Better look further...I am not certain of Burger King but I know McDonald's has had record profits. But what I said about supporting them because of low wages is a fact. You are right these used to be teenager jobs but no more. I agree they are partly to blame themselves (the employees) because many of them did little to advance themselves as far as education goes but that does not excuse the plain facts that we DO end up supporting these people.
It is true that the U.S. has high corporate tax but they also have far too many loopholes so what good does it do. Plain and simple we need tax reform. Lower the taxes but close the loopholes. I think that was my point. But also the point would be is it fair for Burger King or any other company to remain here in the U.S. and feed off of us and yet take and pay their taxes elsewhere. Not at all. There will always be low wage jobs...someone has to do them. Not all are college material. Perhaps they won't get rich off of these jobs but they should at least be able to house and feed themselves without our assistance.
So Burger should pay their employees more because McDonald's made "record profits"? By the way, which McDonalds? Stores are franchised individual small businesses. Pay checks come from store owners, not McDonalds corp.
Since we taxpayers are "subsidizing" Burger King's payrolls, then if Burger King layed everybody off, and closed their doors, we would save the taxpayers a fortune, based on your premise. Or maybe Burger King is actually "subsidizing" or reducing how much a struggling family is dependent upon the government.
Again, why is it Burger King's responsibility to support families of people who lost their real job just because they have the greedy audacity to offer part time opportunities? - Lets say you had an offer to do a one year job on the west coast, during which you would be away from home, that paid triple your normal income. In other words, you would be making "record profits". Lets say you wanted to offer one of the neighbor kids a job, mowing your yard once a week, your mower, your gas, $25 for 3 hours work. You pat yourself on the back for giving the kid an opportunity to make some spending money. So after you hire the kid, your find out he's actually 25 years old, has 2 kids, lost his $50k job at Solyndra, and his unemployment ran out. Do you have a moral responsibility to pay him a "living wage" since he needs it, and you are making enough to pay it, or should he be content with what he agreed to work for, while he does what is necessary to obtain real employment?
"Loopholes" is another buzz word. Yes, there are lots of loopholes in the tax code, but NO, they are not for everybody. Loopholes are for businesses and industries that happen to make the government's list of selected winners such as "green" energy, or political activism. "Cholesterol and obesity" industries do not get on the tax loophole list.
