In second term, Obama will allow UN to tax Americans

[tailfins]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/08/in-second-term-obama-will-allow-un-to-tax-americans/?intcmp=obnetwork


But here’s the shocker: He will invite the United Nations to tax Americans directly. And the proceeds would go directly to the Third World. In this way, Barack Obama will, indeed, realize the dreams of his father.

[cadet]

Will?
like hell.

[fj1200]

Do you mean by having Congress pass laws to achieve said? Because won't happen.

[red states rule]

Do you mean by having Congress pass laws to achieve said? Because won't happen.

FU the link clearly pointed out Obama will attempt to bypass Congress to get the taxes passed in a treat




They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty – not an act of Congress -- only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/08/in-second-term-obama-will-allow-un-to-tax-americans/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz291mwayh8





Always glad to educate you on the current events FU

[jimnyc]

I'm not a member of the UN and any attempt to collect monies from me would be quickly ignored. They have NO standing to collect from me. Even if Congress allowed this, which they wouldn't, I still wouldn't pay it. I'd rather do time than pay anything to the UN.

[tailfins]

I'm not a member of the UN and any attempt to collect monies from me would be quickly ignored. They have NO standing to collect from me. Even if Congress allowed this, which they wouldn't, I still wouldn't pay it. I'd rather do time than pay anything to the UN.

What if it appears as a credit card swipe fee, a loan origination fee, retirement fund transaction fee or a driver's license/car registration fee?

[fj1200]

FU the link clearly pointed out Obama will attempt to bypass Congress to get the taxes passed in a treat

Always glad to educate you on the current events FU

:facepalm99: Senate... part of Congress... Ratifies treaties... Won't happen...

Dick is going to sell a lot of books. :rolleyes:

[SassyLady]

:facepalm99: Senate... part of Congress... Ratifies treaties... Won't happen...

Dick is going to sell a lot of books. :rolleyes:

Dismissing the possibility doesn't mean it won't happen. Remember ... you have to pass it before you can know what's in it. Very clever way of pulling the wool over Congress' eyes.

[fj1200]

Dismissing the possibility doesn't mean it won't happen. Remember ... you have to pass it before you can know what's in it. Very clever way of pulling the wool over Congress' eyes.

Vigilance is always required but it won't happen because it takes 2/3 to ratify a treaty and they couldn't even get a carbon tax through a few years ago when they had larger majorities then they currently have/would have. Then you have the constitutional question of whether the full Congress would have to approve any new taxing power and the possibility of a future president just vacating the whole treaty. Also, treaties are not subject to the amendment process where we have to find out what's in it.

[SassyLady]

Vigilance is always required but it won't happen because it takes 2/3 to ratify a treaty and they couldn't even get a carbon tax through a few years ago when they had larger majorities then they currently have/would have. Then you have the constitutional question of whether the full Congress would have to approve any new taxing power and the possibility of a future president just vacating the whole treaty. Also, treaties are not subject to the amendment process where we have to find out what's in it.

I'll have to find it again, but I heard this was some type of amendment to a treaty that's already out there.

[SassyLady]

Seems the push for this is coming from our own....a Columbia professor, of course.



UN considers imposing global taxes

...........

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who also serves as an UN assistant secretary general, suggests that global excises include carbon taxes and other green-friendly initiatives in order to find a way to tackle the ever-present issue of climate change.
“We have to make a technological transition that’s quite deep to new energy systems, new transport systems, more efficient buildings and that can be back loaded,” Sachs said to the media earlier in the week at a Climate Week NYC conference in New York.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has pegged Sachs as the head of the new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and says he will be in charge of working closely with “United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations” in order to keep a catastrophic climate disaster from impacting the Earth any sooner than experts already expect.
At the Climate Week conference, Sachs said he has no problem putting global taxes on the books to clean up the planet and put future generations at ease.
“I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this,” Sachs said, according to Bloomberg News. “It doesn’t have to be current financed.”


http://rt.com/usa/news/un-global-tax-carbon-252/

[SassyLady]

I'll have to find it again, but I heard this was some type of amendment to a treaty that's already out there.

Here is the article .... really long and is about Internet Taxing.



http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/

The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.
The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

[fj1200]

Seems the push for this is coming from our own....a Columbia professor, of course.

There's always a lib pushing for this sort of thing but the Euros are the more forceful push on this. 11 Euro countries are for it (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-eurozone-idUSBRE8980UC20121009) while Geithner in particular is opposed.


Here is the article .... really long and is about Internet Taxing.

Pretty sure they can't just amend an existing treaty.

[logroller]

Pretty sure they can't just amend an existing treaty.
Don't be too sure:


The administration’s justification took an about face on March 6, 2012, when Department of State Legal Advisor Harold Koh refused to back USTR’s theory that it could enter any agreement that does not change US law (but binds Congress not to change it) without Congressional consent. Instead, Koh described ACTA as a ‘congressional-executive agreement’ that Congress approved of ex ante (my words, not his). He cited as authority for entering ACTA without further Congressional approval — “legislation explicitly calling for the Executive Branch to work with countries to enhance enforcement of intellectual property rights.” For example, he noted, the PRO IP Act (15 U.S.C. 8113(a)) “calls for the Executive Branch to develop and implement a plan aimed at ‘eliminating . . . international counterfeiting and infringement networks” and to “work[] with other countries to establish international standards and policies for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.”

http://infojustice.org/archives/9072

[fj1200]

Don't be too sure:

http://infojustice.org/archives/9072

Seems to require though...

“legislation explicitly calling for the Executive Branch to work with countries to enhance enforcement of intellectual property rights.” For example, he noted, the PRO IP Act (15 U.S.C. 8113(a)) “calls for the Executive Branch to develop and implement a plan aimed at ‘eliminating . . . international counterfeiting and infringement networks” and to “work[] with other countries to establish international standards and policies for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.”

They would have to argue that is present in the existing treaty.

[SassyLady]

Seems to require though...


They would have to argue that is present in the existing treaty.

If it isn't there, why would they even suggest that they plan to amend it?

[fj1200]

If it isn't there, why would they even suggest that they plan to amend it?

:confused: Because it's not a brand new treaty?

[red states rule]

If it isn't there, why would they even suggest that they plan to amend it?

For some reason they think taxing the decreasing number of producers will imprive the lives of the takers