Hasta La Gadget!

Burger King’s plan to scurry across the Canadian border to avoid U.S. taxes could be seen as the corporate equivalent of flipping President Barack Obama the bird.

The White House vowed earlier this month to use an executive order to curb tax inversions — deals in which U.S. companies buy smaller foreign firms in countries with lower taxes, then renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship and re-incorporate in that country.

Still, Burger King said late Sunday night that it was in talks to merge with Tim Hortons, Canada’s popular bakery and coffee chain. The new, combined company would be headquartered in Canada.

In a research note, Potomac Research Group political strategist Greg Valliere said Burger King’s move challenges regulators at the White House and Treasury to back up threats to crack down on inversions.

“So much for the theory that Treasury could chill future inversion deals by hinting of possible action,” Valliere wrote in the note. “We still don’t expect regulations to be finalized until early next year, after a deliberative comment period, but we think there’s a good chance that Treasury will get a phone call today from the White House, urging quicker action.”

Radina Russell, a Burger King spokeswoman, declined to comment. The White House and the Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Though the timing of the deal suggests a disregard for the Obama administration’s ability limit tax inversions, some say the company could be heading north before political pressure to close the tax loophole gives way to tangible legal changes.

“My sense is this is Burger King trying to dodge paying its taxes. I don’t know that I’d attribute it to their making a move like this to directly challenge Obama,” Frank Clemente, executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness, told The Huffington Post. “I can’t say what’s on the company’s mind here, whether they’re trying to beat the clock on this and do something before Congress passes legislation or do something before Obama signs an executive order.”

The past few years have seen American companies practically stampede to the border in an effort take advantage of lower rates elsewhere. The top U.S. corporate rate is 35 percent. In Ireland, for example, it is just 12.5 percent.

At least 21 U.S. companies have announced plans to invert since the start of 2012, according to a tally kept Bloomberg News. Among the brands planning to pull up stakes are Chiquita, the banana giant, and Mylan, which makes generic drugs.

One company, the drugstore giant Walgreen, considered and then abandoned a planned inversion earlier this month as part of its takeover of the Swiss company Alliance Boots, after it faced significant public backlash.

The chief executive of Mylan recently told a New York Times columnist that she had no choice but to invert as part of a buyout of a company in the Netherlands. But this argument isn’t especially convincing. That’s because the U.S. tax code is so riddled with loopholes that very few companies pay anything near 35 percent. Companies like General Electric, Google and Apple have whiz-bang tax departments that have mastered the art of tax avoidance, often by routing income through low- or no-tax jurisdictions, like Bermuda.

In 2010, profitable U.S. corporations paid an effective rate of less than 13 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress.

But in the world of tax avoidance, as in life, there are haves and have-nots. Tech and drug companies have all sorts of ways to shift earnings abroad and make tax bills lower. Companies that sell a lot of physical things in the U.S. — such as hamburgers — typically pay a much higher rate, because it is harder to disguise those sales as foreign income. Inversions won’t solve this tax problem altogether, but they do give businesses a basket of new tax avoidance options.

The Walgreen inversion, for example, could have allowed the company to slash its tax rate by as much as 15 percent, equating to savings of billions of dollars. Burger King’s projected tax savings, according to initial news reports, would be smaller, though it is too early to say for sure how much.

In 2013 the company deposited $88 million in government coffers, at an effective tax rate of about 27 percent, according to filings. (That’s lower than the top rate because the company doesn’t pay domestic taxes on burgers sold abroad. Burger King is huge in Germany, as it turns out).

But even if Burger King’s tax savings add up to no more than a few million dollars a year, by corporate standards, it is easy money. Completing an inversion is primarily a function of filing the right paperwork. Company executives can stay put at headquarters in Miami. They can become Canadian without even buying a winter coat.

The use of plastics in our daily lives has grown drastically over the last several decades. It is difficult for us to function without using plastics in some form. Think about our annual use of nearly 300 million metric tons, with a significant percentage (up to 40 percent) used as packaging materials that are typically used once and discarded.

