|
|
How to Defeat Tyranny: Repeal 16th Amendment, Ditch IRS
May 22, 2013 By Cal Thomas
Given last week’s revelation that the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, it’s worth recalling President Obama’s Ohio State University commencement address. The president decried “voices” warning “that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.”
It’s no longer lurking. It’s here.
Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by the outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller, as well as numerous statements by individuals claiming they have been harassed and intimidated by IRS agents, reveal a government agency out of control, or more precisely, under the control of political hacks. It’s doubtful this was a free-lance operation. J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified he knew as early as June 2012 that the IRS was targeting conservatives, but did nothing to stop it during the presidential campaign. Who else knew?
The delay in tax exemption approval prevented some conservative groups from donating money to the Romney campaign or to groups supporting his candidacy. There is a simple way to restrain the IRS so this type of intrusion doesn’t happen again: get rid of it. That’s what Steve Forbes proposed in his run for president in 1996 and 2000. So did former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Forbes proposed a flat tax of 17 percent and a simple tax code. Individuals could file their tax returns on a post card.
“In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical,” Paul wrote in 2001. “Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.” And tax it did. And waste it did.
Paul contends the income tax amounts to only about one-third of federal revenue. I’m willing to wager that if nonessential government agencies and programs were eliminated and those remaining were reformed, or privatized, the savings would more than make up for the revenue loss.
Congressional Democrats — and some Republicans — will be reluctant to propose such a “radical” solution, because too many focus on revenue and not enough on misspending and dysfunctional agencies and programs.
The testimony that came out of the recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing is just a part of what constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead writes about in his new book, “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.” It sounds alarmist, but reading it should sound an alarm for every American.
The summary on the book jacket says Whitehead “paints a chilling portrait of a nation in the final stages of transformation into a police state.” Examples include the growing number of “surveillance cameras, drug-sniffing dogs, SWAT raids, roadside strip searches, blood draws at DUI checkpoints, drones, GPS tracking devices, zero tolerance policies, over-criminalization, and free speech zones.”
Like most tyrannies, this one is being ushered in with a smile. The public is told it is for our “security” and that it’s good for us. With taxation, we are told the government “needs” our money and if we complain that they are taking too much and wasting it, we’re thought to be “greedy” and “unfair.”
Thomas Jefferson foresaw what can happen when power corrupts: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Jefferson would see the IRS scandal and Whitehead’s warnings as prime examples. Repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminate the IRS, put the government back within its constitutional boundaries and tyranny will be defeated.
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/how-to-defeat-tyranny-r...
Given last week’s revelation that the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, it’s worth recalling President Obama’s Ohio State University commencement address. The president decried “voices” warning “that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.”
It’s no longer lurking. It’s here.
Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by the outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steve Miller, as well as numerous statements by individuals claiming they have been harassed and intimidated by IRS agents, reveal a government agency out of control, or more precisely, under the control of political hacks. It’s doubtful this was a free-lance operation. J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, testified he knew as early as June 2012 that the IRS was targeting conservatives, but did nothing to stop it during the presidential campaign. Who else knew?
The delay in tax exemption approval prevented some conservative groups from donating money to the Romney campaign or to groups supporting his candidacy. There is a simple way to restrain the IRS so this type of intrusion doesn’t happen again: get rid of it. That’s what Steve Forbes proposed in his run for president in 1996 and 2000. So did former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Forbes proposed a flat tax of 17 percent and a simple tax code. Individuals could file their tax returns on a post card.
“In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical,” Paul wrote in 2001. “Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.” And tax it did. And waste it did.
Paul contends the income tax amounts to only about one-third of federal revenue. I’m willing to wager that if nonessential government agencies and programs were eliminated and those remaining were reformed, or privatized, the savings would more than make up for the revenue loss.
Congressional Democrats — and some Republicans — will be reluctant to propose such a “radical” solution, because too many focus on revenue and not enough on misspending and dysfunctional agencies and programs.
The testimony that came out of the recent House Ways and Means Committee hearing is just a part of what constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead writes about in his new book, “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.” It sounds alarmist, but reading it should sound an alarm for every American.
The summary on the book jacket says Whitehead “paints a chilling portrait of a nation in the final stages of transformation into a police state.” Examples include the growing number of “surveillance cameras, drug-sniffing dogs, SWAT raids, roadside strip searches, blood draws at DUI checkpoints, drones, GPS tracking devices, zero tolerance policies, over-criminalization, and free speech zones.”
Like most tyrannies, this one is being ushered in with a smile. The public is told it is for our “security” and that it’s good for us. With taxation, we are told the government “needs” our money and if we complain that they are taking too much and wasting it, we’re thought to be “greedy” and “unfair.”
Thomas Jefferson foresaw what can happen when power corrupts: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Jefferson would see the IRS scandal and Whitehead’s warnings as prime examples. Repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminate the IRS, put the government back within its constitutional boundaries and tyranny will be defeated.
http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/how-to-defeat-tyranny-r...
16th Amendment Discussion
All Pensions and even SS should be a State function - just like the teachers, firemen, police, city, county and State employees are funded. Pensions and Medical care is a State and local issue and will be better administrated and more cost effective if we the people are close at hand. Just as every State has a tax collection system in place for property tax, sales tax, excise taxes, insurance taxes, yes States tax all of these from State to State. Each State has its own equal to most Federal agencies, so closing the Federal will not affect States and will eliminate duplication. Just think how much our taxes can be reduced and how many regulations that were made for one area but forced on your State in the one size fits all Federal agency scams . . . Flood insurance required in the Nevada desert on a hill side as an example . . wet land located on a irrigated farm that would be dry without the farming. There is a time period required for each State to determine what if any Federal agencies they want to maintain and to transfer employees to the State system. But all decisions will be made by the States and they will determine how big the department will be, not the Federal Civil Service.
As all can see the government grows by taking more taxes and regulating more liberties and reduces our freedoms. All States will determine the best way for them to tax and generate revenues to service the amount of government they want and to provide for the promised pensions and medical services.
