Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai 555
theodp writes "Much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year the company earned $2.3B in profits. Sen. Patrick Leahy called the company's move 'corporate greed at its worst.' Halliburton, once headed by VP Dick Cheney, has been awarded contracts valued at an estimated $25.7B for its work in Iraq."
What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
P.S. Remember when Cheney refused to sell his Haliburton stock when appointed VP? He also resisted placing it into a blind trust and if I remember correctly, continues to receive compensation from Haliburton. Also, the content of Cheney's energy task force demonstrated that companies (Haliburton included) had direct input into the official federal energy plan, effectively allowing corporations to dictate US policy.
Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, with all of the crap which has been going on lately, it may even be a security move: in that the execs may actually feel safer in Dubai from the revenge of the people they've ruthlessly swindled in the US.
sounds legitimate to me (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people have mentioned the Halliburton contracts in iraq, but Halliburton is spinning off it's military division anyway and is likely to be distanced from iraq. Aside from that, I don't think anyone at Halliburton takes the notion seriously that they will be sued when an ex-CEO is practically running the country... if they were ever afraid of that the abuses wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Also, a bunch of people have mentioned criminal charges. A lot of the problems with Halliburton, Halliburton can't really be held responsible, since the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them. If you're contract has holes in it, you're pretty fucked when it comes to trial.
According to the company... (Score:5, Interesting)
They want the HQ to be closer to the majority of the fields they operate and to the bulk of their customers, which is Asia. Their main business is "oil services", mind you. And the biggest oil fields are around the Gulf...
Not sure, why all this is /. material, though...
Re:why do liberals hate america? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:1, Interesting)
Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.
Politicians normally put any personal assets in blind trusts when they take office. So why don't you ask John Kerry why he didn't do that, instead of hammering Cheney for following protocol.
Corporate interests have dictated or had significant input on Government policy for decades. The hire people called LOBBYISTS to "express their views" to the House and Sentate. Or have you been under a rock the last 35 yrs?
Asking industry "experts" (NOT LOBBYISTS..they are different) for advice is actually good Government. Having worked with Government agencies for many years, I found they often think too highly of thier own knowledge and refuse to get outside help or to listen when advice is given thus making mistakes. Listening and acting on expert information would be a nice change of pace.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! (Score:5, Interesting)
To make things fair, these and more rules should be applied to any US company that leaves.
On another note, what does this topic have to do with the usual technology issues on Slashdot?
Re:Global CO2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree. And I wish someone would mod you up, because your post brings us much closer to the truth.
Dick Cheney got the job as CEO of Halliburton (his first job in the private sector) as a result of being Secretary of Defense. Before Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, Halliburton was nothing -- his decisions as Defense Secretary made Halliburton wealthy. So if Cheney is getting paid now, it's because of the wealth he created Halliburton during his reign as Secretary of Defense -- not as CEO. As CEO, he implemented a very aggressive take over strategy of asbestos companies (after the scandal had already broken out) which basically got Halliburton to pick up many bargains -- but eventually led it to declare bankruptcy (i.e. Corporate Welfare).
Now Hilary Clinton may be as corrupt as Cheney, may be, but compared to Dick Cheney -- Hillary Clinton is a freaking genius where it comes to business. Hell, even George W. Bush's failed business record is not as bad as Cheney's.
Re:Cheney's retirement? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is, there is essentially nothing you can do to stop them - you* voted them in. Twice. All you can do is vote them our next time - preferrably by a wide enough margin that there is no question as to who won.
*The you I am referring to is the collective, American you, not you-singular. You may have voted for someone else, but clearly you didn't convince enough people to vote with you (maybe you should have a few more pen pals in battleground states?). I'm guilty, too. I didn't vote for him (else I'd be complaining about tomato and vinegar subsidies, I suppose), but I also didn't convince enough of my Virginia bretheren to vote against him. I will take credit for voting out Allen, though. And for keeping Boucher in office. Might as well take some credit as well as the blame. If it makes you feel better, my other half - who did vote for him - has finally come to her senses and realized that she made a horrible mistake. And if those nuts in Iowa don't all get drunk and vote for Hillary, she just might correct that mistake next time.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back then you had companies dumping hazardous chemicals into aquifers, and exploiting workers as well as the Union contracts (or lack of a union), and labour market allowed. I talked to one lady who worked in an office environment in the early '70s.... When an important executive came into town, they'd pick a random receptionist to 'take care of his needs'. It was a case of 'put up or get out' and, for a young woman with few other prospects and the likelihood of a bad reference if she said 'no', there were some very hard choices to be made.
It's long been case that your average large conglomerate was focused on making a profit -- by hook or croock. The difference was that -- roughly from the 60s to the 80s the electorate had a reasonable control of the government, which responded by setting laws and regulations which generally worked for the average citizen. Nowadays, big business has gotten their claws (back) into the heart of government.
Instead of setting the rules and laws such that a corporation hellbent on making money would act in a way that (generally) worked for the populace, now the laws are increasingly being set so that a corporation hellbent on making a profit will be able to set the rules so that they work for the greater profit rather than the greater good.
I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know the issue isn't which city is better, but Dubai is like a New York. If you're in the financial business, go to Manhattan. If you're in the tech world, go to san Jose. If you're in the oil business with 90% of your work in the middle east, go to Dubai. I see nothing wrong with this, especially if they say they are going to pay US taxes and remain a US corp.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation to
be carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothing
ever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believes
that Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kinda
like Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).
