Posted on 12/22/2003 7:32:21 PM PST by Conservomax
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 crazy 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
American Policy Center on-line Declaration of Independence from the U.N.
As I recall, the un has one or more "contingency sites" located in other nations... let's banish them there--
Moreover:
Child sex book given out at U.N. summit
They will tax us just like the have done everything else to us. Incrementally (I'll give Rush credit here for teaching me this). First it's a tax on something you can't refuse to buy or do, such as international money flows (tell me how you'll refuse that one, as it takes place so far over your head that you couldn't stop it if you tried). Then it will be over the flows of goods, again prior to your receiving them, and it will be something you have to have (gasoline, but from the producer not the consumer, etc.). Finally, it will be over mundane things, and close to your pocketbook, and you'll just complain and pay it, just like you do all the other taxes you can't stop or refuse.
I just wonder when we'll reach the point where they take every dollar out of private production. That's ultimately where we're headed, even without the UN. If the government keeps taking and taking, incrementally, what's left? Think of sales taxes. Those always go up, never down. How long will it be before the rate is 50% or 90% of the cost of the purchased item? What will you be able to buy then?
Private land ownership in some countries rests in the hands of a tiny elite, leaving 99% of the population with no opportunity to own land. This sort of situation, common in many countries, contributes to social injustice and political instability. At times these nations engage in land redistribution schemes but the benificiaries of these plans are ill-equipped to manage the land on their own. In this instance, temporary public control of land use is indespensible.
Whoever wrote this should have used the whole quote. I'm no lover of the UN, but proponents of UN disbanding should be honest.
That all depends on the nature of the 'public agency' in question. Given the UNs preference for totalitarian regimes and brutal dictatorships, (yes, I said PREFERENCE) that proposition is a load of crap.
"The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Just the fact that Bush wants the UN to "help out" in Iraq should be enough to scare you into not voting for his re-election!
I don't know if the UN collects any of the revenue from our National Parks where they now reside, but we should find out.
I think it would more correct to say we had unjust faith in our leaders.
#83
Be on the lookout for what Congress does in the next couple of years regarding international treaties with the United Nations. Congress authorizes these international treaties which give federal jurisdiction to the federal government. The desired effect is to expand the scope of federal authority over State Constitutions. These international treaties give federal agencies the lawful right to exercise them with federal police powers and the right to enforce federal criminal laws nationwide.
The Dem's have been the major promoters of these treaties, however remember President Nixon was the one who started us out with the EPA, so the Rep's don't have any difficulty either in crunching your State Constitutions to ineffective pieces of historic paper.
Even though most politicians are lawyers, they do not fully understand what is going on. The party leaders do along with the attorney general and of course federal judges. Anyone sticking their nose into this stuff without invitation is threatened with no Party assistance at the next election. This keeps everyone in control.
When Agenda 21 is firmly in place it will be authorized by Congress under the UN direction. This will be the complete end of our nation as a Republic. It won't matter what Party is in office, they will have to follow the Agenda 21 rulings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1041175/posts?page=83#83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#88
"Be on the lookout for what Congress does in the next couple of years regarding international treaties with the United Nations."
Exactly. And the heart of the problem is probably the worst mistake the Founders ever made, that is, Clause 2 of Article Six of the Constitution.
"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "
When our country will have lost its precious sovereignty, along with the Bill of Rights, every officer of the military, Homeland Security, the FBI, ATF, and every other part of the police-state apparatus, will be bound by those treaties. They will be "Constitutionally-sworn" to obey the "supreme law of the Land". Whoever the President is, he (or she) will not have betrayed their country by signing the bill. They will have acted as our representative and enacted our "will".
I've fought years to get people to recognize that the Constitution needs to be amended to strike Clause 2 and replace it with a clause that establishes the charge of treason for any official of the government who seeks to lessen US national sovereignty through treaty with any foreign power or entity. It is the only way to make sure that Agenda 21, and the chilling UN Millennium Treaty does not become the supreme law of America.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1041175/posts?page=88#88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think we stand a chance in HELL of getting any beneficial changes done with either of the current parties running the show.
"...where no man, rich or poor, free or bond, will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast on his right hand or forehead."
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.