Keep in mind that States laws and directions can be changed quickly to adjust to competitive situations like tax rates and right to work laws are being changed as we speak so the State can attract and maintain the businesses they have, and to make it simple for them to expand. States will compete for better ways to provide services to the people - 50 different ideas being tested will yield a much better end product than one dictating the ONLY WAY.
So, no more IRS and the States can serve best it's citizens. End the 16th amendment and take the power away from Washington leaving the Political class weak and with much less power. We promote almost no power over our daily lives and little over our States. Free enterprise and free people produce better solutions and superior products produce better job opportunities. – M.C.
As all can see the government grows by taking more taxes and regulating more liberties and reduces our freedoms. All States will determine the best way for them to tax and generate revenues to service the amount of government they want and to provide for the promised pensions and medical services.
Keep in mind that States laws and directions can be changed quickly to adjust to competitive situations like tax rates and right to work laws are being changed as we speak so the State can attract and maintain the businesses they have, and to make it simple for them to expand. States will compete for better ways to provide services to the people - 50 different ideas being tested will yield a much better end product than one dictating the ONLY WAY.
So, no more IRS and the States can serve best it's citizens. End the 16th amendment and take the power away from Washington leaving the Political class weak and with much less power. We promote almost no power over our daily lives and little over our States. Free enterprise and free people produce better solutions and superior products produce better job opportunities. – M.C.
How the 16th and 17th Amendments Ushered the Era of Big Government
by Alex Reissig on April 5, 2013
Two things were required to create a huge, centralized federal government. First was the need to fund a massive administration. Secondly, there needed to be the political will to usurp power from both the citizenry and the states. With the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the big government progressives got their wish.
Most people know that the 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to collect taxes on income. Prior to this, the federal government primarily relied on excise taxes (such as import/export tariffs) for funding. The revenue generated by the income tax provided the fuel needed to begin the era of big government. Through most of the 19th century (save for a temporary spike during the Civil War), federal spending hovered around 2% of the GDP; today, we have passed the 24% mark.
However, the fuel for federal spending would have meant little if it were not for the political will to steal power from the states. This was accomplished with the 17th Amendment to the constitution, which fundamentally changed not only how senators were elected, but also the relationship between the state and federal governments. I would also argue that this change in relationship upset the balance of power that the founders so painstakingly created.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The reason for this was simple. The House of Representatives, with its direct election by the people of each Congressional District every two years, represented the interests of the people. The Senate, whose members were chosen by each state’s legislature every six years, would represent the interests of the state.
These two separate bodies, would balance the power between the interests of the state and the people. If a congressman was not keeping the people of his district happy, he could be voted out within two years. And while senators held a six year term, the state legislature could recall the senator if he did not represent the interests of his state. The 17th Amendment, with its direct election of senators by popular vote, upset this balance of power. Now, the states had no representation. In essence, there were now two Houses of Representatives and one of them (the senate) wan only beholden to the people every six years.
Now with no state representation in Congress, and with the fuel provided by a national income tax, the central government grew by leaps and bounds. The relationship between the people and the federal government also changed. The tax code, which is a burden not only on the economy by the individual as well, has opened every aspect of a person’s life to scrutiny by the federal government. Today, every dime earned – no matter what the source – is the government’s business, must be documented, and may be subject to tax. And this is supported by both senators and congressmen, because their state is depending on that federal money.
Think about what I just said… their state is depending on that federal money. Currently, much of the money that is spent by states is derived from taxes collected by the federal government. In 2011, there were $500 billion in state and local grants from the federal government. And of course, that money that comes from Washington has strings attached, which may or may not be in the citizen’s best interest. One of the best examples of this was the 55mph speed limit of the 70′s and 80′s. States were offered a huge sum of money for highway improvements, but the catch was they must enact a 55mph speed limit.
The states dependence on federal monies erode the primary benefit of elections by making it difficult for voters to know who to hold accountable for which policies. And the strings attached to the federal dollars further subjugates state governments to the will of Washington, weakening their sovereign independence. Weak and dependent states invite a bigger, more centralized government, giving even more power to the national government, which make the states weaker and more dependent, which makes the federal government more powerful … I think you can see where this leads.
Were the 16th and 17th Amendments to be repealed, we could quickly return to a small government constitutional republic. Without the funding of federal income tax, big government could not exist, even through debt service. Returning to Senate appointment by state legislatures would reinstate the linkage between the state and the federal political process. Lobbyists would be less of a problem, as a Senator could be recalled by his home state if he was not serving the State’s interests. The state legislatures would also have the ability to decentralized power, redistributing it to the state level when appropriate.
Unfortunately, I don’t this happening any time soon. I doubt you could get the Senate to get behind an Amendment that would limit their power. And since so many states are riding the gravy train of federal dollars, I doubt you could get the states to call for a Constitutional Convention. We have already seen President Obama and the Democrats call for more revenue and more spending, creating an era that would make today’s big government look like a libertarian paradise. The only solution is for the citizens of this nation to become educated on these issues, and force change … no matter what the politicians want. Remember, they work for us, we don’t work for them.
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/04/how-the-16th-and-17...
Two things were required to create a huge, centralized federal government. First was the need to fund a massive administration. Secondly, there needed to be the political will to usurp power from both the citizenry and the states. With the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the big government progressives got their wish.
Most people know that the 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to collect taxes on income. Prior to this, the federal government primarily relied on excise taxes (such as import/export tariffs) for funding. The revenue generated by the income tax provided the fuel needed to begin the era of big government. Through most of the 19th century (save for a temporary spike during the Civil War), federal spending hovered around 2% of the GDP; today, we have passed the 24% mark.
However, the fuel for federal spending would have meant little if it were not for the political will to steal power from the states. This was accomplished with the 17th Amendment to the constitution, which fundamentally changed not only how senators were elected, but also the relationship between the state and federal governments. I would also argue that this change in relationship upset the balance of power that the founders so painstakingly created.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The reason for this was simple. The House of Representatives, with its direct election by the people of each Congressional District every two years, represented the interests of the people. The Senate, whose members were chosen by each state’s legislature every six years, would represent the interests of the state.
