Bacardi Gold

I don't know about that. They might just be equally abominable. ;)
 
What's in a name.....

I know an astronomy buff who named his daughter Andromeda. It could have been worse, for example, Taurus.
 
The worst name ever is Pumuckl. Speak "Poomoogle" Be happy you don't know what this is.
 
Some more...

Great names for a girl...

Sapphire, Brandy, Skye, Genever, Alberta, Champagne, perhaps even Absinthe...


Great names for a boy...

Gordon(s), Johnny, Jose, Grant(s), Samuel, Hiram, perhaps even Hennessey...
 
Anyone ever read Gladwell's research on names - quite fascinating. :) To summarize: the name does not predict his/her future. I had a hard time convincing teachers that Traniqua and Quantavious and Shithead (pronounced Shi-the "long e" -ed) had a chance.
 

Distiller Diageo Says Bacardi Tries to Sabotage Rum Tax Subsidy

By Ryan J. Donmoyer

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Diageo Plc, the world’s biggest distiller, accused rival Bacardi Corp. of “working behind the scenes” to sabotage U.S. tax subsidies Diageo would receive for moving production of Captain Morgan rum to the U.S. Virgin Islands from Puerto Rico.

London-based Diageo, in a 13-page press release, said Bacardi is lobbying to kill Diageo’s deal to move production of the rum to St. Croix. If the agreement collapsed and Diageo were forced to move outside the U.S., Bacardi and Puerto Rico would stand to reap “huge government subsidies” under a federal tax program, Diageo said.

Bacardi, “which received tens of millions of dollars a year in annual government rum subsidies, has made a calculated decision to try to drive a competitor out of the United States even though it would be a disaster for the U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands,” Guy Smith, executive vice president of Diageo North America, said in the release.

Diageo stands to receive as much as $2.7 billion over 30 years in direct and indirect U.S. tax incentives by producing Captain Morgan rum on St. Croix under an agreement with the U.S. Virgin Islands government. A portion of the tax incentives involved in the deal were approved last year as part of a broader rescue of the financial system. That portion expired Dec. 31 and the U.S. Senate may consider extending it this week.

Broader Issues
Patricia Neal, a spokeswoman for Bacardi, said Diageo is dodging broader issues.

“This issue is about one point - the appropriate use of approximately $2.7 billion in taxpayer money,” Neal said. “Diageo has some explaining to do to the U.S. Congress and American people.”

Bacardi has its headquarters in Catano, Puerto Rico, a San Juan suburb, and is incorporated in Bermuda.

At issue is the so-called rum cover-over program, which rebates to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands most of a $13.50 excise tax on every so-called proof gallon of rum sold in the U.S. The levy has two parts: a permanent $10.50 federal tax dating to 1917 and a $3 additional tax, of which $2.75 is rebated. The second part of the tax expired and is under consideration to be renewed.

The rebate share is based on the proportion of rum produced in each territory. About 84 percent of it is produced in Puerto Rico, mostly by Bacardi and Ponce-based Destileria Serralles Inc., which currently manufactures Captain Morgan.

Rebate Share
Diageo said it had already decided to move its production out of Puerto Rico and was considering other countries before it agreed to move to the Virgin Islands.

When production of Captain Morgan moves to the Virgin Islands in 2011, Puerto Rico’s share of the rebate will shrink more than if the rum were produced outside the U.S., according to a January report by the Congressional Research Service.

“Diageo’s decision to produce rum in the USVI presents the worst-case scenario for PR because PR loses not only Diageo but also future excise tax revenue from USVI production,” congressional researchers wrote in a report to lawmakers, referring to Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are in a lobbying battle over the future of the tax-rebate program and Diageo’s deal, in which the Virgin Islands would steer as much as 44.5 percent of the tax rebates to the company.

Washington Lobbying
Puerto Rico’s non-voting member of Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, has introduced legislation to limit the subsidies. Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuno is in Washington this week lobbying lawmakers on the issue.

“As public officials learn more details about the proposed deals in the Virgin Islands, they understand why it is bad economic and public policy to give billions in U.S. tax dollars to individual companies,” Fortuno said yesterday.

Felix Serralles Jr., president and chief executive of Destileria Serralles, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama earlier this month, saying that subsidies offered to Diageo and other rum makers are worth more than the value of the rum produced.

“The U.S. Virgin Islands claim they are keeping jobs in the United States,” Serralles wrote in the Feb. 12 letter. “The real question is whether federally collected tax funds should be used to guarantee the profits of any company, thereby creating a monopolized and uncompetitive marketplace for rum.”

Diageo has countered by hiring lobbyists such as the Breaux-Lott Leadership Group, led by former Democratic Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Republican former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.

The House passed legislation late last year that extended the second portion of the rum tax rebate without any substantive changes or restrictions affecting Diageo’s deal with the government of the Virgin Islands. That is the measure the Senate will take up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601205&sid=adeoLO1uVi00
 
You must be so proud of yourself for adding two posts that have nothing to do with the discussion :rolleyes:
 
My kids grew up with a pair of siblings named Aramis and Anais. Not from the literary originals-- from the perfumes. Nice kids, nice family.

I once met a woman who's kids were named Dylan and Colette. "Are you a lit major?" I asked. "Whut?" she replied.

I am similarly guilty, though; Even though I always thought I'd give my kids gender-neutral names, when it came down to it, the girl is named after a pretty flower, the boy after a predatory animal. Go figure.:eek:
 
Back
Top