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.

 

World 'Welfare Program' Tax

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
TV News reported this saying that a 'World Tax' is being reviewed
to pay for U.N. peace building expenses.

Geeeze. Just what we need. More crooked politicians with
their hands in our pockets, stealing us blind and misusing our
hard earned money. Hey ... if the U.N. handn't have been
screwing around all these years with illegal back room deals,
misuse of money and resources, and hadn't been stealing
oil for food billions and spending it on themselves, they
might actually have enough honor to get people to give
them money freely without assigning a world tax on them.

As it is .. this is just more crooked politicians looking for
money that they will eventually end up misusing or stealing.
The U.N. has shown that it can't manage the funds that it
has. Why should we give them more to mismanage?

www.bakersfield.com...

Excerpt

NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
May 26th, 2005, 6:11 PM

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. member nations debated ways Thursday to
help countries build peaceful, stable societies once conflict subsides, and
mulled over one key obstacle to getting there: a lack of cash.

Unlike U.N. peacekeeping missions, which are funded by stable, mandatory
contributions from U.N. states, peacebuilding mostly gets its funding in voluntary donations.

Funding has become particularly pressing because assessments for
peacekeeping have spiked to more than $5 billion overall in 2005 with
new missions in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Haiti and Burundi.

Nations expressed concern about how much additional financial
responsibility the member states would take on if a peacebuilding
commission is set up.

Major contributors like the United States and Japan, which pay the most to
the U.N. budget, fear the peacebuilding commission would demand much
more funding from them.

At the same time, sometimes voluntary contributions take too long to get
to societies that need them most, necessitating the need for a standing
fund that could dispense cash quickly, other ambassadors said.


[edit on 5/27/2005 by FlyersFan]




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Just a warning to the world......
if the US gets to draw up the plans for this.....well, the US and other rich countries will end up getting all kinds of tax breaks and incetives, and thus will be paying alot less, and those poor countries, and not so weathy countries, will end up paying the bulk, which will then be turned around to "help" the poor countries, and in a decade or so, there'd probably end up being much more poor countries and if you followed the money trail, you would probably find out that you would be in much better state if you had just kept you money to yourselves, and well, just gave what you could to the poorer countries through your own programs........



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
You know, I think mabye we should give up trying to gain support from some people in the world, no matter what the UN or any orginisation tries to do to help people they still get blamed because a few people done bad.....sigh......and we're the "civilised" countries ha!



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be more fair if only the countries that wage war had to pay taxes to support 'peace building efforts'?



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
How about countries pay for their own citizens well being! Wow, what a novel idea ... :shk:



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How about countries pay for their own citizens well being! Wow, what a novel idea ... :shk:

Ever heard of "lending a helping hand" ?
or is that heresey!!



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I personally think that the UN can only be effective in emergency relief operations. People can be saved by such emergency intervention.

I don't believe in "peacebuilding" via injections of cash. One reason for that is that after a "peacekeeping" mission (presumably in a civil war situation), the local govt (the winner) is likely to be a ruthless in one way or another and largely corrupt regime (kickbacks etc). Any money given to such regimes will be syphoned/embezzled/misappropriated. In the chaos of volatile peace, there is too much chance for that.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Wouldn't it be more fair if only the countries that wage
war had to pay taxes to support 'peace building efforts'?


America rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.
THEY attacked us, and yet we rebuilt them after
we won.

Idiot terrorists who trained in Afghanastan attacked
our country. We went into Afghanastan and took
out many of them. Now we are the ones paying to
bring Afghanastan ahead 800 years .. updating the
government ... getting school for girls ...

Your thought about those who wage war should pay
for peace building efforts is interesting but take a look
at WWII - those that caused the wars (Germany and
Japan) couldn't possibly pay to rebuild their own
countries let alone pay America and the Allies back
all the $$$ that we had to put into our defense.

Terrorists trained in Afghanastan with cooperation
of the old government there. There is no way that
government could have (or would have) paid billions
in damages that happened here in America.

Generally, the countries that 'wage war' against others
are countries that eventually loose and can't afford to
pay anyone anything. Except Saudi Arabia ... they are
pumping out radical fundamentalists at a steady clip
and they still have plenty of $$$ (at least until the
civil war comes which I figure should happen any time
now).



