LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum

LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1)
...

 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES - (PARTIE 2) P.1

 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> ORGANISATION DES NATIONS-UNIES/UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION -> TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES (PARTIE 2)
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 30 Juil - 14:46 (2011)    Sujet du message: TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES - (PARTIE 2) P.1 Répondre en citant


 Posté le 18/04/2007 21:05:20
DES TAXES GLOBALES POUR LE VIVANT 
UNE AUTRE MANIÈRE DE VOLER LES POPULATIONS

Par Aurélie Trouvé et Jean-Marie Harribey, Co-présidents
d’ATTAC France.

L’altermondialisme se trouve à un tournant : celui qui mène de la critique du capitalisme néolibéral à l’élaboration de  propositions alternatives, à laquelle participent maintenant tous les continents, dont l’Afrique qui vient  d’accueillir à Nairobi le 7e Forum social mondial.

Face à la marchandisation accélérée de la société, l’enjeu  du XXIe siècle est d’assurer à tous les êtres humains l’accès aux biens publics mondiaux, appelés aussi biens communs de l’humanité, dont il faut affirmer le caractère   inaliénable : notamment les connaissances, le climat, l’eau  et toutes les ressources vitales. Mais, pour que ces biens soient produits ou protégés, des financements publics sont indispensables. C’est à cet impératif qu’entend répondre la  proposition de «taxes globales pour le vivant». Globales  parce qu’elles ont vocation à s’appliquer dans le monde  entier et à un grand nombre de sujets. Pour le vivant parce  qu’elles portent sur les éléments essentiels à la  perpétuation de la vie et à l’obtention d’une vie digne pour tous, en termes de droits fondamentaux à l’éducation, à la santé et au logement.

L’idée de ces taxes progresse. Leur principe a été reconnu  dans le rapport remis par Jean-Pierre Landau au Président  de la République française en 2004 et a reçu un modeste  début d’application avec une taxe sur les billets d’avion,  destinée à financer la « Facilité internationale d’achat de  médicaments». Lors de l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies de 2004, 111 chefs d’Etats ont adopté le Rapport dit «quadripartite» calqué sur le Rapport Landau. Plus généralement, le principe de taxes globales peut être  étendu dans au moins quatre directions.

En premier lieu, une taxe sur l’ensemble des transactions  financières. Sur les transactions de change d’abord : une  taxe à taux faible (la célèbre taxe Tobin) en période calme  et à taux très élevé pour décourager toute spéculation dès  les premiers signes d’emballement de celle-ci (taxe dite  Spahn, du nom de son inventeur). Et aussi sur les échanges  de titres financiers (actions, obligations et produits dérivés) dont les cours grimpent d’autant plus que, dans le système productif, le travail est davantage pressuré. Ce type de taxe avait déjà été imaginé par Keynes sous le nom  d’impôt de Bourse pour limiter la pression exercée par les rentiers de la finance, car le contrôle des mouvements de capitaux est une condition de la maîtrise des politiques monétaires.

En deuxième lieu, un impôt unique mondial sur les bénéfices consolidés des sociétés. Aujourd’hui, les firmes  multinationales peuvent déclarer des bénéfices importants dans les pays où ils sont peu ou pas imposés et des pertes  ou de faibles bénéfices là où ils sont davantage imposés. Un tel impôt ferait fondre les principaux avantages du  dumping fiscal, lié à l’existence des paradis fiscaux et  des zones off shore.

En troisième lieu, un impôt égal sur les revenus du travail  et ceux du capital. Les inégalités, au Nord comme au Sud de  la planète, sont devenues insupportables. Deux mesures pourraient les atténuer fortement : une limitation des  écarts de revenus versés dans les entreprises dans une  fourchette de 1 à 5, assortie d’une progressivité de l’impôt sur le revenu avec une tranche supérieure au taux  de 100% ; et l’instauration d’un salaire minimum dans tous  les pays, progressant au rythme de la productivité.

En quatrième lieu, une taxe sur le carbone. Les  conséquences du réchauffement climatique ne pourront être circonscrites avec le marché des permis d’émission de gaz à effet de serre qui est incapable d’atteindre les objectifs  même limités du Protocole de Kyoto. Il faut donc rendre les normes plus sévères et imposer le carbone émis. On mettrait ainsi les pays riches en face de leurs responsabilités, de telle sorte qu’une certaine équité soit rétablie vis-à-vis des pays en développement qui seraient appelés dans  l’avenir à s’intégrer dans la régulation climatique  internationale. Enfin, dans l’attente d’une reconversion de la politique énergétique, une taxe sur les déchets  nucléaires est nécessaire.

Quelle est la cohérence de ces taxes globales pour le vivant ? Elles unifient les propositions d’alternatives au  capitalisme néolibéral en portant le fer en son cœur même : le droit pour le capital de circuler partout et ainsi de  s’approprier, en les marchandisant de plus en plus, le  travail et l’ensemble du vivant, sources de la richesse. De la naissance du mouvement ouvrier au XIXe siècle à  l’altermondialisme luttant contre le capitalisme total au  XXIe, l’intuition est la même : l’émancipation humaine est  possible. Mais, depuis Marx, premier analyste de la  mondialisation, la lutte pour l’émancipation s’est élargie  car on a pris conscience que les dominations sont multiples (du capital sur le travail, du Nord sur le Sud, des hommes  sur les femmes) et elle a changé de dimension car la crise  écologique menace la survie de notre espèce.

Comment s’y prendre pour refonder, dans toutes les sphères  de la société, la démocratie, seule capable de conduire une  véritable transformation sociale ? Le Manifeste  altermondialiste que publie ATTAC (Editons Mille et une  nuits, 2007) avance une centaine de propositions concrètes  pour «scier les piliers du néolibéralisme» et «construire un monde solidaire, écologique et démocratique»  en France, en Europe et dans le monde. Les taxes globales  pour le vivant en sont une partie essentielle pour changer  le cours des choses et en réunir les moyens. La marchandisation du monde n’est pas une fatalité.

* Cet article est paru dans Libération le 15 février 2007.  Libération a malencontreusement changé le titre et choisi :  «Un impôt global sur le vivant». Un contresens a été  introduit en remplaçant «pour» par «sur».  Libération a publié un rectificatif.


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 09/05/2007 07:52:01
A CONSUMER GAS WAR THAT CAN WORK-READ THIS!  
[Editor's Note: This essay was forwarded to me by Wayne Everett <hairyjuan5@hotmail.com>. After reading it, I have to agree: this idea will cause gas pump prices to come down!   The strategy is simple: from now (May 2007) until the end of 2007, simply avoid buying your gasoline from Exxon or Mobil. That's it! Avoid buying gas from those two companies -no matter what. Even if they lower gas prices a bit, keep up the pressure: No business at Exxon or Mobil gas stations for the balance of 2007. Here in southern California, the price of gas is now around $3.60 per gallon. It may hit $4 per gallon this Summer. 
I heard  a radio interview  with Lindsey Williams (http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html) last year in which he recalled that he sat in on oil company board meetings in Alaska in the early 1970's when they laid out their plans to raise gasoline prices to $5 per gallon around 2007 or 2008. American oil company executives laid out their intentions to raise gas prices to $5 per gallon in the United States over 35 years ago! These people are the greatest robber barons we have encountered in modern history and they need to be stopped. 

