is stuff on the news.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
With news of the recent merger, of course the media has been full of stories about how the donut-chain is a much-beloved Canadian institution that has succeeded by tapping deep into Canadians' sense of patriotism and blah blah blah.

I would hope Canada has more to be patriotic about than a chain of doughnut stores. If not then Burger King buying Tim Horton's is the least of their problems.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I recall a mild aghast response, with the emphasis on on mild, when Disney got the rights to the image and marketting of the RCMP.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Unlike the United States, Canada (and the rest of the G7) has moved to a territorial taxation system. ...

Oh, really? My understanding is that both use similar rules of residency and permanent establishment to tax the various sources of world income, which are coordinated through a tax treaty to ensure the same income is not taxed in both countries. There is some difference between Canada and the US regarding the concept of "mind and management" as it relates to residency, but I don't think it is right to state that Canada has changed the way it taxes corporations, or that either use a territorial system.

Canada simply has a lower overall corporate tax rate.

As others have said, Tim's used to be owned by Wendy's.

I drink coffee from Tim's all the time, but don't have what I would call a sentimental relationship with it. I do, however, like the new dark roast they have recently been selling.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I would hope Canada has more to be patriotic about than a chain of doughnut stores. If not then Burger King buying Tim Horton's is the least of their problems.

Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

Canadians are genuinely patriotic about our health care system, and to a lesser extent our hockey, and to an even lesser extent our military. Although certain companies (Molson, Canadian Tire, Tim Horton's) have attempted to capitalize on patriotism and entwine themselves into the national psyche, I don't think there would be national mourning if Tim Horton's disappeared to be replaced by someone else selling reasonably priced coffee.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Although certain companies (Molson, Canadian Tire, Tim Horton's) have attempted to capitalize on patriotism and entwine themselves into the national psyche, I don't think there would be national mourning if Tim Horton's disappeared to be replaced by someone else selling reasonably priced coffee.

Well that's good to hear!

(PS You still have Blackberry...hah)

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Leaf wrote:

quote:
Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

That was odd in a number of ways. Especially given that, since at least Mulroney, the Conservatives have been viewed as the most continentalist and pro-American of the two parties(and yes, I realize that the current party is technically different from Mulroney's, but they're basically the same as far as those issues go).

I think Harper mostly saw the 1812 party as an opportunity to boost militarism, possibly connected to the fact that(if I understand things correctly), military spending under the Cons is even lower than it was under the supposedly crypto-Communist Trudeau Liberals. But doing a lot of symbolic military boosterism gets his party denounced as fascist by left-wingers, which perversely plays to his western and suburban base.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Unlike the United States, Canada (and the rest of the G7) has moved to a territorial taxation system. ...
Oh, really? My understanding is that both use similar rules of residency and permanent establishment to tax the various sources of world income, which are coordinated through a tax treaty to ensure the same income is not taxed in both countries. There is some difference between Canada and the US regarding the concept of "mind and management" as it relates to residency, but I don't think it is right to state that Canada has changed the way it taxes corporations, or that either use a territorial system.

Canada simply has a lower overall corporate tax rate.

As others have said, Tim's used to be owned by Wendy's.

I drink coffee from Tim's all the time, but don't have what I would call a sentimental relationship with it. I do, however, like the new dark roast they have recently been selling.

Welcome back!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Although certain companies (Molson, Canadian Tire, Tim Horton's) have attempted to capitalize on patriotism and entwine themselves into the national psyche

Remember those "I am Canadian" ads from the early 2000s? I heard the song from them being sung by revellers in the Edmonton river valley, on their way to a July 1st street party on the south side.

The street party degenerated into a drunken riot, for which many commentators blamed Molsons(for hosting a beer garden across the river).

I Am Canadian anthem

Incidentally, while I am quite hostile to Canadian nationalism(and especially its corporate appropriation), I will say that those Molson ads were far superior to the Tim Hortons ones, which lazily latch onto hockey and whatnot, in the most superficial way possible.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I have an irrational addiction to Timmie's donuts, does that count?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Might we hope to get Tim Hortons here in (or more of them in) the US? (I'm in Florida and have heard of but never encountered one.)

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

I've been thinking about opening a Tim Horton's in Arizona when I retire. Lot's of Canadian Snowbirds in the Phoenix area.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

Perhaps I should review the rules on the use of the apostrophe. Or, stop posting after I have been sampling the scotch.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Canada simply has a lower overall corporate tax rate.

This article has a fairly concise summary of the advantages offered to Burger King by becoming Canadian beyond the lower overall rate. Link. I would assume repatriation of income without a tax penalty is something they are interested in.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Growing up in Vancouver, I was spared the Tim Horton's culture back east. Being this close to Seattle meant one could not escape from the juggernaut that is Starbucks.