And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed the
identity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had held
a similiar position, that the Republicans would have said "no harm,
no foul, she/he/it was sitting at a desk, no big deal". You know in
your heart that they would not. And you know what it was obstruction of.
Not that I disagree with the summation that it is partisan politics, but
be honest with yourself, it was on the border, and it looks from here
like it was done out of spite.
And on Cheney not getting nailed, most chief of staff type people are
doing their master's bidding, so to suspect him should not be suprising.
It is possible that Scooter had his own agenda, and that Cheney is
as innocent as you believe him. It is also possible that Scooter is
the whipping boy, and that someone has decided that Cheney cannot be
named in this for political reasons, and due to political pressure.
I am only disappointed to the extent that if he is guilty, he should
take the hit and not Scooter. If he is not, then let it fall on the
guilty party. I do find it interesting that he did not testify, but
I dont know why he did not.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad technology, eh?
What a senile and misinformed view! Wow! Yes, it's very costly and risky to develop commercial aircraft products and, in the case of Aribus, the EU stepped in and funded part of the bussiness. B.t.w., from a strategic point of view it makes all the sense in the world to not have to depend on an American company in such an important field.
OTOH, Boeing is a mamouth of a company with fingers in many pies, including the very generous subsidies for military development coming from the US Government. Guess who's paying for these? you and me and every individual who's paying taxes, that's who.
Bottomline is, both companies are funded by the government, so whining about the unfair competition Boeing has to face in the commercial aircraft arena is pointless. Take a look at the different approach they have in developing new products and you'll understand why, despite setbacks regarding the A380, Airbus will win in the long run (i.e. in 20-30 years).
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:2, Interesting)
It gets tiring to see the same US propaganda, again and again. And again. ad nauseum.
Airbus gets nil interest loans. That means it has to reimburse every cent back.
Boeing got whole airplanes for free. All expenses re-imbursed.
You don't believe me ? Then check who has payed for the flagship of Boeing's fleet, the 747 jumbo jet.
NASA.
That means the US taxpayer's money paid for eveything in the design of the 747 and Boeing sold it for pure profit.
And there's another thing called the FAA.
It's purpose is to promote and give advantage to the american air industry by tailoring rules and specifications.
Don't believe me ? Then check it yourself, it is written in all words in its official creation statement.
Small example : ETOPS.
ETOPS regulation defined how long at maximum should an airliner be able to fly with only one reactor operational. Other airplane makers strove hard to meet this requirement, and succeeded.
When Boeing couldn't, well, the FAA just reduced the length requirement. Easy as pie.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh pray tell, what did Wilson lie about? That he should have known that his wife had recommended him for the job, I'll give you that one -- but that's about it (and good luck proving it by the way). Joseph Wilson is not the anti-war liberal hack know-nothing that the republicans are trying to make him out to be. And the extreme-right bloggers that make him out to be a former Clinton aid who was against the war are just as guilty as the Bill O'Reilly's show which tried to imply that Mark Folley was a democrat -- instead of a republican.
In fact, if you look at Joe Wilson's resume, you'll find that every time the republicans were in power, he had a promotion, and during the time Clinton was in office -- he was demoted to a lesser rank. So if he was the lapdog of anyone in particular, he was the lapdog of Bush Senior. Furthermore, he wasn't just against the war in Iraq as I've read a hundred times already, he was against the *second* War in Iraq -- the first War -- he was for it -- just like George Bush Senior. I believe this is a distinction that's too often omitted in these discussions. Not to mention, that when his credentials come up, his lack of experience in the country of Niger is cited, but his experience in Iraq or his experience with another Uranium rich country like the Gabon are seldom even mentioned.
And I'm barely even scratching the surface here, I've heard many half-truthes and deliberate omissions regarding Joe Wilson. So if you have anything to say about him, please go on -- I'll be happy to verify whatever you've heard about him.
Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week (Score:5, Interesting)
A very large population of indentured slaves, for example.
Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:2, Interesting)
Furthermore, there are plenty of good alternatives. The Swiss, Swedes, Dutch and Israeli have a system where every citizen is insured per default for health-care. The thing is that in these countries, you can still choose which doctor/hospital/dentist you go to, and the medical industry is payed per-patient.
This means the government steps in and ensures everyone has the proper basic medi-care insurance (which includes abortions, birth control, vaccinations and a whole array of other preventive means) while the EXECUTION is left either to subsidized or private institutions. This mix may vary between the countries I've mentioned, but the basic gist is the same.
I don't see how such a program "limits" the "freedom" you think you have. Furthermore for once it's a system that doesn't screw over the Maroccan grand-mother, whose husband died after doing 30 years of low-wage work as an immigrant, and doesn't have 5 cents to scratch her ass with.
"the market" isn't holy. It doesn't automatically magically optimize itself to provide the best care for all. It's money-driven, and we can't have that in health-care.
I would argue you should take a long, hard look at the level of health-care in Cuba. Their system is innovative, does more with less, is totally free for everyone in the country and life-expectancy is up *in spite of* 40 years of economic sanctions by y'all in the US. I'm not for communism, but health-care is the one thing Cubans do better than the US administration, way I see it.
The values of a society are reflected in the way they treat their weakest links.
Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week (Score:3, Interesting)
-GiH
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:3, Interesting)