Halliburton leaving the US

[North_of_60]

After making billions in profits...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4620759.html

The rats are leaving the sinking ship ?
Halliburton leaving is a sign that Bush is leaving. After frauding the US treasury they know very well what's coming for them in a near futur.
Arrest Cheney, now ! US has no extradition treaty with United Arab Emirates.

LOL! Pissed libs because with Halliburton headquartered in Dubai, they won't be subject to libtard regulation!

CLASSIC!

[trish]

Halliburton and it's subsidiaries are fucking war profiteers. Cheney and bush staged this ludicrous war so that Halliburton and mint money. Meanwhile, we're in up to our eyeballs to China and now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay and it doesn't want to be regulated by the U.S. Yeah, I'm pissed and with good reason; every PATRIOT should be.

Halliburton and it's subsidiaries are fucking war profiteers. Cheney and bush staged this ludicrous war so that Halliburton and mint money. Meanwhile, we're in up to our eyeballs to China and now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay and it doesn't want to be regulated by the U.S. Yeah, I'm pissed and with good reason; every PATRIOT should be.


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

How is Halliburton going to NOT pay taxes to America?

I'm waiting... :lol:

[guyone]

Anti-Capitalist Bolshevik Propaganda!

Beware the wily bolshevik. They are destroying the moral fibre of our country!

[olite71]

Halliburton and it's subsidiaries are fucking war profiteers. Cheney and bush staged this ludicrous war so that Halliburton and mint money. Meanwhile, we're in up to our eyeballs to China and now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay and it doesn't want to be regulated by the U.S. Yeah, I'm pissed and with good reason; every PATRIOT should be.



Rember when Kerry stepped in it with that quote about children going to school and getting an education so they won't have to go to Iraq?

And then GWB followed it up with the quote of how the troops were "plenty smart."


Well while Bush's intent was noble and all that, he was just repeating the lie repeated by all "fortunate sons" who know full well that the "plenty smart" ones sit on the boards of directors of companies like Halliburton and don't suit up and grab a gun.


The soldiers are Plenty brave---yes, and plenty patriotic, yes...but "plenty smart?" What does that make the captains of industry then? Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein?

[Quinn]

How is Halliburton going to NOT pay taxes to America?

I'm waiting... :lol:

Please tell me that you're joking. Like most Neocons, your understanding of economics and finance is woefully deficient. Not that said deficiency keeps you from commenting on such things. LOL……….. Still, for clarity here's part an article from one of the world's most respected sources on the matter (The Financial Times):

Halliburton moves CEO to oil-rich Dubai

Published: March 12 2007 19:30 | Last updated: March 13 2007 01:35

Halliburton’s decision to relocate its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and open a corporate headquarters in the emirate drew fire from critics in Washington on Monday, raising the spectre that the oil services group will be forced to defend the move before Congress.

The Texas-based company has long been the target of criticism on Capitol Hill because of its ties to Dick Cheney, the US vice-president who formerly served as chief executive, and allegations that KBR, the company’s government contracting unit, has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

Democratic senator Byron Dorgan has also called for an investigation into the development.

“I want to know, is Halliburton trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay US taxes? Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?” Mr Dorgan said.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democratic member on the judiciary committee, said of Halliburton’s move: “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.”

Some lobbyists said that the move could revive debate on the tax implications of companies moving offshore.

Halliburton said that it anticipated “absolutely no tax benefits” from the creation of a headquarters in Dubai, which has a zero tax rate. It said Houston would remain the company’s principal executive office.

But Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at Tax Notes magazine, a non-partisan weekly tax journal, said Halliburton’s move would change its tax situation “significantly” even though the company would still be registered in the US.

Mr Sullivan said that by basing its chief executive in Dubai, Halliburton would be able to argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction.

Charlie Cray, the director at the Center for Corporate Policy, a progressive watchdog group that runs the “Halliburton watch” website, said his primary concern was that the move would further reduce Halliburton’s overall accountability.

“They have proven very adept at circumventing American policy and restrictions by using offshore subsidiaries,” Mr Cray said.

At the very least, you might want to trouble to learn something as basic as "transfer pricing," which will help you understand the basics of corporate taxation and tax evasion. Maybe then you'll understand why only 36 of Halliburton's 143 subsidiaries are based in the US, rather than offshore.

-Quinn

[olite71]

I would add that corporations do not have any fiduciary duty to the nation in which they reside. Their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders.

I'm not asking for corporations to be patriotic. Some corporations choose to go that route for marketing purposes (Budweiser, Pepsi, etc...).

Halliburton however is one of those corporations whos existence depends somewhat on trouble. And when that "trouble" is war, it's even better. It's like being an emergency room doctor in the inner city. If violence ended you'd be out of a job.

I'm not saying the employees of Halliburton are bad people but their in a job which thrives when bad things are happneing. Somebody's got to do it. But there are some people who consciously make a decision not to take such jobs because when they look back on their life's work they don't want to see themselves as having profited from misfortune and evil (even though they are not evil themselves).

Halliburton is a nice scapegoat in times like these--but their decision to escape U.S. taxation is not anti-patriotic--it's just sound business looking for the best bottom line.

The dangerous thing is when corporations that profit from war get huge and powerful they may (and I stress may) dangerously exert influence on the corridors of policy and power in government. And that is something our politicians, if they are faithfully carrying out their jobs, should be ever watchful over.

(See Ike's farwell speech warning of this problem which he called the military industrial complex).

Please tell me that you're joking. Like most Neocons, your understanding of economics and finance is woefully deficient. Not that said deficiency keeps you from commenting on such things. LOL……….. Still, for clarity here's part an article from one of the world's most respected sources on the matter (The Financial Times):

Halliburton moves CEO to oil-rich Dubai

Published: March 12 2007 19:30 | Last updated: March 13 2007 01:35

Halliburton’s decision to relocate its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and open a corporate headquarters in the emirate drew fire from critics in Washington on Monday, raising the spectre that the oil services group will be forced to defend the move before Congress.

The Texas-based company has long been the target of criticism on Capitol Hill because of its ties to Dick Cheney, the US vice-president who formerly served as chief executive, and allegations that KBR, the company’s government contracting unit, has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

Democratic senator Byron Dorgan has also called for an investigation into the development.

“I want to know, is Halliburton trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay US taxes? Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?” Mr Dorgan said.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democratic member on the judiciary committee, said of Halliburton’s move: “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.”

Some lobbyists said that the move could revive debate on the tax implications of companies moving offshore.

Halliburton said that it anticipated “absolutely no tax benefits” from the creation of a headquarters in Dubai, which has a zero tax rate. It said Houston would remain the company’s principal executive office.

But Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at Tax Notes magazine, a non-partisan weekly tax journal, said Halliburton’s move would change its tax situation “significantly” even though the company would still be registered in the US.