In the late 90s and early 00s, there was a class ideology associated with the two. Tim Hortons' represented working class Canadians who needed a quick double double on their way to slave for their corporate or state masters. Starbucks was the coffee of choice for bourgeois upper to middle class professionals who ended their nights with overpriced martinis.

People who went to independent coffee shops were typically university students who still dreamed of a world beyond capitalism.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I've only lived in Canada for 6 months, but I'm a Timmy fan. So less pretentious than Starf*cks and the others. You get a decent cup of coffee and a decent doughnut for not a lot of dosh. What's not to like?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Hehe,"The Big Triple", triple cream and triple sugar, is known as a Poor Man's Cappuccino. [Big Grin]

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

Having lived in Maine for nearly forty years, within two hours of the Canadian border, I have come to realize the extent to which Tim Horton's is indeed --- so far as I can see --- an iconic part of Canadian culture. Every town in the Maritimes and Quebec with a population above a couple thousand has at least one Tim's, and it is more than apparent to this Yankee that it is the Canadian equivalent of the old-fashioned country store with a pickle barrel surrounded by rocking chairs: THE place in town where people gather to take a breather and talk.

Dunkin' Donuts is New England's equivalent of this. That said, however, Tim's, IMHO, has much better coffee and certainly a wider variety of food. Maine has several dozen Tim Horton's outlets, and the company is planning to eventually build some fifty of them. I'm delighted by that; I love the place --- and I say that as a person with nearly 350 years' worth of New England blood coursing through my coffee-loving veins.

From what I have read during the past few days regarding Burger King's owners, it appears they're aware of what they're buying and have no plans to change anything. Time will tell.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
Having lived in Maine for nearly forty years, within two hours of the Canadian border, I have come to realize the extent to which Tim Horton's is indeed --- so far as I can see --- an iconic part of Canadian culture. Every town in the Maritimes and Quebec with a population above a couple thousand has at least one Tim's, and it is more than apparent to this Yankee that it is the Canadian equivalent of the old-fashioned country store with a pickle barrel surrounded by rocking chairs: THE place in town where people gather to take a breather and talk.

Yes - that's what I've noticed about my local Tim's. You get all age ranges coming in. In one corner will be a group of old guys, discussing politics and in another will be three girls swapping notes on their latest boyfriends. I'm struggling to think of an example of anything remotely similar in the UK.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Growing up in Vancouver, I was spared the Tim Horton's culture back east. Being this close to Seattle meant one could not escape from the juggernaut that is Starbucks.

In the late 90s and early 00s, there was a class ideology associated with the two. Tim Hortons' represented working class Canadians who needed a quick double double on their way to slave for their corporate or state masters. Starbucks was the coffee of choice for bourgeois upper to middle class professionals who ended their nights with overpriced martinis.

People who went to independent coffee shops were typically university students who still dreamed of a world beyond capitalism.

What's odd is that, among those "world beyond capitalism" types, Starbucks is generally viewed as the epitome of globalizing evil. Whereas conservatives(and probably most centrists, in fact) tend to associate the chain with left-wing people.

I remember being told that CBC had characterized the election of Stephen Harper's Conservatives as "a shift from Starbucks to Tim Hortons". Being someone accustomed to a left-leaning political milieu, I initially found the symbolism confusing, accustomed as I was to the usual left-wing dislike of Starbucks.

[ 31. August 2014, 04:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I've only lived in Canada for 6 months, but I'm a Timmy fan. So less pretentious than Starf*cks and the others. You get a decent cup of coffee and a decent doughnut for not a lot of dosh. What's not to like?

Starbucks is expensive, but hardly pretentious.
Independents and micro-chain coffee holes tend to be the pretentious lot. And home to both the best and worst cups of addiction.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Starbucks is expensive, but hardly pretentious.

Oh? They've finally agreed to call the cup sizes "small", "medium" and "large", and the people who serve them up "counter help"?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The only Starbucks here is not only dirty, but also infested by the pretentious. Second Cup (3 stores) is cleaner but somewhat more pretentious, judging by the number of laptops.

Tim's is the place to go for a good cross-section of the population. Moncton has 33 stores for a population of 120,000, with another 10 within an hour's drive in rural villages/small towns. So, yeah, our opinion may not be typical for all of Canada.

But there are now several independents taking the edge off Starsucks/Second Cup/Timothy's

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Second Cup (3 stores) is cleaner but somewhat more pretentious, judging by the number of laptops.

I was gonna say, Second Cup is my favorite. It's a nice halfway-house between the upscale sterility of Starbucks and the yahoo populism of Tim's.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Starbucks is expensive, but hardly pretentious.
Oh? They've finally agreed to call the cup sizes "small", "medium" and "large", and the people who serve them up "counter help"?

