Quote :

"International Taxes? by Ron Paul, March 7, 2006 April 15th is once again approaching and with it the necessity of filling out your tax return. It is a good time to reflect on the taxes you do pay – and especially on the taxes you may soon be forced to pay. Throughout the year you paid federal taxes through withholding, including Social Security payroll taxes. You also paid state income taxes, unless you’re fortunate enough to live in Texas or another state without an income tax. You paid local property taxes. You paid local sales taxes and numerous miscellaneous taxes on your vehicles and gasoline and so many other things. Like most people, you probably feel taxed to death by all these layers of taxes. Well, hold on to your wallets, because the United Nations once again has launched a plan to impose a whole new level of global taxes on us. The latest UN tax scheme was revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January. At this conference of the world’s financial elite, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) unveiled a UN plan to take seven trillion dollars from developed nations for use by the UN to save the rest of the world from all of its problems. The United Nations remains determined to rob from wealthy countries and, after taking a big cut for itself, send what’s left to the poor countries. Of course, most of this money will go to the very dictators whose reckless policies have impoverished their citizens. According to the international bureaucrats of the UN, wherever poverty exists in the rest of the world it is always our fault. According to them, our prosperity comes not from hard work, legal protection of property rights, and our capitalist system, but rather because we exploit the poor of the third world. Somehow, it’s always our fault. Where will the seven trillion dollars to fund the latest UN scheme come from? Much of it is to come from a UN-imposed fine on countries that in the UN’s judgment are polluting too much. This attack on productivity will slow our economy and lead to a loss of jobs in the United States. The UN global tax plan also resurrects the long-held dream of the “Tobin Tax,” and doubles the targeted income from such a tax to a whopping three trillion dollars. The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations. Since I was elected to Congress I have been fighting continuously against these UN efforts to pick your pocket. In the 109th Congress I successfully amended the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2005 to prohibit any of the funds in the Act from being used by the U.N. to develop or publicize any proposal concerning taxation or fees on any United States person to raise revenue for the U.N. or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. I also introduced H. R. 1017 in the current Congress which would permanently prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations if that organization develops, implements, or publicizes any proposal to tax Americans. Of course, my preference is that the United States end its participation in the corrupt UN entirely, and I introduce HR 1146 in every Congress to do just that. But until my colleagues are willing to take this important step, I will continue to offer measures like my amendment last year to help protect your hard-earned money from the greedy hands of the globalist United Nations. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. "

I guess next will be a galactic tax to help pay for upkeep on our part of the Milky Way.

3/7/2006 10:30:47 PM

i dont see how the UN can pull this off. And dont we give them enough money as it is.

SHANAIGANS!

3/7/2006 10:57:02 PM

hey faggot, we already pay taxes to the UN

3/7/2006 11:09:33 PM

JUST U WAIT TILL IT'S CLINTON AND CLINTON

WE'LL BE GIVING ABORTIONS TO MUSLIM WOMEN ON THE STREET ON COPIES OF THE CONSTITUTION

ok i went too far

and i regret it

but if they did it on american idol it would be okay

3/7/2006 11:40:51 PM

Quote :

"we already pay taxes to the UN"

Yes, and this would be a new tax levied on you personally. The money they could squander from this tax would make the 'food for oil' deal look penny ante.

3/8/2006 12:15:48 AM

you should check out the wolfline student fee if you really want to be enraged

3/8/2006 12:28:41 AM

Quote :

"we already pay taxes to the UN"

I'm sure the UN wishes it were so...

"Congress Moves to Cut U.N. Funding"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0609-05.htm

The UN serves at the pleasure of Congress. Congress has, on numerous occasions, chosen to withhold its share of funds for the UN and is legally entitled to do so, at least in the short term.

As such, since most currency is traded on the New York exchange I suspect any such tax would go uncollected without similar legislation also being passed by Congress.

3/8/2006 1:01:51 AM

money is for bitches. Im not going to make enough to worry about this shit.

3/8/2006 1:04:40 AM

Article:

Quote :

"It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions."

EarthDogg

Quote :

"Yes, and this would be a new tax levied on you personally."

Mmmm... reading comprehension is a bitch.

Does this sound like anything from our past?

"Why should we pay taxes to the federal govt? Fuck the federal government! I already pay taxes to my State! I'm loyal to it! The federal govt couldn't possibly provide me with anything that my state can. Those federal govt bastards are just trying to rob us and get rich for themselves!"

