Halliburton leaving the US

[Quinn]

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."

LOL…. Do you really expect him to come out against the move and piss off Halliburton so that they can move all of their operations out of Houston? Either way, since Bill White is part of a very small minority, if you want to get into providing quotations from politicans to support our respective views, we can, but your list will be many times shorter due to a distinct lack of like-minded officials.

Moreover, though it will continue to maintain personnel in Houston, Halliburton is technically moving its center of operations/headquarters to Dubai. Corporations almost never move their headquarters from one country to another unless they are looking to, on paper at least, change the country from which they are based – a move that would have tax implications far beyond Houston.

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

First you NeoCons complain that corporations pay far too much in taxes, and now you’re taking the opposite position. Which is it – or does the position change based upon the convenience of the argument? Anyway, here’s a look at some facts, not groundless opinion:

As a result of corporations like Halliburton seeking to evade paying their proper share of taxes, corporate tax receipts are down precipitously, with the last seven years seeing the most rapid drop in history. For example, in 2000 the federal government collected some $207 billion in corporate income tax revenue, a number that dropped to $132 billion by 2003. This revenue represents 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts for the year 2003. This is down from an average of 21 percent in the 60s. Note, this covers federal corporate income tax receipts alone, and not the other numerous taxes US corporations pay, particularly at the state and local levels.

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.

Wow, you really are out of your element, aren’t you? Halliburton, which is one of the TNCs most heavily engaged in the use of transfer pricing to avoid taxation, paid only 19 percent of its total taxes to the United States government in 2003. The remaining 81 percent was paid to foreign governments, with much of that going to tax havens charging the lowest possible rate. Note, that doesn’t include the many subsidiaries that are registered to/incorporated in tax havens that don’t charge any taxes on foreign corporations at all (like Dubai). The only reason Halliburton is moving its headquarters to Dubai is to shortchange the US government – and the American tax payer – to an even greater degree that it already has .

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.

Actually, a rapidly expanding majority of OECD countries, including those with Right leaning governments, have passed or are in the process of passing laws to prevent TNCs from engaging in tax evasion through the use of transfer pricing as Halliburton has already done. Furthermore, even less developed states like China are now cracking down on TNCs engaged in the practice, passing laws in tandem with OECD states.

One last thing: no one, save for you, has mentioned nationalization or any other such fanciful nonsense.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

:P

[ezed]

Gentlemen, let's break this down to basics -

-Halliburton fucked us in the bid process!
-They fuck us with change orders! (No one in Gov't can write a decent RFP anytime, never mind with Dick Chaney in your office with his dick in your ear while waving a shotgun around screaming "WAS THAT A SNIPE!!!!!!!")
-They fucked us with inferior product and services!
-AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA FUCK US OUT OF OF PALTRY SHARE OF THE TAXES THERE ON!!!!

With that being said, I thus submit to you....THAT THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT TFAN AND WMC ARE STRICT BOTTOMS IN AS MUCH AS THEY LOVED TO BE FUCKED!!!!!!!

Boardroom Jimmy
Analist

[qeuqheeg222]

corporate cockholders concur ezed....oops i meant stockholders....

[qeuqheeg222]

and remember ronnie reagan fucked you more than his old ass ever fucked nancy....

[chefmike]

Gentlemen, let's break this down to basics -

-Halliburton fucked us in the bid process!
-They fuck us with change orders! (No one in Gov't can write a decent RFP anytime, never mind with Dick Chaney in your office with his dick in your ear while waving a shotgun around screaming "WAS THAT A SNIPE!!!!!!!")
-They fucked us with inferior product and services!
-AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA FUCK US OUT OF OF PALTRY SHARE OF THE TAXES THERE ON!!!!

With that being said, I thus submit to you....THAT THIS IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT TFAN AND WMC ARE STRICT BOTTOMS IN AS MUCH AS THEY LOVED TO BE FUCKED!!!!!!!

Boardroom Jimmy
Analist

ROTFLMFAO!!!

[White_Male_Canada]

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

First you NeoCons complain that corporations pay far too much in taxes, and now you’re taking the opposite position. Which is it – or does the position change based upon the convenience of the argument? Anyway, here’s a look at some facts, not groundless opinion...paid only 19 percent of its total taxes to the United States government in 2003. The remaining 81 percent was paid to foreign governments...:

A. I`m not a neo-con, therefore,

B. You don`t even know what a neo-con is.

C. Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Lowering the tax a corporation pays would lower the costs they pass onto clients,consumers,etc.

D. Thanks for researching the facts as to how much and where Halliburton pays taxes thereby proving the tax losses to Federal revenues will be virtually nil since they pay so little now.

As a result of corporations like Halliburton seeking to evade paying their proper share of taxes, corporate tax receipts are down precipitously, with the last seven years seeing the most rapid drop in history. For example, in 2000 the federal government collected some $207 billion in corporate income tax revenue, a number that dropped to $132 billion by 2003. This revenue represents 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts for the year 2003. This is down from an average of 21 percent in the 60s. Note, this covers federal corporate income tax receipts alone, and not the other numerous taxes US corporations pay, particularly at the state and local levels.

You are either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Signs of the recession were only beginning to appear in 2000 and were known in 2001 to 2003,ergo,lower federal revenues. Your ilk enjoy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Now after the Job Growth Act of 2003 things dramatically changed and considering the rapid growth of S corporations since the individual income tax cuts in 2003, the dramatic growth of corporate tax collections from traditional C corporations has been just fine thank you.