These two separate bodies, would balance the power between the interests of the state and the people. If a congressman was not keeping the people of his district happy, he could be voted out within two years. And while senators held a six year term, the state legislature could recall the senator if he did not represent the interests of his state. The 17th Amendment, with its direct election of senators by popular vote, upset this balance of power. Now, the states had no representation. In essence, there were now two Houses of Representatives and one of them (the senate) wan only beholden to the people every six years.
Now with no state representation in Congress, and with the fuel provided by a national income tax, the central government grew by leaps and bounds. The relationship between the people and the federal government also changed. The tax code, which is a burden not only on the economy by the individual as well, has opened every aspect of a person’s life to scrutiny by the federal government. Today, every dime earned – no matter what the source – is the government’s business, must be documented, and may be subject to tax. And this is supported by both senators and congressmen, because their state is depending on that federal money.
Think about what I just said… their state is depending on that federal money. Currently, much of the money that is spent by states is derived from taxes collected by the federal government. In 2011, there were $500 billion in state and local grants from the federal government. And of course, that money that comes from Washington has strings attached, which may or may not be in the citizen’s best interest. One of the best examples of this was the 55mph speed limit of the 70′s and 80′s. States were offered a huge sum of money for highway improvements, but the catch was they must enact a 55mph speed limit.
The states dependence on federal monies erode the primary benefit of elections by making it difficult for voters to know who to hold accountable for which policies. And the strings attached to the federal dollars further subjugates state governments to the will of Washington, weakening their sovereign independence. Weak and dependent states invite a bigger, more centralized government, giving even more power to the national government, which make the states weaker and more dependent, which makes the federal government more powerful … I think you can see where this leads.
Were the 16th and 17th Amendments to be repealed, we could quickly return to a small government constitutional republic. Without the funding of federal income tax, big government could not exist, even through debt service. Returning to Senate appointment by state legislatures would reinstate the linkage between the state and the federal political process. Lobbyists would be less of a problem, as a Senator could be recalled by his home state if he was not serving the State’s interests. The state legislatures would also have the ability to decentralized power, redistributing it to the state level when appropriate.
Unfortunately, I don’t this happening any time soon. I doubt you could get the Senate to get behind an Amendment that would limit their power. And since so many states are riding the gravy train of federal dollars, I doubt you could get the states to call for a Constitutional Convention. We have already seen President Obama and the Democrats call for more revenue and more spending, creating an era that would make today’s big government look like a libertarian paradise. The only solution is for the citizens of this nation to become educated on these issues, and force change … no matter what the politicians want. Remember, they work for us, we don’t work for them.
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/04/how-the-16th-and-17...
"Limiting Taxing Power”
The traditional American philosophy of constitutionally limited government - limited for Liberty - is hostile to any concept which would permit any unlimited power of taxation to exist to the peril of Man's unalienable rights. Potential danger, not merely present danger, is the crux of the matter to provide protection in the worst imaginable situations. This philosophy prescribes various limitations upon the taxing power of the Federal Government, as expressed in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make only specified levies - within the bounds of certain specific limits as to uses of tax monies: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States." It also authorizes taxes only to raise revenue to pay for the government's authorized activities, within the bounds of its limited powers and limited duties under the Constitution, as amended - for use directly and openly to accomplish the objects committed to its care and the trusts for which it is made responsible by the people under this basic law. This is according to the controlling intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution in 1787-1788, and likewise as to each amendment." (Hamilton Abert Long 1963)
As you can see the Progressives have usurped a lot of powers with the assistance of the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive branches of government. It is my humble opinion that Progressive income taxes and progressive (based on value not cost of service to each property) property taxes violate the true intent of the 5th amendment protection from government "TAKING" property (money-wealth) for public use without "JUST COMPENSATION" to the individual. Therefore, I submit that the 16th amendment does not provide for progressive taxes nor is it permitted in any other section of the Constitution so the progressive tax rates as used are a usurped power of the courts and legislatures. Now, being a law, rule, regulation, or court ruling (precedent), they are all based on usurped powers and null and void, and have no force or effect in the Protection of the individual rights in the Constitution.
Thank you for reading these views.
As you can see the Progressives have usurped a lot of powers with the assistance of the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive branches of government. It is my humble opinion that Progressive income taxes and progressive (based on value not cost of service to each property) property taxes violate the true intent of the 5th amendment protection from government "TAKING" property (money-wealth) for public use without "JUST COMPENSATION" to the individual. Therefore, I submit that the 16th amendment does not provide for progressive taxes nor is it permitted in any other section of the Constitution so the progressive tax rates as used are a usurped power of the courts and legislatures. Now, being a law, rule, regulation, or court ruling (precedent), they are all based on usurped powers and null and void, and have no force or effect in the Protection of the individual rights in the Constitution.
Thank you for reading these views.
Progressive Taxes
I submit the following piece about Progressive taxes to prove the point that property taxes being based on the "CURRENT" market value not what you paid for the house is taxing unrealized capital gain income. Very progressive but they hit the poor harder even in a rental situation. Think about the government letting you sell your home under certain IRS rules and you can avoid capital gains taxes on the gain, but you have been taxed on the gain already through property taxes progressiveness.
Benshalom Presents Realization and Progressivity Today at Toronto
Benshalom Ilan Benshalom (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law) presents Realization and Progressivity of the Ideal Tax Base: A Normative Defense for the Achilles Heel of the Income Tax (with Kendra Stead (J.D. 2010, Northwestern)) at the University of Toronto today as part of the James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop Series. Here is the abstract:
The realization requirement, under which taxes are only imposed when an asset is sold and not when it merely appreciates, is the income tax’s original sin. It is long-standing, yet widely considered the main source of tax complexity, inequity, and economic distortion. Despite its problems, realization is considered a basic and indispensable element of modern income tax regimes. It is explained early in most federal income tax courses as necessitated by problems of asset valuation and taxpayer liquidity. To the dismay of certain professors, this explanation usually generates little class discussion. More worrisome, it is also widely accepted outside the classroom—prompting few political objections or normative academic inquiries.
