Taxes Without Borders World Health Organization mulling global cigarette tax BY: CJ Ciaramella September 27, 2012 5:00 am
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a global excise tax of up to 70 percent on cigarettes at an upcoming November conference, raising concerns among free market tax policy analysts about fiscal sovereignty and bureaucratic mission creep.
In draft guidelines published this September, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control indicated it may put a cigarette tax on the table at its November conference in Seoul, Korea.
“First we had doctors without borders,” said David Williams, president of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. “Now you could have taxes without borders. … This is a new frontier in taxes. If they’re successful with this, consumers and taxpayers should be concerned about what’s coming down the pipe.”
Although WHO does not have any power to mandate taxes on sovereign nations, it is considering two proposals on cigarette taxes to present to member countries. The first would be an excise tax of up to 70 percent..................................>>>>..............................>>>>.........................http://freebeacon.com/taxes-without-borders/
EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes
By George Russell
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another “tiny” tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.
The United Nations is at it again: finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.
These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.
How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.
As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereign The U.N. clearly hopes it can find a way to move ahead. “ Politically, tapping revenue from global resources and raising taxes internationally to address global problems are much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes,” admits an ECOSOC document produced last April. But, it summarizes, “the time has come to confront the challenge.”
Shortly thereafter, the tax proposals — known in U.N.-speak as “innovative methods of financing”-- got a limited endorsement from a group of government ministers and other heads of national delegations who attended a major ECOSOC meeting in New York City in July.
The global taxation idea was echoed this week by Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and also a U.N. Assistant Secretary General. Sachs was recently named by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to head a new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It “will work closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations,” according to the Earth Institute website.
On Monday, the controversial economist, a vociferous supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called on President Obama to implement a carbon tax that in turn could be used to finance bonds, paying for investments to combat “climate change” -- one of the major focuses of the new solutions network.
Sachs was quoted by Bloomberg News as declaring that, “I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this. It doesn’t have to be current financed.”
In the midst of a heated U.S. national election campaign, any official endorsement of those views is unlikely.
Nonetheless, the U.N. is taking a longer view. The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade, since the topic was discussed in depth at an international conference in 2002. The topic was endorsed again at the failed Rio + 20 conference last summer, without much detail attached.
But the need for new revenue is becoming more urgent as the world’s rich countries, gripped in recession, no longer hand out foreign aid with the same generosity as before — though the total reached $133 billion annually last year--while the demands for huge additional amounts of money for social and climate issues continues to grow.
Earlier this year, for example, the overseers of a new, U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund held their first meeting in Bonn to contemplate the spending of some $30 billion annually — rising to $100 billion by 2020 — to meet climate change needs in developing countries. Where all that money will come from is still not clear.
The U.N.’s latest roster of tax possibilities certainly has what the New Development Finance Report calls “large fundraising potential.” Or, at least some of them do. An around-the-world tax of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emissions in rich countries, the report says, could raise some $250 billion a year. That new billionaire’s tax would raise anywhere from $40 billion to $50 billion per year, the report estimates, though it adds that the idea “is not yet in any international agenda.”
We are global folks! The globalists have finally achieved their decades long agenda!!!!! Corporate America was the tipping point for globalization. They took the jobs from the 'rich country' (america) and spread 'our' wealth around to the 'lesser countries'. We are just a piss ant in the toilet bowl now!
But rest assured that a country WILL emerge as the leader............and it ain't gonna be AMERICA!!
So when you vote this november.............vote for the candidate that you think will work in your best interest GLOBALLY!!! And stop buying so much crap from china, india and vietnam!!
Unions sure did a great job, eh?
And hang on to your GOLD!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
We are global folks! The globalists have finally achieved their decades long agenda!!!!! Corporate America was the tipping point for globalization. They took the jobs from the 'rich country' (america) and spread 'our' wealth around to the 'lesser countries'. We are just a piss ant in the toilet bowl now! But rest assured that a country WILL emerge as the leader............and it ain't gonna be AMERICA!! So when you vote this november.............vote for the candidate that you think will work in your best interest GLOBALLY!!! And stop buying so much crap from china, india and vietnam!! Unions sure did a great job, eh? And hang on to your GOLD!!!
