Given the kleptocratic nature of international bureaucracies (particularly my good buddies at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), I’m never surprised when a bad proposal is unveiled.
And since the United Nations has a long track record of supporting global taxation (with the money going to the U.N., of course), I’m even less surprised when that crowd produces another idea for fleecing people in the productive sector of the economy.
Here are some excerpts from a Yahoo report.
The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries. An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.
These people love taxes, perhaps because they get tax-free salaries.
But setting aside their despicable hypocrisy, there’s scant evidence, if any, that foreign aid does anything other than foment corruption in recipient nations. And there’s lots of evidence, by contrast, that free markets and small government do create prosperity.
Yet the United Nations reflexively wants to line the pockets of the political elite in poor nations. And we’re not talking about pocket change.
The report estimates that the number of people around the globe worth at least $1 billion rose to 1,226 in 2012. There are an estimated 425 billionaires in the United States, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe, 90 in other North and South American countries and 86 in Africa and the Middle East. Together they own an estimated $4.6 trillion so a one percent tax on their wealth would raise more than $46 billion, according to the report. “Would this hurt them?” it questioned.
You have to appreciate the supreme irony of pampered international bureaucrats demanding that others should surrender some of their money.
I’m also impressed by their ability to come up with new tax schemes.
The document gives other ideas for international taxes, including:
- — a tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.
- — a tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.
- — taking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.
…Without commenting on any of the individual taxes proposed, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that if the new “innovative financing” is to become viable, “strong international agreement is needed.”
Let’s close with some good news. Proposals for global taxation from the United Nations are so radical and so far from the mainstream that even the Obama Administration generally is opposed to these crack-pot ideas.
Though that may simply be because Obama wants to seize the money for his own class-warfare purposes and doesn’t want to compete with other taxing authorities. Sort of the way hyenas and vultures sometime fight over a carcass. Or how inner-city gangs sometimes fight over turf.
Actually, I apologize for those analogies. I hope the carrion feeders and gang-bangers of the world will forgive me for equating them with politicians.
Hyenas and vultures both have valuable roles in the ecosystem. And gangs sometimes engage in non-coercive activities such as selling drugs to yuppies.
It’s beyond my abilities, however, to say something nice about politicians.
[…] over the years about various U.N. proposals for global taxes on financial transactions, energy, wealth, tobacco, air travel, and the […]
[…] the UN, which has “…called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year” […]
[…] readers probably know that I’m not talking about the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, or World […]
[…] just exactly the kind of pampered (and tax-free) global bureaucrat who should have the power to treat the global economy as some sort of Lego […]
[…] just exactly the kind of pampered (and tax-free) global bureaucrat who should have the power to treat the global economy as some sort of Lego […]
[…] passage, particularly the analogy that equates politicians with hyenas (though in the past I’ve apologized to hyenas for that unfair […]
[…] passage, particularly the analogy that equates politicians with hyenas (though in the past I’ve apologized to hyenas for that unfair […]
[…] particularly the analogy that equates politicians with hyenas (though in the past I’ve apologized to hyenas for that unfair […]
[…] of which is consistent with the broader ongoing push by the United Nations to get worldwide taxing […]
[…] written before about the U.N.’s desire for tax authority (on more than one occasion), but this new report is noteworthy for the size and scope of taxes that have been […]
http://statedebtlie.wordpress.com/
The purpose of taxation is a whole myth.
1. An autonomous currency issuer like the US, GB, Japan…dont tax to fund anything, yes its true, since they just fund all their needs out of thin air.
This process (government spending out of thin
air) does not even cause inflation in the true sense.
Cause what happens when the government spends?
It always funds a value creation process, means the money becomes value through this process.
Its the same like you working for someone else, and you would issue a promissory note for your work, that entitels the owner to demand work or goods from someone else…Thats money, and thats the process how it becomes value.
So the government does the same, issues those promissory notes (= central bank money) into the economy, by spending on infrastructure, education..on things that should benefit the public.
The people who work for the public, get those promissory notes (= central bank money) funded on their accounts benefiting them with a claim on labor/ goods against the public they work for.
As long the spending is beneficial to the public, there wont be any inflation.