[Quinn]

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

Fuck, you’re dumb……. Your own chart shows corporate income comprising 12.9 % of federal revenue in 2005 – and that’s just a measure of federal income tax receipts, not the myriad of other taxes corporations pay at various levels of government. So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue. Well done.

Now, back to the original point – which stands uncontested: Halliburton, like many TNCs, has been using transfer pricing to evade paying its proper share of taxes. TNCs have been using transfer pricing (among other things) to shortchange the US government and the individual taxpayer at an increasing rate since the close of WWII. Consequently, we’ve seen a fall in corporate income tax as a percentage of revenue during the post-war period (see chart below), which is not small feat when you consider the overall rate at which corporate revenues have increased since the close of WWII.

Since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of this process and its impact upon the United States economy, here's a link to a good article that might help get you:

http://www.financialrealtime.com/sto...ews697278.html

A. I`m not a neo-con, therefore,

B. You don`t even know what a neo-con is.

Yes, we’ve all heard you refer to yourself as being “mainly Libertarian,” but the fact is that most of your stated positions have nothing in common with Libertarianism:

A) You support the war in Iraq, something Libertarians are strongly opposed to because it conflicts with their policy of non-interventionism and involves attacking a nation they don’t regard as a direct threat to US security;
B) You support George Bush, a president they strongly oppose for the following reasons:
1. The Patriot Act (something Libertarians view as an unacceptable infringement upon their civil liberties),
2. Record setting budget deficits (Libertarians want balanced budgets).
3. A massive expansion in the size of the federal government (Libertarians want smaller goverment).

I could go on citing further examples, but the point is made. You can call yourself whatever you want, but the fact is that this board is full of stated Libertarians – not one of whom recognizes your opinions as reflecting Libertarian ideology (posts specifically addressing this can be provided). Furthermore, while many of your opinions conflict with the Libertarian perspective, almost none of them conflict with the Neoconservative perspective. You are a Neocon, so you might as well be man enough to admit what everyone else already knows.

C. Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Lowering the tax a corporation pays would lower the costs they pass onto clients,consumers,etc.

Once again, you seem to have a problem comprehending what is being addressed here. We have been talking about corporations, most specifically Halliburton, evading taxes through transfer pricing – not a corporation legitimately paying lower taxes because of a change in government tax policy.

Furthermore, lower production costs, not lower taxes, are the primary vehicle through which consumers realize savings (think Walmart). Moreover, Halliburton has – thanks to its use of transfer pricing to avoid paying taxes – enjoyed the benefit of paying lower taxes for some time now. Has your argument held up? No, Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been caught gouging the US government, not passing on savings realized through tax avoidance.

You are either ignorant, or disingenuous.

Given the extremely low regard in which you and your opinions – along with the forum’s other two NeoCon dunces – are held, I can only take that as a compliment.

Signs of the recession were only beginning to appear in 2000 and were known in 2001 to 2003,ergo,lower federal revenues. Your ilk enjoy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession.

I guess you changed your mind then:

Quoting from Wiki is akin to quoting from a Bazooka joe comic.

Anyway, you don't want to attribute the decades long decline in corporate income tax as a percentage of federal revenue, due to transfer pricing, to the “early 2000s recession,” do you? If you don't, this is just another pointless post that has no bearing on an already proven trend, decades long trend. If you do, I'll shred that assertion as easily as I have done with your others.

Now after the Job Growth Act of 2003 things dramatically changed and considering the rapid growth of S corporations since the individual income tax cuts in 2003, the dramatic growth of corporate tax collections from traditional C corporations has been just fine thank you.

Since you obviously don’t even know what a C Corp. or S Corp. actually is (let alone an LLC), I’ll spare you the painful beating I could give you on this one by merely stating the following:

A) Successful S Corps, after experiencing substantial growth, almost always change their election and become C Corps (small C Corps can, but very rarely do, change their election to be taxed as an S Corp as well);
B) LLCs have largely replaced S Corps due to the greater flexibility they offer (supporting documentation can be provided).
C) The argument that S Corportions were responsible for the decline in corporate income tax collections was never given any serious credibility. Still, let’s here what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had to say on the matter:

Some argue that the weakness in corporate income tax revenues is, in part, a reflection of the decline in the number of C corporations, which peaked at 2.6 million in 1986. Offsetting this decline has been the rapid growth in another type of corporation, known as S corporations. S corporations do not pay corporate income tax, but rather pass through profits to their shareholders, who in turn include this business income on their individual income tax returns. As a result of liberalizations to the S corporation rules since 1986, some C corporations have converted to S corporations as a way to reduce their tax liabilities. But the precise impact of this shift on corporate revenues is unclear, as typically only smaller C corporations are in a position to change status. Limits on the number of S corporation shareholders, for instance, make it impossible for the large, publicly-traded C corporations to convert. As a result, the average C corporation in 2000 had assets that were 33 times larger than the assets held by the average S corporation. While the S corporation liberalization may have eroded the corporate income tax base when it comes to smaller corporations, it has not significantly affected the large corporations that account for the lion’s share of corporate income tax revenues.

Once again, it is I who should be thanking you for putting forth such weak and factually unsustainable arguments. Seriously, thanks for making it so damn easy.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

[chefmike]

Glad to see that you're feeling better again, Quinn!

Not that you would need to bring your 'A' game to be up for WMC's predictable prevarication...

Same as it ever was.

It once again appears that things aren't going so well for our resident canadian chickenhawk...

Now there's a shocker...who would have ever guessed?

Alas...