Global Tax This, Pal

We didn't really need too many more reasons to start thinking about letting ourselves out of the UN--that expensive hell of a bureaucracy that never actually accomplishes anything, never takes decisive action, and never lived up to its potential; that organization that is happy to have the representatives of dictators and murderers chairing the "human rights" commission. The collection of petty politicians more bent on talking than on stopping the genocide in the Sudan and too weak to support its own resolutions against Iraq is giving us another great reason to waive goodbye, though.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term "redistribution." Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.

I have an antagonistic feeling toward my own government taxing me, but the idea of submitting to taxation from an international body is just unconscionable. At least with my own government, I can make the claim that the taxation comes with fair representation--UN taxation would be at the hands of nations that have regularly proven themselves unfriendly to American goals and needs.

What are some of the ideas for that tax? Here's one in specific:

International air transport tax. Under this scheme, a new tax would be levied on all international cargo and passenger flights to be paid by airlines. Supporters say "air transport of passengers and cargo [is] a key source of environmental pollution due to emissions and noise." This tax, they believe, would force the airlines (ultimately, their passengers and shippers) to pay for polluting the skies while providing money to the United Nations. According to one estimate, an international transport tax would generate $2.2 billion per year. Though supporters concede that the tax would have a harmful effect on tourism and the world economy at-large, the benefits to the environment and the cash it would generate, outweigh those negative consequences, they say. They don’t address the proposal’s inherent contradiction. Namely, that by increasing the cost of international air transport, whether of goods or passengers, this tax proposal discourages the kind of globalization that the tax is meant to spur.

The UN is increasingly opposed to the ideals that drive our nation and are poised to make a move that is properly the domain of a national government. We regularly impose foolish taxes on ourselves, but, compared with much of the rest of the world, American tax policy seems positively restrained. That doesn't mean we should settle back and be happy with our position as the relatively sane country in the developed nations, but it does mean that it would be foolish to allow the UN to impose poor policy on us.

And make no mistake, the tax burdens proposed will hit the United States far more than other nations. Any consumption tax--whether it be on email, fossil fuel tax, or on air travel--will target Americans over other nations simply because of the strength and nature of our economy.

But, if the goal is a socialist re-distribution of wealth, then a consumption tax of the kinds proposed by the UN will do their job well. Money will flow out of the United States and into the hands of those kleptocrats around the world who helped impose those taxes on us.

The UN is an organization that manages to both overstep its charter on issues like this while it avoids living up to the core purpose of its charter on issues like genocide in Sudan. The mark of the best bureaucrat is the capacity to avoid responsibility while constantly increasing funding. There are no better bureaucrats in the world than those who run the UN.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at August 16, 2004 10:42 AM | TrackBack