Mr Sullivan said that by basing its chief executive in Dubai, Halliburton would be able to argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction.

Charlie Cray, the director at the Center for Corporate Policy, a progressive watchdog group that runs the “Halliburton watch” website, said his primary concern was that the move would further reduce Halliburton’s overall accountability.

“They have proven very adept at circumventing American policy and restrictions by using offshore subsidiaries,” Mr Cray said.

At the very least, you might want to trouble familiarize to learn something as basic as "transfer pricing," which will help you understand the basics of corporate taxation and tax evasion.

-Quinn


I'll ignore the condescending tone of your post (ie, I know about taxes and Conservatives don't). It's consistent with your other limosuine liberal posts like (you can rent a flat in one of my apartment buildings). Your attempt to pollute this thread with the disease of affluenza has led you to misread and misconstrue nearly the entire thread.

I'll make it short and sweet, since a male of your affluence is obviously too busy to read (what with all the responsibilities of wealth and all.)

Trish, in typical hysterics, posted "now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay". Which means that if Halliburton doesn't want to pay "minimal taxes", this move to Dubai is intended to avoid American taxes in entirety.

Or is it that you failed to read your own story because nowhere in it does anyone claim that Halliburton's move to Dubai is intended to, as trish put it, "(not) pay the minimal taxes it does pay".

I'll go through line by line if you want, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you reread your own post.

[olite71]

Please tell me that you're joking. Like most Neocons, your understanding of economics and finance is woefully deficient. Not that said deficiency keeps you from commenting on such things. LOL……….. Still, for clarity here's part an article from one of the world's most respected sources on the matter (The Financial Times):

Halliburton moves CEO to oil-rich Dubai

Published: March 12 2007 19:30 | Last updated: March 13 2007 01:35

Halliburton’s decision to relocate its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and open a corporate headquarters in the emirate drew fire from critics in Washington on Monday, raising the spectre that the oil services group will be forced to defend the move before Congress.

The Texas-based company has long been the target of criticism on Capitol Hill because of its ties to Dick Cheney, the US vice-president who formerly served as chief executive, and allegations that KBR, the company’s government contracting unit, has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq.

Democratic senator Byron Dorgan has also called for an investigation into the development.

“I want to know, is Halliburton trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay US taxes? Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?” Mr Dorgan said.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the top Democratic member on the judiciary committee, said of Halliburton’s move: “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.”

Some lobbyists said that the move could revive debate on the tax implications of companies moving offshore.

Halliburton said that it anticipated “absolutely no tax benefits” from the creation of a headquarters in Dubai, which has a zero tax rate. It said Houston would remain the company’s principal executive office.

But Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at Tax Notes magazine, a non-partisan weekly tax journal, said Halliburton’s move would change its tax situation “significantly” even though the company would still be registered in the US.

Mr Sullivan said that by basing its chief executive in Dubai, Halliburton would be able to argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction.

Charlie Cray, the director at the Center for Corporate Policy, a progressive watchdog group that runs the “Halliburton watch” website, said his primary concern was that the move would further reduce Halliburton’s overall accountability.

“They have proven very adept at circumventing American policy and restrictions by using offshore subsidiaries,” Mr Cray said.

At the very least, you might want to trouble familiarize to learn something as basic as "transfer pricing," which will help you understand the basics of corporate taxation and tax evasion.

-Quinn


I'll ignore the condescending tone of your post (ie, I know about taxes and Conservatives don't). It's consistent with your other limosuine liberal posts like (you can rent a flat in one of my apartment buildings). Your attempt to pollute this thread with the disease of affluenza has led you to misread and misconstrue nearly the entire thread.

I'll make it short and sweet, since a male of your affluence is obviously too busy to read (what with all the responsibilities of wealth and all.)

Trish, in typical hysterics, posted "now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay". Which means that if Halliburton doesn't want to pay "minimal taxes", this move to Dubai is intended to avoid American taxes in entirety.

Or is it that you failed to read your own story because nowhere in it does anyone claim that Halliburton's move to Dubai is intended to, as trish put it, "(not) pay the minimal taxes it does pay".

I'll go through line by line if you want, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you reread your own post.


Well the move is going to make taxes less--starting with property tax which on a "headquarters" could be a couple of million a year. But then when you add in the proportional deduction for business "attributed" to dubai, you may be talking tens of millions.

Still--this is irrelevant---Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to be as profitable as possible. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government making bad policy because its leaders can't resist the temptation of the corporate lobby.
And I have a problem with people embezzling and getting fat off of government contracts. Doing that kind of stuff in wartime while fathers of children are dying is as bad as being a dirty cop.

[chefmike]

$20 Billion Later Halliburton Moves Headquarters to Dubai

Raymond J. Learsy

Raymond J. Learsy is the author of the book Over a Barrel: Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel. A graduate of the Wharton School, he made his life in the fast-paced, risk-filled world of commodities trading, beginning in 1959. In 1963, he started his own firm and over twenty years expanded from the U.S. into Canada, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Brazil, and Pakistan, trading in an array of bulk raw materials and commodities, shipping to customers worldwide. In the 1980s, he shifted gears as a private investor, from 1982 to 1988, served as a Reagan appointee to the National Endowment for the Arts. Currently, he is a member of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Learsy's richly-informed analysis of the international oil trade, OPEC, and its impact on the American and world economy has been featured in the National Review Online and the New York Times.

Business must be slowing down in Iraq. After booking over $20 billion in revenues from its work in Iraq, some on no bid contracts and now under Congressional scrutiny for both the quality of its work and billing practices, Halliburton is moving its headquarters from Houston to Dubai. The company together with its KBR unit has been the Pentagon's largest contractor in Iraq.


The move is being met with outrage on Capitol Hill. Senator Patrick Leahy (D. Vermont) and chairman of the judiciary committee voiced his anger, "This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years".

Halliburton's chief executive David Lesar told reporters, "At this point in time we clearly see there are greater opportunities in the eastern hemisphere than the western hemisphere". Halliburton did say it would maintain its legal registration in the United States. You see, that's not altogether unimportant if you want to continue doing business with the Pentagon.

And where exactly are Mr. Lesar and his band of brothers moving to? Let me quote from an article found this day on BBC News by one Masud Alam a reporter from BBC's Urdu service under heading "A Pakistani laments Dubai":

"Dubai has always wanted to be something different from what it is. It has metamorphosed from a tiny fishing village to a modern city, then a shopper's paradise, a playground for the rich, a tourist's haven and a lot more in just over half a century... The city's skyline is made up of cranes."

He then goes on "One aspect that hasn't changed in all these years is Dubai's fixation on 'quality expatriates'- a euphemism for White Europeans, or the rich and famous, or in particular the rich and famous white Europeans".