The goal of this presentation is to provide a normative framework to allow policymakers to better understand the role of the realization requirement. It makes two related arguments. First, with respect to certain emotionally non-fungible (personal) assets, realization is normatively justified because the market price is not a good indication of their value to their owners. Second, contrary to the traditional view of realization as a regressive element, taxing only these personal assets upon realization would promote income tax base progressivity. The key point is that personal assets represent a larger portion of the wealth of low- and, even more so, medium-income taxpayers than of the wealthy.
Our approach provides a heretofore absent basis for developing a more effective and coherent policy with respect to realization. This analysis contributes to the broader tax reform debate and opens a novel theoretical inquiry with respect to the distributive impact of different types of errors.
THEY LIE TO US DON'T THEY AND THEN THEY TAKE OUR HARD EARNED WEALTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT.
'A Progressive is one who is in favor of more taxes instead of less, more bureaus and job holders, more paternalism and meddling, more regulation of private affairs and less liberty. In general, he would be inclined to regard the repeal of any tax as outrageous.' ~ H. L. Mencken, 1926
Benshalom Presents Realization and Progressivity Today at Toronto
Benshalom Ilan Benshalom (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Law) presents Realization and Progressivity of the Ideal Tax Base: A Normative Defense for the Achilles Heel of the Income Tax (with Kendra Stead (J.D. 2010, Northwestern)) at the University of Toronto today as part of the James Hausman Tax Law and Policy Workshop Series. Here is the abstract:
The realization requirement, under which taxes are only imposed when an asset is sold and not when it merely appreciates, is the income tax’s original sin. It is long-standing, yet widely considered the main source of tax complexity, inequity, and economic distortion. Despite its problems, realization is considered a basic and indispensable element of modern income tax regimes. It is explained early in most federal income tax courses as necessitated by problems of asset valuation and taxpayer liquidity. To the dismay of certain professors, this explanation usually generates little class discussion. More worrisome, it is also widely accepted outside the classroom—prompting few political objections or normative academic inquiries.
The goal of this presentation is to provide a normative framework to allow policymakers to better understand the role of the realization requirement. It makes two related arguments. First, with respect to certain emotionally non-fungible (personal) assets, realization is normatively justified because the market price is not a good indication of their value to their owners. Second, contrary to the traditional view of realization as a regressive element, taxing only these personal assets upon realization would promote income tax base progressivity. The key point is that personal assets represent a larger portion of the wealth of low- and, even more so, medium-income taxpayers than of the wealthy.
Our approach provides a heretofore absent basis for developing a more effective and coherent policy with respect to realization. This analysis contributes to the broader tax reform debate and opens a novel theoretical inquiry with respect to the distributive impact of different types of errors.
THEY LIE TO US DON'T THEY AND THEN THEY TAKE OUR HARD EARNED WEALTH IN VIOLATION OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT.
'A Progressive is one who is in favor of more taxes instead of less, more bureaus and job holders, more paternalism and meddling, more regulation of private affairs and less liberty. In general, he would be inclined to regard the repeal of any tax as outrageous.' ~ H. L. Mencken, 1926
Not Free - Nor Capitalists
Statements that naked capitalism is fascism are not correct. Fascism is not the opposite of Socialism; it is simply a different side of the same coin. In Socialism the government owns the production elements (industries) in Fascism the government does not own the production elements but controls them through REGULATIONS and laws. So, we must now look at America it has become a Socialist by owning industries banks, home mortgage Freddie and Fannie, insurance companies, medical insurance Medicare and Medicaid, auto companies, energy companies, and in fact they once owned and operated a whorehouse in Nevada. Now it has also become a Fascist state by using the EPA, DOE, FHA, DOY, BLM, ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, AND ALL THE OTHER CONTROL BUREAUCRACIES to force the government’s method of operation on the industries and businesses - even a simple farmer is regulated to death.
So, friend to say America is or has been a naked capitalist society has been wrong for the last 100 years. We are regulated to the point that is takes as many as five years to get all the necessary permits, licenses and structures in place to open a factory to produce widgets of any type.
WE ARE NOT FREE NOR ARE WE CAPITALISTS ANYMORE.
So, friend to say America is or has been a naked capitalist society has been wrong for the last 100 years. We are regulated to the point that is takes as many as five years to get all the necessary permits, licenses and structures in place to open a factory to produce widgets of any type.
WE ARE NOT FREE NOR ARE WE CAPITALISTS ANYMORE.
Why the System Failed
A balanced budget amendment is just redoing the chairs on the deck of the titanic while it was sinking. People need to realize that you must TAKE the money away from the Federal Government just like taking drugs away from the addict they will scream and holler for months if not years.
Any money that goes to any level of government must be for real expenses of required government services - not a cent for "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" or tribute to Unions and industries. Without limits on their ability to increase or "CREATE" new fees, permits, use charges, offsets, damage charges, wet lands use fees, and the list goes on - they are all taxes with a new fancy environmental correct noun; but is taking your money in the end.
People must tell the government at all levels they are to outsource all services including fire, police, and utility operations. The proceeds from the sale will apply to the debt and the saving used to lower the tax burden on the citizens. It will be a long road but it must be done as the government businesses like the Post office, Amtrak, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Banks and Wall Street brokers, are just another poorly managed failing enterprise.
The Federal Government owns many assets around the world - sell them and pay off the debt. How much can we sell 100 miles of ocean front land in California for? How about the California Channel Islands - millions of acres of land. We are broke - liquidate and start clean. So, see we do not need taxes to get the job done.
Sell all the DC office building and lease them back, same with the Post offices across the nation. Suddenly we start seeing a way forward that does not break the sovereign individuals. Now for a last example - we can sell the interstate highway system and turn them into toll roads - saving all the money we now pay the State and Federal transportation departments - why not????
Eliminate the national debt and revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, return to the enumerated powers in Article I sections 8 & 9.
Any money that goes to any level of government must be for real expenses of required government services - not a cent for "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" or tribute to Unions and industries. Without limits on their ability to increase or "CREATE" new fees, permits, use charges, offsets, damage charges, wet lands use fees, and the list goes on - they are all taxes with a new fancy environmental correct noun; but is taking your money in the end.