Distribute this as an e-mail to everyone on you mailing list and simply repeat the mantra: "no gas from Exxon or Mobil[/i]".This strategy can work and will work if enough people join in the effort from coast to coast...Ken]

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/consumergaswar04may07.shtml 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 09/05/2007 08:19:52
DO WE NEED MONEY? 
   Why yes of course, money is needed to further enrich the rich and impoverish the poor.  If there were no money, there would be no rich nogoodnicks (also called "the elite" tongue in cheek) and no poor victims (also called "citizens" tongue in the other cheek).  Worse yet, there would be no genocidal plutocracy, no depopulation...  only happiness everywhere:  in other words, a disaster for the wealthy few.
   But of course, money is needed as long as governments exist. Why?  Because MONEY  means TAXES and taxes are the best way by which plutocratic governments steal the little money the ordinary people have.  After all, these taxes are needed to build the fabulous wealth and power of the ruling plutocracy.  As to the poor victims, these are GUILTY of not  changing the way it is into the way it should be:  That is to say,  of having refused to listen to the 1789 call:  AUX ARMES, CITOYENS !

Come to think of it, here is what Michael <mjdx2@sbcglobal.net> had to say on the matter,  on April 16th 2007, 16:22, under the title of TAXES:

What Happened? 
At first I thought this was funny...then I realized
the awful truth of it. 
Be sure to read all the way to the end!

Tax his land, 
Tax his bed, 
Tax the table
At which he's fed. 

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule, 
Teach him taxes
Are the rule. 

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat, 
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat. 

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt, 
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt. 

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink, 
Tax him if he
Tries to think. 

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers, 
If he cries, then
Tax his tears. 

Tax his car,
Tax his gas, 
Find other ways
To tax his ass 

Tax all he has
Then let him know 
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax. 

Accounts Receivable Tax 
Building Permit Tax 
CDL license Tax 
Cigarette Tax 
Corporate Income Tax 
Dog License Tax 
Federal Income Tax 
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) 
Fishing License Tax 
Food License Tax, 
Fuel permit tax 
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon) 
Hunting License Tax 
Inheritance Tax 
Interest expense 
Inventory tax 
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) 
Liquor Tax 
Luxury Taxes 
Marriage License Tax 
Medicare Tax 
Property Tax 
Real Estate Tax 
Service charge taxes 
Social Security Tax 
Road usage taxes 
Sales Tax 
Recreational Vehicle Tax 
School Tax 
State Income Tax 
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) 
Telephone federal excise tax 
Telephone federal universal service fee tax 
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes 
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax 
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax 
Telephone state and local tax 
Telephone usage charge tax 
Utility Taxes 
Vehicle License Registration Tax 
Vehicle Sales Tax 
Watercraft registration Tax 
Well Permit Tax 
Workers Compensation Tax 

***************************

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class 
in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. 
What happened?
And NOW I have to "press 1" for English?


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 04/09/2007 16:48:22
THE GLOBAL WARMING TAX SCAM KICKS IN  
Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, September 4, 2007  

The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more. 

The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."

The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance. 

The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues. 

In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. 

UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years. 

"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot." 

If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything. 

A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."

Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.

Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes. 

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.” 

Remember that these studies encompass two year old figures and naturally do not even take into account newly proposed "carbon taxes" which would see a sky rocketing in costs sought by the Treasury. 

In recent months we have seen proposals in the UK and the US to impose steep new taxes that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal even at a time when the cost of energy is already through the roof. 

Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring. 

We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals. 

Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles. 

There is also actual discussion of imposing a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe! 

Meanwhile less than half of all published scientists endorse the theory that human activity constitutes a significant contribution to climate change, hardly a "consensus" as the UN appointed panel on climate change calls it. 

The climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of man-made global warming. 

If the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is? 

Because governments throughout the world love convincing people that they are in danger and that they can only be saved by letting them take control. Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government, more corporate monopoly, less sovereignty and less free market economy.

The global warming tax scam has kicked in. There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and there's peasants to flog.

Eco-fanatics and power-hungry elitists have taken total control of the global warming bandwagon. Before they choke the life out of modern industrialized civilization by eliminating the source of 80% of the planet's energy, and in the face of fierce silencing techniques, it is vital to further understand why scientific evidence is not on the side of the theory of human-caused warming. 

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype. 

http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/040907Tax.htm 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 02/10/2007 14:36:58
DEMOCRATS PROPOSE U.S. INCOME TAX SURCHARGE TO PAY FOR IRAQ WAR 
The Associated PressPublished: October 2, 2007
WASHINGTON: Three senior House Democrats, seeking to highlight the costs of the Iraq war, proposed a U.S. income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion (€105.8 billion) spent annually on operations in Iraq.

The plan's sponsors acknowledged the tax measure is unlikely to pass, but Democrats have been seeking in recent weeks to contrast the approximately $190 billion (€134.1 billion) cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the $23 billion (€16.2 billion) increase that Democrats want in domestic programs.

President George W. Bush has threatened to veto most of those domestic spending bills as too expensive. Those bills were largely written by committees headed by two of the tax legislation's sponsors.

The Democrats' second-ranking official in the House of Representatives, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, played down the initiative as "not a policy which the Speaker or I have signed off on," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, John Murtha and Jim McGovern would require low-and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.

Obey, who heads the House Appropriations Committee, also announced that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, when Democrats hope public pressure could force Bush to change the course of the war.

Democrats hope their chances of winning a battle with Bush on the war will be better next year as the election season heats up.

"The showdown is going to be in January or February," McGovern said.

The lawmakers said the tax surcharge was similar to policies put in place to pay for the Vietnam War and World War II.

"By putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility," Obey said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Tax.php   


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 09/01/2008 21:10:30
 
LA TAXATION CONTRE LA POLLUTION

Le mardi 08 janvier 2008 
Archives La Presse
Gilles Toupin
La Presse
Ottawa

L'acronyme est imprononçable. Mais les recommandations de la TRNEE, elles, sont on ne peut plus claires: pour réduire ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre, le Canada doit imposer une taxe sur le carbone. Pas question, a répondu hier le ministre de l'Environnement. À défaut de la taxe verte proposée par la Table ronde nationale sur l'environnement et l'économie, l'idée d'une Bourse du carbone semble en revanche faire son chemin.

