Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai

Posted by kdawson on from the might-as-well dept.

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."

10 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, given the companies past alleged illegal/unethical behavior, the first thing that came to my mind was.... "what is coming down the pipe that they are trying to avoid?" Specifically, by moving the corporate HQ out of the country, are they avoiding some potential legal action because of illegal or unethical corporate behavior? After all we do know about lots of no-bid contracts they were awarded, not to mention the overcharging of contracts and more. It should also be noted that Haliburton is trying to off-load KBR. But fundamentally, regardless of ones political bias, even if there is no forthcoming news of illegal activity, because this corporation has benefitted so much from contracts awarded by the US government, moving off shore to avoid paying US taxes is simply an additional insult.

    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.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Linux_ho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the US has no extradition treaty with Dubai.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    2. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "[Dick Cheney] earned that money in years before 1999 due to performance incentives in his contract..."

      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.

    3. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by darkonc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a time when US companies and corporate leaders felt that it was worthwhile to care about the communities in which they exist. Er, um. No. There was simply a time when (with the US being the prime destination for goods as well as a prime source of raw gods), it didn't make much sense to do things like move out of the country.

      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.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  2. Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US by Scareduck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Per Wikipedia (either as Dubai or as the United Arab Emirates).

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

  3. Not only taxes by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What of data retention laws? It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.

    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.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  4. sounds legitimate to me by sentientbrendan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what's more sensible than an *oil company* relocating to the *middle east*? Dubai isn't just some random village in the middle of nowhere, it's a major economic hub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

    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.

  5. According to the company... by mi · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  6. Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! by TheRealStyro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US government should offer the advice that this move is not a good idea. If they leave any and all remaining assets (and any profits) will be taxed 500% for 10 years and ALL contracts will be canceled as they will become a foreign corporation and cannot have contracts that may/do have implications for national security.

    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?

    --
  7. Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week by clambake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a world class city with all the "modern" things you'd want and a touch of class that makes it a true gem.

    A very large population of indentured slaves, for example.