Rut-ro Ragy:D

So, Halliburton is moving to where it is closer to the majority of it's market and receiving tax breaks to boot....big deal.
I have worked directly with KBR, and also with one of Halliburton's main no-bid rivals--Bechtel, in addition to Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman--none was any better nor worse than the other.
I just returned from the UAE 2 weeks ago--and I would not be surprised to see more companies relocating to Dubai or the general area--business there is completely booming everywhere--great tax breaks(we were building in a "no tariff" zone in Raz Al Khameih--one of 20 new projects in the same industrial park), cheap labor, a tolerant government, and Dubai being a world-class city makes for an attractive combination.

Careful, logic gets you labeled a tool 'round these parts;)

So if all major US businesses incorporate, consolodate, then relocate, where does the tax money for indescriminate war come from?

Do we start calling it Pepsico-Michigan like the stadiums?

Dang. I hate it when that happens.

War funding comes from the money we borrow from China. The government is broke and running on credit.

I made the same point on page one of this thread, they just don't seem to get it.

Here is my explanation.

HAL's opportunities in US military outsourcing, and US govt work in general, are slowing. The war in Iraq will wind down in 1 year, the Democrats are taking power, and the govt will be bidding contracts rather than handing them to HAL.

So the oil industry services business is increasingly important. Within that industry, US production is declining in significance. Globally, power is shifting away from the US majors. Exxon et al are still very important, but can no longer call the shots in oil-rich countries. Local governments are increasingly assertive and have to be wooed, bribed, etc.

Finally, oil is increasingly an arena of nationalistic competition. Look at Russia, whose ability and willingness to challenge the US is based on oil. China's foreign policy is increasingly driven by competition with the US for access to oil. If you want to service all these countries' oil industries, best to be seen as a neutral player.

So it is better for HAL to be seen as less of an "American" company and more of a "global" company. Better to entertain Russian, Venezulean, Iranian, Chinese, etc government officials in cosmopolitan, booming, politically-neutral Dubai, rather than in odiously American Houston. Easier to get visas. A nice little Islamic halo too, for your Arab customers.

The first step in becoming a "global" company is moving the CEO to Dubai. The next step will be for senior management to follow him; obviously it'd be good for the career to tag after the CEO. The third will be to re-incorporate in a non-US jurisdiction, and if it is a tax haven then so much the better. Might have to spin off the government services business to do this.

When it happens, I'm sure many will sing the company line about excessive regulation/costs driving American companies overseas, etc. Don't be a dupe - that will have very little to do with it.

Unless the executives and other employees renounce their U.S. citizenship, they will be liable for income taxes on all $$ earned regardless of whose soil it was earned on, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_havens

So you admit that the oil business in the US is dwindling (not because we don't have oil) and that taxes here are much higher yet you don't feel either is a legitimate driver in their move?

Now I agree that many of their potential clients are in the middle east and that is a large player in their decision, but if oil exploration and refinement were unleashed here and taxes were on par with Dubai, they would more than likely stay...yes?

*disclaimer: I know they haven't actually moved the company, just certain aspects and personnel. I am speaking to the theory if they do.

The US is declining as a % of future global oil production, I believe that is true. Whether taxes are higher here - depends on where you compare it to, if they chose a tax haven like Bermuda then yes; I'm not thinking they would incorporate in Dubai.

Are these legitimate business reasons to move - of course.

My point is not that HAL's move (today of the CEO, maybe tommorrow of the company) is irrational. HAL is a big and not-stupid company, they don't do things for no reason.

My point is that when people tell you HAL's move is due to excessive regulation/costs in the US, and try to make some political point about how we need less EPA, less SEC, less OSHA, less IRS, etc - that is bogus.

If my explanation/theory of HAL's action is correct, then this move is going to happen regardless of US regulation/costs. (Unless you think the US can have tax rates like Bermuda.)

It always amazes me how small business owners feel some kinship with big corporations, and sing the "less regulation, less taxes" song that the big corps want you to sing, thus allowing big corps to use small businesses as their "poster children" in lobbying for political changes that are designed to benefit them and not you.

HAL has about as much in common with your business as you do with an ant. They get all the political favors and tax breaks; you get none. Can you hire $500/hour lawyers to devise tax schemes? Can you re-incorporate in tax haven countries? Can you meet with the VP to lobby for favorable govt policy? Of course not.