Continuing, "I used to work for newspaper here that paid different salaries to employees of different qualifications and work experience, based on their ethnic origin. Whites topped the list, followed by Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis, the Filipinos, the Bangladeshis...This bias seems to be institutionalized now.

"The Asians, who make up the entire labour force that builds these fancy structures, are still the worst paid workers, forced to live in out of town labor camps away from their loved ones for years at a stretch because they cannot afford to travel back home or bring their families to live in Dubai.

"A recent newspaper survey found that the labourers pay and benefit packages have not been revised in more than a decade whereas the cost of living has doubled or trebled in sectors like housing, healthcare and utilities."

A company's values come from its leadership and its traditions. Maybe we should simply bid good riddance to Halliburton. But somebody on Capitol Hill should look into their continuing registration as a United States company.

[chefmike]

I'll ignore the condescending tone of your post

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Aren't you used to people using a condescending tone with you by now, TFool?

Just how the fuck else do you expect anyone to converse with a simple-minded fuck like you?

[Quinn]

Once again, your interpretation of English differs markedly from what any objective, reasonable, evaluation would warrant. Maybe I should stick to using mono-syllabic words so you don't get confused. Anyway, you responded to Trish’s post with 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... :lol:

Now, before you attempt to weasel your way out of this by restating your meaning, you made your position obvious: you don’t agree that Halliburton’s move will result in said corporation “not paying taxes to America.”

Fortunately, my original post contains the following:

But Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at Tax Notes magazine, a non-partisan weekly tax journal, said Halliburton’s move would change its tax situation “significantly” even though the company would still be registered in the US.

Mr Sullivan said that by basing its chief executive in Dubai, Halliburton would be able to argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction.

That’s called “transfer pricing.” As previously indicated, Halliburton has registered only 36 of its 143 subsidiaries in the U.S., allowing it to avoid paying taxes to the US government. Furthermore, a GAO (General Accounting Office) report specifically stated that 17 of these subsidiaries are located in well known tax havens (13 in the Caymans, which collect no taxes, two in Lichtenstein, and two in Panama). Keep in mind that other sources who have looked at Halliburton have stated that as many as 44 of these subsidiary companies are incorporated in well known tax havens. This allows Halliburton to avoid paying tens of billions in taxes to the US government annually (documentation can be provided).

You wanted to know how Halliburton is “going to not pay taxes to America.” Now you have an answer.

To your charge of limousine liberalism, I worked my ass of for my money and am entirely self made – having paid my taxes accordingly. Isn’t that what you Neocons are always blathering that people should do – take responsibility for themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Considering that I was homeless in my teens and again when I returned from US Army service in Iraq, after Desert Storm, I’m a fucking poster boy for the crap your kind is always spouting. You want Social Darwinism. I'm a fucking paragon of Social Darwinism. You just don’t like that I don’t embrace the narrow, dogmatic, and ill informed perspective on life espoused by you and the other two forum dunces.

As for my post Guyone about being able to “rent a flat in one of my apartment buildings,” it was a perfectly reasonable response to a 19-year old kid, who lives at home with his parents, claiming that everyone else lives at home with their parents.

Once again, in the future, you might want to educate yourself in these matters before commenting on them.

-Quinn

Well the move is going to make taxes less--starting with property tax which on a "headquarters" could be a couple of million a year. But then when you add in the proportional deduction for business "attributed" to dubai, you may be talking tens of millions.

Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning it's existing headquarters or even if Halliburton own's the property at all.

[olite71]

Well the move is going to make taxes less--starting with property tax which on a "headquarters" could be a couple of million a year. But then when you add in the proportional deduction for business "attributed" to dubai, you may be talking tens of millions.

Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning it's existing headquarters or even if Halliburton own's the property at all.


If it is moving executives to Dubai it will be abandoning space in Houston (and therefore the expenses of that space).


As for ownership...well you're really showing your naivete....Let's say Halliburton doesn't own but, leases. 99.95% of commercial leases are of the "triple net" variety, requiring the lessee to pay property taxes. So ownership in that context is irrelevant--the taxes pass to the user of the property--whether the owner or the lessee.

Boy, you sure don't know much about business, do you?

If it is moving executives to Dubai it will be abandoning space in Houston (and therefore the expenses of that space).

Yeah that doesn't answer the question, does it?

Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.

[chefmike]

*laughs as TFool, WMChickenhawk, and gomerone slink away...yet again...with their tails between their weak-kneed legs*

:lol:

8)

:P

Now, before you attempt to weasel your way out of this by restating your meaning, you made your position obvious: you don’t agree that Halliburton’s move will result in said corporation “not paying taxes to America.”


Fortunately, my original post contains the following:

But Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at Tax Notes magazine, a non-partisan weekly tax journal, said Halliburton’s move would change its tax situation “significantly” even though the company would still be registered in the US.

Mr Sullivan said that by basing its chief executive in Dubai, Halliburton would be able to argue that a portion of its profits should be attributed to the no-tax jurisdiction.

That’s called “transfer pricing.” As previously indicated, Halliburton has registered only 36 of its 143 subsidiaries in the U.S., allowing it to avoid paying taxes to the US government. Furthermore, a GAO (General Accounting Office) report specifically stated that 17 of these subsidiaries are located in well known tax havens (13 in the Caymans, which collect no taxes, two in Lichtenstein, and two in Panama). Keep in mind that other sources who have looked at Halliburton have stated that as many as 44 of these subsidiary companies are incorporated in well known tax havens. This allows Halliburton to avoid paying tens of billions in taxes to the US government annually (documentation can be provided).

You wanted to know how Halliburton is “going to not pay taxes to America.” Now you have an answer.

Your not reading. I'll quote myself because I know you're busy-


Trish, in typical hysterics, posted "now Halliburton doesn't want to pay the minimal taxes it does pay". Which means that if Halliburton doesn't want to pay "minimal taxes", this move to Dubai is intended to avoid American taxes in entirety.

That's business. It has nothing to do with politics. It's why domestic companies choose to incorporate in reduced-tax areas. Be it tax-packages for pro-sport teams, movie studios incorporating in Canada to avoid ridiculous California taxation or Halliburton moving to lessen the tax burden by lowering, not eliminating (impossible) it's exposure to taxation and regulatory oversight. These companies make these moves for the purpose of remaining viable and competitive.

If you don't want Halliburton in the marketplace, fine. Lower the government regulatory axe and let the frogs over at Schlumberger advance the interests of socialist Europe.

[olite71]

If it is moving executives to Dubai it will be abandoning space in Houston (and therefore the expenses of that space).

Yeah that doesn't answer the question, does it?

Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.


Ownership is irrelevant....Please don't avoid points that have been made.