One of the Presidential candidates DOES have a lot of experience in "GLOBALIZATION". He's exported US jobs all over the globe, especially to China, and he owns businesses all over the world. He also has his personal investments in foreign banks and financial institutions. Lets NOT vote for him.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
One of the Presidential candidates DOES have a lot of experience in "GLOBALIZATION". He's exported US jobs all over the globe, especially to China, and he owns businesses all over the world. He also has his personal investments in foreign banks and financial institutions. Lets NOT vote for him.
And the other candidate will apologize to the world for not thinking of the tax sooner and offer the US to pay 2X the tax instead.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
And the other candidate will apologize to the world for not thinking of the tax sooner and offer the US to pay 2X the tax instead.
Apologize to the world??? Are you talking about The Romney Apology Tour Lie???
Factcheck.org:
Quoted Text
Romney has falsely accused Obama of “apologizing for America” many times before. The line has been a dependable applause-getter with conservative audiences. But we found no basis for this claim in Obama’s previous speeches and remarks. And other fact-checkers came to similar conclusions.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Apologize to the world??? Are you talking about The Romney Apology Tour Lie???
Factcheck.org:
Bowing to world leaders, claiming that "modern" technology makes controlling free speech impossible (at the UN this week) with this quote:
" know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. "
This is all I need to know. Instead of saying "hey tough sh*t, we have free speech here" he apologizes with the above.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
And the other candidate will apologize to the world for not thinking of the tax sooner and offer the US to pay 2X the tax instead.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like I have always said..........they are just a different side of the same corrupt globalist coin!!!!
And while the unons, corporations, politicians and anyone's pockets the government is lining.........the taxpayers are getting poorer and poorer!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Bowing to world leaders, claiming that "modern" technology makes controlling free speech impossible (at the UN this week) with this quote:
" know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. "
This is all I need to know. Instead of saying "hey tough sh*t, we have free speech here" he apologizes with the above.
I see no apology there! I read your post to say... NO ONE CAN CONTROL OR LIMIT FREE SPEECH. Doesn't your post: "technology makes controlling free speech impossible" say that it is impossible to stop, limit or control free speech? That's how I read it.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box never met a dictatorial law that could be enforced by tyrants that he didn't like.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
I see no apology there! I read your post to say... NO ONE CAN CONTROL OR LIMIT FREE SPEECH. Doesn't your post: "technology makes controlling free speech impossible" say that it is impossible to stop, limit or control free speech? That's how I read it.
The apology is in the inference of the statement.... It's basically saying that we can't do anything to stop it, now if he added "but we still wouldn't even if we could ", that would have been definitive...instead he left it open, leaving many outside the US to think, well, if it wasn't for technology, the US WOULD have stopped it...It's a perfect demonstration of Obama's vague foreign policy.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Box never met a dictatorial law that could be enforced by tyrants that he didn't like.
It's the 30-40 somethings that are going to have a hard time transitioning to a socialist global society!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The apology is in the inference of the statement.... It's basically saying that we can't do anything to stop it, now if he added "but we still wouldn't even if we could ", that would have been definitive...instead he left it open, leaving many outside the US to think, well, if it wasn't for technology, the US WOULD have stopped it...It's a perfect demonstration of Obama's vague foreign policy.
The next line of Obama's speech says: "The question then is how do we respond? And on this, we must agree, there is no speech that justifies mindless violence." This line is similar to the often quoted free speech limits: You have the right of free speech but you don't have the right to 'Shout fire in a crowded theater'.
You can 'infer' what ever you may from this speech. I see no apology.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The next line of Obama's speech says: "The question then is how do we respond? And on this, we must agree, there is no speech that justifies mindless violence." This line is similar to the often quoted free speech limits: You have the right of free speech but you don't have the right to 'Shout fire in a crowded theater'.
You can 'infer' what ever you may from this speech. I see no apology.
And I do...so that is pointless to discuss further.
As far as yelling fire in a crowded theatre; Defaming Islam isn't.. Farakkan calls Judaism a gutter religion - people don't die Armadinijad says the Holocaust is fake - people don't die Susan Surandon calls the pope a Nazi - people don't die A u-tube video called the innocence of Muslims is translated in Arabic - people die.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Logged