Il n'y a pas 56 façons de lutter contre les changements climatiques, affirme un groupe consultatif sur l'environnement: le gouvernement fédéral doit au plus vite imposer une taxe sur le carbone s'il veut parvenir à atteindre ses objectifs de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 65% d'ici 2050.

La Table ronde nationale sur l'environnement et l'économie (TRNEE), mandatée par Ottawa à l'automne 2006 pour trouver le meilleur moyen de réduire les émissions de GES à un coût économique raisonnable, soutient qu'il faut envoyer un «signal clair» à l'économie canadienne en s'appuyant sur les mécanismes du marché et en créant une taxe sur les émissions de carbone qui forcera les grands pollueurs à changer leur comportement.

Cette recommandation est contenue dans un rapport publié hier par la TRNEE et intitulé D'ici 2050: la transition du Canada vers un avenir à faible taux d'émissions. Une taxe sur les émissions de GES impose un coût sur chaque unité de CO2 émise par une source. La Table ronde recommande aussi la création d'un système de quotas d'émissions et d'échange de crédits d'émissions (ou Bourse du carbone) qui pourrait éventuellement être combiné à la taxe sur le carbone.

«Une politique de marché qui impose un prix au carbone, a affirmé hier en conférence de presse le président de la TRNEE, Glen Murray, est la manière la plus efficace de réaliser de profondes et durables réductions de GES à une aussi grande échelle.»

Cette idée d'une taxe sur le carbone n'est cependant pas dans les plans du gouvernement Harper. Le premier ministre conservateur a toujours maintenu qu'il n'adoptera jamais une telle politique, estimant qu'elle rappelait trop la Nouvelle Politique énergétique de Pierre Trudeau qui était des plus défavorables à l'Ouest canadien, là où se trouve la base électorale de M. Harper. On se souvient d'ailleurs que le plan conservateur de réduction des émissions de GES, rendu public au printemps dernier, excluait toute taxe sur le carbone.

Le rapport de la TRNEE dit en gros que le Canada doit agir rapidement et avec énergie pour parvenir à des réductions de GES absolues. Il souligne que cet objectif est réalisable sur le plan de la technologie et que toute inaction à ce chapitre va créer un tort irréparable à l'économie canadienne.

«Des retards dans l'adoption de cette approche fondée sur les lois du marché et dans la mise en route d'une taxe sur le carbone, a insisté Glen Murray, entraîneront avec eux des risques environnementaux et économiques qui prendront la forme d'émissions cumulatives de GES dans l'atmosphère.»

Le rapport met en garde également contre les coûts «extrêmement coûteux» ou «hors de portée» qui seront inévitablement associés à la réduction des émissions de GES si le gouvernement décide de tarder à mettre en oeuvre une politique agressive. Reporter une initiative de réduction, soutient la TRNEE, entraînera des coûts économiques plus élevés. «Les scénarios de notre recherche, indique le rapport, établissent que si l'on veut réduire les émissions de GES de 65% d'ici 2050 par rapport aux niveaux actuels, il faut absolument avoir réalisé des réductions d'émissions d'au moins 20% en 2020.»

Tout cela est faisable, affirme la Table ronde nationale, puisque les technologies existantes de réduction des émissions de GES sont suffisantes pour atteindre les cibles de réduction. Mais il faudra aussi d'autres mesures «afin de faciliter et d'accélérer le déploiement technologique».

Le rapport recommande aussi l'adoption par le gouvernement d'une approche intégrée de la lutte contre les changements climatiques et la pollution atmosphérique. Beaucoup de sources de GES produisent aussi des polluants atmosphériques. Il faut donc, affirme le document, un cadre stratégique pour lutter contre cette pollution et améliorer la qualité de l'air.

Le rapport ne se veut en aucune façon une critique ou une évaluation du plan gouvernemental de lutte contre les changements climatiques, a tenu à préciser hier Glen Murray. «Ce n'était pas notre propos, a-t-il dit. Ce qu'il propose, c'est un cadre de transition de l'approche actuelle à une vision à long terme d'importantes réductions de GES et de polluants atmosphériques à partir des cibles établies par le gouvernement du Canada.»

Enfin, même si la Table ronde recommande une taxe sur le carbone, elle s'abstient d'en recommander le prix. L'étude du groupe consultatif s'est contentée de suggérer les prix de cette taxe selon divers scénarios analysés.

Rôle indépendantCréée en octobre 1988 par le gouvernement fédéral, la TRNEE a un rôle indépendant de conseiller du gouvernement fédéral. Elle est composée d'importants hommes d'affaires, d'universitaires, de syndicalistes, d'autochtones et d'environnementalistes. Son mandat est de suggérer au gouvernement des moyens «de concilier des intérêts bien souvent opposés en matière de prospérité économique et de conservation environnementale». Le gouvernement n'est pas lié par les suggestions de la Table ronde.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080108/CPACTUALITES/801080634/1019/CPAC… 




 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 17/01/2008 19:25:19
WINDFALL TAX 
Pelosi Wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. 
You aren't going to believe this.  Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds!  Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities! 

Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening.  " We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." 

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied : "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'." 

Send it on to your friends. I just did! 

Jan Parker <janoparker@charter.net> 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 23/02/2008 08:26:53
AIM SAYS MEDIA COVER-UP OBAMS'S SOCIALIST-ORIENTED GLOBAL TAX BILL (S.2433) - (H.R. 1302) 
H.R. 1302: Global Poverty Act of 2007 
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1302 

Press Release  |  February 13, 2008 
WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 -- Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.

In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.  It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.

The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

http://www.aim.org/press-release/aim-says-media-cover-up-obamas-socialist-o… 

AUTRES INFORMATIONS SUR LE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT
http://www.borgenproject.org/globalpovertyact.html 

--Message edité par maria le 2008-02-23 08:33:13-- 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 24/02/2008 12:23:15
B.C. INTRODUCES CARBON TAX 
Canada to be a testing ground for global tax 
James Corbett
The Corbett Report 
February 21, 2008  
  
The government of British Columbia revealed a new budget yesterday that incorporates a tax on all carbon-based fuels of $10/tonne of greenhouse gas generated. This applies to everything from the gasoline in cars to the natural gas used to heat homes. The tax is scheduled to take effect July 1st and it is estimated that this will add 2.4 cents to every litre of gasoline. That figure will rise as the tax triples to $30/tonne in 2012.

Read more :

   http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080221_bc_carbon_tax.htm 

--Message edité par maria le 2008-02-24 12:24:10-- 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 25/02/2008 07:50:16
 
David Suzuki
CARBON TAX COULD GENERATE $50B A YEAR: SUZUKI

Updated Mon. Feb. 25 2008 10:59 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

The David Suzuki Foundation has released a report extolling the virtues of a federal carbon tax as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"Millions of Canadians are taking steps each day to conserve energy, whether by taking public transit, changing their light bulbs or turning down their thermostat. These Canadians should be rewarded," David Suzuki said in a news release issued Monday.