It might surprise some people that as much as 10 percent of the plastic that is not recycled winds up in our marine and fresh water environments. There are vast areas of our oceans where plastic debris is concentrated in gyres where the debris is broken down, by abrasive wave action and embrittlement caused by light in the UV range, into particles that measure less than 5 mm. In a recent article published in Science magazine, Professors Kara Lavender Law of the Sea Education Association and Richard C. Thompson of Plymouth University in the United Kingdom reported that they have measured plastic particles as small as 20 micrometers and have suggested that these particles concentrate toxic refractory organics on their surfaces that can be released upon digestion by fish and wildlife.

Another source of plastics in our water is microbeads, the tiny pieces of plastic that are used in consumer goods, in particular, as exfoliating agents in personal care products. Microbeads are generally polyethylene micrcospheres that are available in particle sizes from 0.01 to 1 mm. They are too small to be filtered out by wastewater treatment plants so they end up in our lakes and waterways. Microbeads account for almost 90 percent of the microplastics found in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes, in turn, account for almost 20 percent of the world’s fresh water.

We should be pleased with the recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made by U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to add microbeads and microplastics to the list of Great Lakes contaminants. It is recognized that the tiny particle sizes associated with these contaminants result in passage through municipal wastewater treatment facilities, causing a significant threat to fish and bird populations. Clearly more research is required to determine the potential environmental and human health impacts of the microplastics.

But, what can you and I do to help reduce this threat? First, we can avoid the purchase of consumer products such as shampoos, facial washes and cosmetics that use microbeads. Second, we can be more diligent in recycling plastic products and more careful about what we discharge to our municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

New York state, along with California and Ohio, has already begun the debate as to whether legislation is required to mitigate the environmental threat being created by microplastics. The state of Illinois has already passed legislation banning the use of microbeads in consumer products by 2018.

Remember that without water, our Earth cannot sustain life. It’s worth the trouble to protect this precious resource.

One of the questions I often hear from my clients is, “If I take care of myself and do what brings me joy, aren’t I being selfish?”

Let’s take a close look at this false belief.

Renee is a very bright and vital woman. She grew up in a family that valued women who stayed at home raising their children. Not wanting to be judged or rejected by her family, Renee followed in her mother’s footsteps, giving up her budding career in TV advertising to get married and have children. Renee became a “good” mother — driving her kids everywhere, going to PTA meetings, showing up at all her kid’s events and doing volunteer work. There was nothing wrong with any of this, except for the fact that Renee felt trapped, unhappy and angry much of the time. Renee really wanted to be expressing herself in the world in some way, but believed that it was her obligation to stay at home with her children.

The problem is that an unhappy, angry, irritated mother is not a good mother. And Renee is going to continue to feel irritated and angry as long as she is not doing what really brings her joy.

“But if I go back to school, which is what I really want to do, aren’t I being selfish? Since I chose to get married and have children, don’t I owe it to them to be here for them as much as I can?”

“No, not if it means giving yourself up and being miserable. Not if it means giving to them out of obligation. They will not benefit from this. They want you to be happy, and they need you to be a role model for taking personal responsibility for your own happiness. You will find that if you do what is really loving to you, they will benefit as well. They might not like it in the short run, because they are used to you being there all the time, but in the long run, they will turn out to be happier and healthier adults.”

David is a medical doctor who works long hours to support his family. He is not happy working so hard. He comes home exhausted, and then takes care of various household chores so his sons can have the time to play sports and do their homework. He has no time for himself. He is often short-tempered with his wife and children. He wants time to ride his bike and to pursue his love of writing.

“But if I work less and we have less money, aren’t I being selfish? Don’t I owe it to my family to keep up their standard of living? Aren’t I being selfish if I expect my kids to do the chores in addition to doing their sports and their homework?”

“No, you owe it to yourself and your family to be a happy, peaceful and fulfilled person. The very best thing you can give to your family is your happy and joyful presence.”

We are being self-responsible rather than selfish when we take loving care of ourselves. We are being selfish when:

• We do not take care of ourselves and then expect others to give us what we are not giving to ourselves.
• We expect others to give themselves up for us.
• We are angry and demanding of others because we are not taking care of ourselves.
• We impose our irritated, withdrawn, sullen, anxious and tense energy onto others instead of doing whatever we need to do to be peaceful and joyful.
• We are “taking care of ourselves” from a wounded place and ignoring the needs of others or ignoring the effect our behavior has on others.

