http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/


Talk about handing over your sovereignty if the US goes along with this.

The great hypocrisy of liberals is they only care about "poor" people in the US. If this wasn't true, they would celebrate outsourcing and globalization.

Any cooperation in such an endeavor is in direct violation of the constitution, not that our leaders have cared much about that for some time.

There's nothing particularly new there as far as taxation (it's just that it would go to the UN nations instead of our coffers). Tax on billionaires? Not unlike windfall profit taxes that have been levied on industry. Taxing financial/trading transactions is something that has been floated (and, as far as trading, we tax gains as ordinary income anyway).

Again, if you really want to increase revenues, you need to look at taxing consumption (which all economists agree is superior to taxing production, i.e. income taxes). Just exclude food, energy and rent/housing (which is probably like 50% of GDP, maybe more) and "fair" is a flat national sales tax on non-necessities.

I'm not in favor of giving the govt more money to spend, either, but reality is the existing system has proven incapable of consistently collecting more than 18% of GDP, and they've tried about every range and combination in the book. If you're going to spend more than 18% of GDP, then you have to find a new tax base to get revenues there.

gut;1282364 wrote:(it's just that it would go to the UN nations instead of our coffers)

That is a HUGE difference.

FatHobbit;1282470 wrote:That is a HUGE difference.

To the people paying the taxes, not so much.

I wish wages were higher in the US, but I'll confess when it comes to my charitable (tax) donation I'd rather see it going to the truly poor. If you ask me would I rather see my 5% tax hike go to increasing SNAP and other welfare programs, or have the UN send it to starving people in Haiti, etc...it's kind of a no-brainer which way I'd go.

gut;1282513 wrote:To the people paying the taxes, not so much.

I wish wages were higher in the US, but I'll confess when it comes to my charitable (tax) donation I'd rather see it going to the truly poor. If you ask me would I rather see my 5% tax hike go to increasing SNAP and other welfare programs, or have the UN send it to starving people in Haiti, etc...it's kind of a no-brainer which way I'd go.

The difference is if you want to send money to Haiti you are free to do so. As a sovereign nation, the US should not be forced to send money anywhere.

jmog;1282558 wrote:The difference is if you want to send money to Haiti you are free to do so. As a sovereign nation, the US should not be forced to send money anywhere.

I'm not saying I agree with these proposals and they're probably unconstitutional...but the United States and its people would not be "forced" to do so if its legally elected representatives voluntarily agreed to such an arrangement. Calling it a "tax" as opposed to "specifically earmarked foreign aid" may be a distinction without a substantial difference.

BoatShoes;1282564 wrote:I'm not saying I agree with these proposals and they're probably unconstitutional...but the United States and its people would not be "forced" to do so if its legally elected representatives voluntarily agreed to such an arrangement. Calling it a "tax" as opposed to "specifically earmarked foreign aid" may be a distinction without a substantial difference.

I honestly can't believe you would even say "probably unconstitutional". This would completely shred the constitution.

If you want to play semantics and call it foreign aid, it would still be foreign aid FORCED by the UN, meaning the sovereignity of the US would mean nothing anymore (and other 'rich' countries as well).

jmog;1282588 wrote:I honestly can't believe you would even say "probably unconstitutional". This would completely shred the constitution.

If you want to play semantics and call it foreign aid, it would still be foreign aid FORCED by the UN, meaning the sovereignity of the US would mean nothing anymore (and other 'rich' countries as well).

Through treaties, we regularly give up portions of our sovereignty. How would this be qualitatively different?

fan_from_texas;1282617 wrote:Through treaties, we regularly give up portions of our sovereignty. How would this be qualitatively different?

American citizens being taxed by the United Nations shouldn't really be questioned. It blows my mind that some people would be ok with this. Might as well just call the UN the one world government then. Get rid of the United States of America as we know it and have us be sovereign to the UN.

jmog;1283543 wrote:American citizens being taxed by the United Nations shouldn't really be questioned. It blows my mind that some people would be ok with this. Might as well just call the UN the one world government then. Get rid of the United States of America as we know it and have us be sovereign to the UN.

It's heading that direction. Give it a little more time.

jmog;1282289 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/


Talk about handing over your sovereignty if the US goes along with this.

This is not a surprise. A one world government is coming, perhaps not in some of our lifetimes but it is coming. Think Civil war in the USA. The US federal govt shut down individual states as ruling themselves and the UN will eventually say that too many countries (states) equal the same exact thing.

If you support the US civil war the North side then you support what the UN is doing, the reasoning is exactly the same.