"Meanwhile, carbon-intensive industries and activities severely damage our climate at no charge to the polluter." A carbon tax makes the polluter pay, he said.

The report claims that such a tax or carbon trading system could:

Dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions; 
Protect the environment; and 
Generate revenue of at least $50 billion annually by 2020
Those revenues could be used to cut personal income taxes or invest in green innovations, it said.

"Up to 50 per cent of our income tax could be relieved through these carbon taxes," Suzuki, in Ottawa, told Canada AM.

The report comes on the eve of a federal budget and after B.C. tabled its provincial budget, introducing a ground-breaking carbon tax in the process. Quebec has also moved to tax carbon.

Federal Environment Minister John Baird has said the federal government will not be introducing a carbon tax and will instead rely on a regulatory approach.

Helter-skelter regulation

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also said he would leave it up to the provinces to decide what policies they wish to follow.

Alberta, Canada's carbon energy capital, plans to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050. British Columbia wants to cut its emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020.

The feds have set a 20 per cent cut by 2020 -- but using 2006 as a baseline, not the 1990 of the Kyoto Protocol. The 20 per cent by 2020 figure is estimated to be a two per cent cut below 1990 levels. Kyoto set a target of a six per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2012.

Suzuki told Canada AM that the federal approach will lead to a "helter skelter" approach to regulating emissions. 

"What you'll find is that the corporate sector will then begin to play the provinces off on each other to try to find the best deal," he said. "I think everyone would agree it's best if we have a level playing field across the country."

Suzuki said a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to cut carbon emissions. "That's the long-term hope, is to get our emissions down. And this is an effective way of doing it," he said.

Norway has had a carbon tax since 1991, and virtually every European Union country has some form of carbon tax, he noted.

"The interesting thing is no country that has instituted a carbon tax has ever gone back and said, 'oh, that was a mistake,'" Suzuki said.

The opposition Conservatives in Britain have vowed to raise the carbon tax there, he said.

Simon Fraser University economist Marc Jaccard helped write the report.

He has been a long-time advocate of a carbon tax and co-authored a 2007 book with Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson entitled "Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge."

AUTRES NOUVELLES SUR LE SUJET : 

Selling carbon tax similar to anti-smoking campaigns: experts 
Ontario won't create carbon tax: McGuinty 
Will a carbon tax change your lifestyle? 
Feds won't follow B.C. lead on carbon tax: Baird 
Carbon tax part of new 'green' budget 
Flaherty urges common greenhouse gas regulations 
Advisory panel recommends carbon tax for Canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080225/carbon_suzuki_… 



 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 03/03/2008 12:36:58
NANCY PELOSI WANTS WINDFALL TAX ON RETIREMENT INCOME - TEACHERS WAKE UP!!  
Posted By: AlexanderofBarnhart
Date: Wednesday, 27 February 2008, 3:57 p.m. 

So what is Nancy Pelosi saying that is NOT getting covered by the ever so silent mainstream press???? 

Anyone who understands a fiat monetary system, our system, knows that most retirement funds lose real value and are not exactly what a person hopes for at the end of their work life. Some are, and those typically go to people in the public sector. We contribute greatly to those through a myriad of taxes. 

Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the 
Speaker of the House is saying. Read below............... 

Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this. 

Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401Ks and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Milli on Illegal Immigrants and other unemploy ed Minorities! 

Boy, are we in trouble... This woman is frightening. She quotes..." We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest." 

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'."


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 22/05/2009 21:54:59
URGENT ! TAXES PSEUDO-ECOLOGIQUES ET DEPOPULATION : BILDERBERG 2009 : JOHN KERRY AURAIT ETE PRESENT AU MEETING, AFIN D’AIDER A METTRE EN PLACE UNE TAXE SUR LE CO2 QUE NOUS EXHALONS !!!  
ENGLISH : John Kerry At Bilderberg 2009? 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/john-kerry-at-bilderberg-2009.html 

Chers amis, 
NOUS APPRENONS VIA L’ARTICLE CI-DESSOUS QUE JOHN KERRY (UN AUTRE HORRIBLE MEMBRE DE L’ELITE MONDIALE) AURAIT PARTICIPE A BILDERBERG 2009, LE TOUT EN VIOLATION AVEC LE LOGAN ACT (CE QUI, EN PRINCIPE, LUI VAUDRAIT DE LA PRISON SI CELA VENAIT A ETRE DEMONTRE) !   

SON ROLE ?  DEFENDRE ET METTRE EN PLACE UN PROJET CRAPULEUX QUI EST CHER DEPUIS DES ANNEES AUX YEUX DES CHAROGNES DE BILDERBERG : L’ETABLISSEMENT D’UNE TAXE SUR LE CARBONE, ET PLUS PRECISEMENT SUR LE CO2 QUE NOUS EXHALONS !!!     

NOTEZ BIEN QUE LE DEBUT D'APPLICATION DE CE GENRE DE TAXE N'EST PAS POUR DANS 2 ANS NI DANS 10 ANS, MAIS EST BIEN POUR... L'ANNEE PROCHAINE !      

CE PROJET ABOMINABLE RAPPORTERAIT UNE FORTUNE INIMAGINABLE A L’ELITE, ET METTRAIT EVENTUELLEMENT LA VIE D’INNOMBRABLES PERSONNES EN DANGER (A PARTIR DU MOMENT OU UNE PERSONNE QUI EXHALE DU CO2 NE SAURAIT PAS PAYER CETTE TAXE, LE RISQUE SERAIT EVENTUELLEMENT QU’ON L’ELIMINE AU NOM DE « L’ECOLOGIE ») !    
Nous voyons donc que l’élite mondiale exploite la peur liée au réchauffement de la planète afin d’asseoir son autorité, de réprimer et criminaliser les individus, et afin de permettre la dépopulation criminelle !!!    

Le futur tel qu’il est prévu par ces charognes consiste donc même à nous taxer sur l’air que nous respirons !    

Une fois de plus, nous voyons que la Révolution a intérêt à surgir, sans quoi les atrocités les plus inhumaines seront commises au profit de l’élite, et au détriment des populations !  

Le terrible article traduit pour vous en français, ci-dessous… 

BONNE REVOLUTION… OU BON ESCLAVAGE, BONNE DICTATURE ET BONNE MORT !  Vic.

JOHN KERRY AU MEETING BILDERBERG 2009 ? 

