Posted on 12/21/2003 3:10:24 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Many politicians seem to think that the answer to every alleged problem is higher taxes. Howard Dean, for instance, has said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts -- even though this would boost the average family’s tax burden by nearly $2,000. This initiative sounds radical, and it is. But some proposals out there are even worse.
The United Nations, for instance, wants to create an International Tax Organization (ITO) that would have the power to interfere with national tax policies.
This idea first surfaced two years ago in a report from the world body’s “High-Level Panel on Financing for Development.” Since then, the U.N. has been working to turn it into reality. For instance, U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan recently called for the creation of a global tax commission. But no matter what it's called, an international bureaucracy with power over tax policy would be an assault on American sovereignty.
An international tax organization, of course, would mean higher taxes and bigger government. Indeed, U.N. officials have been quite open about their intentions. The chairman of the U.N. panel that first endorsed the creation of an ITO said that it would “take a lead role in restraining tax competition.” According to this mentality, it's unfair for America to have lower taxes than places such as France and Germany, especially if it means that jobs and investment flee Europe's welfare states and come to America.
For all intents and purposes, the U.N. wants to create an “OPEC for politicians.” Governments would conspire to keep taxes high, and countries with free-market tax systems -- such as the United States, Switzerland, Ireland and Hong Kong -- would be targeted for persecution.
The U.N. also wants the power to levy its own taxes. The original report looked at two options, a tax on currency transactions and a tax on energy consumption. Both of these proposals would hit America hardest. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the past, the U.N. has endorsed new taxes on the Internet, including a tax on e-mail. Again, the U.S. economy would pay the lion’s share if this reckless idea took effect.
But the prize for the worst U.N. idea probably belongs to the proposal to give governments permanent taxing rights over emigrants. You see, the U.N. thinks it’s unfair when talented people leave high-tax socialist nations and move to places such as America. But since even the U.N. realizes it would be unacceptable to prohibit emigration, the bureaucrats are instead proposing to let governments tax income earned in other nations.
This scheme is a direct attack on American interests because of our high levels of immigration -- particularly the well-educated portion of the immigrant population. For instance, if a doctor from the Caribbean moves to America, his home government would get to tax income he earns here. If a Chinese entrepreneur moves to Silicon Valley, the Chinese government would get to tax his U.S. income.
Foreign-born workers in the United States, including both citizens and resident aliens, earn nearly $600 billion each year. Imagine the damage if foreign governments could tax that income. Even if they imposed only a 15 percent tax rate, foreign governments could drain nearly $100 billion from our economy.
There is an understandable temptation to dismiss these U.N. proposals as silly. After all, the United States can veto any bad initiatives. But this passive approach is a mistake. What would happen, say, if Howard Dean were president when the U.N. was voting whether to create an International Tax Organization? Could we trust him to veto this nutty scheme?
Another reason we should worry: The U.N. is just one of several international bureaucracies working to undermine fiscal sovereignty. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) targets “harmful tax competition” and the Brussels-based European Union enthusiastically backs “tax harmonization.”
What’s particularly troubling is that U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for much of this nonsense. We don’t belong to the European Union, but we pay 25 percent of the costs at the U.N. and the OECD.
Fortunately, some members of Congress are trying to address this. For example, Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., has introduced legislation that would end U.S. funding of these bureaucracies if they insist on pursuing policies that undermine America. Bureaucrats at the U.N. and OECD don’t want to risk their bloated budgets and tax-free salaries, so this is a good approach.
Clearly we have to do something -- unless we want to see our tax bills soar.
I could see a Dean or a Hilary going along with this. You can be sure they wouldn't be collecting much in taxes from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, or any African country.
The sad part is that, in addition to Uncle Sugar footing the bill, it might appear to the taxpayer to be hidden, say as some dedicated charitable deduction--like the Gore tax on telephone services. However, the enforcement authority of the IRS would be behind it.
A very, very bad idea.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. And in more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it's a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000 each year during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two dignitaries. Younger dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA......ZILCH! This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. YOU and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds, our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer if we have one.............and if we're self-employed we pay both halves), we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month upon retirement. For example, to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefit, we would have to collect the average $1000 a month for 68+ years!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the feet of our Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us, and then sit back and watch how fast the would fix it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve!
How many people can YOU send this to?
Arguably remittances are "taxes." Especially when they do not go to families but instead are used to support expenses of corrupt governments such as Mexico. To wit
"Some immigrants are working hard to give their families back home more than just money for basic necessities. They are creating Hometown Associations, which send money to communities for projects like building roads and schools, purchasing agricultural tools, supplying ambulances and medical equipment, or funding scholarships, mostly in rural areas."
google, remittances hometown mexico. The above quote is from
http://www.americas.org/News/Features/200304_MayJune/Remittances.htm
Hometown Associations are well known among immigrants. Prior to W.W.II they were common among Nazi supporters here in the U.S. Meddling Mexican consulates are active in creating HTAs here. I believe that there are hundreds of them throughout the U.S. Meanwhile, the cost to taxpayers to support ILLEGAL immigrants is?
I hope to live long enough to see the U.N. impose taxes. I want to see the reaction of Americans and how long it takes to raze the U.N. buildings in NYC and the various facilities of U.N. supporters around the country. It will be fun.
I didn't say anything about Dean. The man's a nut. All Democrats seem to support giving up our sovereignty with the possible execption of Sen. Lieberman. But Lieberman supports legalizaing the millions and millions of ILLEGAL aliens and millions more on the way. Alas, so do mainstream Republicans.
No, I have the right to vote for None of the Above.
BTW, it appears that the "225 BILLION DOLLARS" you mentioned just may be the cost of the social security payments for millions of Mexicans who worked here as ILLEGAL aliens for at least 18 months. That's being demanded by Bush buddy Vicente Fox and just may happen. President Bush is very likely to be re-elected. Dean has no chance. McGovern lost 520 to 17 electoral votes last time.
He he.
There...I feel better now.
If this goes through and becomes any burden to the American taxpayer...I envision the UN building in flames. Seriously.
Americans will stand for quite a lot from their own government but the UN? Hehehe.
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.