People must tell the government at all levels they are to outsource all services including fire, police, and utility operations. The proceeds from the sale will apply to the debt and the saving used to lower the tax burden on the citizens. It will be a long road but it must be done as the government businesses like the Post office, Amtrak, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Banks and Wall Street brokers, are just another poorly managed failing enterprise.
The Federal Government owns many assets around the world - sell them and pay off the debt. How much can we sell 100 miles of ocean front land in California for? How about the California Channel Islands - millions of acres of land. We are broke - liquidate and start clean. So, see we do not need taxes to get the job done.
Sell all the DC office building and lease them back, same with the Post offices across the nation. Suddenly we start seeing a way forward that does not break the sovereign individuals. Now for a last example - we can sell the interstate highway system and turn them into toll roads - saving all the money we now pay the State and Federal transportation departments - why not????
Eliminate the national debt and revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, return to the enumerated powers in Article I sections 8 & 9.
Taxing The Rich
The little people 48% do not pay taxes except through hidden BUSINESS [CORPORATE] TAXES passed through to the consumer. In fact they also receive a check from the IRS for the earned income tax credit to refund their portion of the payroll taxes. IN the real world they can get more than they paid in if they have enough dependents [kids].
So again the TAX the rich and reduce the tax on the poor is a strawman argument. The rich only pay taxes because they want to [our tax system is voluntarily] for if they did no desire to pay taxes they would just elect not to make any money [interest or profits from investments]. You see they can live on existing cash and wealth for many generations without ever paying a dime in taxes - of course they would not be risking wealth and creating jobs would they?
So, the government of the Progressive/Socialist/Communist must find some way to entice the rich to take risk and to pay taxes. So, they place a death tax on the estate so the wealth gets in the hand of government to re-distribute. Hum, how does the Political class then get the support of the rich and wealthy doing things like that to them? Simple they create laws that let the rich and wealthy keep all their money without paying any taxes by creating things like "CHARITABLE TRUSTS" - The Ford, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Chase, Mellon, Gould, Gates, Buffet, and thousand of others have created. It keeps all their wealth and lets them have homes around the world, planes, and pay checks for family members that never stop.
MY POINT IS THAT NO TAX SYSTEM CAN EVER BE FAIR UNLESS WE TAX CONSUMPTION, FOR THEN ALL CAN SAVE MONEY AND ACCUMULATE WEALTH BY SIMPLY NOT SPENDING [SAVING]. THE RICH WILL PAY MUCH MORE AS THEY BUY MERCEDES WHILE WE ALL BUY USED COMPACTS. THEY BUY FURS WHILE WE BUY WOOL COATS. THEY BUY PRIME BEEF WHILE WE BY CHOICE. SO, AS YOU SEE THEN THE TAX IS STILL VOLUNTARY BUT THE RICH MUST PAY IF THEY WANT THE LIFE STYLE THEY NOW HAVE.
The moral of the story is to get out and make the Political class make the tax system dependent on consumption for it is fair and all citizens should pay some taxes so they are committed and participate in the government of our nation and would be more watchful of the actions of the Government.
Clearly with a tax code of hundreds of thousands of regulations and court decisions no one knows the tax laws - the IRS will not even back up its advice given to you when you visited for help . . it is just too complex and too expensive to continue - it cost billions per year in Lawyer and Accountant fees.
I come from the point that the Federal government has no power to pass legislation outside the enumerated powers of Article I section 8 & 9. All other powers have been usurped from the Constitution with co-operation from the Court and the Executive branch. All three have given or approved usurped actions by the other giving the appearance of legitimacy. I find no language anywhere that would permit the behavior of Congress or the Courts in the matter of re-distribution or Progressive taxes even on real estate?
Where is the valued checks and balances as the Founders intended. I do not remember a single action taken by any of the branches without a outsider bringing the issue to the debate.
Now I will tell you that I debated a big ten Accounting and Law Professor that had spent one year working on and defining the tax reform act of 1986. I sent him running off with one question - does the elimination of the oil drilling, movies, horse breading, and many other TAX SHELTERS being declared fraud apply to regular "C" corporations? If not, then should we all not advise our clients to transfer them into the "C" corp form so they can benefit from the deduction? He stammered and snorted that he was certain that the Congress intended it to also apply to them. I countered that I had read the Congressional record and the subject was mute. He then became upset and just stormed off leaving a few of just standing there.
The short part was that my research was correct and he was guilty of malpractice for not advising his clients and students of this loop hole that could save hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for their clients. In fact to my knowledge it was never applied to a "C" corporation meaning that all CPA firms that did not advise their clients are guilty of malpractice and maybe liable for damages. So, you see I think outside the box and will approach your work product with that attitude.
So again the TAX the rich and reduce the tax on the poor is a strawman argument. The rich only pay taxes because they want to [our tax system is voluntarily] for if they did no desire to pay taxes they would just elect not to make any money [interest or profits from investments]. You see they can live on existing cash and wealth for many generations without ever paying a dime in taxes - of course they would not be risking wealth and creating jobs would they?
So, the government of the Progressive/Socialist/Communist must find some way to entice the rich to take risk and to pay taxes. So, they place a death tax on the estate so the wealth gets in the hand of government to re-distribute. Hum, how does the Political class then get the support of the rich and wealthy doing things like that to them? Simple they create laws that let the rich and wealthy keep all their money without paying any taxes by creating things like "CHARITABLE TRUSTS" - The Ford, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Chase, Mellon, Gould, Gates, Buffet, and thousand of others have created. It keeps all their wealth and lets them have homes around the world, planes, and pay checks for family members that never stop.