I find that the corporate chain-store nature of Starbucks blunted the edge out of whatever elitist pretensions they may have. It's basically like going into a McDonalds where everything has been given a fancy French name. Nomenclature aside, it's still a McDonalds.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Leaf wrote:

quote:
Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

... I think Harper mostly saw the 1812 party as an opportunity to boost militarism, possibly connected to the fact that(if I understand things correctly), military spending under the Cons is even lower than it was under the supposedly crypto-Communist Trudeau Liberals. But doing a lot of symbolic military boosterism gets his party denounced as fascist by left-wingers, which perversely plays to his western and suburban base.

In politics, as in comedy, timing matters. The object wasn't to celebrate the War of 1812, it was to ignore the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Something which continues to have a significant daily impact on Canadian life and society, most of which the Harperites hate. And who was Prime Minister in 1982? Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom the Harperites hate even more. No way they were going to celebrate that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
In politics, as in comedy, timing matters. The object wasn't to celebrate the War of 1812, it was to ignore the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Something which continues to have a significant daily impact on Canadian life and society, most of which the Harperites hate. And who was Prime Minister in 1982? Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom the Harperites hate even more. No way they were going to celebrate that.

But if the Harperites didn't want to celebrate the Charter, wouldn't it have been a simple enough thing just not to celebrate it? It's not like the people who were outraged by the lack of Charter festivities are going to shut up just because Harper celebrated 1812.

That said, I think it's certainly the case that, broadly speaking, Harper wants to move away from celebrating the Liberal "vision" to celebrating the Conservative one, the latter being defined(oddly enough, given the pro-American stance of modern Canadian conservativism) in distinctly anglophile terms.

So yes, Expo/Metric Bug/Charter out, 1812/monarchy/RCAF in. I'm just not entirely convinced that the 1812 fest was set up as a specific and conscious counterpoint to the Charter. But I guess I'm open to being convinced.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Starbucks is expensive, but hardly pretentious.
Oh? They've finally agreed to call the cup sizes "small", "medium" and "large", and the people who serve them up "counter help"?

What Stetson said. Walk into a Starbucks and order a medium and they will repeat your order substituting "Grande". But whether they sneer, smile or blankly stare, it will be the same if you use their nomenclature to start. The staff don't care.
For true coffee snobbery one needs to patronize a place that will patronize you. This is almost not a parody.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I would hope Canada has more to be patriotic about than a chain of doughnut stores. If not then Burger King buying Tim Horton's is the least of their problems.
Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

Canadians are genuinely patriotic about our health care system, and to a lesser extent our hockey, and to an even lesser extent our military. Although certain companies (Molson, Canadian Tire, Tim Horton's) have attempted to capitalize on patriotism and entwine themselves into the national psyche, I don't think there would be national mourning if Tim Horton's disappeared to be replaced by someone else selling reasonably priced coffee.

Spoken like true Westerner, everything before the CPR isn't worth remembering. [Disappointed]

There was a whole lot more to the War of 1812 than just campaigns in Niagara.

The War of 1812 was part of the backdrop to Confederation. Confederation makes no sense unless you put it into perspective with the War of 1812. War of 1812/Rebellions of 1837/Responsible Government/Confederation. Consider, reflect and inwardly digest, preferably while considering Ontario's provincial motto: Ut incept Fidelis sic permanent; Loyal she began, Loyal she remains.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

SPK, I don't think it's going out on too much of a limb to say that The Harper Government has been keen on a militaristic, Granatsteinite historiography over social history. It's not that commemorating the War is itself a problem, it's how it ties into the PM's preferred narrative.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Second Cup (3 stores) is cleaner but somewhat more pretentious, judging by the number of laptops.

I was gonna say, Second Cup is my favorite. It's a nice halfway-house between the upscale sterility of Starbucks and the yahoo populism of Tim's.

IIRC there is a single Second Cup in the US: on a college campus in Waukesha WI, which I know only as the home of the Order of Julian of Norwich.

The true proletarian choice is Coffee Time: a Communist friend in uni prided himself on patronizing it. Tim's have really tried to position themselves more upmarket in recent years. I recall being chagrined when the old Coffee Time next door to the Clarke Institute, which had been a haunt of patients, was replaced with a slick new Tim's with bathrooms you need to be buzzed into. (And of course Timmy's is not to be confused with Timothy's, which is rather more like Second Cup. I haven't seen any since moving to Québec, though we have lots of Café Dépôts here, which I've not seen elsewhere).

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Growing up in Vancouver, I was spared the Tim Horton's culture back east. Being this close to Seattle meant one could not escape from the juggernaut that is Starbucks.

I have been to the intersection in Van with Starbuckses on three out of four corners!

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

To dismiss the War of 1812 is just wrong. We can do as much social history as we want, the event still matters.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Actually, I think that the importance of the War of 1812 has to do with the marginalization of the First Nations and, additionally, the beginning of the British realizing that they had a colony and trying to figure out if they really wanted it.