3/8/2006 10:35:55 AM

^ Uh, the Federal Government has always had the right to tax us. Where do you think it got it's money for the 150 years before the income-tax enabling amendment? Not to mention, the income tax was a regular event during war-time.

[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 11:26 AM. Reason : war]

3/8/2006 11:14:18 AM

lol.

3/8/2006 2:10:57 PM

lol

3/8/2006 2:13:57 PM

congrats... all three of you completely missed the point

3/8/2006 4:06:11 PM

lol

3/8/2006 4:20:54 PM

what was the point?

3/9/2006 8:25:32 AM

I read through, but missed a bit, was anyone here in favor of giving the U.N. the ability to levy taxes? Sayer was hard to read, he may have just been talking, he didn't actually say what he wanted to happen.

I'm truely curious if there is any support for it. Thanks

3/9/2006 10:30:19 AM

I have never transacted money internationaly and I dont plan on it. Only rich people and large corps do this and Im not a big fan of them most the time so.........TAX IT!

But if they do it then it goes from every country, if not Im calling shananagins.

3/9/2006 10:38:16 AM

^ that did not really answer my question. If you want to tax international currency transfers that is fine, Washington can do that for you.

My question was: Do you want to give the U.N. the ability to levy arbitrary taxes? For example, a war starts and the U.N. needs money, so it institutes a 1% income tax. And a 5% value-added tax.

Right now, the U.N. had no such right, it has to "ask" congress for money, which it could rightly refuse at any point. To truely give the U.N. the ability to levy taxes we would need to pass an amendment to our constitution. Is anyone in favor of that?

3/9/2006 10:48:07 AM

as the United States I would say no b/c we already supply a large amount of the UN's funds and deal with most of their armed conflicts.

How about this. If you do no supply troops to a UN endorsed peace keeping operation then you pay the tax.

3/9/2006 10:52:57 AM

^ Well, if the U.N. was able to levy proper taxes, then it could form its own military. Eventually could come conscription if a major war broke out. Then there would be no distinction between who gave troops and who didn't: no one gave troops, they were U.N. troops, plain and simple. It would be more efficient this way, sort-of. Poor countries have low wages, so they supply the recruits. The wealthy countries have lots of wages, so they supply the taxes. More military for less money!

Personally, I find the idea reprehensible. But I can see why some people would like the idea. I think we have enough government as it is without slapping another level on top of it even more distant from the voter.

3/9/2006 11:49:33 AM

the corruption would be OFF THE WALL!

talk about exploiting brown people.

3/9/2006 11:55:13 AM

Quote :

"Personally, I find the idea reprehensible. But I can see why some people would like the idea. I think we have enough government as it is without slapping another level on top of it even more distant from the voter."

Yea! That comment wins the EarthDogg "Quote-o-the-Thread" award.


The U.N. building would make a wonderful parking ramp. I'd leave all the flags out front. It would add a nice tasteful touch.

3/9/2006 12:01:41 PM

ya ya. The UN is worthless!

3/9/2006 12:15:33 PM

Quote :

"JUST U WAIT TILL IT'S CLINTON AND CLINTON WE'LL BE GIVING ABORTIONS TO MUSLIM WOMEN ON THE STREET ON COPIES OF THE CONSTITUTION"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

3/9/2006 3:33:52 PM

The UN has proven itself to be corrupt and useless. the last thing it needs is more money.

3/9/2006 4:58:00 PM

if we don't pay the UN taxes I guess the UN Army would come after us...oh wait, there is no UN Army

3/9/2006 5:01:24 PM

I didn't read the article, but what would they do if we refused to pay the tax? Kick us out? Without the US, the UN would be even more useless than ever. Right?

It is an interesting idea to tax pollution...

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : sss]

3/9/2006 5:16:23 PM

I need to stop wasting my time. <3

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 5:47 PM. Reason : 1 of a billion]

3/9/2006 5:43:41 PM

^^^ Chapelle much? I guess that means shut the fuck up. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

3/9/2006 7:07:39 PM

Quote :

"but what would they do if we refused to pay the tax?"

Not relevant. The U.S. sits on the security council and will veto any proposal to grant the U.N. the ability to levy taxes. Even if we did not, I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the U.N. resolution as unconstitutional because congress does not have the authority to delegate control of the national purse to an outside agent.

3/9/2006 7:12:28 PM

^^wow i bet everything you post is complete original thought that no one else has ever come up with

3/10/2006 12:35:34 AM