MY POINT IS THAT NO TAX SYSTEM CAN EVER BE FAIR UNLESS WE TAX CONSUMPTION, FOR THEN ALL CAN SAVE MONEY AND ACCUMULATE WEALTH BY SIMPLY NOT SPENDING [SAVING]. THE RICH WILL PAY MUCH MORE AS THEY BUY MERCEDES WHILE WE ALL BUY USED COMPACTS. THEY BUY FURS WHILE WE BUY WOOL COATS. THEY BUY PRIME BEEF WHILE WE BY CHOICE. SO, AS YOU SEE THEN THE TAX IS STILL VOLUNTARY BUT THE RICH MUST PAY IF THEY WANT THE LIFE STYLE THEY NOW HAVE.
The moral of the story is to get out and make the Political class make the tax system dependent on consumption for it is fair and all citizens should pay some taxes so they are committed and participate in the government of our nation and would be more watchful of the actions of the Government.
Clearly with a tax code of hundreds of thousands of regulations and court decisions no one knows the tax laws - the IRS will not even back up its advice given to you when you visited for help . . it is just too complex and too expensive to continue - it cost billions per year in Lawyer and Accountant fees.
I come from the point that the Federal government has no power to pass legislation outside the enumerated powers of Article I section 8 & 9. All other powers have been usurped from the Constitution with co-operation from the Court and the Executive branch. All three have given or approved usurped actions by the other giving the appearance of legitimacy. I find no language anywhere that would permit the behavior of Congress or the Courts in the matter of re-distribution or Progressive taxes even on real estate?
Where is the valued checks and balances as the Founders intended. I do not remember a single action taken by any of the branches without a outsider bringing the issue to the debate.
Now I will tell you that I debated a big ten Accounting and Law Professor that had spent one year working on and defining the tax reform act of 1986. I sent him running off with one question - does the elimination of the oil drilling, movies, horse breading, and many other TAX SHELTERS being declared fraud apply to regular "C" corporations? If not, then should we all not advise our clients to transfer them into the "C" corp form so they can benefit from the deduction? He stammered and snorted that he was certain that the Congress intended it to also apply to them. I countered that I had read the Congressional record and the subject was mute. He then became upset and just stormed off leaving a few of just standing there.
The short part was that my research was correct and he was guilty of malpractice for not advising his clients and students of this loop hole that could save hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for their clients. In fact to my knowledge it was never applied to a "C" corporation meaning that all CPA firms that did not advise their clients are guilty of malpractice and maybe liable for damages. So, you see I think outside the box and will approach your work product with that attitude.
Income Tax Methods and the 16th Amendment
Income Tax and the Constitution without the 16th amendment - it is clear why the Progressives wanted an income tax . .. start small at 2% on the rich, but it sure did not stay there now did it?
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
As you can see the original constitution had a "head" count or enumeration system in place. so your proposed system would meet the Founders intention on equality of taxes. The issue of a Federal budget is an impossible thing unless we return to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION in total. Article I section 8 limits the powers of the government and what it can do in most respects.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
As you can see the Founder intended that the individual was a protected class.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Founders did not want for the government to have the power to force a sovereign individual into debt he could not pay so they created taxes on basic transactions and limited the ability to place a direct tax on the individual. The Kings had head count taxes and forced citizens (chattel) into forced labor to pay the debt to the King - that was to never happen in America.
Other taxing methods are being considered in the national debate today, examples the 'fair' or 'flat' tax proposals. On the face of either idea, consider this: I find it quite fair in application but it still gives the Federal government to much power and money taking over the sovereign individual.
If we return to the Constitution, the Federal government will necessarily shrink to a very small portion of the current monolith. Limiting the duties of the government and returning those powers other than those enumerated for the Federal government back to the States and to the people will eliminate future usurpation.
The States will then need to address how they are going to raise funds to pay off the national and State debts that will be attributable to them. Your system again put the sovereign individual in jeopardy of having to pay just to exercise his God given right to exist, this violates the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional protections assured to the individual. This same logic brings into question property taxes which are Progressive (based on value) and again puts the individual in jeopardy of having his property compensated by government. Maybe we can refer to the above taxes as gun to the head systems,
Would it not lead to a more free sovereign individual if we eliminated any form of mandatory tax that can put the citizen in a threatened position? Then it would seem logical that we develop a voluntary system where the people can keep all the earn and all they own and contribute to cost of government when they elect to spend money to acquire goods and services.
Many will accuse this as being regressive, how can a tax be regressive when it is based on what the individual consumes. Poor people spend very little and would pay very little, rich people spend a lot and would pay a lot if they desired. All can limit the amount of taxes paid by reducing spending.
The governments will still get moneys from Constitutional sources (minus the 16th amendment). We must take the gun from the head ability of government TAKING of property and wealth from the sovereign individual. This type system is in place today in most States and would eliminate the IRS, EPA and all other alphabet federal agencies that are sucking the life blood out of our businesses and economy.
The society that is most free is the one that is taxed the least.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
As you can see the original constitution had a "head" count or enumeration system in place. so your proposed system would meet the Founders intention on equality of taxes. The issue of a Federal budget is an impossible thing unless we return to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION in total. Article I section 8 limits the powers of the government and what it can do in most respects.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
As you can see the Founder intended that the individual was a protected class.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Founders did not want for the government to have the power to force a sovereign individual into debt he could not pay so they created taxes on basic transactions and limited the ability to place a direct tax on the individual. The Kings had head count taxes and forced citizens (chattel) into forced labor to pay the debt to the King - that was to never happen in America.
Other taxing methods are being considered in the national debate today, examples the 'fair' or 'flat' tax proposals. On the face of either idea, consider this: I find it quite fair in application but it still gives the Federal government to much power and money taking over the sovereign individual.
If we return to the Constitution, the Federal government will necessarily shrink to a very small portion of the current monolith. Limiting the duties of the government and returning those powers other than those enumerated for the Federal government back to the States and to the people will eliminate future usurpation.
The States will then need to address how they are going to raise funds to pay off the national and State debts that will be attributable to them. Your system again put the sovereign individual in jeopardy of having to pay just to exercise his God given right to exist, this violates the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional protections assured to the individual. This same logic brings into question property taxes which are Progressive (based on value) and again puts the individual in jeopardy of having his property compensated by government. Maybe we can refer to the above taxes as gun to the head systems,
Would it not lead to a more free sovereign individual if we eliminated any form of mandatory tax that can put the citizen in a threatened position? Then it would seem logical that we develop a voluntary system where the people can keep all the earn and all they own and contribute to cost of government when they elect to spend money to acquire goods and services.