It says that executives are moving and it doesn't say that executives are filling their space they are leaving. One can reasonably assume that a profitable company like Halliburton will not pay for space it will no longer use.

But even if they were filling the space then the move still takes more space away from the U.S. which would have been filled by the executives who instead opted to leave (i.e. if 30 executives leave and are replaced with 30 more if those 30 had stayed 60 would have been in the U.S. instead of just 30).

In addition, one can also reasonably assume that a profitable company like Halliburton would not make a move to incur MORE expense. Especially when the move is to a jurisdiction with a 0% tax rate.

Without any of the exact numbers being known you must apply reasonable business assumptions, which I am doing--and which you refuse to do. Show me where it says Halliburton is NOT saving money on taxes....in the absence of an affirmative assertion to support your position and an affirmative assertion to support mine--the only thing you can argue is reasonable assumptions about business. My assumptions are that Halliburton is making decisions to increase profitability--completely reasonable assumption along with my other inferences based on the facts.

But in the end, you do not read my posts...you simply worry about "Republican ideas" or "Democrat ideas" without wasting time on ACTUAL IDEAS.... (which is shown by your complete lack of knowledge about commercial allocation of property taxes).

I have time and again on this thread come out foursquare for the principle the corporations only owe a duty first and foremost to shareholders--and therefore that is to maximize profit. An idea which would fit with the conservative idea--if you had any grasp of that idea--but instead of being a player you're just one of the cheerleaders.

Are you a blonde?




I have no problem with that.

Ownership is irrelevant....Please don't avoid points that have been made.


You're points are irrelevant to the topic. Nothing-to-do-with-nothing fluff.

You're points do not answer the question, do they?

[olite71]

Ownership is irrelevant....Please don't avoid points that have been made.


You're points are irrelevant to the topic. Nothing-to-do-with-nothing fluff.

You're points do not answer the question, do they?


My points have had to do with "nothing" in so far as they have been responses to your.... (i can't even call them points.).

I'm very comfortable that anybody who cares about ideas instead of the Democrac-Republican tennis match score, will understand who actually cares about ideas, and who only cares about stirring the pot.

You really should get a talk show---I hear people who watch television all day long are apt to believe anything.

Ownership is irrelevant....Please don't avoid points that have been made.


You're points are irrelevant to the topic. Nothing-to-do-with-nothing fluff.

You're points do not answer the question, do they?


My points have had to do with "nothing" in so far as they have been responses to your.... (i can't even call them points.).

I'm very comfortable that anybody who cares about ideas instead of the Democrac-Republican tennis match score, will understand who actually cares about ideas, and who only cares about stirring the pot.

You really should get a talk show---I hear people who watch television all day long are apt to believe anything.

And you still haven't answer the question, have you? :lol:

[olite71]

Ownership is irrelevant....Please don't avoid points that have been made.


You're points are irrelevant to the topic. Nothing-to-do-with-nothing fluff.

You're points do not answer the question, do they?


My points have had to do with "nothing" in so far as they have been responses to your.... (i can't even call them points.).

I'm very comfortable that anybody who cares about ideas instead of the Democrac-Republican tennis match score, will understand who actually cares about ideas, and who only cares about stirring the pot.

You really should get a talk show---I hear people who watch television all day long are apt to believe anything.

And you still haven't answer the question, have you? :lol:




I've answered every question.... Which shows that you cannot read very well.

I've answered every question.... Which shows that you cannot read very well.

You've given fluff information, but you haven't answered the question-

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16759&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.

[olite71]

I've answered every question.... Which shows that you cannot read very well.

You've given fluff information, but you haven't answered the question-

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16759&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.


Again, I'm sorry you cannot read or make reasonable business inferences. Nothing further I can do for you. I'm sorry you don't understand. I'm sorry when presented with basic business facts you call it fluff. And I'm sorry you believe that if a company is moving its executive headquarters from one country to another it is "abandoning" nothing in that other country.

[Furthermore as an additional matter---the first $120k of any executives salary in Dubai will be completely tax free under the ex-pat tax exemptions...talk about tax avoidance!!!!].

I've answered every question.... Which shows that you cannot read very well.

You've given fluff information, but you haven't answered the question-

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16759&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.


Again, I'm sorry you cannot read or make reasonable business inferences. Nothing further I can do for you. I'm sorry you don't understand. I'm sorry when presented with basic business facts you call it fluff. And I'm sorry you believe that if a company is moving its executive headquarters from one country to another it is "abandoning" nothing in that other country.

[Furthermore as an additional matter---the first $120k of any executives salary in Dubai will be completely tax free under the ex-pat tax exemptions...talk about tax avoidance!!!!].

It was a question. A simple question, requiring a simple answer. It does not need inference or esoteric enlightenment. Yours is an attempt to turn a simple question into an overcomplicated commercial real estate thesis.

It's a simple question. Just give it an answer it because your thesis is moot without it-


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.

[olite71]

I've answered every question.... Which shows that you cannot read very well.

You've given fluff information, but you haven't answered the question-

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16759&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.


Again, I'm sorry you cannot read or make reasonable business inferences. Nothing further I can do for you. I'm sorry you don't understand. I'm sorry when presented with basic business facts you call it fluff. And I'm sorry you believe that if a company is moving its executive headquarters from one country to another it is "abandoning" nothing in that other country.

[Furthermore as an additional matter---the first $120k of any executives salary in Dubai will be completely tax free under the ex-pat tax exemptions...talk about tax avoidance!!!!].

It was a question. A simple question, requiring a simple answer. It does not need inference or esoteric enlightenment. Yours is an attempt to turn a simple question into an overcomplicated commercial real estate thesis.

It's a simple question. Just give it an answer it because your thesis is moot without it-


Show me where it says Halliburton is abandoning property or if it even owns the property at all.



Again--you're question has been answered dozens of times...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."

If inference is beyond you, then I'm sorry.


When you find out that Halliburton is making no tax savings by this move, then show me that information...because in my experience and in the bible of business 101 expatriation to tax haven sovereignties is always done to save on taxes.

But no--in your experience, Halliburton is incurring bad press, ill will, and extra coverage to incur INCREASED Taxes.

Please.


What's worse than your ignorance of business is your complete inablity to let a technical word-point go and embrace common sense.

That is the height of stupidity.

Again--you're question has been answered dozens of times...

You haven't answered it once. :lol:


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.

It's not a reasonable inference, it's an assumption and a bad one at that. :lol:

Like I said, I gave you the shovel and you indeed started digging-

From the New York Times-

"Halliburton, the big energy services company, said on Sunday that it would open a corporate headquarters in the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai and move its chairman and chief executive, David J. Lesar, there.