I fear that, as an aficionado of independent coffee houses, I have long relied on Planet Coffee and Blumenstudio in Ottawa to serve as my locals. To my view, Tim's is only useful for road coffee on long drives when a real espresso joint is unavailable. I do not espouse the hate-starbuck's narrative of my bolshie friends, and I have always found their staff agreeable and efficient.

But, back to the OP. Last night I heard the first reference to the Tim's purchase-- two of the people at the table thought it had always belonged to Wendy's. No-one seemed deeply moved or troubled in the least by it, although the media seem quite excited.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is almost not a parody.

literally laughing out loud by the end [Killing me]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Augustine wrote:

quote:
I do not espouse the hate-starbuck's narrative of my bolshie friends

Downtown Edmonton used to have a cafe called Baraka that was very much the "anti-Starbucks" of its day. Dollar-a-cup, and they pretty much let you sit there all day if you wanted. That, and it's location right on the dividing line between the financial district(*) and the inner-city, gave it an interesting cross-section of social classes among its clientele.

Thing is, though, in my left-leaning social circle, I seemed to be the only person who really enjoyed it; everyone else complained about the bad lighting and the consistently dirty washrooms. Suffice to say there was no widespread mourning among progressives when it closed down and was replaced by a Starbucks.

So, whenever I hear these anti-globalization types go on about "Aw man, these corporate chains are driving the local based shops out of business", I think "Do you actually like those local places, or are you just claiming to because it's the orthodox thing to say"?

(*) I've never heard anybody in Edmonton actually call it that, but I'm feeling kinda pretentious today, and anyway wikipedia backs up the usage.

[ 01. September 2014, 07:32: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

LQ wrote:

quote:
I recall being chagrined when the old Coffee Time next door to the Clarke Institute, which had been a haunt of patients, was replaced with a slick new Tim's with bathrooms you need to be buzzed into.

I was once at a Second Cup in Toronto where you needed a key to get into the washrooms. The sign on the door said "Due to the sensitive issue of misuse of restrooms, a key is now required to enter".

Yeah, "sensitive issue". The phrasing was just such a perfect encapsulation of the hybrid of belaboured tolerance and residual prudery that characterizes social liberalism in Toronto The Good.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

It's a global world in business - how upset did Americans get during the 12 years Burger King was British?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's a global world in business - how upset did Americans get during the 12 years Burger King was British?

Yeah, I vaguely remembered hearing about that. Thanks for confirming.

It seems to me that with this current merger, the perception is very much that Burger King instigated the deal, as part of a scheme to get out of paying American taxes. Not sure, but that might be a difference between now and the period of British ownership.

On the Caanadian side, there does seem to be a similar inconsistency between how this deal is being perceived(ie. nationalist angst among the chattering classes) and how the Wendy's deal was perceived. One thing to keep in mind was that Wendy's bought TH in 1995, before the company had gone whole-hog into its "More Canadian than maple syrup" marketing schtick.

Plus, the Wendy's deal probably wasn't a huge issue south of the border, whereas the BK deal is(due to the aforementioned tax issues). So some of the fireworks could be spreading over into Canadian media as well.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Another thing to consider, as far as American perception goes, is that we are now in the post-2008, post-Occupy, anti-1% era, and there is probably less tolerance generally for corporations blatantly trying to screw governments out of taxes. Especially when it's a company that has long cultviated a high-profile image and solicited public affection.

If it were a company called General Amalgamated Holdings, producing technology that the average person has never heard of, it might not be getting quite the same press.

[ 01. September 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Stetson:

quote:
So, whenever I hear these anti-globalization types go on about "Aw man, these corporate chains are driving the local based shops out of business", I think "Do you actually like those local places, or are you just claiming to because it's the orthodox thing to say"?

Around here, the "local" coffee shops are competing head-on with Starsucks, etc., by being clean, personal, and comfortable. Their clienteles are happy that the invasion of laptops is confined to pretentious places.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
To dismiss the War of 1812 is just wrong. We can do as much social history as we want, the event still matters.

It certainly would be wrong, but I can think of no one who would suggest it (abuse doesn't argue against use). The linked article is worth reading in full.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

On the Canadian side, there does seem to be a similar inconsistency between how this deal is being perceived(ie. nationalist angst among the chattering classes) and how the Wendy's deal was perceived. One thing to keep in mind was that Wendy's bought TH in 1995, before the company had gone whole-hog into its "More Canadian than maple syrup" marketing schtick.

Yes, the comment about HBC upthread is germane. Cultural icon though Timmy's may be, it's not like it predates the dominion or was the effective government of most of its land mass!

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Well, actually the de facto tax rate difference between Canada and the U.S. isn't that great. On paper, the U.S. tax rate is quite a bit higher, but no corporation actually pays the full percentage as there are a list of deductions that bring the tax rate down.