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
America rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.
THEY attacked us, and yet we rebuilt them after
we won.

Yeah, us british and the rest of the allies just sat with our fingers up our rectums...


Idiot terrorists who trained in Afghanastan attacked
our country. We went into Afghanastan and took
out many of them. Now we are the ones paying to
bring Afghanastan ahead 800 years .. updating the
government ... getting school for girls ...

America trained those idiot terrorists.

Your thought about those who wage war should pay
for peace building efforts is interesting but take a look
at WWII - those that caused the wars (Germany and
Japan) couldn't possibly pay to rebuild their own
countries let alone pay America and the Allies back
all the $$$ that we had to put into our defense.

They should pay over time...


Terrorists trained in Afghanastan with cooperation
of the old government there. There is no way that
government could have (or would have) paid billions
in damages that happened here in America.

And if the world threatned to invade them?


Generally, the countries that 'wage war' against others
are countries that eventually loose and can't afford to
pay anyone anything. Except Saudi Arabia ... they are
pumping out radical fundamentalists at a steady clip
and they still have plenty of $$$ (at least until the
civil war comes which I figure should happen any time
now).

That all depends....



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
My dream come true.....or wait a minute, that was a nightmare, ya, that's right....

Hillary as U.S. President...

Bill as head of the UN.....

and this newly formed world welfare-tax program.........

Ahhhhhhhhh!!! Run and Hide!!!!



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
oh wait that is right you will have nowhere to hide once there is a GLOBAL tax in place. You honestly think this wouldn't just be a first step? And screw this I am not paying yet another tax to pay for yet more aid money.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
No way, nobodies getting any more of my money. The third world needs to get their act together, throwing money at the problem is not the answer.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
No way, nobodies getting any more of my money. The third world needs to get their act together, throwing money at the problem is not the answer.

Yes....so I take it we shouldnt help you if you get shot in the street?
Get hurt?
No, morals are wrong.....



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ufo3
No way, nobodies getting any more of my money. The third world needs to get their act together, throwing money at the problem is not the answer.

Yes....so I take it we shouldnt help you if you get shot in the street?
Get hurt?
No, morals are wrong.....


I doubt ufo3 is commenting so much on not wanting to help people, but more on how throwing money at the situation most of it gets lost in the beurocracy.
I could donate $10 and $4 might actually get to do some good, or I could ship over some food and send the value of aid I want to send... the more middle people you throw in the more useless your money is. I don't want the UN handling my money either and I definately don't need any more taxes taken out of my checks.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The problem I have with schemes like this and the "touchy-feely feel good factor" benefit concerts, is that while we, the public pay extra tax or are badgered by endless charities to donate, our leaders, via their corporate backers, are robbing those countries blind of natural resources. They prop up the leaders and sell them arms to oppress the people and keep things safe for the outside interests, that pay kickbacks, then have the temerity to appear on tv telling us how bad things are for the people of these countries that are starving and need our help



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ever heard of "lending a helping hand" ?
or is that heresey!!


ever heard of "we dont have to" or "we got enough trouble of our own to worry about, we dont need more taxes to worry about"



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes....so I take it we shouldnt help you if you get shot in the street?
Get hurt?
No, morals are wrong.....


why? is his health your problem?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah, us british and the rest of the allies just sat with our fingers up our rectums...

America trained those idiot terrorists.


no but if it wasnt for american/canadian/australian supplies and using our factories to build weapons for you and russia and the german lack of effective amphibious tactics, you wouldve lost, hell you brits were reduced to building weapons in civilian houses at one point.

why do you all seem to confuse al queda with the mujahidin? noone trained al queda.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
so I take it we shouldnt help you if you get shot in the street?

Self responsibility. If someone is stuuuuuuuuuuuupid enough
to go walking through a gang ridden neighborhood in the middle
of the night during a gang war and they get shot ... then no,
I won't risk my life to run in and save them from their own
stupidity. It's the Darwin effect.

If, however, it is an accident that he/she tried to avoid
then yes of course help is the correct action to take.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I'd like a tax break. As a member of the country who is the largest financial contributor to the U.N., I'd just as soon not have to pay another tax to it.

It makes little sense to tax those who already are taxed for it.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join