The company will maintain its existing corporate office here as well as its legal incorporation in the United States, meaning that it will still be subject to domestic laws and regulations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/business/12haliburton.html?hp

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Quinn]

I understand that backpedaling and selective reinterpretation are what you guys do when you can’t support a position or thoroughly loose a point of contention, so I’m going to help you here. Once again, you stated the following to Trish:


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

How is Halliburton going to NOT pay taxes to America?

I'm waiting...

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.


That's business. It has nothing to do with politics.

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.


It's why domestic companies choose to incorporate in reduced-tax areas.

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.


If you don't want Halliburton in the marketplace, fine. Lower the government regulatory axe and let the frogs over at Schlumberger advance the interests of socialist Europe.

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

[chefmike]

8)

:P

:lol:

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 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 [b]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. 8)

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. 8)

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? :lol:


http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=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!!!

[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. 8)

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]

:lol:

8)

: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/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.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]

:arrow:

[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...

[Quinn]

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...

Thanks, Chef. I understand that he and the other two NeoCons have published a manifesto:

[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...

Thanks, Chef. I understand that he and the other two NeoCons have published a manifesto:

LMAO...

I love that book! It's laugh out loud with tears in your eyes funny!

As a matter of fact, it's almost as funny as the BS that our resident log cabin neocons try to pass off as facts!

[White_Male_Canada]

Your ilk enjoy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession.




I guess you changed your mind then:

Fucking Village Idiot, so dumb for so long it`s not even amusing anymore.

What part of YOUR ILK ENJOY WIKI don`t you get. Since you like the site then you would accept it more than I would regardless of the fact there was a recession.



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:

The Village Idiot, tries so hard yet fails so miserably. I said “mainly” not completely you dumb as fuck idiot. Glad you`re back, time to resurrect my Owned page.


So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue.

Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Duh, fucking girl can`t even read.


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.

If Halliburton`s tranfering is illegal then let the IRS handle it. If it`s legal then you can bitch and moan all you like, nobody gives a fuck.


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?

I never did Village Idiot. Your sophomoric attempt was to focus on the recession years between 2001-2003 in yet another ridiculous effort to make a point,which was, deception:


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

Corporate tax revenues in terms of dollar amounts for 1962 was 20 billion, as % of GDP it was 3.6. In 1983 it was 1.1% In 2006 the dollar amount is 354 billion dollars with the % of GDP at 2.7. One of the ironies of tax policy during the Bush presidency is that five years of tax cutting legislation have left the corporate income tax rate virtually unchanged.The U.S. is lagging behind and now has one the highest combined statutory corporate income tax rate among OECD countries. The US at 39.3, Japan at 39.0, Germany at 38.9,etc.

If companies feel the need to shield themselves from higher taxes in the U.S. and do so legally then there`s scant the bitching left can do about it, except lower the rates and entice corporations back with more incentives like the Homeland Reinvestment Act.

Nice to see you grew your ovaries back after the hysterectomy I made you suffer. Nothing like the typical dumb fuck of an American with zero comprehension of their own Constitution, specifically Art.III, to kick around some more.
8)

[Quinn]

Your ilk enjoy Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession.

I guess you changed your mind then:

Fucking Village Idiot, so dumb for so long it`s not even amusing anymore.

What part of YOUR ILK ENJOY WIKI don`t you get. Since you like the site then you would accept it more than I would regardless of the fact there was a recession.
Awww, don’t get upset, cupcake. You’re the one who posted it in contradiction to your previously stated position, thereby looking stupid, not me. Furthermore, you have, once again, failed to grasp the rudiments of English, let alone basic economics or finance. No one, save for you, mentioned or disputed the existence of a recession in the early 2000s. Why? Because it’s one of many since World War II and is utterly irrelevant to the long-term decline in corporate income tax receipts as a percentage of federal revenue since the war. Nice job, Adam Smith. Might I suggest Economics for Dummies?



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:

The Village Idiot, tries so hard yet fails so miserably. I said “mainly” not completely you dumb as fuck idiot. Glad you`re back, time to resurrect my Owned page.
Actually, Micheal, the point about your stated positions having next to nothing in common with Liberatarianism, but everything in common with NeoConservativism stands. Be a man, for once, and admit what we all already know.



So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue.

Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Duh, fucking girl can`t even read.
ROTFLMAO…… This is more of that backpedaling, selective reinterpretation, and outright prevarication you Neocons fall back upon every time you get caught contradicting yourselves. Let’s review your backpedaling shall we:

1. You posted the following, afactual tripe:


Corporations pay very little in taxes. The costs/taxes are passed on to customers,clients,consumers,etc.
2. You then posted a chart that indicating corporations due, in fact, pay substantial taxes as a percentage of federal revenue (and that chart tracked federal income tax receipts alone, not the many other taxes corporations pay at various levels of government).
3. I called you out on it, pointing your painfully obvious contradiction.
4. You’re now backpedaling because you have been caught out there. Well done, genius.


If Halliburton`s tranfering is illegal then let the IRS handle it. If it`s legal then you can bitch and moan all you like, nobody gives a fuck.
The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with. As for nobody giving a fuck, who are you talking about? Polls show the majority of the American public doesn’t even support outsourcing. How many do you think support tax evasion using offshore tax havens – particularly when it takes money out of their pockets? Even you care, or you would be on here arguing such a weak point.



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

Corporate tax revenues in terms of dollar amounts for 1962 was 20 billion, as % of GDP it was 3.6. In 1983 it was 1.1% In 2006 the dollar amount is 354 billion dollars with the % of GDP at 2.7. One of the ironies of tax policy during the Bush presidency is that five years of tax cutting legislation have left the corporate income tax rate virtually unchanged.The U.S. is lagging behind and now has one the highest combined statutory corporate income tax rate among OECD countries. The US at 39.3, Japan at 39.0, Germany at 38.9,etc.
Is this what you’re falling back to – now that your ridiculous S Corp argument has been crushed? So be it. That fact remains that corporate income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP and federal revenue have declined precipitously since WWII(see chart below), during a period when corporate profits have increased dramatically. TNCs, like Halliburton, that use transfer pricing – not “tranfering” you economically illiterate retard – and other tax dodges are shortchanging the US government (state and local governments as well) and the individual tax payer.

To your ridiculous OECD argument, those may be the tax rates, but they don’t represent the percentage of taxes we actually do collect (see chart below) – because so many large TNCs dodge paying their taxes. The final chart (seen below) illustrates the difference between corporate income tax as a percentage of GDP between the OECD and US in 1965 and in 2000. As even your economically illiterate ass can see, if we’ve fallen behind the OECD, it’s only in our ability to actually collect the taxes we are owed.


