Posted on 10/11/2005 3:29:12 PM PDT by mcar
When I extolled the virtues of our federal system of government in a previous column ("Sovereignty, from sea to sea," Times op-ed, Sept. 21), I left out an unfortunate and pernicious side effect of having a government of multiple jurisdictions — taxes.
Multiple layers of government, while encouraging balance of power and competing regulatory ideas, also mean multiple layers of taxation. In Seattle, this means the federal government, state government, King County and the city of Seattle all take their pick at one's paycheck, business, house, car and, of course, purchases of goods, including gasoline.
The complexity and opaqueness of all these taxes and their attendant regulations are so arcane that they keep legions of accountants and tax lawyers employed to make sense of them all, acting as a huge drag on economic activities of the nation.
Yet, if Seattleites thought that the statewide gasoline tax was the last word on taxation debate for now, there is another thing coming their way: global taxation.
Unbeknownst to many Americans, the United Nations — yes, that organization of endemic cronyism and corruption, oil-for-food scandal and sex abuse by "blue helmets" — has been attempting for years to levy global taxes, particularly on wealthy nations.
Despite the best efforts of John Bolton, the Bush-appointed U.S. ambassador to the U.N., to defeat such schemes, yet another incarnation of global taxation made its appearance in the U.N. World Summit outcome document last month.
The document refers to "the establishment of timetables by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 percent of gross national product for official development assistance by 2015." It then goes on to tout "the value of innovative sources of financing, provided those sources do not unduly burden developing countries."
Translation...
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Even if I were an internationalist and supportive of world government, I wouldn't want to give this UN taxing authority. If the US left the UN, what bad thing would happen? Its not like there aren't other forums in the world where we are involved and respected more.
US out of the UN.
UN out of the US.
The President that allows the UN to tax us will think Abraham Lincoln had a comparatively quiet first term.
-----
You have that right, and with Washington now trying to destroy our soverignty already, things may get alot worse before they get better.
Liberals and the UN are always inexorably opposed to tax cuts, because tax
cuts give people more power, and take away from the role of government.
It's always an irritation to read these articles on global welfare programs, or the UN wanting control of the Internet or tax of the Internet...
I've got an idea. We could just let them have the internet.
if we quit paying taxes they could not arrest all of us-then they would have to obey the tax payer-we are the government not some sick twisted judge are politician and it is time AMERICANS acted like it-if your town wants perversion and you vote for it you suffer the consequences-leave the rest of us alone-if they vote more taxes-let them pay there-but leave the rest of AMERICA alone-i am tired of supporting the worlds deadbeats over and over-if we had not of been listening to the un every AMERICAN could retire with full medical benefits and a easy lifestyle-tell the rest of the world to get off its ass and take care of their own business-it does hurt to help in time of disasters-but our teats are drying up
You had better check with Big Al, first!
LVM
Sadly, I have to disagree with your prediction. When is the next episode of "Survivor" on by the way?
You'll never get a chance to take aim with your gatling gun, our government will write the check with money already collected from you via your witholdings.
You can cry but you won't be able to do anything about it.
No offense, just calling it as I see it.
Brace for lots of dead blue helmeted tax men.
On second thought,we should use ours.
after all, we have to stimulate OUR economy.
All joking aside; there will be a civil war again someday. Maybe not in my lifetime (I'm 24), but in my children's lives. Possibly in mine though. Notice I didn't say revolution; that would entail most of the people to rise up against the government. As we know, Democrats would be perfectly happy with a rotten country. In a civil war, two factions would fight for complete power, and a lot of people in government would take sides.
I'm not the type to roll over and expose my belly for my master. I suspect that a lot of Americans are the same way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.