Le sénateur va jouer un rôle clé dans la promotion de la taxe sur le carbone au cours de la prochaine année
Paul Joseph Watson 
Prison Planet.com 
Mardi 19 mai 2009 

LA RUMEUR DIT QUE L’ANCIEN CANDIDAT A LA PRESIDENCE ET ACTUEL SENATEUR AMERICAIN, JOHN KERRY, A ASSISTE A LA CONFERENCE BILDERBERG 2009 EN DEPIT DE NE PAS AVOIR FIGURE SUR LA LISTE DES INVITES OFFICIELS, ce qui suggère qu'il va jouer un rôle important dans une législation rendue obligatoire par les mondialistes, comme les TAXES SUR LE CARBONE CENSEES ETRE ADOPTEES AU COURS DE LA PROCHAINE ANNEE. 

SI KERRY ETAIT PRESENT LORS DE CETTE RENCONTRE DE L'ELITE AU NAFSIKA ASTIR PALACE HOTEL A VOULIAGMENI, EN GRECE, ALORS IL ETAIT EN INFRACTION AVEC LA LOI FEDERALE SOUS LA FORME DU LOGAN ACT (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act ), qui interdit à des citoyens américains de s'engager dans des négociations avec des gouvernements étrangers sans autorisation expresse. LA VIOLATION DU LOGAN ACT EST UN CRIME, PUNISSABLE D'EMPRISONNEMENT JUSQU’A TROIS ANS EN VERTU DE LA LOI FEDERALE. 

La liste des invités, qui a fuit, est déjà disponible, et le nom de Kerry n'y figure pas, mais Bilderberg omet régulièrement les principaux participants sur sa liste officielle. 

Dans un article intitulé « Où dans le monde se trouve le sénateur Kerry ? », le site web Foreign Policy.com (cf. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/18/where_in_the_world_is_sen_kerry ) note que "LE SENATEUR JOHN KERRY (Démocrate du Massachusetts), président du Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Commission sénatoriale des affaires étrangères), EST PARTI EN VOYAGE A L'ETRANGER DEPUIS VENDREDI", ajoutant que les employés de la Colline du Capitole pensaient les détails du voyage « semblaient anormalement secrets ». 

Kerry a assisté au Forum économique mondial, ainsi qu’à une réunion préparatoire à Rome en anticipation des NEGOCIATIONS SUR LE CHANGEMENT CLIMATIQUE qui doivent se tenir à la fin de l'année, LESQUELLES SERONT UTILISEES POUR POUSSER UNE PARTIE INTEGRANTE DE L'AGENDA MONDIALISTE : LA TAXE SUR LE CARBONE. 

Kerry a joué un rôle central (cf. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45330 ) dans la défense de la PROPOSITION DITE DE PLAFONNEMENT ET D'ECHANGE (CAP-AND-TRADE PROPOSAL) DE L'ADMINISTRATION OBAMA, QUI SERA L’ENTREE POUR UNE TAXE SUR LE GAZ VITAL QUE TOUS LES HUMAINS EXHALENT : LE DIOXYDE DE CARBONE.

NOUS TAXER SIMPLEMENT A LA RESPIRATION EST UNE IMPORTANTE PIECE CENTRALE DE L’AGENDA FEODAL DE BILDERBERG. C'EST LA RAISON POUR LAQUELLE LES PDG DES GRANDES COMPAGNIES PETROLIERES DEBUT, COMME PETER SUTHERLAND DE LA COMPAGNIE BRITISH PETROLEUM, QUI A ASSISTE A LA REUNION DE CETTE ANNEE EN GRECE, ONT PROMIS AU COURS DE REUNIONS DU CFR, DE LA COMMISSION TRILATERALE ET DE BILDERBERG D'EXPLOITER LE PHENOMENE DE PEUR LIE AU RECHAUFFEMENT DE LA PLANETE (cf. http://www.prisonplanet.com/../articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm ) AFIN DE HAUSSER LES IMPOTS ET LE CONTROLE SUR LA FAÇON DONT LES OCCIDENTAUX VIVENT LEUR VIE. 

"Certaines personnes de Capitol Hill se demandaient si Kerry populaire pourrait également s’être arrêté à la réunion secrète du Groupe Bilderberg tenue à Athènes", ajoute le rapport de Foreign Policy. 

Chef de l'avocat de la commission des affaires étrangères, Frank Lowestein, a nié que Kerry assistait à Bilderberg. 

Kerry possède quelques liens avec cette cabale secrète, car cet fut un Bilderberger qui choisit son candidat à la vice-présidence, John Edwards, lors de la campagne électorale de 2004. 

Edwards prononça un vibrant discours (cf. http://www.prisonplanet.com/../articles/july2004/080704bilderbergperformance.htm ) à la conférence (de Bilderberg) qui s'est tenue en 2004 à Stresa, en Italie, et les participants au meeting Bilderberg enfreignirent même les règles pour applaudir Edwards à la fin d'un discours qu'il donna aux élitistes sur la politique américaine. 

Le choix d'Edwards fut choquant pour les experts des médias qui s’étaient pleinement attendus à ce que ce soit Dick Gephardt qui prenne cette place. Le New York Post avait même signalé (cf.http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706041post1.html ) que Gephardt avait été choisi et que des autocollants "Kerry-Gephardt" avaient été mis sur les véhicules de campagne avant d'être retirés lorsqu’Edwards fut annoncé comme étant le numéro deux de Kerry.


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 21/09/2009 11:16:44
ENTREPRISES ET FAMILLES AURONT UNE TAXE DU CARBONE EN FRANCE 


UNE NOUVELLE TAXE INTERNATIONALE DONT NOUS ENTENDONS PARLER DEPUIS QUELQUES ANNÉES VA MAINTENANT PRENDRE VIE : LA TAXE SUR LE CARBONE. LA TAXE SUR LA POLLUTION EST UNE AUTRE FRAUDE MISE EN PLACE POUR NOUS APPAUVRIR DAVANTAGE. UNE NOUVELLE RUSE DU PROGRAMME ENVIRONNEMENTAL POUR APPAUVRIR LES POPULATIONS D'UN CÔTÉ ET REMPLIR LES POCHES DES MULTIMILLIONAIRES DE L'AUTRE. LA PAUVRETÉ, JE VOUS LE RAPPELLE, EST UN MOYEN DE CONTRÔLE DES ÉLITES AFIN QUE VOUS DEVENIEZ TOTALEMENT DÉPENDANTS D'EUX.
IL FAUT COMPRENDRE QUE DES TECHNOLOGIES EXISTENT QUI POURRAIENT NON SEULEMENT AIDER À LUTTER CONTRE LA POLLUTION MAIS QUI SAUVERAIT ÉNORMÉMENT D'ARGENT DANS LES POCHES DES PETITES GENS. MAIS LE GOUVERNEMENT MONDIAL SE GARDE BIEN DE METTRE DE L'AVANT CES TECHONOLOGIES AVANT-GARDISTE, CAR CELA LUI ENLÈVERAIT DU POUVOIR SUR NOUS TOUS. POUR EN SAVOIR PLUS, ÉTUDIEZ COMMENT LES SOUCOUPES VOLANTES FONCTIONNENT ET VOUS AUREZ TOUTES LES RÉPONSES À VOS QUESTIONS.   