Nice to see you grew your ovaries back after the hysterectomy I made you suffer. Nothing like the typical dumb fuck of an American with zero comprehension of their own Constitution, specifically Art.III, to kick around some more.
Is that the latest delusion you’re empbracing??? Let me help you figure it out, stupid. When you do well enough in life that you have the option to retire at 35 years of age, traveling for pleasure becomes a major part of your schedule. In fact, the only reason I’m on here as much as I am now is because I’ve been home with Mono for a month. What’s your excuse? No Job? No life? No friends? Why does your closeted log cabin, NeoCon ass spend sooooo much time on here? Don’t worry, cupcake, we already know the answer.

As for your giving me a hysterectomy during our last debate, is that what you call it when a hugely overwhelming majority of third party feedback interjected to support my position and/or contradict your ill informed assertions (the thread is there for anyone to read)? Is that what you call it when your assertion that Congress, not the US Supreme Court, is the ultimate interpreter of constitutionality is refuted by both the US Supreme Court and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Congress’s highest authority on the matter)? Is that what you call it when your ridiculous assertion that McCain-Feingold “shredded the 1st” is refuted by the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the President of the United States? With victories like that, who needs defeat? Seriously, what's next? Are you going to try and tell us that Trish didn't make a fool out of you during that climate debate? Sure she didn't? Once again, tell yourself whatever you need to make the pain go away. The truth is there for everyone else to see.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male:


The pukes in Gitmo would slice your head off first,knowing you dig chicks with dicks.

Wow, that doesn’t speak to any issues, does it log-cabin boy? Still, if you don’t want to deal with that, you can always go back to posting effeminate poetry on other forums:



Michael
gawpledouche@hotmail.com
01/26/05 12.37

The fountains mingle with the river
And the rivers with the ocean,
The winds of heaven mix for ever
With a sweet emotion;
Nothing in the world is single,
All things by a law divine
In one another's being mingle -
Why not I with thine?

See the mountains kiss high heaven
And the waves clasp one another;
No sister-flower would be forgiven
If it disdain'd its brother:
And the sunlight clasps the earth,
And the moonbeams kiss the sea -
What are all these kissings worth,
If thou kiss not me?


What were you saying about being gay again? LMFAO…………..

-Quinn

[qeuqheeg222]

they know the next big markets are in india and communist china(our business partner)so many profits are to be had..go head halliburton with yer bad tax free selves........

[White_Male_Canada]

Because it’s one of many since World War II and is utterly irrelevant to the long-term decline in corporate income tax receipts as a percentage of federal revenue since the war.


Actually, Micheal, the point about your stated positions having next to nothing in common with Liberatarianism, but everything in common with NeoConservativism stands. Be a man, for once, and admit what we all already know.

The dumb fuck Village Idiot STILL doesn`t even know what a neocon is . What a retard.


So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue.


Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Duh, fucking girl can`t even read.


Are you this stupid in real life? No fucking wonder everyone laughs at you girl. The statement is so simple everyone is amazed it has to be explained to you over and over, much like Art. III. Yes corps pay taxes and yes they pay very little. If you don`t know how they function and offset their tax liabilities then that`s your problem retard.

If Halliburton`s tranfering is illegal then let the IRS handle it. If it`s legal then you can bitch and moan all you like, nobody gives a fuck.


The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with. As for nobody giving a fuck, who are you talking about? Polls show the majority of the American public doesn’t even support outsourcing. How many do you think support tax evasion using offshore tax havens – particularly when it takes money out of their pockets? Even you care, or you would be on here arguing such a weak point.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.
Ah yes polls this and polls that. The option then become higher taxes on corporations combined with more laws requiring companies to file as C-corps and more protectionsist nonsense.



Is this what you’re falling back to – now that your ridiculous S Corp argument has been crushed?So be it. That fact remains that corporate income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP and federal revenue have declined precipitously since WWII.

The most common form of corporate business in the USA are S-Corps you dumb fuck.

Individual tax returns always accounted for more you numbskull. Even more now because flow through entities/individual tax returns account for more general revenues than C corps,ergo, “the long-term decline in corporate income tax receipts” ! LOL :P :lol: :P :lol:

Holy fuck you`re an idiot, time to resurrect the Pwned page.

More fucking lies and deceit from the Village Idiot.


if we’ve fallen behind the OECD, it’s only in our ability to actually collect the taxes we are owed.

LOL ,the most ridiculous statement apart from your ignorance of Art III.

“We are owed” Wow, that money is yours huh ? Those evil corps stole it and now the kook left want it back. How dare they do what is legal and shield their revenues !

[Quinn]

Wow, once again, thanks for making your metaphorical evisceration this easy. How many of your assertions have held up? Face it; you are to an intellectual debate what France is to warfare: a laughably consistent loser. That said, let the lesson begin:



Actually, Micheal, the point about your stated positions having next to nothing in common with Liberatarianism, but everything in common with NeoConservativism stands. Be a man, for once, and admit what we all already know.

The dumb fuck Village Idiot STILL doesn`t even know what a neocon is . What a retard.
LMAO…. Apparently, you don’t know what a Libertarian is since you’ve called yourself one (there are threads where you defend yourself as a Libertarian without any qualifiers attached) – something handily disproved by the fact that the majority of your endorsed positions contradict Libertarian ideology. And that doesn’t even take into account that none of this forum’s stated Libertarians have agreed with any of your views.

As for not knowing what a NeoCon is, you’re the one who fails to acknowledge that the majority of his stated positions conform to Neoconservative dogma.



So, thanks to your own chart we have clearly established that corporate taxes do compromise a crucial part of government revenue.

Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Duh, fucking girl can`t even read.
That’s all well and good, White_Male_Backpedler, but let’s address what you actually said:


Corporations pay very little in taxes. The costs/taxes are passed on to customers,clients,consumers,etc.
Fuck, you’re dumb……. The chart you posted 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, Adam Smith. Once again, might I suggest Economics for Dummies because, boy, are you dumb.




If Halliburton`s tranfering is illegal then let the IRS handle it. If it`s legal then you can bitch and moan all you like, nobody gives a fuck.

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with. As for nobody giving a fuck, who are you talking about? Polls show the majority of the American public doesn’t even support outsourcing. How many do you think support tax evasion using offshore tax havens – particularly when it takes money out of their pockets? Even you care, or you would be on here arguing such a weak point.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal. Ah yes polls this and polls that. The option then become higher taxes on corporations combined with more laws requiring companies to file as C-corps and more protectionsist nonsense.

Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:

Some parts of transfer pricing have been illegal for years, especially in the US. The trouble is that policing is difficult.

Now, the US Treasury is bringing forward proposals that formalise most of the regulations, and provide an investor model for subsidiaries to treat each other as if they were unrelated, using fair prices for not only goods and services but intangible assets like intellectual capital.
http://money.uk.msn.com/Investing/Insight/Special_Features/Active_Investor/article.aspx?cp-documentid=143073

Here’s another article where US Corporations are pursued by the IRS for using transfer pricing in an illegal manner:

Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.
Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.html

Wow, that had to hurt. That’s yet another demonstration of you being incontrovertibly wrong when it comes to any debate of factual matters. So, what fallacious assertion are you going to backpedal to next because I’ll destroy that too?



