Posted on 03/07/2002 11:26:15 PM PST by JohnHuang2
To many people, the thought of a global tax sends goose bumps down the spine. In mid-March the United Nations – in conjunction with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization – will host a global conference entitled, "Financing For Development" in Monterrey, Mexico.
For the past seven years, the United Nations has been raising the idea of a global tax on an unofficial basis at numerous global conferences. My knowledge of a global tax goes back to 1994 when I covered my first United Nations meeting in Cairo. I went there for a "look and see" – never anticipating that it would be the first of 44 global conferences that I would cover since that time.
In Cairo, I picked up a suitcase full of materials to help me understand the world governmental structure that I was confronted with. As I sorted through the material, I came across a magazine from Bella Abzug's group, The Women's Environment and Development Organization, in which they discussed the need for a global tax at the next U.N. mega-conference to be held six months later in Copenhagen.
Furthermore, the 1994 "Human Development Report" published by the United Nations Development Program under the Team Director Inge Kaul called for a global tax – specifically, the Tobin Tax. I was outraged. I did my homework and found that the U.N. was considering a number of taxes: a pollution tax of $1 per barrel of oil consumed, a tax of 0.005 percent on the value of each international currency transaction (known as the Tobin Tax), restructuring aid to poor countries by increasing Official Development Assistance to 0.7 percent of Gross National Product. I decided to go to Copenhagen to confront the United Nations.
At the Social Summit, the U.N. planners decided to have a pre-conference press briefing to basically introduce the world's press to the concept of a global tax since it was not an official agenda item. As each of the U.N. panelists made their case for global taxation, I formulated my question:
If I understand correctly, you want a number of global taxes. First you want countries to cut military spending by 3 percent a year so they can put those monies into a Global Demilitarization Fund which would give you $14 billion in yearly income; you also want a pollution tax of $1 per barrel of oil consumption which would give you $66 billion in yearly income; you also want a tax of .05 percent on international currency transactions which would give you $150 billion a year and a world income tax of 0.1 percent of GNP for an estimated yearly income of $20 billion.
If I add this all up, this would provide you with $250 billion a year. Why should the people of the world give the U.N. $250 billion a year – which is an open door to more – when in 1993 the U.N. spent $10 billion worldwide?
Well, the brilliant, shrewd and calculating Dr. Kaul stammered something for five or six minutes and ended with "The World Bank got it all when they were created and now it is our turn." A little while later an American journalist living in Denmark congratulated me for making them look like fools. I got my point across.
Today the United Nations has done its homework by taking a number of steps. While they could not really justify a global tax then, they can now do so today. First, the U.N. has their orchestra clamoring for a global tax. What the mainstream media did not report is that the protestors in Genoa demanded a global tax – specifically the Tobin tax to help reduce debt and poverty. Although this idea is very sophisticated, studies have been made and the conclusion is that it will work. The drawback is that all countries would have to adopt it, not just a few. Advocates of the Tobin tax scheme have commented on the "very large increase in tax revenues" that developed countries could experience if implemented. There is nothing like skimming off the top.
Second, the needs which the U.N. say would be met by a global tax include: funding the AIDS trust, debt relief for Highly Indebted Poor Countries, cutting the number of people living in poverty, who are hungry and who lack access to safe drinking water, achieving universal primary education for all, reducing maternal mortality by 75 percent, halting and reversing the spread of AIDS and improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers at a cost of $500 per person.
Furthermore, there is growing media hype about the number of people living on less than $1 per day as well as the new mantra, "terrorism is caused by poverty." The reasons for this global tax are as numerous as Imelda Marcos needing another pair of shoes.
Finally what can we expect coming out of this conference? The fact that the concept of global taxation has now made it to an official agenda item and its own conference is key. It has come full circle. As such, it will create it own "Financing for Development" structure that will take on a life of its own. This includes the unprecedented participation of President Bush, Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neil and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Never before has this kind of power been present at a U.N. meeting. While many feel that it is premature for a global tax, there will be more commitments to reduce poverty, increase aid, increase trade with developing countries and a thorough discussion of debt work-out mechanisms such as an International Bankruptcy Court to help countries like Argentina reduce the financial damage of debt problems.
The idea of a global tax is very foreign if you think we are a sovereign country. The problem is that we are no longer sovereign. The political, economic and trade barriers between countries have fallen while the legal and judicial barriers are in the process of falling. America has been integrated with the other 189 countries of the world into a world government structure. No longer are the poor in Afghanistan, Columbia or Zimbabwe the problem of those governments – they are now the problems of all governments, meaning you and I.
The concept of a global tax accommodates and builds on global government. Do I agree? No. But if our president can set up a shadow government without the knowledge of Congress, then that means he can do anything he wants – which means he has more power than our Constitution allowed for one man to have. The repercussions are much deeper than just a tax.
I guess I oughtta link this to my website.....but I am so lazy!
You're confused.
Tariff's are a duty imposed on imported goods by sovereign nations. As an example, Red China imposes up to a 40% tariff on some American made goods.
That's quite a difference from a global tax collected by an unelected foreign enity (the UN).
PS: Dubya has dumped Free Trade into the global garbage. Free Trade now resides along side that other Republican tenant, the minimum wage.
He done good...
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.