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 ...
That's easy. It will be just like it is now, but afterwards the Feds will pass money onto the UN. You wouldn't have a separate international tax return; all of the domestic machinery would still be in places.
After all, how different would that be from the situation now where your taxes are wasted on a lot of useless pork we don't approve of? (Aside from the fact I would REALLY, REALLY disapprove of an international tax).
The difference is that we, the United States, are a sovereign nation, not a collection agency for an international one world government. Is Congress going to try to sneak it in the budget?
I couldn't agree more, but if it were done, there would only be one tax bill, and it wouldn't be itemized.
Good question, but when's the last time the UN really fought a war? I don't think they'd do anything if we went to war with ourselves. I don't think they could even bomb us from thirty thousand feet becuase the conservative population would have all the military equipment.
Well, hold on now. That didn't happen after the Revolutionary War. Having a war and our side winning out beats the alternative of our current gradual decline continuing and getting worse for hundreds of years until total collapse. Life might be a lot more enjoyable if this did happen. (obviously, for those who die fighting it won't, but I digress)
There are still ways to fight it.
I've been for a civil war for many months now until I thought of Martial Law. I get back to you tomorrow after I think more about why neither side would win and that we would all lose.
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.