Is this what you’re falling back to – now that your ridiculous S Corp argument has been crushed?So be it. That fact remains that corporate income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP and federal revenue have declined precipitously since WWII.

The most common form of corporate business in the USA are S-Corps you dumb fuck.

Individual tax returns always accounted for more you numbskull. Even more now because flow through entities/individual tax returns account for more general revenues than C corps,ergo “the long-term decline in corporate income tax receipts” ! LOL
Once again White_Male_Backpedaler, nice try. The point being addressed was the farcically brainless notion that the formation of S Corps is responsible for the decline in corporate income tax receipts (which has been remarkable in the post war period). As previously stated, it’s a notion that was never viewed as credible by people in the know. Like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said:

“. . . 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.”

That handily refuted your ridiculous argument. Now, let’s look at some other facts:

1) 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);
2) LLCs have largely replaced S Corps due to the greater flexibility they offer.

Since your latest failed argument, you’ve chosen to fall back to disputing LLCs (also a pass through tax entity, unless it elects C Corp taxation) replacing S Corps. Let’s deal with that too, by citing just a few of the many corroborating sources:

1. Recently, the popularity of S corporations has waned as limited liability companies (LLCs) have largely replaced them.
http://www.publishlawyer.com/carousel6.htm

2. . . . S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies (LLCs)
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-structures/corporations/corporations-s-corp-facts.html

3. The S corporation was created to have the tax protection of a corporation but to allow the income to flow through. There are restrictions, including limits on the number of shareholders and classes of stock, intended to keep S corporations as small entities. In recent years, limited liability companies began replacing S corporations.
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2006_Issues/jfp0406-art7.cfm

4. In recent years, however, S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies (LLCs).
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/A30CE890-BBAA-4B8A-AD66A33FA038988B/111/182/241/ART/

5. Today, closely held companies are beginning to show a clear preference for the LLC, according to the latest data from the International Association of Commercial Administrators. LLC filings jumped in almost every state from 2004 to 2005, while corporate filings declined.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/061205/5llc.htm

6. LLC filings have grown to be significant in every jurisdiction, and they not only approach but outnumber new corporate filings [that means both S Corps and C Corps combined, you retard] on an annual basis in a large number of states or jurisdictions.
http://nccusl.org/Update/DesktopModules/NewsDisplay.aspx?ItemID=160

I could go on and on by citing more financial and legal sources, but I think that’s enough of a drubbing for now. Still, your imbecilic assertions have been even easier to refute than during past bitch-slappings I’ve given you. I have to ask, is something wrong? Seriously, my wife’s cat can put forth better arguments than you have – and most of those arguments are ones you fell back to when your initial arguments defending Halliburton were annihilated. I guess the debating defeats you’re recently suffered elsewhere, particularly that climate debate in which you morphed your position more than a comic book superhero, have left you compromised.

No wonder people make fun of you in the general forum. What a clown…….

-Quinn

[Quinn]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male:


The pukes in Gitmo would slice your head off first,knowing you dig chicks with dicks.

Wow, that doesn’t speak to any issues, does it log-cabin boy? Still, if you don’t want to deal with that, you can always go back to posting effeminate poetry on other forums:



Michael
gawpledouche@hotmail.com
01/26/05 12.37

The fountains mingle with the river
And the rivers with the ocean,
The winds of heaven mix for ever
With a sweet emotion;
Nothing in the world is single,
All things by a law divine
In one another's being mingle -
Why not I with thine?

See the mountains kiss high heaven
And the waves clasp one another;
No sister-flower would be forgiven
If it disdain'd its brother:
And the sunlight clasps the earth,
And the moonbeams kiss the sea -
What are all these kissings worth,
If thou kiss not me?


What were you saying about being gay again? LMFAO…………..

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

"Of course corporations pay taxes and do pass on the costs. Duh, fucking girl can`t even read...Corporations pay very little in taxes. The costs/taxes are passed on to customers,clients,consumers,etc."

I`m debating a child. There is no way I`m talking to an adult,it doesn`t even understand eco 101. Individual workers, consumers, and owners bear the economic cost of the corporate income tax, not corporations, which are merely legal entities. So, while corporations are responsible for physically complying with and paying the corporate income tax, individuals ultimately pay the price.

DUH, You fucking numbskull ! :lol:



As for not knowing what a NeoCon is, you’re the one who fails to acknowledge that the majority of his stated positions conform to Neoconservative dogma.

You still don`t know what a neocon is. Let`s ask Rich Lowry,

"Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation. "

LOL DUMB AS FUCK VILLAGE IDIOT ! LOL :lol: I haven`t been a liberal since I was 15 fuckface! At 15, teenage males can barely shave ! LOL What a moron ! :lol:

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal. Ah yes polls this and polls that. The option then become higher taxes on corporations combined with more laws requiring companies to file as C-corps and more protectionsist nonsense.


Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:

Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.
Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes.. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.html

LOL. What a fucking jerk ! :lol: Thanks for stating the obvious asshole,

" While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes."




“. . . 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.”

That handily refuted your ridiculous argument.

Individual tax returns always accounted for more you numbskull. Even more now because flow through entities/individual tax returns account for more general revenus than C corps,ergo, “the long-term decline in corporate income tax receipts” ! LOL

Holy fuck you`re an idiot !


...let’s look at some other facts

...LLCs have largely replaced S Corps due to the greater flexibility they offer.

Since your latest failed argument, you’ve chosen to fall back to disputing LLCs (also a pass through tax entity, unless it elects C Corp taxation) replacing S Corps. Let’s deal with that too, by citing just a few of the many corroborating sources:

Recently, the popularity of S corporations has waned as limited liability companies (LLCs) have largely replaced them....S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies (LLCs)...
I n recent years, however, S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies ...Today, closely held companies are beginning to show a clear preference for the LLC, according to the latest data from the ...LLC filings have grown to be significant in every jurisdiction, and they not only approach but outnumber new corporate filings


LOL :P Just too fucking easy ! :P

"Now let`s omit all the facts"

You dumb fucking liar. The old lie by omission trick. You perceive us to be stupid ? :lol:

LLCs may account for more new business filings but there are 2 and one-half times more corporations operating inside the USA than there are LLCs(IACA).

Holy old fuck, I just keep putting bait out there and this Idiot keeps biting. LOL

THE VILLAGE IDIOT GETS CAUGHT AGAIN IN HIS BIG LIE BY OMISSION !

WELCOME BACK ASSHOLE, WE DIDN`T MISS YOU :lol:

[Quinn]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving. :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

[chefmike]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving. :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Quinn

Word.