CETTE NOUVELLE TAXE QUI PREND PLACE VA BIENTÔT S'ÉTENDRE À TOUS LES PAYS. LES ROBOTS, EUX, NE SERONT TOUTEFOIS PAS TOUCHÉS PAR CETTE NOUVELLE TAXE, CAR ILS NE SONT PAS CONSIDÉRÉS COMME ÉTANTS DES HUMAINS. CES BIBITTES SONT POURTANT DE PLUS EN PLUS UTILISÉES COMME POLICIERS DANS CERTAINS PAYS POUR MAINTENIR L'ORDRE. 

11 septembre 2009 | 09h41 
La France va imposer une taxe sur les émissions de dioxyde de carbone aux familles et aux compagnies dès l’an prochain, en espérant que les consommateurs et les manufacturiers adoptent des produits plus écologiques. 

 À partir du 1er janvier, une taxe spéciale de 17 euros sera imposée pour chaque tonne de CO2 qui sera émise par l’utilisation de combustibles fossiles tels que le mazout, l’essence, le charbon et le gaz naturel, a déclaré le président français Nicolas Sarkozy lors d’un discours jeudi. 

« Nous ne pouvons continuer à taxer le travail et le capital tout en ignorant les taxes sur la pollution », a-t-il dit. 

Comme les États-Unis et d’autres pays de l’Europe, l’Hexagone cherche des façons de rencontrer toute une série d’obligations environnementales. Le gouvernement français s’est engagé à diviser en quatre ses émissions de CO2 d’ici à 2050 par rapport au niveau d’émission de 1990. Le pays veut y arriver en s’appuyant sur l’énergie nucléaire, en isolant plus efficacement les édifices et en stimulant l’utilisation d’énergies renouvelables. 

La France veut imiter la Finlande et la Suède qui ont réussi à réduire leurs émissions avec l’introduction de taxes sur le carbone au début des années 1990. Le président Sarkozy veut démontrer que son pays fait des progrès, étant donné la conférence de l’ONU à Copenhague sur les changements climatiques qui approche en décembre. 

Sauf qu’une taxe sur le carbone est difficile à faire adopter. Lors de l’élection présidentielle de 2007, les sondages indiquaient que les Français appuyaient une telle idée. Depuis, leur enthousiasme a diminué alors que les craintes d’une diminution du pouvoir d’achat ont augmenté, pendant que la crise économique battait son plein. 

Dans son allocution, M. Sarkozy a déclaré que cette taxe aiderait l’économie française à croître tout en étant consciente de sa consommation d’énergie. 

Cependant, les organisations environnementales prédisent que la mesure sera inefficace sur deux points.

D’une part, elles trouvent que la taxe est trop faible. D’autre part, elles ont critiqué les compensations qui seront versés aux familles et aux entreprises. 

« Avec cette taxe, l’incitatif à utiliser des biens moins énergivores sera quasiment nul », a affirmé Pascal Husting, le directeur de la section française de Greenpeace. 

Un rapport commandé par le président recommandait une taxe de 32 euros par tonne de CO2, et d’augmenter ce montant de 5% par an pour atteindre 100 euros par tonne en 2030. Le document qualifiait d’indispensable le niveau des 100 euros pour diminuer les émissions de CO2. 

M. Sarkozy a dit avoir choisi un montant de 17 euros parce qu’il était inquiet que les familles n’acceptent pas de payer une taxe significativement plus élevée que les grands émetteurs industriels, déjà soumis à un mécanisme de réduction de l’Union européenne. 

http://argent.canoe.ca/lca/affaires/international/archives/2009/09/20090911… 

--Message edité par maria le 2009-09-21 11:17:30-- 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 22/09/2009 09:29:06
TOBIN TAX 'WORTH A LOOK': BROWN 
5 hours 43 mins ago
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the introduction of a global tax to reduce risky behaviour by banks was "worth looking at", as he prepares for a G20 summit next weekend. Skip related content

But Brown said greater cooperation between countries to stop excessive risk taking was required before such a tax could be considered.

France has proposed introducing a tax to be levied on every financial transaction, known as a Tobin Tax, with the billions of euros raised to be used to support economic development.

Brown said such an idea was worth consideration, but global cooperation that is "cemented" and "action that is successful against tax havens" were required before taking any steps towards the measure.

The prime minister, briefing journalists on Monday before leaving for the UN General Assembly in New York and then the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, said the level of cooperation to prevent risky deals was still unsatisfactory.

"The first thing is to have the global coordination to involve every major country and we are not there yet," he said.

"The second thing is to deal with tax havens. If one jurisdiction can fail to implement a proposal such as this it makes it difficult for other jurisdictions to follow.

"So I think what you will see this week and particularly next week is action against tax havens that are non-cooperative around the world."

Most commentators expect Britain and the United States to oppose such a tax, fearing its impact on their major financial centres.

The Tobin Tax is named after the US economist James Tobin, who first suggested it in the 1970s.

The idea was revived in August by Adair Turner, the chairman of the financial watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), as a way of providing a safeguard against another economic slowdown.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090922/tuk-tobin-tax-worth-a-look-brown-a7ad4… 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 25/01/2010 14:11:39
GORDON BROWN TO PUSH FOR 'TOBIN TAX' AFTER WALL STREET CRACKDOWN 
PM believes US move indicates willingness in Washington to contemplate radical reform of markets
Larry Elliott and Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 January 2010 19.55 GMT Article history 


Government sources admit privately they were caught off guard by Barack Obama's banking crackdown. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

Gordon Brown plans to exploit Barack Obama's surprise crackdown on Wall Street banks to step up Britain's campaign for a new global transaction tax on financial products.

The prime minister believes the dramatic US move to curb risky activities by major US banks indicates a new-found willingness on the part of Washington to contemplate radical reform of markets.

Amid signs that key opponents of a transaction tax in Obama's administration have been sidelined, Brown intends to use a series of meetings in the coming weeks and months to build international support for a "Tobin tax", which he floated at last autumn's G20 meeting. Lord Myners, the City minister, is to host a crucial mini-summit on Monday at which US officials will spell out the details of the Volcker plan – through which Obama intends to stop banks running hedge funds, private equity arms and taking bets on markets with customer deposits.

Myners had called G7 members to the Downing Street talks before the White House stunned the financial world with Thursday's announcement, seen as the biggest Wall Street shakeup since the Glass Steagall reforms of the Great Depression.

Publicly, Myners maintained today that the government was ahead of the US in its reform programme and that its plans for banks to create "living wills" so they could be broken up quickly if they collapsed had the same effect as Obama's. He said: "He's developing a solution to what he sees as the American issues. We've already taken the necessary action in the UK."