Currently, Burger King pays about 27% and Tim Horton's pays about 27%. The tax savings is nil from this deal.

See: New Yorker Magazine: Is the Burger King-Tim Hortons Deal About More Than Taxes?

All that said, as a Canadian I've never understood the allure. When I lived in Calgary and Ottawa, I was always easily able to find much better fast food at a small local diner.

[ 01. September 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Another thing to consider, as far as American perception goes, is that we are now in the post-2008, post-Occupy, anti-1% era, and there is probably less tolerance generally for corporations blatantly trying to screw governments out of taxes. Especially when it's a company that has long cultviated a high-profile image and solicited public affection.

The occupy movement didn't manifest in anything coherent or lasting in my opinion. I also doubt if it has done much to broadly shape perceptions. Apple to take one example certainly hasn't suffered a hit in this regard. They are masterful in minimizing their tax footprint, have moved many jobs overseas, and keep literally billions of dollars offshore.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Alt Wally wrote:

quote:
The occupy movement didn't manifest in anything coherent or lasting in my opinion. I also doubt if it has done much to broadly shape perceptions.

Well, I was really including Occupy among a number of other factors, most significantly, the '08 Meltdown, and subsequent bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit, which prompted the public(or at least the media class) into taking a more jaundiced view of corporations.

Plus, as I said, and I think this is an important factor, Burger King is a high-profile company, with an easy-to-understand product, along with recognized iconography, very much part of the pop culture mileu. And this tax inversion is being undertaken in "one fell swoop", by moving the ENTIRE COMPANY offshore.

I'm pretty sure that if Apple announced one day that they were now a Canadian company, there would be a lot of discussion about the move, much of it negative.

I somewhat agree with your point about Occupy not having a significant effect on public opinion, but I think it applies moreso to the earlier anti-globalization movement, which never seemed to articulate a clear set of issues or goals, beyond some vague dislike of corporations. Eventually, the public got fed up with seeing masked hoodlums kicking in fast-food restaurant windows, and just thought "Well, if you don't like McDonalds, no one's forcing you to go."

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
To dismiss the War of 1812 is just wrong. We can do as much social history as we want, the event still matters.
It certainly would be wrong, but I can think of no one who would suggest it (abuse doesn't argue against use). The linked article is worth reading in full.

LQ has it right, while SPK, you misunderstood my point. I was not attempting to "dismiss the War of 1812" as you erroneously suggest. I was pointing to the fact mentioned in the linked article:

quote:
A poll early this year, conducted for the Institute for Research of Public policy, found that just 28.6 per cent of Canadians supported those celebrations, far below the 47.1 per cent who would have favoured a celebration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Harper pointedly declined to do anything to mark last year’s 30th birthday of the Charter, Liberal icon Pierre Trudeau’s signature achievement.)

Oh look, my point is supported by statistics. This also bolsters Soror Magna's contention that commemoration of the War of 1812 was in part a constructed distraction from commemoration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The magnitude of a historical event's importance does not necessarily correlate with the public's perception of its importance. This is a subset of abusus non tollit usum. No doubt we should all do more to commemorate great moments in political and social history (a parade for the Pelopennisian War, a festival for the invention of the sewing machine) but that was not my point.

Also:

quote:
Spoken like true Westerner, everything before the CPR isn't worth remembering.

This little ad hominem sideswipe was irrelevant, untrue as an attempted labelling of me, and unworthy of this discussion. FWIW, I do not think you represent anyone outside of your own point of view, nor do I claim any representative power.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Oh give me a break, Leaf!

When you post this little gem:

quote:
(This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

it's clear you're trying to sweep a very important part of Canadian history under the rug. Sanctimony and sarcasm don't mix. And since the Charter had a very nice 25th birthday celebration, one wonders what the fuss is about only five years later.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And this tax inversion is being undertaken in "one fell swoop", by moving the ENTIRE COMPANY offshore.

Does this mean they're now going to be paying Canadian taxes?

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh give me a break, Leaf!

When you post this little gem:

quote:
(This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)
it's clear you're trying to sweep a very important part of Canadian history under the rug.

You continue to misunderstand.

I am not trying to sweep any part of Canadian history under the rug.

I like Canadian history. I am mildly interested in the War of 1812. I think it was an important event in Canadian history. I believe I would do better than the Canadian median if quizzed about it.

What I am saying is: I doubt its resonance or perceived significance among Canadians. My perspective is supported by data from polling in the linked article. That is why it was an odd choice of governmental emphasis.

You do not need to defend your position so hotly, because we are talking about different things. If you think the War of 1812 was a significant event, I agree with you. If you think the War of 1812 is a significant event in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians, I disagree with you.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And this tax inversion is being undertaken in "one fell swoop", by moving the ENTIRE COMPANY offshore.
Does this mean they're now going to be paying Canadian taxes?

