originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: Azureblue
You have a very misguided understanding of both the SDGs as well as the teeth of the UN and I’d be happy to chat with you about it further. No clue
why this has become such a conspiracy thing but honestly you have severely misinterpreted some of these guidance documents. Which are, by the way,
simply ideas and have no real avenues for implementation or negative repercussions if countries choose to ignore them.
That’s not what sustainability means in the context of global development at all. You know what is unsustainable? Tax plans that lead to financial
insecurity for future generations, that’s what, and international conflicts that lead to massive loss of life and debt and sketchy business gains
for countries like China.
Well; the words of Maurice Stong I quoted are within the first 2-3 pages as i recall. If thats any way conspiritoral then one needs to look at Maurise
Strong, he wrote them.
There have been many posts on this site over the years i've here, about how 'regional land care groups have been able to give land owners 30 days
notice to hand over vacant posession of parts of their farm because some reare flora or fauna was found there. The fact the farmer OWNED the land
freehold meant nothing.
Stacks and packs are springing up in cites all over the place. Moving people into high rise flats achieves these things:
- buyers own no land. As we all know, land is wealth, thats why the rich buy it and large amounts of it.
- When we buy into a high rise we only purchase the right of occupy, the living space, nothing else.
- the building, including the walls is owned by the body corproate which is controlled and adminstered by a private company.
- high rise flats are much smaller than a house on a seperate and individual portion of land however even they are shrinking in size.
This common explanation for this is that it makes the house "more affordable." This is a ligitimate steatement most of the time however it masks the
facts thats its also consistant with Agenda 21 or 30 whatever revision it is, to take land away from great unwashed and have controlled by
Tax plans that lead to financial insecurity for future generations
Not sure who is being referenced here but when I went out to work in 1968 the corporate tax rate in my country was 60%. Today its 30% and falling.
Are we going to have a situation that in order for business to be competitive it must have a tax rate of 0%? Most of the big end of town pays only
donation levels of tax anyway due to various means of accounting.
Are we going to see corporate tax rates go below
0% whereby business gets a bonus payment from wage and salary earners for every dollar of
profit they make? Where is it going to stop? What level of tax the business community happy to pay, now and in definitely into the future?
Meanwhile corporate welfare is increasing all the time but of course the lady on the TV has not told the viewers about corroborate welfare so
therefore the viewers don't know about and therefore don't think about. One the other welfare for individuals - well we all know that's slowly being
with drawn and handed over to the corporate sector.
Tax on wages and salaries has, in my country, been reduced a few % points over the years but not cut in half like corporate taxes and we now also pay
a Goods and Services Tax of 10% on just about everything we buy. We also pay 6 cents per litre on fuel and now they are also double dipping by putting
tolls on roads.
This is an agenda 21 thing to put' inconvienince' pressure on people who live in individual homes on plots of real LAND in the suburbs, to move into
high rises in the central city. Mind you, most of them have not worked that out yet but in the fullness of time they are likely to do so.
Infringements have become a major source of income (hidden tax) for governments. Individual fines are rising far and away faster than wages and
salaries are rising. These are imposed in a way thats intended to reverse the onus of proof (not an agenda 21 or 30 item) but statistics prove they
are ineffectual as life saving attempts.
You may consider I see conspriacy in whats gone on the past and i tend to use the past as guide to the future and I dont see wages and slalaries being
cut in half any time soon.
I offer you a curtesy warning.
When others have taken me to task about the welfare system for individuals, they usually make the mistake of claiming that corproate welfare creates
edit on 21-12-2017 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)