global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head
07-12-2006 10:20 AM
global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head
Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie, the debate over global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head — courtesy of the United Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless proposals for the imposition of global taxes are truly terrifying.
In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.
Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term "redistribution." Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.
In 2000, the U.N. General Assembly approved a "Millennium Declaration" that committed the world body and its member nations to a sweeping list of objectives, particularly in the area of assisting "developing" nations. Among them were five specific goals, to be achieved by 2015, aimed at reducing poverty, improving children’s health and fighting AIDS around the world.
Arguing that developed nations like the United States have not done enough to achieve these goals, despite the fact that we provide the bulk of the U.N.’s money, U.N. leaders have recently begun using the Millennium Goals as an excuse to explore global taxation. As Inter Presse reported, U.N. Secretary General Kofi "Annan has warned that unless current development assistance is doubled to $100 billion annually, the world’s 132 developing nations will fail to meet their Millennium Development Goals."
Using the Millennium Goals as the excuse, the United Nations is set to once again begin considering specific methods to extract wealth from citizens of the United States and other first world nations for "redistribution" to the citizens in the less developed, poorer third world. Among the schemes being contemplated are:
E-mail tax. Global taxation zealots smell a powerful opportunity in the Internet. Under their plan, e-mail users would pay a tax of about $.01 for each megabyte of data that they send, generating up to $150 billion per year. While advocates admit that such a tax would discourage the use of e-mail, interfere with the least-regulated communications forum and economic marketplace in the world and be "complex and technically difficult" to administer, they are unable to resist raiding what they see as an untapped pot of gold. The tax, they say, would "raise funds that would be spent to narrow the ‘digital divide’ between rich and poor" nations.
A tax on fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas. This plan, usually called a Carbon Tax, would drive up the price of gas for cars and trucks, home heating fuels, plastics, and countless other products. Proponents argue that such a tax would combat global warming by discouraging the use of fossil fuels while the revenue from such a tax could be redistributed to poorer nations. One U.N. paper suggested that such a tax would yield $125 billion per year with U.S. taxpayers stuck for more than $25 billion of that tab. But even supporters acknowledge that the modest tax that they would initially propose would not reduce greenhouse gasses or even slow the use of fossil fuels. In order to achieve that policy goal, the tax rate would have to be very high — enough to generate $750 billion per year, of which U.S. taxpayers would pay more $150 billion.
Currency transaction tax (CTT). Each year, nearly $300 trillion is exchanged on open markets around the world. Dollars are sold for British Pounds. Japanese Yen are converted to Euros. Major international banks, many of them based in the United States, Great Britain and the Far East, conduct and manage these transactions. Advocates of the CTT, which was originally devised by a French economist, want to impose a tax of around .1% on each transaction. According to the United Nations, such a tax would generate up to $264 billion per year. Proponents also want the tax plan to mandate that the proceeds go to a global fund which "would redistribute tax revenue away from financial center countries in favor of low-income nations." In order to make the tax more palatable at first, a U.N. paper suggests that the tax might start at "an extremely low rate" and be increased incrementally over time. The CTT would likely increase the cost of nearly every good shipped or traded internationally — including just about every consumer product in today’s economy: cars, toys, electronics, food and more. It would also hamper the free exchange of currency on world markets and possibly spawn a "black market" for money trading.
International air transport tax. Under this scheme, a new tax would be levied on all international cargo and passenger flights to be paid by airlines. Supporters say "air transport of passengers and cargo [is] a key source of environmental pollution due to emissions and noise." This tax, they believe, would force the airlines (ultimately, their passengers and shippers) to pay for polluting the skies while providing money to the United Nations. According to one estimate, an international transport tax would generate $2.2 billion per year. Though supporters concede that the tax would have a harmful effect on tourism and the world economy at-large, the benefits to the environment and the cash it would generate, outweigh those negative consequences, they say. They don’t address the proposal’s inherent contradiction. Namely, that by increasing the cost of international air transport, whether of goods or passengers, this tax proposal discourages the kind of globalization that the tax is meant to spur.
Aviation Fuel Tax. Very similar to the air transport tax, this plan would place a levy on airline fuel costs and would yield around $12.5 billion per year. In addition to having the same harmful effects as the air transport tax, this scheme would also jeopardize the already vulnerable airline industry and add at least 5 percent to the cost of airline tickets. Proponents, however, see this proposal as an important step to get the global taxation movement started. One supporting organization writes, the tax "might be a low-profile precedent for later, more ambitious tax plans."