My assumption would be that Burger King in Canada will continue to be taxed by the Canadian government, just as they were when they were simply a branch of the American Burger King.

The difference being that, since Burger King is no longer an American company, they will not be subjected to the USA's tax on foreign income. Burger King USA(now a branch of a Canadian company) will just pay for profits made in the USA, and since the Canadian government doesn't have the foreign-income tax, Burger King the overall company will be off the hook for that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh give me a break, Leaf!

When you post this little gem:

quote:
(This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)
it's clear you're trying to sweep a very important part of Canadian history under the rug.
You continue to misunderstand.

I am not trying to sweep any part of Canadian history under the rug.

I like Canadian history. I am mildly interested in the War of 1812. I think it was an important event in Canadian history. I believe I would do better than the Canadian median if quizzed about it.

What I am saying is: I doubt its resonance or perceived significance among Canadians. My perspective is supported by data from polling in the linked article. That is why it was an odd choice of governmental emphasis.

You do not need to defend your position so hotly, because we are talking about different things. If you think the War of 1812 was a significant event, I agree with you. If you think the War of 1812 is a significant event in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians, I disagree with you.

Leaf:

I think that SPK might have gotten the impression that you think that since the War Of 1812 is insiginficant to the majority of Canadians, it should therefore not be commemorated by the government.

Your original quote...

quote:
Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

So, for starters, the Johnsonian allusion at the beginning would seem to imply that you think Harper is something akin to a scoundrel for celebrating 1812.

And the word "puzzlement" seems to imply that Harper's actions are confusing or incoherent. When I say something like "I'm puzzled by his behaviour", the implication is that it is his behaviour that's the problem, not my own faulty interpretive skills.

So, to clarify, is it your position that, since most Canadians are uninterested in the War Of 1812, the government should not have commemorated it?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

IRL I was in a few of the 1812 commemoration rooms and my brilliant Power Point presentation still resounds, even if entirely ignored. The Harper focus on commemoration of 1812 was on its military aspects and on a narrative of Canadian military heritage. Its extraordinarily important aspects of the place of aboriginals in Canadian society and the development of democratic infrastructure and political talent, especially in Québec, was entirely ignored.

One of the biggest chunks of funding went to military re-enactment, and little to educational material. The notion of paedagogical support was only brought into play in 2011-2012, which was 2 years too late for the development of curriculum material to be used in classrooms. And I will not touch on the amateurishness of the broadcast material. I was gone by then, but I wonder sometimes if much commemoration was pulled back on account of its anti-US nature (burning of Washington and all that).

Much of the discussion was almost hysterical in its efforts to draw attention from the Charter to 1812 and at times I wondered if that's what the whole thing was about. Officials looked at each other nervously as junior ministerial staff pontificated. Unlike their assistants, the relevant ministers knew what they were doing, and a few senior political folk were trying to fit it all into a broad narrative, but were frustrated by its lack of resonance among the Canadian public. The western Canadian figures were astonishingly low and it ended up being a primarily Ontario commemoration.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

cross-posted!

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think that SPK might have gotten the impression that you think that since the War Of 1812 is insiginficant to the majority of Canadians, it should therefore not be commemorated by the government.

Your original quote...

quote:
Patriotism is the last refuge of our Prime Minister, who is trying to gin it up through appeals to such events as remembrance of the War of 1812. (This has generated more puzzlement than patriotism, because beyond the Niagara Region, nobody gives much of a damn about the War of 1812.)

So, for starters, the Johnsonian allusion at the beginning would seem to imply that you think Harper is something akin to a scoundrel for celebrating 1812.

And the word "puzzlement" seems to imply that Harper's actions are confusing or incoherent. When I say something like "I'm puzzled by his behaviour", the implication is that it is his behaviour that's the problem, not my own faulty interpretive skills.

So, to clarify, is it your position that, since most Canadians are uninterested in the War Of 1812, the government should not have commemorated it?

I think it was a ridiculous effort by the government. It either presumed (incorrectly) that Canadians were interested in the War of 1812 and would be moved by its commemoration; or, if it had bothered to gauge the lack of public interest, the government failed to persuade Canadians why this event was significant and why they ought to notice or care. A third option exists: it was a deliberate attempt to pander to a small segment of Canadian society.

I am generally suspicious of government attempts to whip up patriotism, as I suspect it provides convenient cover for other issues. Yes, as I alluded, I do believe it is scoundrel-ish.

Earlier, I had suggested that Canadians have some patriotism invested in the public health care system, hockey, and the military. This leaves little room for the Harper government to position itself. It cannot generate patriotism about the public health care system, for ideological reasons. It tries a little bit with hockey, but teams are privately owned and the Winter Olympics are too sporadic to be useful. It could use the military, except that it might accidentally draw attention to its shameful treatment of actual veterans.