The only things that cause inflation is:
a) destructive spending (like the defense budget, there is no value creation process involved)
b) Interest payment on government bonds. (they also get payed without a value creation process involved)
Privat banks cant create inflation, they are capital constrained and only produce claims/ liabilities on the money the government spends (= central bank money).
——————————————————————————————
2. so what is the true purpose of taxation?
a) For an autonomous currency issuer It is to control the money supply, to control inflation.
It doesnt fund anything like we were told.
b) For currency users like the EUR-Group (that have lost their status as an autonomous currency issuer) in fact it means funding.
But not the government, it funds the banks that stole the sovereignty from the state to fund its needs, and put him in the private banks dependence.
Thus the taxpayers of the EUR-Group dont fund government spending, no they fund the private banks, that hold the government bonds (debts).
As i explained an autonomous currency issuer does not spend debt constrained since it has the monopoly on its currency.
That is why the inteterest rates on governemnt bonds in the US, GB, Japan are low but in the EUR-Group become higher and higher every day. Means government bonds of autonomous currency issuer dont represent any debts (even if we were told so, but the mechanics behind the money-system reveal that they dont spend debt contsrained).
Whereas in the EUR-group they do represent debts. Even though it is a paradoxon because, only through government spending new money enters the economy.
See here:

government spending = moneysuply of the private sector:
That chart aproves the deflational situation in europe, cause since the EUR was founded 2000, there was no new money issued into the system through the government, cause the EUR member states now were true debt constrained in its spending. But economic growth need the growth of money supply…its not working the other way round.
You see what austerity caused in the USA in the Clinton era (1990th), from the picture above: when the government saves, the private sector gets robbed its savings. The liquidity crunch in the economy directly lead into the stock crash in the early 2000, and now the world wide austeirty programs since 2008 lead into a world wide expropriation of the private households.
The state has to make deficits to spend to guarantee economic growth. The state never must save in order to keep its people wealthy.
Conclusion:
So question to you as a lawyer, do we have to pay taxes at all if they dont fund the government but the private banks? Is the austerity program legal?
for an easier explanation check out the vids:
Why the government cant run out of money:
the inflation issue (ab 3:20):
the purpose of taxation:
the purpose of bondmarkets (they are needless since we are off the goldstandard):
[…] For the second time, I feel compelled to apologize to Hyenas. They’re part of the natural ecosystem. Thuggish […]
[…] For the second time, I feel compelled to apologize to Hyenas. They’re part of the natural ecosystem. Thuggish […]
[…] Just like I recently apologized to hyenas and gang members, I now apologize to used car salesmen for putting them on the same level of […]
[…] Read more here… Be Sociable, Share! Tweet […]
[…] Ho Hum, More Demands for Global Taxes from the United Nations […]
[…] thought this does sound very frightening, Dan Mitchell gives us some hope: Proposals for global taxation from the United Nations are so radical and so far from […]
Me and my guns doan remember evah votin for dem dar peoples
[…] Ho Hum, More Demands for Global Taxes from the United Nations « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]
It’s as apropos as ever:
U.S. out of the U.N.
U.N. out of the U.S.
[…] THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS TO TAX YOU, and Daniel Mitchell says “Ho, Hum.” […]
Wait… how much of the UN’s budget is already funded by the United States? Is the tax going to be on top of this?
No taxation without representation. I don’t recall being allowed to vote on who I wanted to lead the UN. Nor does it seem to have anything like a legislature in which I am represented. Who are these UN clowns, and what right do they have to demand money from anyone?
I don’t recognize the UN’s authority on anything, since it appears to be a group of unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.
[…] DanielJMitchell […]
Wait until Obama isn’t president anymore and starts campaigning to be the next Secretary-General.
UN tax-collectors need to be reminded as to why Yamamoto counseled against any invasion of the United States.
I love the “Come on, it’s only 1%” argument. It always starts small. But only a moron would think it would end there. Eventually billionaires would be demonized because they won’t pony up 10, 20, and later 30+% of their wealth to salve the guilt and/or egos of UN bureaucrats.
The corruption inherent in foreign aid is a feature for these people, not a bug.
To make it easier for dictators to develop their retirement funds.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.