How ironic. The parrots paste their .org articles and describe every evil motive they can think of for Halliburton's corporate office relocation to Dubai. Halliburton does it to save money- thereby lowering overhead and G&A costs and saving the taxpayers from paying higher indirect costs on their government work.

And, maybe even more ironically, when I worked with them in London as part of a JV with my employer, British government officials insisted that Halliburton (KBR) be the prime contractor as they were perceived as a "British" firm.

They can't win. I guess they should just fold up and put thousands of US (and other) citizens out of work. Collecting unemployment and welfare. I'm not sure even that would make the parrots happy but at least they'd have to find something else to squawk about.

It is the layers of regulation that prevent small companies from competing, only the big guys can afford it.

You see it's a matter of philosophy not a game, what is right is right whether it helps me, my competitor or even huge companies with which I have no stake. It's a belief in the capitalist system.

That being said, the more large corporations based here the better as the smaller companies are their feeders, even if unrelated to the end product. Take away the Cow and the calves die.

I will not argue the layers of regulation part but IMO they apply to all and have just as harmful an effect on large businesses as small ones.

But even worse are the socioeconomic regulations.

My wife has a small business. An ex-employee who left the firm (she was there all of three weeks) filed an EEO suit. My wife spent almost ten thousand responding. Turns out the woman had spent time in jail, lied on her resume and had tried the same scam before. But the EEO didn't bother to check those facts. They just threatened to put her out of business unless she spent thousands responding to baseless allegations.

It's the usual pattern: when the pundits haven't supplied the appropriate response, the locals just respond with a numb-brain phrase like 'there you go again.' Maybe later today, Faux/Limbaugh will tell them how to reply to those facts. Then again, maybe not.

Corporations are REQUIRED, legally REQUIRED, to ignore ethical considerations and maximize profits. If a company CAN legally and/or practically take an action that increases the expectation of profits.....then it must and it will take that action. This is the part that makes me wonder why we permit them (corporation) to participate in our political process. They don't get to vote, and they cannot consider ethics or morality.....so why do we let them control our government?

But here, we are (or were) discussing the implication of HAL's move to Dubai in the context of hypothetical near-future allegations and possible prosecutions for taxpayer fraud. In addition to insisting the companies be amoral.....in addition to allowing them to control our government......are we also supporting their ability to defraud taxpayers and skate away without reparation?

I really would like to hear some of our local conservatives respond to this last question. And just so you know, a response that simply points out that corporations can take any and all available legal opportunities....blah blah blah...... is a "yes" answer. Yes, it's okay for Halliburton to defraud our taxpayers. So if that's your answer, just say it. Don't be cowards.

Seen it , done it--our workers' comp. insurance just paid 40K to settle a claim from a POS former employee who suffered a finger laceration.

and we spent close to 10K defending against a NY lawsuit where we were named as a defendent--doesn't matter that we were never involved in the project, and that it was a NY company that has a similar name and does a completely different type of work--you still have to respond and file all the necessary legal papers to be removed from the suit--10K and 4 months later...:rolleyes:

You're more of an idealist than I am.

The Cow is feeding calves alright, but they're increasingly Chinese calves.

Later she'll move on to Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, Indian, etc, calves. She's not much interested in American calves, even idealist ones.

Is this written into law somewhere? Maybe it is, but I'm not familiar with anything like that.

Ther's just no reasonable discourse with you, is there mate? You take your orders from the extreme left wing of the DNC and there's no middle ground.

For your information I've never watched Limbaugh and rarely watch television news (except occasionally for Deutsche Welle). I'm a registered Democrat. I support abortion rights and stem cell research. I subscribe to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and try to read them both everyday. But I take all the news with a grain of salt- everyone seems to have an agenda these days. For a site like halliburton.org, having worked with the firm for many years, I'd take a lot of salt. Having seen the Post mis-report this stuff before- either for an agenda or out of ignorance or the desire for sensationalism- I'd take their reports with more than a little salt too.

Halliburton as a company is no saint that's for sure. But they aren't the devil either. They employ thousands of people who are honest and hardworking and some of them even run the company. They have faced the same scandals that nearly all large firms have- Boeing, Unisys, LM, GD, etc. And if there's malfeasance I'm sure they will pay for it- one way or the other. Just as all of 'em do.

But there's apparently no way to make you realize this hence discussing or debating the issue, with you at least, is pointless.

You win I concede.