Privately, however, government sources admitted that they been caught unawares by Obama's bombshell and were now reassessing whether Britain needed to go further. Fears in the City that the government would embrace Obama's line continued to rock shares, particularly those in Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays. The FTSE 100 was down 33 points at 5303 while RBS, 84% owned by the taxpayer, recovered earlier losses to end at 32.29p. Barclays was down 11p at 256, another 4%.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones fell for a third day running, its biggest sustained fall since last June. Greg Gibbs, global strategist at RBS, blamed the uncertainty caused by Obama for the market upheaval.

Gary Jenkins, head of fixed income research at Evo Securities, said: "The banks can hardly complain – after the crisis of 2008 they needed to show humility and restraint, and have failed to do so spectacularly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/22/gordon-brown-tobin-tax-banki… 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 18/02/2010 16:26:33
THE SECRET PLAN TO PASS A GLOBAL TAX 


By Cliff Kincaid 
With President Barack Obama attacking “fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) see a great opportunity to pass a global tax on financial transactions that could generate at least $700 billion a year from the U.S. and other “rich” countries. They are expecting Obama’s support. 

The banks are a key target because of the “anger” that already exists against them for their roles in the global financial crisis, says a detailed 13-page memorandum from Max Lawson of the foreign aid group Oxfam.   

Calling the global Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) “an idea whose time has come,” Lawson says in his memorandum that “politically the time is now” to pass such a tax.  “It will take some great campaigning but I think we can do this,” he says in a message introducing the memo.

Lawson explains, “The global anger against the bankers; the huge pressure on rich country budgets; the need for money in 2010 to rescue the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals] and from failure; to protect poor countries from the economic crisis; and the need to come up with money for climate change to unlock a global deal. All combine to make a very strong political backdrop.”

The MDGs were established by the United Nations to make sure that the U.S. and other Western nations devote .7 percent of Gross National Product to official development assistance or foreign aid.  As a Senator, Obama had introduced a bill, the Global Poverty Act, to mandate U.S. compliance with the MDGs at an estimated cost of $845 billion. 

Lawson, head of development and finance for Oxfam in Britain, has distributed his 13-page memorandum to members of NGOs in the U.S. and other countries. “There is potentially plenty of money here for all of our issues,” he tells them. 

The global tax, known as the Tobin Tax and named for the late Yale University economist James Tobin, is being called “the Robin Hood tax,” in order to convince people that it is somehow designed to take money away from rich people in order to help the poor.  Another variation on this theme is the claim that the tax is aimed at Wall Street to help Main Street. 

In reality, such a tax would affect IRAs, Mutual Funds, and pensions by taxing the exchange of financial transactions. It would hand over great sums of money to politicians in the name of bashing the big banks but ordinary Americans and their life savings would be hurt.    

As outlined by Lawson, however, the idea is to create the appearance of public support for the plan, ultimately enabling G8 leaders meeting in Canada in June to agree to the global tax and then get acceptance from the G20 leaders meeting afterward. 

Lawson 

At the same time, the U.S. Congress is moving ahead with the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009” (HR 4191), a financial transactions tax introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a leading member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 

Lawson’s document cites support for the tax from Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed the DeFazio measure during a December 7 news conference and, according to a CNS News report, announced that the bill would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach. 

Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is introducing a similar bill, which has the backing of the AFL-CIO, in the Senate. 

An “Open Letter from Economists in Support of Financial Transaction Taxes” has been released and signed by 200 liberal and left-wing economists. 

Lawson also cites support for the tax from billionaires George Soros and Warren Buffet and such media organizations and figures as Le Monde, The Mail, The Guardian and Paul Krugman of the New York Times.

President Obama “supported [the idea] during his campaign,” Lawson says, but the U.S. Treasury Department under Timothy Geitner has been resisting it. 

However, Politico reported on December 3 that Pelosi is now pressuring Geitner to accept the global tax proposal. “Geithner was widely seen as opposing such a levy when it was proposed by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, at a meeting of G-20 finance ministers last month in Scotland,” the publication reported. But after a telephone conversation, “Pelosi told colleagues that the secretary indicated he was more open to some such fee than had been reported,” it added. 

Some elements of the Lawson plan that are designed to secure passage of the legislation seem modelled on the 1999 “Battle in Seattle,” when 5,000 activists marched against the idea of global free markets, producing confrontations with police trying to keep order on the occasion of a meeting of the World Trade Organization. Lawson suggests “two or three global events” and “days of action” where “activists climb up banks” in order to pressure officials to adopt the global tax. 

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a cabinet member in the Clinton Administration, claimed in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents, that the “protests at meetings of global financial leaders in Seattle, Prague, Washington, and Genoa…” had put pressure on the international community for more global action to solve the world's problems.

Stiglitz is one of several high-profile figures listed in the Lawson memo as supporting a global financial transactions tax.

In Copenhagen, where governments are now meeting on the so-called “climate change” issue, some of the same leftists have been on display, marching in the streets under the banner of “Climate Justice Action” to demand that the U.S. and other Western nations pay “reparations” and an “ecological debt” to the less developed nations. U.N. reports have put this figure at $24-$45 trillion. 

On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined with Prime Minister Gordon Brown in issuing a statement calling for a global financial transactions tax and other “innovative financing mechanisms” to assist countries fighting climate change.

Other elements of the Lawson plan seem modelled on “anti-poverty” campaigns such as Live Aid and Comic Relief. Live Aid was a rock music concert held on July 13, 1985, in order to raise funds to fight global poverty, while Comic Relief was designed to use comedy and laughter to alert the public to poverty.

In terms of using celebrities and making a big splash in the media, Lawson cites the case of Richard Curtis, a film director and the “creative energy” behind the Make Poverty History campaign, which urges people to wear a white band around their wrists as a “common symbol of the global fight to end poverty.” 

Lawson says Curtis “is very interested in a short campaign” to press for a Financial Transaction Tax and “is working with colleagues in the advertising industry to work up ideas around a set of creative ideas that could be used by campaigns around the world, based on a Robin Hood Tax.  His hope is to produce a set of materials that would be useful to all, and give the issue a huge global profile.  He is also likely to use his media contacts around the world to ensure high profile for the fight for the tax.”

The global targets are the G8 and G20 groups of nations because the G20 summit in Pittsburgh in September decided that the G20 would replace the G8 as the leading international body for economic matters. As numerous media organizations have observed, the move signaled a major shift in global politics that has seen the authority and power of the U.S in global affairs undermined. President Obama went so far at the G20 meeting to agree to a proposal for an International Monetary Fund study of how a global tax could be implemented. 

Oxfam, which is spearheading the campaign to get a global tax implemented, is one member of an international coalition of organizations working “to fight poverty and injustice.” Its American affiliate receives funding from such entities as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. 