[White_Male_Canada]

That you, Micheal, would call anyone else gay is hysterical. Know what I mean, White_Closeted_Male.

I think WMC's real name is Timmy, Quinn. Whatever it really is, who cares, I find the guy repulsive, and that's just from what he writes. He really does seem to have a big thing about owning other guys sexually, maybe that's what turns him on about transsexuals? And from what he's said himself, he clearly is active on far more boards than this one. You've definitely hit the nail on the head about him, Quinn, he's a hypocrite and a fraud!!! Not only does he frequently lie to others, he appears to frequently lie to himself. They call that being deluded!

Hey, I_love_Cristina_Bianchini, I see you've come to the exact same conclusion as just about every other poster on this forum – save for WMC’s two NeoCon confederates. Chesterton's – oops, I mean WMC’s – "debates" follow an all too familiar pattern where he will initially make numerous factually unsustainable assertions, which then invariably get obliterated by real facts. This, in turn, invariably causes him to fall back upon secondary assertions, usually based upon selective reinterpretations of his initially disproved assertions. Once these secondary assertions are crushed as well, he falls back again, with the same pattern repeating itself over and over. As the “debate” drags on, White_Morphing_Male will change his position more times than hooker at an orgy. We've all seen him do it during a number of debates – like the climate debate, when Trish bitched his ass – and we’ve most certainly seen it here. It just gets better and better.

No wonder they even make fun of him on the General Discussion forum. Essentially, his NPD fueled ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving. :lol: :lol: :lol:




..let’s look at some other facts

...LLCs have largely replaced S Corps due to the greater flexibility they offer.

Since your latest failed argument, you’ve chosen to fall back to disputing LLCs (also a pass through tax entity, unless it elects C Corp taxation) replacing S Corps. Let’s deal with that too, by citing just a few of the many corroborating sources:

Recently, the popularity of S corporations has waned as limited liability companies (LLCs) have largely replaced them....S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies (LLCs)...
I n recent years, however, S corporations have been largely replaced by limited liability companies ...Today, closely held companies are beginning to show a clear preference for the LLC, according to the latest data from the ...LLC filings have grown to be significant in every jurisdiction, and they not only approach but outnumber new corporate filings

LOL Just too fucking easy !

"Now let`s omit all the facts"

You dumb fucking liar. The old lie by omission trick.

LLCs may account for more new business filings but there are 2 and one-half times more corporations operating inside the USA than there are LLCs (IACA).

Holy old fuck, I just keep putting bait out there and this Idiot keeps biting. LOL

THE VILLAGE IDIOT GETS CAUGHT AGAIN IN HIS BIG LIE BY OMISSION !

WELCOME BACK ASSHOLE, WE DIDN`T MISS YOU

[Quinn]

You know what, I could go on and on obliterating your imbecilically afactual assertions – only to see you fall back like a little bitch again and again – but we have more than enough to work with now. Here are just a few of your moronic assertions and the relevant responses. You can project your own conduct all you want by whining about omitted facts, lies of omission, or whatever – a true irony given that you have been accused of these and other deceptive actions more than every other active poster in the Politics and Religion Forum combined – but the thread is there for every poster to review in its entirety. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why whenever they do this, the overwhelming majority come down against your assertions and not mine?

So, without further delay, here, in not particular, are just a few of your gifts to our collective sense of humor.

1. One instance of idiocy:


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


Your own chart showed 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.
2. A second instance of idiocy:



The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.
Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.
Easily disproved:


Not illegal??? Wow, you really don’t know a fucking thing about this, do you? How about part of a nice article from MSN Money:

[u]Some parts of transfer pricing have been illegal for years, especially in the US. The trouble is that policing is difficult.

Now, the US Treasury is bringing forward proposals that formalise most of the regulations, and provide an investor model for subsidiaries to treat each other as if they were unrelated, using fair prices for not only goods and services but intangible assets like intellectual capital.
http://money.uk.msn.com/Investing/Insight/Special_Features/Active_Investor/article.aspx?cp-documentid=143073
3. A third instance of idiocy:


“We are owed” Wow, that money is yours huh ? Those evil corps stole it and now the kook left want it back. How dare they do what is legal and shield their revenues !
Hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your economically and financially illiterate ramblings or anything. After all, we’ve already incontrovertibly established that your opinion isn’t supported by even the most forgiving review of the facts. Still, just to rub your ignorance in your face, here’s an example of a corporation being pursued by the IRS for something you say is legal:

Last week, Merck, the pharmaceutical multinational, announced that it will pay 2.3 billion dollars in back taxes, interest and penalties in one of the largest settlements for tax evasion the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ever imposed.

Merck had cooked its tax books by moving ownership of its drug patents to its own Bermuda shell company -- an entity that has no real employees and does no real work -- and then deducting from U.S. taxes the huge royalties it paid itself. While setting up a shell company is not inherently illegal, it is if tax authorities determine that its only purpose is to evade taxes. Bermuda is a tax haven that has no levy on royalties
http://www.financialrealtime.com/stocks/stock-market-news/news697278.html.[/quote]

4. A forth instance of idiocy:


Taxes? Where were the howls of outrage when Nike and many manufacturing firms moved to China.
Once again, using irrelevant examples that reflect a complete ignorance of the topic being debated:


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.
5. A fifth instance of idiocy:


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.
Easily disproved:


The argument that S Corporations 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:

. . . 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.
6. A sixth instance of idiocy:


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.
Not only was that statement factually irrelevant to the debate, it was funny due to the following:


Quoting from Wiki is akin to quoting from a Bazooka joe comic.
7. A seventh instance of idiocy:


Lowering the tax a corporation pays would lower the costs they pass onto clients,consumers,etc.
Too easy to deal with this farce:


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.

Hey, White_Male_Want_ Wit, given the voluminous drivel you spout, I could most certainly post more examples, but this will do for now. See what happens when you attempt to debate things you have absolutely no familiarity with. You are to a factual debate what Enron was to ethical business practices: a fiasco and a fraud.

-Quinn

[Quinn]

You dumb fucking liar.
Well if anyone should know it's you, your the biggest dumb fucking liar here by a million miles, eh "Prof." (allegedly)!


WELCOME BACK ASSHOLE, WE DIDN`T MISS YOU
Who's the WE, you and a fool! guyone seems alright, he's just young and under a bad influence, i.e. YOU! Isn't corrupting a minor illegal?

You caught that, too, huh? My favorite part is "we didn't miss you." Who's we? ROTFLMAO................... This coming from the guy whose only two supporters on this forum happen to be the two posters whose views are as universally disparaged and ridiculed as his own. Wow, he really really gives new meaning to the phrase/slogan "An Army of One." Boy, that "we" sure is compelling :lol:

What a delusional little clown.

-Quinn