The Bailout

[Kaw1000]

Its funny when the liberals in this forum can't even see, that most agree it was both partys
that got us into this mess.

[bongaroo]

Umm...I see it.  I know other liberal posters have mentioned it.  Your just seeing too much of the righty and lefties mouth pieces chasing each other in circles.

[JoeA]

Yea look at halliburton, they moved or are moving their headquarters to Dubai so they don't have to pay taxes in the US. That's what "great American" companies do these days, to show their appreciation to the US after the tax payers dollars were given to them via billions of dollars worth of no bid contracts.

Go Team America!   

You are disconnected from the facts.

The CEO of Halliburton move along with a handful of staff.  The definition of "headquarters" is where ever the CEO is located (similar to what plane is called "Air Force One").  Hence Dubai is now the "headquarters".  It has nothing to do with taxes.  The CEO moved because the US has closed off much of the new oil/gas business so the Halliburton CEO moved to be close to the growth area for his business.  Good for him!

Hallibutron is registered as a Delaware corp, has express no interest in changing its registered location and continues to file US income taxes on 100% of its worldwide business.  All US registered companies file US income taxes for 100% of their worldwide business regardless of where they conduct their business.  They can only avoid filing US income taxes if they change their registration to a foreign country, which is (almost?) never done, and physically move 100% of their operations out of the US.

[crockett]

I don't think you read his whole post.  The last line he wrote is about how both parties are to blame.

Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved.  

[crockett]

You are disconnected from the facts.

The CEO of Halliburton move along with a handful of staff.  The definition of "headquarters" is where ever the CEO is located (similar to what plane is called "Air Force One").  Hence Dubai is now the "headquarters".  It has nothing to do with taxes.  The CEO moved because the US has closed off much of the new oil/gas business so the Halliburton CEO moved to be close to the growth area for his business.  Good for him!

Hallibutron is registered as a Delaware corp, has express no interest in changing its registered location and continues to file US income taxes on 100% of its worldwide business.  All US registered companies file US income taxes for 100% of their worldwide business regardless of where they conduct their business.  They can only avoid filing US income taxes if they change their registration to a foreign country, which is (almost?) never done, and physically move 100% of their operations out of the US.

"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."

They are keeping a corporate offices in the US, just like they have corporate offices in other parts of the world for some of their other companies. The company HQ is now run from Dubai, and will lead to them eventually incorporating out side the US so they won't have to pay taxes. Sure the original company might stay incorporated in the US, but they will and already have other companies incorporated outside the US. The contracts will eventually be pushed through these corporate offices out side the US.

Moving to Dubi was just a first step and they will slowly start pushing the business through these other smaller companies of theirs to get out of paying US taxes. They just have too much heat on them right now to make to the big jump.

Just like Halliburton Products and Services Ltd has a office in Tehran and is incorporated in the Cayman Islands so they don't have to pay US taxes.

[Toad]

The point should be inescapable tho..   no matter what side you are on politically.. you have to admit that government involvement got us into the mess.

lazs

Yep. The Republicans removed the sheepdog and opened the gates for the wolves and the Democrats pushed a herd of lambs out into the pasture. Then they congratulated each other on improving the farm.

[Toad]

  The FACT is both parties are responsible equally!

Congratulations! You are the master of the obvious!If you'll look back at the post you'll find you agree with me. You should do that more often; it would improve the impression you make here.

[Toad]

Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved.  

You probably missed this as well but I don't think it matters as I don't think you are a discerning reader of current event topics. The article was biased, as most are. But the facts are there if you are perspicacious enough.

Toad:

It's biased.

Let me give you a little clue though. If one is intelligent enough to see the underlying facts then one should be able to disregard the spin.

The FACT is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley would not have passed without Democrats supporting it.

The FACT is that the Democrats required big changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in return for their support.

The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.

[Elfie]

Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved.  

His post was to show the democrats hand in this disaster, not to lay all the blame on them. If he was trying to lay all the blame on the democrats he wouldn't have posted that last line saying both parties were responsible.

[JoeA]

"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."
...

OK, so you agree that moving the corp headquarters had no tax implications but your original post implied the opposite.  What Halliburton does in the future remains to be seen.

The extremely high US corporate tax rates do have the effect of telling corporations that they are not wanted in the US.   Maybe some day the US will realize that.  It better be soon.

[rpm]

I like what this guy said.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

[crockett]

OK, so you agree that moving the corp headquarters had no tax implications but your original post implied the opposite.  What Halliburton does in the future remains to be seen.

The extremely high US corporate tax rates do have the effect of telling corporations that they are not wanted in the US.   Maybe some day the US will realize that.  It better be soon.

Of course it has tax implications. They just wont be seen right away. As I posted they already have several businesses that are set up out side the US in tax havens..

In February 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on government contractorsPDF (774 KiB) that use offshore tax havens. It ranks the contractors in terms of the size of the contractors and provides information about how many subsidiaries the companies have offshore. Using data of the end of 2001, Halliburton ranked 30, had 17 offshore companies in tax havens, and 131 foreign subsidiaries.

Moving their HQ off shore will undoubetly be used in conjunction with these other offshore operations. The fact they will keep the parent company as a registered US company means little to nothing with all the stuff they already have offshore. They likely have to keep at least one company here in the US other wise it would be hard to justify all these big US govt contracts now wouldn't?

[JoeA]

Of course it has tax implications. They just wont be seen right away. As I posted they already have several businesses that are set up out side the US in tax havens..

The issue I'm commenting on is just your post where you talked about moving corp headquarters, which is an insignificant accounting event.  You (and others) believe this move some how has US tax implications but I've never seen anyone justify that claim with reference to US corp tax code.  The most important point is Halliburton remains registered as a US corp thus subject to US tax code.  They could change their corp registration to Dubai (or anywhere) without moving a single employee there, it's just legal paperwork, and not spend any money on moving.  If you have specific info on how simply moving corp headquarters lowers US taxes, I'd be interested in seeing it. 

As I said, given the onerous US corp tax laws, moving registration and/or operation in/out of the US is a something that every multinational corp has/is considering, unless they're idiots.  Halliburton has exercised its rights to locate some operations inside the US and some outside of the US and that is their right, and it might make good tax policy for them depending on where they go & how they structure it.  The current game is played according to the current rules.  Change the rules (tax system) and you'll get different results.

[Hap]

Heard a old common sense prof talking on newshour.  he says only loans should be offered to be paid with interest.  no bonuses nor dividends payable until loans repaid.  he disbelieves the "we gotta fix it now or its the end of the world" sales pitch.

i'm with the crusty old professor.

[myelo]

Heard a old common sense prof talking on newshour.  he says only loans should be offered to be paid with interest.  no bonuses nor dividends payable until loans repaid.  he disbelieves the "we gotta fix it now or its the end of the world" sales pitch.

i'm with the crusty old professor.

Sounds like Allan Meltzer's plan. I think if we're going do this thing, that's be best plan I've heard yet.