So this promotion was either an expensive and cynical attempt to pander to a small segment of Canadian society; or, it was an expensive and clueless attempt to appeal to a public apathetic toward, and puzzled by, the government's enthusiasm for the subject.

[ 02. September 2014, 02:07: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Stetson represents my views entirely accurately.

I am not shocked at all to find gambling in this establishment, and politicians behaving cynically surprises me not in the least. I've had run-ins with the Public Service which are "Yes, Minister" worthy.

But to characterize The War of 1813 commemorations as scoundrelish is itself churlish. The War of 1812 is a seminal moment in Canadian history (and far more pertinent than the Peleponesian War). The policies which came out of that time continue to affect Canada to this day. And might I add the British policy of direct UK-Canada immigration to replace American immigration resulted in my own family's settlement in Canada (both Upper and Lower, for different branches).

And since I'm not a New Left aficionado I can safely say that all that social history bores me to tears. I want to see a re-enactment of the Battle of Stoney Creek, not more feminist analysis of Laura Secord's rebellion against the patriarchy.

No Leaf, you don't get it. This is who we are, this war is part of us and the Charter of Rights, the BNA Act or even the Durham Report does not and cannot override that.

Lastly, call me a heretic for a Public Service wannabe but Augustine's account is yet more proof of why the Federal Government should have nothing to do with primary and secondary education in this country. That is a job best left to the professionals, by which I mean the provinces.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
and since the Canadian government doesn't have the foreign-income tax, Burger King the overall company will be off the hook for that.

Ah! Cheap bastards, then. [Frown]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
and since the Canadian government doesn't have the foreign-income tax, Burger King the overall company will be off the hook for that.
Ah! Cheap bastards, then.

That's been my understanding, though I wasn't able to access the New Yorker piece on the computer I was using. So I haven't heard the counter-arguments yet.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
and since the Canadian government doesn't have the foreign-income tax, Burger King the overall company will be off the hook for that.
Ah! Cheap bastards, then.
That's been my understanding, though I wasn't able to access the New Yorker piece on the computer I was using. So I haven't heard the counter-arguments yet.

International taxation is not something that can be adequately explained on a forum such as this, or in a newspaper, so, take it for what it is - someone's opinion on a topic they don't fully understand.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Sharkshooter wrote:

quote:
International taxation is not something that can be adequately explained on a forum such as this, or in a newspaper, so, take it for what it is - someone's opinion on a topic they don't fully understand.

Well, yes, but you could say that about any number of topics, especially in the fields of economics, science, mathematics, etc.

I'm going to assume that if the Wall Street Journal takes it for granted that this is a tax inversion, then, for the sake of this discussion, we can at the very least entertain that as a highly believable hypothesis.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Oh, no! We can't discuss it. The needs of international capital are not for the peasants to understand. Only those who have the right amount of capital-worship can even dare broach the subject.

YOU do not count because some other person has declared this! Please stop now.

IOW, someone doesn't like your line of reasoning, so you have to shut up.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I find it bizarre that 20 years after Globalization was heralded as the new reality of international economics, people still assume that companies have feelings of loyalty to nation-states.

Nope, the only symbol that most international corporations fly under is the $$$ Flag.

[ 02. September 2014, 17:50: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
... to characterize The War of 1813 commemorations as scoundrelish is itself churlish.

Then it is fortunate I did not say that. I said the motivations were scoundrel-ish. Also, what is this War of 1813 of which you speak?

quote:
The War of 1812 is a seminal moment in Canadian history...

I agree with you.

quote:
The policies which came out of that time continue to affect Canada to this day. And might I add the British policy of direct UK-Canada immigration to replace American immigration resulted in my own family's settlement in Canada (both Upper and Lower, for different branches).

So this is "history which matters" because of its effects on your family and the parts of Canada with which you are familiar. How interesting that you were so ready to Bulverize this discussion and label me with a particular identity, when it turns out this is the lens through which you determine what history is important. No surprise, I suppose; like news, all history is local.

quote:
... all that social history bores me to tears. I want to see a re-enactment of the Battle of Stoney Creek, not more feminist analysis of Laura Secord's rebellion against the patriarchy.

Ah, here is where we differ. I am interested in both. I am able to hold in my mind the idea that many kinds of history can be important and relevant: political, military, social, environmental, etc.

I found Augustine's first-hand account very interesting, and supportive of my take on the whole thing. You may wish to re-read it.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
IRL I was in a few of the 1812 commemoration rooms and my brilliant Power Point presentation still resounds, even if entirely ignored.

I'm skeptical. If a PowerPoint presentation is ignored in a Canadian forest, does it resound? A question for the ages.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, no! We can't discuss it. ..

