It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is a unified North America really a dead issue?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   
We've been 'told' the TPP is a dead issue. No ink on it. No promoting it.....also, no more information on it's contents or the member Corporations.

If it's 'dead' then where's the 'obituary'? The information?

In that vein, there is one organization/corporation that draws my curiosity and concern. That entity is I.F.T.A.. The International Fuel Tax Association. I've done a little research on it, but no further than google and Wikileaks. I flat out don't have the ability to go any further on it.

Basically, it collects the state and provincial road/fuel taxes from trucking companies and distributes it to the various governments. It operates as an international organization, at least Canada and the U.S. and may have added or plans to add Mexico into it's sphere.

I cannot find anything on the amounts of monies collected. I cannot find anything on the distribution of those monies. I cannot find anything on the amount or percentile that entity retains for itself.

It is, apparently, a private Corporation. I suspect, it isn't connected to the Federal tax system and may by-pass both Federal Gov'ts, but I could be wrong on that speculation.

How is it possible? Were laws passed to create this entity? Is it even legal? Does it fit time-wise or not with NAFTA? Are there other entities that have similar 'innocuous beginnings' that fall into a similar international effort that really doesn't effect the average citizen and therefore receives no exposure?

Just how far have Corporations directly infiltrated gov't issues?

Is it possible that these efforts haven't been slowed in the slightest? It's beyond my abilities to research, as I'm a computer moron. Does anyone have any knowledge of IFTA and the like?




posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

What difference does it make. The corporations are flush with tons of cash. The CEOs just got a huge tax break on personal taxes. Corporate taxes are lower. Wealth inequality is at all time highs. We already have corporately owned prisons contracting out prison labor. The only thing left is debtor prisons with trains bringing in new prisoners.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: nwtrucker

What difference does it make. The corporations are flush with tons of cash. The CEOs just got a huge tax break on personal taxes. Corporate taxes are lower. Wealth inequality is at all time highs. We already have corporately owned prisons contracting out prison labor. The only thing left is debtor prisons with trains bringing in new prisoners.


You apathy is noted.

The CEOs received the smallest tax break on 'personal taxes' than any group that still pays personal taxes. Corporate taxes are lower to compete with foreign corporate tax rates. I don't have a problem with privatized prison systems. At least they're in the public eye, by-pass multi-generational abuse resulting in rape, murders, riots and little to no rehabilitation whatsoever due to public sector union control.

Make criminals work? Perish the thought....



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

What I'm guessing about the international fuel tax, is that if an American trucker is in Canada, and has to purchase fuel here, he or she would get a rebate on the taxes paid, or if the fuel is bought in a different state from where the trucker resides, that has excessive tax compared to their residential state, a rebate....probably other stuff in there as well, and I could be completely wrong too.....

Canada has lots of tax added to our gas prices 💸💸💸

As far as NAFTA goes, that's not going good, no agreement on anything.

And the TPP isn't dead yet, there's still countries negotiating, just not the US.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: nwtrucker

What I'm guessing about the international fuel tax, is that if an American trucker is in Canada, and has to purchase fuel here, he or she would get a rebate on the taxes paid, or if the fuel is bought in a different state from where the trucker resides, that has excessive tax compared to their residential state, a rebate....probably other stuff in there as well, and I could be completely wrong too.....

Canada has lots of tax added to our gas prices 💸💸💸

As far as NAFTA goes, that's not going good, no agreement on anything.

And the TPP isn't dead yet, there's still countries negotiating, just not the US.


Yes. If US trucks purchase fuel in Canada, the MPG is worked out based on the total miles vs gallons purchased, then if they bought more fuel than need in that province, they qualify for a rebate. ( Now if that rebate goes directly to the company or to IFTA, I'm not sure about. As the excess fuel bought in Canada would leave a shortage of fuel purchased in the US and therefore owe the US states driven in. Some don't give a rebate. California, of course, doesn't. They give you a 'credit' but no rebate...

The issue isn't the service provided by IFTA. The issue is whether this 'reasonable service' is legal or agenda driven.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

There already was a system in place prior to IFTA. The US states used what was called a 'bingo card'. Each state would supply a stamp that fitted on a card that that trucking company was registered with. One could purchase 'permits' for either one way trips or for multiple days, if not directly registered. Canada had it's own system that worked as well.

Yes, IFTA provides a service that standardizes and simplifies. Valid.