Many will accuse this as being regressive, how can a tax be regressive when it is based on what the individual consumes. Poor people spend very little and would pay very little, rich people spend a lot and would pay a lot if they desired. All can limit the amount of taxes paid by reducing spending.
The governments will still get moneys from Constitutional sources (minus the 16th amendment). We must take the gun from the head ability of government TAKING of property and wealth from the sovereign individual. This type system is in place today in most States and would eliminate the IRS, EPA and all other alphabet federal agencies that are sucking the life blood out of our businesses and economy.
The society that is most free is the one that is taxed the least.
The Case About Income Tax Conflict
This video above backs up our statement about the Income tax conflict .. various rates are not constitutional in conflict with the 9th and the 5th amendment. With a SC decision that said it was unconstitutional.
C02 Tax
For those of you that are interested in learning more about our Constitution this is a useful site link for it discusses conflicts that the political class and Attorneys use to confuse the issues and distort the truth.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
Here at last is the truth behind the C02 tax it is a gimmick by the Progressive/Marxist/Maoist/Fascist/Communist believers around the world. Al Gore is now naked and shown for the Progressive he really is. THE FINAL EVIDENCE THAT THE 17TH AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE REPEALED AND THE SENATORS BEING APPOINTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES AS THE FOUNDERS - FRAMERS - RATIFIERS DESIRED TO PROTECT THE STATES.
Home » News
Europeans Push Global Tax to Fund Poverty-Reduction, Climate Change Causes
Friday, September 17, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – A group of 60 nations will meet next week at the United Nations to push for a tax on foreign currency transactions as a way to generate revenue to meet global poverty-reduction goals, including “climate change” mitigation.
Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes.
World leaders are scheduled to hold a Sept. 21-23 summit at U.N. headquarters to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight specific targets to cut poverty and disease by 2015, in line with a pledge taken by U.N. member states in 2000.
The Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, comprising 60 countries – the United States is not a member – as well as 15 international institutions and several dozen non-governmental organizations (NGOs), sees the event as a crucial opportunity to promote the tax proposal, and it will meet on the summit sidelines next Tuesday.
“With the [MDG] deadline now five years away, we must be both clear and realistic as regards the mixed results of the progress achieved and the scale of the challenges to be met by 2015 and strongly optimistic in the international community’s ability to work together to achieve the MDGs,” the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD) said in a statement.
The summit “is a great opportunity to develop the current and potential role of innovative financing for development in the achievement of the MDGs and make the entire international community aware of the Leading Group’s recommendations.”
Leading Group
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, center, and colleagues from Belgium and Japan attend a meeting of the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD), which is proposing a tax on foreign currency transactions to generate revenue for poverty-reduction.
Those recommendations were released over the summer by a committee of experts appointed by LGFD members to look into options for generating money for development.
In a report the experts said the proposed levy on foreign currency transactions would be paid into a dedicated Global Solidarity Fund, to be used to help meet the MDGs and for “climate change mitigation and adaptation” – that is, enabling “poorer countries to switch to a low-carbon development path.”
The LGFD says existing forms of “innovative financing” have raised almost $3 billion in extra revenue for humanitarian causes over the past four years.
One example is a tax levied on airline tickets by a handful of countries in support of UNITAID, an initiative launched in 2006 to reduce the price of drugs for priority diseases such as HIV/Aids and malaria.
‘Mixed experience’
The idea of a foreign currency transaction tax was raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist James Tobin, primarily as a way to curb excessive speculation.
As such it is sometimes known as the “Tobin tax.” (Tobin won the Nobel prize in economics in 1981, for unrelated work.)
Development NGOs have been promoting the idea of a Tobin tax – or as some have dubbed it, a “Robin Hood tax” – for years, with anti-globalization groups, aid agencies, religious organizations and environmental advocacy groups in Europe in particular throwing their weight behind it. Banking and business sectors have generally been opposed.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of Tobin tax at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland last November, indicating the proceeds could be used to fund future financial bailouts.
The U.S. and Canada rejected it outright and Russia expressed skepticism.
“That’s not something that we’re prepared to support,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters in St. Andrews. “This is an idea that has been around for a long time. Many countries have a lot of experience with the design of these kinds of taxes. I think, frankly, the experience has been mixed.”
Many E.U. countries support the idea, however, and France has pledged to pursue the matter when it takes over the G20 presidency late this year.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said early this month that even without U.S. support, the proposal could possibly go ahead with the 60 LGFD countries.
“The Americans are extremely important in this, but we are not alone,” Reuters quoted him as saying after an LGFD meeting in Paris.
“For every 1,000 euros the tax we are suggesting will bring five cents,” Kouchner said. “It’s not a lot, but enough to get things going.”
Proponents stress the small size of the proposed 0.005 percent tax.
In a joint op-ed published in early September, Kouchner and Japanese and Belgian colleagues promoted the tax idea under the headline “Small global taxes would make a big difference for world’s ‘bottom billion.’” (Japan currently chairs the LGFD; Belgium holds the rotating E.U. presidency)
“When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,’” commented Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com and former managing editor of The New York Sun.
“But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.”
Last July U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., HIV/Aids and other health causes abroad, and global “climate change adaptation and mitigation.”
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5783), which has six co-sponsors, all Democrats, was referred to the House committees on Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs.
Is this not enough proof that the Senate needs to report to the State Legislatures - not be a NATIONAL BODY to manage the greater needs of the nation. They are to protect the States from a National oppressive government not to promote same with bad treaty approvals. . .
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
Here at last is the truth behind the C02 tax it is a gimmick by the Progressive/Marxist/Maoist/Fascist/Communist believers around the world. Al Gore is now naked and shown for the Progressive he really is. THE FINAL EVIDENCE THAT THE 17TH AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE REPEALED AND THE SENATORS BEING APPOINTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES AS THE FOUNDERS - FRAMERS - RATIFIERS DESIRED TO PROTECT THE STATES.