As one herring choker to another, give me a break. As I said earlier, it is all about taxes.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Leaf wrote:

quote:
I found Augustine's first-hand account very interesting, and supportive of my take on the whole thing. You may wish to re-read it.

Seconded. It was a great post.

For myself, I've always found that discussions about The War Of 1812 take place in an ideological vacuum, which always leads to some incongruous political posturing.

I've known left-wing Canadian nationalists who celebrate the "Canadian" struggle to resist American conquest, seemingly oblivious to the reality that the "Canadians" of the day were fighting for a vision of Canada that was the polar opposite of what progressives today claim to stand for. Suffice to say that if the Canadians who fought in 1812 had foreseen that their section of North America would be the one taking the lead on gay marriage(for example), they would have gasped in horror and switched sides.

On the other hand, it would be only a slight exaggeration to say that some of the Conservatives pushing the celebrations two years ago are people who would quite happily see modern Canada annexed by the USA, the USA being far closer to their idea of utopia.

I suppose the First Nations alliance is a point if favour of the progressive nature of the British/Canadian side, though that was almost certainly just an alliance of convenience. The Brits would just as soon have slaughtered the Indians if it had served their interests.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Suffice to say that if the Canadians who fought in 1812 had foreseen that their section of North America would be the one taking the lead on gay marriage(for example), they would have gasped in horror and switched sides.

On the other hand, it would be only a slight exaggeration to say that some of the Conservatives pushing the celebrations two years ago are people who would quite happily see modern Canada annexed by the USA, the USA being far closer to their idea of utopia.

I suppose the First Nations alliance is a point if favour of the progressive nature of the British/Canadian side, though that was almost certainly just an alliance of convenience. The Brits would just as soon have slaughtered the Indians if it had served their interests.

I do find the cultus of John Strachan at Trinity to be a little odd for this reason, since a good many of us (at least in the Div faculty) are good old SCM pinkos. (Few, I think, would dare marshall an argument against universal secular education even though we owe our existence to his horror of the idea). Our field trip to the Chapel Royal of the Mohawk in Oshweken to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee with the National Indigenous Bishop was an edifying counterbalance to the usual republican current in left circles, even those which profess to be in solidarity with native self-determination.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

LQ wrote:

quote:
I do find the cultus of John Strachan at Trinity to be a little odd for this reason, since a good many of us (at least in the Div faculty) are good old SCM pinkos.

From the little I've just been reading on wiki, Strachan does seem to have had a genuine concern for protecting the First Nations, including from yankee violence.

But of course, it's easy to oppose imperialism when the agressors are your geostrategic rivals and the victims your geostrategic allies. One wonders what Strachan would have said about the Riel Rebellions, widely viewed as a great big middle-finger to WASP Canada. Or about Canada's involvement in the Boer War(hardly an exersise in Christian humanitarianism).

quote:
Our field trip to the Chapel Royal of the Mohawk in Oshweken to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee with the National Indigenous Bishop was an edifying counterbalance to the usual republican current in left circles, even those which profess to be in solidarity with native self-determination.

Much as I dislike neo-loyalism on the Canadian left, I do find the obsession that some progressives have with abolishing the monarchy a little overdone. I mean, which country would we rather emulate overall, Sweden or the USA? Not that Sweden is left-wing because it's a monarchy and the US is right-wing because it's a republic, more that those things are irrelevant to how things ultimately turn out.

And yes, First Nations opinion in Cananda is by no means universally republican, though I have encountered a few loud-mouthed white republicans who insist, on the basis of zero proferred evidence, that First Nations people are seething with rage at having to live under the Queen.(Presumbaly, American Indians just love living under the heirs to Andrew Jackson.)

[ 03. September 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

We like Tim's, enjoyed eating breakfast there when we were in Vancouver a few years ago. WIll the ugly Americans ruin it or will they expand deeper into the US before lunch time?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
We like Tim's, enjoyed eating breakfast there when we were in Vancouver a few years ago. WIll the ugly Americans ruin it

Have no fear, the Ugly Canadians beat you to the punch long time ago.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I enjoyed Tim Horton doughnuts nearly a half century ago, when the focus was on doughnuts, not coffee. Fresh baked, on-site. A common cry in my University residence floor, of a Sunday morning, especially after we had slept in and missed the cafeteria breakfast was "who wants to go to Horton's"

At that time there were just a few restaurants in SW Ontario - all company-owned.

My favourite was dutchies and a coffee.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Hehe,"The Big Triple", triple cream and triple sugar, is known as a Poor Man's Cappuccino.

My appetite vanished in a Tim Horton's one day when the hairy biker in front of me ordered a four by four. I heard later that that's commonplace.

They recently brought in a jalapeno bagel that I came close to enjoying. Their main virtue is that they are usually reliable when you need something edible and drinkable in a hurry (but not on the New York Thruway - egad, it's dreadful there).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0