Full Version: Haliburton Moves to Dubai
Haliburton's recent revelation that it is moving its head office from Texas to Dubai has sparked a touch of resentment among the house.
To me this speaks of heavy lobbying and perks granted on behalf of Haliburton. So much so that unfortunately this was considered business as usual.
I'm seeing shades of Unocal all over again as politicians get nervous at the notion of a shriveling tax base.
Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
4) As debts build up, are you comfortable with foreigners purchasing state assets?
5) Does holding no-bid contracts with companies and aggressively pursuing the so called war on terror add an unsavoury opportunity for corporate confiscation of a nation's resources?
QUOTE
"It's an example of corporate greed at its worst," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
"This is an insult to the US soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," he charged.
"This is an insult to the US soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," he charged.
To me this speaks of heavy lobbying and perks granted on behalf of Haliburton. So much so that unfortunately this was considered business as usual.
QUOTE
"This is a surprising development. I want to understand the ramifications for the US taxpayer and national security," Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement.
I'm seeing shades of Unocal all over again as politicians get nervous at the notion of a shriveling tax base.
Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
4) As debts build up, are you comfortable with foreigners purchasing state assets?
5) Does holding no-bid contracts with companies and aggressively pursuing the so called war on terror add an unsavoury opportunity for corporate confiscation of a nation's resources?
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
I have no problem with the move. Much of Haliburton's operations take place in the Eastern Hemisphere so it only makes sense that they would open a large office in Dubai which is a risisng star in the Middle East.
Halliburton opening headquarters in Dubai
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
Precurso to a failing economy? I do not even know how that relates to this topic.
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
As long as we drive up corporate taxes, corporations will move their main offices of operation overseas. As we continue to build a world economy, it only makes sense that business would move to where they have the chance to be most profitable.
I have no problem with the move. Much of Haliburton's operations take place in the Eastern Hemisphere so it only makes sense that they would open a large office in Dubai which is a risisng star in the Middle East.
Halliburton opening headquarters in Dubai
QUOTE
An analyst said the move made sense. "The company as a whole has continued to diversify internationally, and the Middle East is a point that they have targeted," said William Sanchez, a U.S.-based analyst at Howard Weil Inc. "They are being opportunistic in putting the CEO in the middle of the action."
During 2006, more than 38 percent of Halliburton's $13 billion in oil services revenue was generated in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Sanchez said he believed Halliburton's move to Dubai is not tax related. Instead he views it as a strategic play.
Lesar said Halliburton is considering listing its shares on one of the Middle East bourses as it looks at growth potential in the hemisphere.
During 2006, more than 38 percent of Halliburton's $13 billion in oil services revenue was generated in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Sanchez said he believed Halliburton's move to Dubai is not tax related. Instead he views it as a strategic play.
Lesar said Halliburton is considering listing its shares on one of the Middle East bourses as it looks at growth potential in the hemisphere.
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
Precurso to a failing economy? I do not even know how that relates to this topic.
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
As long as we drive up corporate taxes, corporations will move their main offices of operation overseas. As we continue to build a world economy, it only makes sense that business would move to where they have the chance to be most profitable.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Mar 12 2007, 04:33 PM) 
Haliburton's recent revelation that it is moving its head office from Texas to Dubai has sparked a touch of resentment among the house.
QUOTE
"It's an example of corporate greed at its worst," Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.
"This is an insult to the US soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," he charged.
"This is an insult to the US soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," he charged.
To me this speaks of heavy lobbying and perks granted on behalf of Haliburton. So much so that unfortunately this was considered business as usual.
QUOTE
"This is a surprising development. I want to understand the ramifications for the US taxpayer and national security," Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement.
I'm seeing shades of Unocal all over again as politicians get nervous at the notion of a shriveling tax base.
Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
4) As debts build up, are you comfortable with foreigners purchasing state assets?
5) Does holding no-bid contracts with companies and aggressively pursuing the so called war on terror add an unsavoury opportunity for corporate confiscation of a nation's resources?
Why should taxpayers support companies that want to avoid paying US taxes.
Congress should make it mandatory that any company that tries to avoid paying US taxers by moving operations overseas should lose all government contracts.
QUOTE
Why should taxpayers support companies that want to avoid paying US taxes.
Congress should make it mandatory that any company that tries to avoid paying US taxers by moving operations overseas should lose all government contrac
Congress should make it mandatory that any company that tries to avoid paying US taxers by moving operations overseas should lose all government contrac
When did Halliburton say it was not going top pay US taxes? Never happened and by the way their net profits are down and their stock has dropped based on a slowdown in gas exploration.