Home » News
Europeans Push Global Tax to Fund Poverty-Reduction, Climate Change Causes
Friday, September 17, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – A group of 60 nations will meet next week at the United Nations to push for a tax on foreign currency transactions as a way to generate revenue to meet global poverty-reduction goals, including “climate change” mitigation.
Spearheaded by European Union countries, the so-called “innovative financing” proposal envisages a tax of 0.005 percent (five cents per $1,000), which experts estimate could produce more than $30 billion a year worldwide for priority causes.
World leaders are scheduled to hold a Sept. 21-23 summit at U.N. headquarters to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight specific targets to cut poverty and disease by 2015, in line with a pledge taken by U.N. member states in 2000.
The Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development, comprising 60 countries – the United States is not a member – as well as 15 international institutions and several dozen non-governmental organizations (NGOs), sees the event as a crucial opportunity to promote the tax proposal, and it will meet on the summit sidelines next Tuesday.
“With the [MDG] deadline now five years away, we must be both clear and realistic as regards the mixed results of the progress achieved and the scale of the challenges to be met by 2015 and strongly optimistic in the international community’s ability to work together to achieve the MDGs,” the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD) said in a statement.
The summit “is a great opportunity to develop the current and potential role of innovative financing for development in the achievement of the MDGs and make the entire international community aware of the Leading Group’s recommendations.”
Leading Group
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, center, and colleagues from Belgium and Japan attend a meeting of the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development (LGFD), which is proposing a tax on foreign currency transactions to generate revenue for poverty-reduction.
Those recommendations were released over the summer by a committee of experts appointed by LGFD members to look into options for generating money for development.
In a report the experts said the proposed levy on foreign currency transactions would be paid into a dedicated Global Solidarity Fund, to be used to help meet the MDGs and for “climate change mitigation and adaptation” – that is, enabling “poorer countries to switch to a low-carbon development path.”
The LGFD says existing forms of “innovative financing” have raised almost $3 billion in extra revenue for humanitarian causes over the past four years.
One example is a tax levied on airline tickets by a handful of countries in support of UNITAID, an initiative launched in 2006 to reduce the price of drugs for priority diseases such as HIV/Aids and malaria.
‘Mixed experience’
The idea of a foreign currency transaction tax was raised in the 1970s by U.S. economist James Tobin, primarily as a way to curb excessive speculation.
As such it is sometimes known as the “Tobin tax.” (Tobin won the Nobel prize in economics in 1981, for unrelated work.)
Development NGOs have been promoting the idea of a Tobin tax – or as some have dubbed it, a “Robin Hood tax” – for years, with anti-globalization groups, aid agencies, religious organizations and environmental advocacy groups in Europe in particular throwing their weight behind it. Banking and business sectors have generally been opposed.
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a type of Tobin tax at a G20 finance ministers’ summit in Scotland last November, indicating the proceeds could be used to fund future financial bailouts.
The U.S. and Canada rejected it outright and Russia expressed skepticism.
“That’s not something that we’re prepared to support,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters in St. Andrews. “This is an idea that has been around for a long time. Many countries have a lot of experience with the design of these kinds of taxes. I think, frankly, the experience has been mixed.”
Many E.U. countries support the idea, however, and France has pledged to pursue the matter when it takes over the G20 presidency late this year.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said early this month that even without U.S. support, the proposal could possibly go ahead with the 60 LGFD countries.
“The Americans are extremely important in this, but we are not alone,” Reuters quoted him as saying after an LGFD meeting in Paris.
“For every 1,000 euros the tax we are suggesting will bring five cents,” Kouchner said. “It’s not a lot, but enough to get things going.”
Proponents stress the small size of the proposed 0.005 percent tax.
In a joint op-ed published in early September, Kouchner and Japanese and Belgian colleagues promoted the tax idea under the headline “Small global taxes would make a big difference for world’s ‘bottom billion.’” (Japan currently chairs the LGFD; Belgium holds the rotating E.U. presidency)
“When people suggest taxes, they always start out ‘small,’” commented Ira Stoll, editor of FutureCapitalism.com and former managing editor of The New York Sun.
“But once the door is opened to the idea of ‘global taxes,’ you can bet they won’t end small. Never mind all the issues about whether development aid actually helps poor countries or just winds up empowering corrupt local dictators and their cronies.”
Last July U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation calling for a 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions, which would used for child care assistance in the U.S., HIV/Aids and other health causes abroad, and global “climate change adaptation and mitigation.”
The Investing in our Future Act (H.R. 5783), which has six co-sponsors, all Democrats, was referred to the House committees on Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs.
Is this not enough proof that the Senate needs to report to the State Legislatures - not be a NATIONAL BODY to manage the greater needs of the nation. They are to protect the States from a National oppressive government not to promote same with bad treaty approvals. . .
"Green Jobs"
Green jobs are not sustainable as the environmentalist would say, because the technology is just not here yet and the cost of power is 3 to 20 times the cost of coal or nuclear. Nuclear can be reduced to under $.02 per KWH while solar is $.30 to $ .50 per KWH, and wind is in the range of $ .15 to $.20. All so-called Green power must rely on building new power distribution systems as the sites for these type plants are remote deserts, and wind corridors, both are far from the population concentration of the Mega cities the Progressives have created.
The mega cities are the providence of the failed Progressive/Socialist experiment of social justice and equality of results - people for generations have not held a job, they have been forced to live in ghettos and send their children to failed Government schools. Intercity schools now serve three meals a day to students; it is a childcare and BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT CARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION ON THE PROGRESSIVE PLANTATION. We will never change this until we force education to be a free enterprise system where business people can build and operate competing school choices.
The mega cities are the providence of the failed Progressive/Socialist experiment of social justice and equality of results - people for generations have not held a job, they have been forced to live in ghettos and send their children to failed Government schools. Intercity schools now serve three meals a day to students; it is a childcare and BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT CARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION ON THE PROGRESSIVE PLANTATION. We will never change this until we force education to be a free enterprise system where business people can build and operate competing school choices.