Whatever we do that is truly loving to ourselves — that is in the highest good of our soul’s journey on the planet — is also loving to others. It is never in our highest good to be mean to others, or to disregard other’s feelings and needs. But it is in our highest good follow our higher guidance and do what really brings us joy and fulfillment.

Our actions do not benefit anyone when our behavior comes from fear and obligation. Others feel the lack of love in our energy, even if the action itself looks loving. Our honest and authentic actions — actions which are loving to ourselves — are also loving to others. Our truth give others an opportunity to take care of themselves. If Renee goes back to school, her family will need to learn to rely more on themselves instead of turning to her for everything. If David takes time for himself, maybe his children will learn to take more responsibility around the house. By taking care of ourselves, we give others the chance to step up to the plate. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t, but our loving behavior toward ourselves always gives others an opportunity to grow in their personal responsibility and lovingness as well.

Margaret Paul, Ph.D. is a relationship expert, best-selling author, and co-creator of the powerful Inner Bonding® self-healing process, recommended by actress Lindsay Wagner and singer Alanis Morissette, and featured on Oprah. To begin learning how to love and connect with yourself so that you can connect with others, take advantage of our free Inner Bonding eCourse, and join Dr. Margaret Paul for her 30-Day at-home Course: “Love Yourself: An Inner Bonding Experience to Heal Anxiety, Depression, Shame, Addictions and Relationships.” Discover SelfQuest®, a transformational self-healing/conflict resolution computer program. Phone or Skype sessions with Dr. Margaret Paul.

Connect with Margaret on Facebook: Inner Bonding, and Facebook: SelfQuest.

As a public health advocate, I was ecstatic to watch the “Ice Bucket Challenge” social media campaign raise for ALS. Over the past two and half weeks, the ALS Association earned over 13 million dollars in donations. Last year, during the same period, the ALS raised a paltry $1.7 million in comparison. The viral campaign, sparked by the heartfelt plea of a college baseball player, Pete Frates, grew funding exponentially.

At the risk of stating the obvious — money is essential for biological research. Even the most basic experiments require reagents, laboratory space, laboratory equipment and personnel. The more funding scientists have, the more work they can do. At certain junctures, greater funding allows for greater experimental risks that may lead to unexpected breakthroughs. There is no question that increasing funding for scientific research is an essential and useful step in finding cures to diseases such as ALS.

However, the way we raise money for scientific research is perhaps as important as the money we raise. Historically, successful fundraising campaigns have included celebrities afflicted with the disease (Michael J. Fox and Parkinson’s as an example) or the emotional pull of diseases that affect a large proportion of the population (Susan G. Komen and breast cancer as another example.) Fundraising rests heavily on tugging at someone’s heartstrings and causing empathy — yet the money is focused toward benefiting a scientific, rigorous process.

This dichotomy between the emotional nature of fundraising and the academic targets of donation was exceedingly clear during the Ice Bucket Challenge. Peer pressure to participate in a good cause increased as more celebrities and icons joined the challenge. Millions of people who participated all announced their support for finding a cure for ALS during their videos, and yet a substantial amount may not be able to accurately describe ALS and the symptoms of the disease. For the curious, there is wonderful curriculum on ALS available through NINDS (National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke).

The ALS social media movement will be analyzed, studied and debated for years to come as a precedent for successful fundraising. There will be lessons and questions for foundations, influencers and policy makers. For the scientific community the big question will be: is it enough for us to popularize our causes in a lighthearted way to raise funding? Or is this a wasted opportunity to educate the public in a way that might actually yield more than simply monetary crowd funding? What about intellectual crowd funding? What about awareness of clinical trials in ALS or genetic marker studies? The challenge may be that these kinds of educational things don’t have the widespread popularity of something easy to understand- like an ice bucket on your head to raise awareness. However, with some creativity, perhaps we can engage the public with more than just a fun stunt, and make the most of the tremendous platforms we have within social media.

It is critical to acknowledge that the awareness battle doesn’t end with research funding, it continues beyond into investment capital, FDA trials, drug production, and market strategy. A drug developed for ALS today could take up to twenty years to get to market. YouTube views, retweets and more ice won’t change that — but moving beyond general awareness to education and engagement will.