Those are the most frequently discussed of a bevy of global tax proposals that have been put before the international community. Others include a tax on the international conventional arms trade, fines for ocean dumping, a tax on commercial fishing, a tax on Earth-orbiting satellites, a tax on the use of the electronic spectrum (for television, radio, cell phones, etc.), a tax on the profits of international businesses and even a tax on international advertising.
While the names and proposals are different, the vital undercurrent remains the same. The drive toward world taxation focuses on three key purposes, all of them objectionable: (1) making policy through taxation (for example, levying high taxes on gasoline in order to reduce use of fossil fuels); (2) generating revenue for the United Nations; and (3) redistributing income from richer nations like the United States to the poorer ones in the third world.
Countless books and scholarly articles have been written on the folly of affecting policy through taxation. Suffice it to say that little good ever comes from a tax plan constructed to affect behavior. All too frequently, such taxes have devastating unintended consequences, wreak havoc on free markets and cause more harm than good.
The notion of generating even more revenue for the already bloated United Nations is similarly absurd. In recent years, the world body has been the birthplace of nearly continuous stories of corruption, most notably the recent Oil for Food scandal. So it’s hard to understand why anyone would advocate funneling even more billions through an organization where the money rarely gets to where it’s intended.
Then, of course, there’s the concept of redistribution. Future commentary will focus on this subject even more sharply. But for now, consider this: one of the most important strengths of the United States, and one of the reasons it has been the destination for immigrants worldwide for more than two centuries, is the assurance that, in our system, everyone is free to pursue success, and if they achieve it, their rewards will not be seized and handed over to someone else. Redistribution would turn this fundamental strength and foundational value on its head. While Americans work hard and strive for success, failing and corrupt nations would reap the benefits.
Needless to say, the failing nations, led by banana republic regimes, would like nothing better. A global tax would be the ultimate handout — and security assurance — for crippled governments, failed states, and totalitarian regimes.
As the United Nations and its chorus of developing countries begin to make their case in earnest over the coming months, Americans should watch their wallets. The global taxation zealots are coming.
And, just as in previous renditions of this fiscal horror flick, Americans need to be ready to make their voices heard. The world community needs to understand that the United States and its citizens view any proposal for global taxation as an unacceptable attack on our sovereignty. Hopefully, this time, Americans will take the chain saw to the U.N.'s global tax agenda once and for all.
07-15-2006 08:54 AM
bro, do you have the sources for this one? I would like to read further. TIA
07-15-2006 10:33 AM
Just google the term solidarity tax. There are a truck load of things on it.
07-15-2006 12:07 PM
07-15-2006 01:07 PM
**** 3rd world countries who ask for a handout and blame the west for all their failures. My taxes are pretty goddam astronomical as they are right now being a single man. The oil for food program wasn't exactly a success stroy so what the hell would make them think we'd buy into this stupidity anyways ? I've heard of this proposal several times before. What the hell are they going to do if we don't pay ?
07-15-2006 01:26 PM
Running with the Big Boys
This is the global economy that all the protests are about.
When the protest are about some 12 year old making $.50/day
to make nikes, then most will say that's the free market. If the kid could make $1.00/ day some where else he would.
Now that they want my money in the guise of subsidies. It seems like old world fuedalism. The king taxes the peasants(us!)
One world, one government, one global tax-"new world order, new world order!!!
07-15-2006 01:27 PM
NWO will rule.. as long as they allow Hollywood hogan to be the head of it
07-17-2006 12:00 PM
I forgot about Hogan, only Macho Man stands in his way
Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
07-17-2006 12:59 PM
Technically we are already paying taxes to the UN, in the form of the money we already give them. They are just collected by the US government, the UN wants to be the collector. Personally for me, they allow an international tax and I'm heading to Montana and joing a militia, or heading up into the Yukon where no one can find me and living off of the land.
07-17-2006 01:49 PM
I'll be G-Damned if I pay an email tax!
Although it seems like it will happen eventually, Taxing such a tool would prove to be difficult, since apparently they can't even find a tota lgouvering body for it.
I mean, ok,.. so WE, the United States "invented" the internet! and now it is everywhere. So, I dont think "WE" will just let that tax go out the window to everyone else.
Tax my 1's and 0's... :bruce1:
07-17-2006 06:40 PM
I thought about joining the Montana Freemen but they are racist and wouldn't let me keep my Mexican wife and our three kids so that's out.speaking of my wife cdb I showed her one of your threads the one with the taco under the box as a means of immigration control,she was not amused I haven't heard that kind of language from her mouth in a long time.I thought you libs were more sensitive than that.
