Halliburton leaving the US

Your statement is clear and unambiguous in its meaning. Like I said before, you wanted to know “how Halliburton is going to NOT pay taxes to America?” Now, you have an answer. You can either deal with it or continue to prevaricate. Either way, the facts speak for themselves.

Halliburton, for decades now, has acted to reduce it's tax burden and rightfully so. Halliburton's move today does nothing to change that behavior, for better or worse. Until congress addresses corporate over-taxation, accountants and lawyers will continue to work within the tax system.

That has nothing to do with this thread, though. Halliburton pays the taxes it must under the law. Including on the property where it's current headquarters is located (which will not be abandoned) All beside the point. What's at hand is trish's post that "Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay".

That's the original post that you replied to and as a result, what this thread has turned into.

Um…..yeah, you might want to rethink that one. When a company’s fortunes are as dependent upon political outcomes as Halliburton’s are, it’s more than just business. When the VP is the former CEO of Halliburton, and received “deferred compensation” (and retained unexercised stock options in Halliburton) for years while in office, it’s more than just business. When it comes to TNCs, business has everything to do with politics and vice versa. Ask anyone who has ever worked on Wall Street.

We've got a House Ethics Committee you can take your complaints about Vice President to. Actually, lefties are already crying for hearings and good luck on that witchhunt. Bet you it goes nowhere because there's no crime, not even ethics violations. Nothing.

A fine argument save for the following:

1) Halliburton will pay NO taxes on income declared in Dubai, not “reduced” taxes;
2) Halliburton pays NO taxes on income declared in its Cayman subsidiaries, not ”reduced taxes;”
3) The taxes paid on income declared by subsidiaries in other tax havens are so far below the rate of any OECD country as to be little better than not paying taxes.

Fine. Let the hard working men and women of Halliburton keep their money. Besides, according to your argument, they probably haven't been paying taxes on that anyway. This "move" does not affect that behavior, either.

Wow, you really don’t get it, do you? When corporations don’t pay their taxes, the burden falls upon individual tax payers to make up the difference. That’s right, when Halliburton and other corporations skip out on their obligations and shortchange the government, you and I eventually pick up the tab.

-Quinn

What do you think we are? Frank Lopez trying to meet Alejandro Sosa's drug payment? The bulk of the burden is not on the taxpayers. It's on our elected officials. I suppose you could argue that it's on the citizens to force the officials to cut spending, but the tax-base is not an bottomless-wallet for federal pork barreling (which boths sides of the aisle are guilty of).

[olite71]

Bottom line is this--every move outside of the US to a non tax jursidiction removes taxable income from the united states (both property and income) and puts it somewhere else.

Halliburton pays less taxes to the U.S. because of this move...

Accept it and move on. I accept it--it's what corporations do. I don't know why you won't accept it.

[Quinn]

Your statement is clear and unambiguous in its meaning. Like I said before, you wanted to know “how Halliburton is going to NOT pay taxes to America?” Now, you have an answer. You can either deal with it or continue to prevaricate. Either way, the facts speak for themselves.

Halliburton, for decades now, has acted to reduce it's tax burden and rightfully so. Halliburton's move today does nothing to change that behavior, for better or worse. Until congress addresses corporate over-taxation, accountants and lawyers will continue to work within the tax system.

That has nothing to do with this thread, though. Halliburton pays the taxes it must under the law. Including on the property where it's current headquarters is located (which will not be abandoned) All beside the point. What's at hand is trish's post that "Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay".

That's the original post that you replied to and as a result, what this thread has turned into)

ROTFLMAO…... Wow, I can’t believe how easily you confuse simple, obvious, and unavoidable facts. I responded to the following:

LMAO! Ok, I'm handing you the shovel, start digging.

How is Halliburton going to NOT pay taxes to America?

I'm waiting...

Once again, for the Reading Is Fundamental (RIF) crowd, you asked “How is Halliburton going to NOT pay taxes to America?” I answered it. The weak qualifying statements you are attempting to add so as to dilute the impact of those facts are worthless. I’ll now hand you the metaphorical shovel you previously offered Trish. Start digging.

Um…..yeah, you might want to rethink that one. When a company’s fortunes are as dependent upon political outcomes as Halliburton’s are, it’s more than just business. When the VP is the former CEO of Halliburton, and received “deferred compensation” (and retained unexercised stock options in Halliburton) for years while in office, it’s more than just business. When it comes to TNCs, business has everything to do with politics and vice versa. Ask anyone who has ever worked on Wall Street.

We've got a House Ethics Committee you can take your complaints about Vice President to. Actually, lefties are already crying for hearings and good luck on that witchhunt. Bet you it goes nowhere because there's no crime, not even ethics violations. Nothing.

Other than you, who said anything about ethics violations? You – incorrectly – stated the following: “That's business. It has nothing to do with politics.” I merely shredded your afactual assertion with the above paragraph.

Wow, you really don’t get it, do you? When corporations don’t pay their taxes, the burden falls upon individual tax payers to make up the difference. That’s right, when Halliburton and other corporations skip out on their obligations and shortchange the government, you and I eventually pick up the tab.

What do you think we are? Frank Lopez trying to meet Alejandro Sosa's drug payment? The bulk of the burden is not on the taxpayers. It's on our elected officials. I suppose you could argue that it's on the citizens to force the officials to cut spending, but the tax-base is not an bottomless-wallet for federal pork barreling (which boths sides of the aisle are guilty of).