Needless to say any company has the right to move their headquarters anywhere they like. This is after all, I believe, still a free country.
Halliburton already has many international offices. The way I understand it is that if a company’s headquarters is located outside the US, they are not subject to the same taxation, with the added bonus that they no longer have to comply with laws that ban US companies from doing business with certain countries (um, Iran anybody?)
Personally, I believe Halliburton is making this move to pay less taxes and make more profit (naturally), and to avoid investigations by the newly suspicious Democratic Congress into their improper business dealings and bountiful bonanza of no-contest contracts from the war paid for by John and Jane Q. Public.
Anyone remember the flap over Dubai running US ports? I guess some have no problem with the country’s largest defense contractor operating from there.
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
Completely disagree with the move. Their bread and butter is coming right out of US taxpayers’ pockets and they should be subjected to this country’s laws and taxes.
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
I think the economy is already floundering, but with Halliburton having so many of its assets offshore and not subject to US taxes, I don’t think this will have a huge effect.
3) Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
Absolutely not. Halliburton has gotten free lunches and ridden this compliant administration for far too long. Time for them to get in line like the rest of them. I'm with Eisenhower on this one.
QUOTE
Lawyers who specialize in corporate litigation said that Halliburton, as a company run by U.S. citizens and traded on U.S. stock exchanges, would still be subject to such laws as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Sarbanes-Oxley.
"The bottom line seems to be that the only change in status is in respect to tax consequences," said Gregory Craig, a partner at the firm of Williams and Connolly. Income earned abroad and paid to a company based abroad would not be subject to U.S. taxes, Craig said. WaPo
"The bottom line seems to be that the only change in status is in respect to tax consequences," said Gregory Craig, a partner at the firm of Williams and Connolly. Income earned abroad and paid to a company based abroad would not be subject to U.S. taxes, Craig said. WaPo
Personally, I believe Halliburton is making this move to pay less taxes and make more profit (naturally), and to avoid investigations by the newly suspicious Democratic Congress into their improper business dealings and bountiful bonanza of no-contest contracts from the war paid for by John and Jane Q. Public.
QUOTE
With many of the company's subsidiaries located outside of the U.S., Halliburton is notorious for using tax havens and in Dubai, they will be paying next to zero in corporate taxes for the most part, Lien said.
Many employees, who also live and work in one of their investment zones could be exempt from taxes as well, she said. Market Watch
Many employees, who also live and work in one of their investment zones could be exempt from taxes as well, she said. Market Watch
Anyone remember the flap over Dubai running US ports? I guess some have no problem with the country’s largest defense contractor operating from there.
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
Completely disagree with the move. Their bread and butter is coming right out of US taxpayers’ pockets and they should be subjected to this country’s laws and taxes.
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
I think the economy is already floundering, but with Halliburton having so many of its assets offshore and not subject to US taxes, I don’t think this will have a huge effect.
QUOTE
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in late February repeated his warning of serious consequences to the U.S. economy if plans are not put in place to pay for the government's future spending obligations. He said the recent good news on the federal budget deficit was simply "the calm before the storm" for the deficit. (Market Watch)
3) Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
Absolutely not. Halliburton has gotten free lunches and ridden this compliant administration for far too long. Time for them to get in line like the rest of them. I'm with Eisenhower on this one.
QUOTE
Eisenhower saw the development of a symbiotic relationship between the Department of Defense and the defense contractors and politicians that would substantially alter the very nature of the United States, turning it from a country that went to war only reluctantly, where ploughshares could be beaten into swords and then back into ploughshares, to a country in which the political and social system would be in permanent thrall to a war economy and mentality. Eisenhower clearly understood that at a certain point, the defense contracting and the distinct economy that it fosters would gain control of the political process and would be able to dictate how the American people work and live. This process has come to fruition, and it has positively bloomed under the Bush administration, which now is speaking confidently of a "long war" that will last for generations. Antiwar
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 23 2007, 12:59 PM)
QUOTE
Why should taxpayers support companies that want to avoid paying US taxes.
Congress should make it mandatory that any company that tries to avoid paying US taxers by moving operations overseas should lose all government contrac
Congress should make it mandatory that any company that tries to avoid paying US taxers by moving operations overseas should lose all government contrac
When did Halliburton say it was not going top pay US taxes? Never happened and by the way their net profits are down and their stock has dropped based on a slowdown in gas exploration.
Needless to say any company has the right to move their headquarters anywhere they like. This is after all, I believe, still a free country.
Back in the 1980s I looked into contracting in Saudi Arabia. There were a couple of strong draws:
1 - No US taxes on the income
2 - Mandatory leave of the country each year for a period of, if I remember right, a month. Could have toured Europe with the extra dough.