07-17-2006 06:44 PM
Hey! don't fault a lib for seeing the light and understaning the aspect of humor... its very very very very rare to see lol
07-17-2006 06:49 PM
Behind Y2K this is probably the biggest threat to the US existing today. <end sarcasm>
07-17-2006 06:59 PM
I feel that any global taxes levied against American citizens is unconstitutional and I feel the same way about American soldiers operating under the flag of the United Nations.The United States Of America and the U.N. is a classic example of an unequally yoked relationship,I have never been more proud of an American President than I was when Bush told the U.N. and went ahead and did what he felt was in our best interest(even though I hate the war in Iraq)
07-17-2006 07:08 PM
Exactly, US citizens dont even like thier own taxes (rightfully so), it would take quite an event to see the US capitulate and pay taxes to the UN. I would hope we would balance our own budget before we pay any sort of outright international taxes. But I believe that any international tax effort would be laughed by a vast majority of Americans.
07-17-2006 07:16 PM
my wife is the first generation of her family born here and some of her family struggle still to come here so it's not a joking matter to her.
Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
I made the mistake along time ago of telling her a joke I heard "what do get when you cross an eskimo with a mexican? a snowblower that won't work" I thought it was funny, she whet on to tell me that about her mom and her aunt working sun up until down for next to nothing and how dare I imply that mexican's are not hard working people they do all the jobs nobody else will do.I didn't get any for a week and deservedly so. I no longer will laugh at another human being based on the color of thier skin or thier religous beliefs it is just wrong if we need to ridicule someone it should be the libs they deserve it.just kidding
07-17-2006 08:49 PM
well in my opinion every radical religious fundamentalist should have their nuts sheared off and fed to them. i will laugh at them for their religious beliefs with extreme predjudice.
Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
3rd world countries want to tax us for our money? that sounds like global communism to me. those countries can continue to rot in their own filth for all i care. america isnt the greatest nation in the world because we go around patting weaklings on the back and giving them bowls of soup. not unless we can get something out of it at least. the world is not a nice place. instead of *****ing and bleeting for taxes perhaps these people should look into capitalism and earn their wealth.
untaxed emails is a large source of income? so is the untaxed air i breath. my father still works and because his company has offices in different states he is hit up for state taxes all across the country. almost exactly 50% of his total income goes to the government while joe urban non-worker collects his welfare checks. people that cannot work and earn their keep do not deserve to be supported by those that can. if they cannot make it then well, thats natural selection. they lose
07-17-2006 09:28 PM
in this country freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. If these "radical religious fundamentalists" are so full of zeal that they fly planes into buildings full of innocent people or strap bombs around thier waists and run into a crowded pizza parlor and detonate themselves they need to be stopped, not because of thier religion but because they are mass murderers.no offense man but your view of the those that cannot work not being deserving of help is kind of barbaric.I think if a man can work he damn well should, but if he CANNOT work we should help him it is the humane thing to do we are not filthy animals in the wild killing or being killed we should be above that we are human beings. also I think a flat tax would be the most fair way to impose an income tax the current system does penalize the successful which is patently un-American.
Originally Posted by jomi822
07-18-2006 08:42 AM
I don't care about sensitivity, nor do I care if people have fun at my expense. I laugh right along with them so long as their intent is good and friendly. If their intent is otherwise, I simply don't bother with them. As far as libertarians being sensitive, I have no idea. For me personally I'd tell your wife to take it easy, there's far more important things in life one can get riled up about than some friendly (or otherwise) razzing.
Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
07-18-2006 08:50 AM
I laugh at everybody, including myself, for everything. People are goofy and worth laughing at for the most part. And differences in culture are a treasure trove of humor. I remember a latino professor of mine explaining cultural bias in testing, and for some reason on intelligence tests when asked to match up certain impliments with their proper weather latinos of a certain heritage always got it 'wrong.' They kept matching up umbrellas with sunny days and random things with rain. Why did this happen? To paraphrase the prof, when it's sunny these people would use umbrellas for shade, and only crazy gringos go out in the rain. I'm sure a certain amount of people were offended by this, I was not. It was funny, and these days I don't go out in the rain much anymore, and if I'm at the beach I bring a large umbrella to use for shade if I feel I need to. You laugh and you learn so long as you don't take yourself too seriously.
Originally Posted by BUCKNUTS
Similar Forum Threads
By olb in forum Supplements
Last Post: 01-30-2009, 04:42 PM
By SuppKnight in forum Supplement Logs
Last Post: 01-08-2009, 03:04 PM
By BodyWizard in forum Politics
Last Post: 09-16-2008, 07:21 PM
By Syr in forum Weight Loss
Last Post: 07-14-2005, 12:40 AM