The problem is no information on how it came about, nothing on monies or it disbursement whatsoever. A private corporation, working internationally with gov'ts.

Curiouser and curiouser....



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, I must assume that you checked out their about us page on their website, right?

I mean, as far as it being a private or a public entity, it would seem that since it is an incorporated business, it is a private entity. It sounds like it's an optional thing, not mandated by any government, as Alaska and Hawaii don't participate, nor do the Canadian Territories.

I do agree that it seems rather difficult to find specific information on the actual association, but this is a blurb from the above linked site:

The International Fuel Tax Association, Inc., more commonly known as IFTA, Inc., is an Arizona not-for-profit corporation formed to manage and administer the International Fuel Tax Agreement. Our Mission Statement is: "To foster trust and cooperation among the jurisdictions through efficient and effective planning and coordination and oversight of activities necessary to administer the International Fuel Tax Agreement for the betterment of the members and our partners." To accomplish the Mission Statement, IFTA, Inc.'s staff works closely with our member jurisdictions and partners on a day-to-day basis.

With it being a not-for-profit corporation, it seems as though you should be able to have access to their annual reports somehow to see how they're spending the money, but I'm uncertain as to how public that stuff really is.

Actually, it seems to have their annual reports on their website. They don't seem to be broken down very well, but at least it's something.

My point being, this doesn't seem to be a "gov't issue" as much as a not-for-profit private corporation that saw a need (simplify a rather costly process for states and provinces) and filled that need by getting states and provinces to sign up under their agreement.

In short, it appears that this is a inter-state and inter-province agreement with a private company, and the government has nothing to do with it directly.

ETA: It appears that you already know all of this, as you state that it's a private company working with governments. I'm not sure what your concern over all of it actually is. Take H&R Block for instance--they work directly with the federal and state governments on behalf of people to simplify tax payment/reimbursement, and they do it in all states as a private company.

So, I guess my question is, what is your main concern? Is it because states and provinces signed agreements to use a service from a private entity? Governments do that all of the time.
edit on 3-1-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I did see their annual report. As you say, not a clear indication of disbursements. To be fair, that could be at the behest of individual states and provinces, though.(Let's face it, the states and provinces, as well I assume, use those funds for other than infrastructure development and repair and is a political embarrassment if exposed.)

Hey, I could very well be over-reacting on this. Still, a 'non-profit' corporation? Envision the logistics of dealing with 50 states and 10 provinces to even set this up. (I knew about the exceptions of Alaska, and the territories. No interstate/federal highways in Alaska-even Hawaii has Federal highways.)

The example of H&R Block and the other guy citing privatized prisons isn't international or multi-government in nature.

Watching how things start and either 'evolve' or have an agenda not exposed- the U.N. was never intended as a world government, for example- just made me suspicious. I can't buy this altruistic 'non-profit'. Dealing with that many gov'ts must have cost a fortune, Someone coughed up the shekels. Somebody is making out well with this, be it a bank, perhaps?

My 'BS meter' is pinging in the red. Could be wrong , though.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Watching how things start and either 'evolve' or have an agenda not exposed- the U.N. was never intended as a world government, for example- just made me suspicious.

By all means, be suspicious--it's apathy that causes people not to research suspicions, so you're doing the right thing.


I can't buy this altruistic 'non-profit'. Dealing with that many gov'ts must have cost a fortune, Someone coughed up the shekels. Somebody is making out well with this, be it a bank, perhaps?

My 'BS meter' is pinging in the red. Could be wrong , though.

Well, to be fair, there are slight differences in a "not-for-profit" company, as this claims to be, versus a "non-profit" company:

The main defense in not-for-profit vs. non-profit is the manner in which the organizations exists. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, the distinction in not-for-profit vs. non-profit could be in its membership.

Non-profits may have employees that get paid a salary, but that salary is not contingent on the fundraising efforts of that company. There may also be volunteers at the non-profit, but they fail to benefit from the income of the company.

However, not-for-profit organizations may include a membership roster which does directly benefit from the income of the organization. For example, an organization that has fund drives to send children to a destination would likely be a not-for-profit if the children were the ones that took part in the fundraising efforts, such as selling candy to raise funds.

link

Not a huge difference, but it does seem like something that, really, is less exploitable that employees of a non-profit, but that may just be my naiveté shining through. Again, though, you're always correct in employing the trust-but-verify method, especially when it directly affects you personally.
edit on 3-1-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join