How this works for Haliburton's corporate structure would be interesting to examine. Perhaps they will re-incorporate in Dubai, and thus be subject to that country's taxation. Or, if they keep the US corporation, I suppose they'll pay US corporate taxes.
BTW, I dropped the Saudi contract idea after learning what kind of place that was, and still is. No thanks, I had, and still have, a revulsion from doing work for jerks like that. Let them figure out their own dang computer systems.
Apparently, some US outfits have no such revulsion. Ah well, pity, the almighty dollar wins again.
QUOTE
DG
Personally, I believe Halliburton is making this move to pay less taxes and make more profit (naturally), and to avoid investigations by the newly suspicious Democratic Congress into their improper business dealings and bountiful bonanza of no-contest contracts from the war paid for by John and Jane Q. Public
Personally, I believe Halliburton is making this move to pay less taxes and make more profit (naturally), and to avoid investigations by the newly suspicious Democratic Congress into their improper business dealings and bountiful bonanza of no-contest contracts from the war paid for by John and Jane Q. Public
While it is quite easy to make these accusations over and over ad-nausea it would help to check the facts. The GAO found no wrongdoing so to continue to harp on this is IMO silly at best.
Halliburton was granted a $7 billion no-bid contract, the execution of which received much scrutiny from U.S. Government auditors along with the media and various political opponents who also scrutinized the awarding of the contract, claiming that it represented a conflict of interest for Mr. Cheney. In June 2004, the General Accounting Office reviewed the contracting procedures and found Halliburton's no-bid contracts were legal and likely justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs.[38]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04605.pdf
QUOTE
Completely disagree with the move. Their bread and butter is coming right out of US taxpayers’ pockets and they should be subjected to this country’s laws and taxes.
Again any proof they will not be paying taxes? Please post it with the accusation
1) Do you agree with the move why or why not?
No, people think its a business decision to be close to the customers and this is what the corporation is using. If you look at the possible reasons is most of the decisions made are through the head quarters. Sales people are sent to customers and the policy makers are no where in site. The move smells like a way to get away from the public's view or someone's jurisdiction. When was the last time you heard of a corporation based in a foreign land being investigated by the US Government? There is a chinese based company fiasco on gluten and still to day no information are readily shared to the public. I hope we can get information on how they are staffing the facility, then we can draw our own conclusions with better information.
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
Neither its just the old corporate power trip that they are above the law and care less about public opinion.
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
I don't believe this would make any difference. The types of people involved have no consciences and corruption will occur no matter who is in charge. Money changes people rather quickly.
4) As debts build up, are you comfortable with foreigners purchasing state assets?
Yes, because all you have to do is start another war with the foreigner's country and the assets will no longer be there's. War is america's number one weapon, economically. Look at Saudi Arabia. They are investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars now in america but underneath it all, that country is really run by the US and owes it lots of money for the security and weapons the US provides. If you ask Saudi arabia's non royal family, they hate their government. One day this hatred would be the fuel to use if Saudi Arabia starts double crossing the arrangements with big businesses and the US government. It would be freeing oppressed people all over again.
No, people think its a business decision to be close to the customers and this is what the corporation is using. If you look at the possible reasons is most of the decisions made are through the head quarters. Sales people are sent to customers and the policy makers are no where in site. The move smells like a way to get away from the public's view or someone's jurisdiction. When was the last time you heard of a corporation based in a foreign land being investigated by the US Government? There is a chinese based company fiasco on gluten and still to day no information are readily shared to the public. I hope we can get information on how they are staffing the facility, then we can draw our own conclusions with better information.
2). Is this a precursor of a failing economy or an overblown reaction?
Neither its just the old corporate power trip that they are above the law and care less about public opinion.
3) If this is a sign of things to come, what future implications are in store for Americans? Should future contracts be held under no-bid contracts to American companies?
I don't believe this would make any difference. The types of people involved have no consciences and corruption will occur no matter who is in charge. Money changes people rather quickly.
4) As debts build up, are you comfortable with foreigners purchasing state assets?
Yes, because all you have to do is start another war with the foreigner's country and the assets will no longer be there's. War is america's number one weapon, economically. Look at Saudi Arabia. They are investing billions or maybe trillions of dollars now in america but underneath it all, that country is really run by the US and owes it lots of money for the security and weapons the US provides. If you ask Saudi arabia's non royal family, they hate their government. One day this hatred would be the fuel to use if Saudi Arabia starts double crossing the arrangements with big businesses and the US government. It would be freeing oppressed people all over again.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.