Drug payment??? Ok, now back to our reality. When corporations don’t pay their taxes, or the corporate tax base is compromised in any serious manner, individual tax payers eventually pick up the tab through increased taxation. Regardless of what you or I may want, that’s the way it is. While I am in complete agreement that pork barrel spending should go away, and that both sides of the aisle are responsible, the sad reality is that no one is stepping up. Bottom line: When TNCs like Halliburton skip out on their obligations and shortchange the government, it eventually comes out of our wallets.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contracts are subject to a profit ceiling. Usually costs plus a 1 to 4% profit margin plus incentive fees. The total percentage profit would only have been as much as 9% between 1992 and `97. It is now down to a maximum of 3%.


Former VP Al Gore's National Performance Review favorably mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on Reinventing the Department of Defense in 1996.

In 1998, during the Clinton administration, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DOD contracts more than doubled.

According to [b] papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 George Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of Halliburton. The shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million.[/b]

Halliburton watched Vinson & Elkins make the move first and decided it was a good idea. Halliburton is an oil services company, makes sense to move closer to the action. During 2006, close to 40% of the company's $13 billion oil field services revenue were generated from the Eastern hemisphere.

Standard & Poor's Equity Research analyst Stewart Glickman pointed out that Halliburton currently trails its major oilfield service rivals in terms of revenue share derived from the Eastern hemisphere. Competitor Schlumberger generates about 52% of its revenue from that area of the world. Halliburton operates in about 100 countries and employs around 100,000 people.

So upon reflection, it`s a good move.
Taxes? Where were the howls of outrage when Nike and many manufacturing firms moved to China.

[Caleigh]

of course Halliburton is going to try and avoid paying taxes of any kind, that's what corporations do

of course they almost certainly overcharge the U.S. gov't for
services in Iraq, that's what corporations do, try and maximize
profit

corporations are immoral, morality is a human concept,
corporations are not humans, they are machines that have
human parts.

[Quinn]

WMC, At what point did anyone state that the move wasn’t good for Halliburton itself? Oh, that’s right, no one did. The point that was made is that said move, and others like it, hurts the American taxpayer who has to eventually make up the difference in tax receipts.

As to your Nike question, there is, strictly speaking, a difference. Nike has shifted its production from one subcontractor to another (Nike doesn’t actually own the factories that produce its shoes) to save money where production costs are concerned. Nike has long used Asia to produce most of its products (Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, etc.), so shifting from one Asian based subcontractor to another hurts other Asian states, not the US.

Halliburton, by contrast, is not simply shifting industrial production to realize cost savings; rather, it is looking to simply not pay a substantial portion of its taxes by registering operations in tax havens, many of which charge no taxes at all.

-Quinn

[guyone]

WMC, At what point did anyone state that the move wasn’t good for Halliburton itself? Oh, that’s right, no one did. The point that was made is that said move, and others like it, hurts the American taxpayer who has to eventually make up the difference in tax receipts.

Then maybe we should try not to shit all over them all the time. I'm sure the major reason why they're leaving is because they got their feelings hurt. Besides have you seen that indoor skiing thing in Dubai? Wow! Ain't nothing like that in Texas. So instead of cursing Haliburton all the time maybe we should have built an indoor skiing thing for them. Maybe they would have stayed. You never know...

[Quinn]

WMC, At what point did anyone state that the move wasn’t good for Halliburton itself? Oh, that’s right, no one did. The point that was made is that said move, and others like it, hurts the American taxpayer who has to eventually make up the difference in tax receipts.

Then maybe we should try not to shit all over them all the time. I'm sure the major reason why they're leaving is because they got their feelings hurt. Besides have you seen that indoor skiing thing in Dubai? Wow! Ain't nothing like that in Texas. So instead of cursing Haliburton all the time maybe we should have built an indoor skiing thing for them. Maybe they would have stayed. You never know...

LMAO... Yeah, I've seen the indoor ski resort (on TV), and it really is damn impressive. Who knows, maybe it is all about validation (hurt feelings) and a ski resort, but somehow I doubt it.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC, At what point did anyone state that the move wasn’t good for Halliburton itself? Oh, that’s right, no one did. The point that was made is that said move, and others like it, hurts the American taxpayer who has to eventually make up the difference in tax receipts.

Wonderful, looks who`s back.

Houston mayor Bill White was less critical of Halliburton's move.

"The mayor says he understands the nature of the decision," said Frank Michel, a spokesperson for White. "He doesn't think it will negatively impact Houston or our status as an international energy centre."


1.Corporations pay very little in taxes. The costs/taxes are passed on to customers,clients,consumers,etc.

2.Care to tell us what percentage of federal receipts will be lost with Hallibrutons move? The answer will probably look something like this:

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005%

In other words, your arguement is baseless. So the left has to try pull out a canard like patriotism!? It`s unpatriotic for corporate entities to avoid paying taxes !? Please.

If you leftists feel so strongly about Halliburton, pass a law denying the corporate entity the ability to move and or nationalize it, like your boy Chavez enjoys doing.

Neither will happen, federal receipts will continue to increase, as long as taxes aren`t raised, and leftists will continue to bitch.

Bottom line is this--every move outside of the US to a non tax jursidiction removes taxable income from the united states (both property and income) and puts it somewhere else.

Halliburton pays less taxes to the U.S. because of this move...

Accept it and move on. I accept it--it's what corporations do. I don't know why you won't accept it.

Still want to stand behind your statement from earlier?


http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...16759&start=20

It's in the article itself. IT IS MOVING ITS HEADQUARTERS. Whether it owns them or not is irrelevant.

From "moving its headquarters" i'm making an entirely reasonable inference that it is now eliminating lease payments and property taxes that it was paying before the move.


You don't need everything "spelled out." If I see foot prints in the snow I don't need to have seen the person actually walking to say that "someone walked here."

HEY LOOK, OLITE! FOOTPRINTS IN THE SNOW!!!