So-called progressives in the U.S. are now openly pressuring the Obama Administration to go along with the proposal.  “We need to make this bill [the DeFazio/Harkin approach] a reality in the United States -- and then take it worldwide,” The Progressive magazine proclaims.

Support can also be expected from the New Rules for Global Finance coalition, which runs the gamut from typical liberal-left groups to religious-oriented organizations.

The main problem with the Lawson scenario is that the truth about massive corruption in the foreign aid business is a matter of public record. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a report in 1995 which revealed that the cost of foreign aid provided by the U.S. to the rest of the world since the end of World War II had already reached nearly $2 trillion, with little to show for it in terms of alleviating poverty. 

Two excellent books --The Lords of Poverty by Graham Hancock, and The Road to Hell by Michael Maren -- exposed massive corruption in the foreign aid business. 

The key members of the "New Rules" coalition run the gamut from typical liberal-left groups to religious-oriented organizations. They include New Economy Communications, Oxfam America, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, G-24 Secretariat, Center of Concern, Financial Policy Forum, World Resources Institute, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, New America Foundation, Environmental Defense, U.S. Catholic Conference, International Labor Organization, Open Society Institute, Heinrich Boell Foundation, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees, Interaction, and United Nations Council of Organizations. For more, please visit www.stopglobaltaxes.org .

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck12.14.09.html 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 05/03/2010 12:05:40
TAX AND SPEND: U.N.'s Rx FOR NEW WORLD MEDICAL ORDER  
Friday, January 22, 2010  
By George Russell 

A member of a World Health Organization (WHO) panel of experts that is pondering new global taxes on e-mails, alcohol, tobacco, airline travel and consumer bank transactions, has charged that she was given only selective information at group meetings, that deliberations were rushed and that group was "manipulated" by the international pharmaceuticals industry.

All of her charges were strongly denied by the head of WHO's Expert Working Group on Research and Development Financing (EWG), a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats which is due to present a 98-page report in Geneva on Monday, after 14 months of deliberations on "new and innovative sources of funding" to reshape the global medical industry.

A copy of the executive summary of the report was obtained by Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583127,00.html on January 15 — the same day, as it happens, that the EWG's dissident member first aired her charges in a letter to members of WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board.

The executive summary first revealed the possibility of a multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" as one means of financing an epic shift of drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities to the developing world that is the central aim of WHO's fund-raising strategy.

Fox News has obtained a copy of the full EWG report, Research and Development: Coordination and Financing, in advance of its publication Monday, which lays out in greater detail the working group's proposals for fund-raising. These include not only indirect consumer taxes but also greater donations by wealthy governments as a percentage of gross domestic product, voluntary individual payments tied to such things as individual mobile phone use, health care lotteries, new commitments from charitable and philanthropic organizations, and the possible diversion of current philanthropic giving from developed-world causes into developing world health care.

The report lays out, and generally endorses, a number of public-private partnerships in the developing world with some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical firms. But it also raises the idea of a tax on pharma-profits from low-income countries that could raise as much as $160 million a year.

The report labels that tax idea a "particularly attractive" option for funding health research and development, and says that revenues from it would "rise considerably if the profits from one or more high income countries was included."

One dissident member of the working group, Cecilia Lopez Montano — a federal senator of Colombia and former national environmental minister — insisted that working sessions of the group she attended were truncated, that her suggestions of looking critically at intellectual patent rights held by Big Pharma companies were ignored, and that neither she nor "the majority of the members of the group" actually participated in the findings "in a full manner."

In a telephone interview on Thursday with Fox News, Lopez Montano declared that she did not "understand, if we are talking about getting cheaper medicines for poor people, how we could discuss this without talking about intellectual property rights."

Frustrated, she says, she walked out of the group's last working session in December 2009, and did not return.

"The only comment I would make for public consumption is that her allegations are completely unfounded," replied the EWG chairperson, Sir George Alleyne, to an email query by Fox News about the incident. A tropical medicine specialist from Barbados who served as a onetime U.N. Secretary-General's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean, Alleyne wrote that "to my knowledge, not a single member of the group has associated himself or herself with her comments."

The tempest created by Lopez Montano's accusations is liable to fade quickly as people around the world — especially Americans, who are far and away the world's biggest funders of medical research and development — absorb the variety of the EWG's revenue ideas and the full extent of WHO's ambitions to reshape the international health care industry in favor of research and development for the "neglected" diseases of developing countries.

The full EWG report lays out in some detail a battery of other possible consumer taxes on citizens of rich countries for such things as alcohol and tobacco use, weapons sales, and airline travel, to create a burgeoning medical R&D industry spread across the developing world.

Click here for the full report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012210_ewgreport.pdf .

A 5 percent to 10 percent increase in alcohol taxes in developing countries, it notes, could raise anywhere from $5.5 billion to $11 billion per year.

It also cites approvingly a 0.38 percent Brazilian tax on bills paid online and unspecified "major withdrawals" that was raising an estimated $20 billion a year before it was revoked. "There is scope globally for expansion of bank transaction taxes," the report notes.

The Internet or "digital" tax offered up as an example by the EWG would amount to 1 cent per 100 emails, yielding a conservative $3 billion a year. It "might be appealing to politicians and consumers, who will accept a low tax across a broad base with an altruistic purpose." But almost in the same breath, the document observes a complication, that "introducing a new tax or expanding an existing tax may require legal changes, nationally and internationally, and ongoing regulation to ensure compliance."

Getting mobile phone users to sign up for a voluntary medical fee per call could yield anywhere from $280 million to $1.8 billion, depending on the tax bite and the consumer enthusiasm for the idea, while a voluntary fee tied to airline ticket purchase, the document says, could raise nearly $1 billion.

The report estimates WHO would raise $7.4 billion a year if donor nations hiked their percentage of GNP targeted on the new health care model. But the report still holds out hope for substantially more money if "donors diverted current financial support" from medical research that meets their own current requirements to WHO's agenda.

After itemizing all those potential sources of new money, however, the report suggests that only a "balance" of options be selected, which it projects would amount — again, conservatively — to about $4.6 billion a year. That would "nearly triple current research and development funding for neglected diseases in developing countries."

How would all the money be channeled? Mainly, it appears, through institutions that in many of cases have close ties with WHO.

The report that will be released Monday suggests that a global blossoming of developing-world research networks, many of which appear to be rapidly sprouting up in tandem with WHO's efforts to create new ways of financing them, could be "coordinated" via an "effective global health governance structure" by WHO itself — an organization whose 34-member executive board is made up largely of non-elected health bureaucrats from around the world.

Funding for the burgeoning medical research industry would be dispensed by a not-yet-created "global health research and innovation, coordination and funding mechanism."

The new money-dispensing machine would ladle out funds for "new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics and intervention for the poor, as well as medical research in low- and middle-income countries, new centers for the collection and analysis of research and development data, and new authority to distribute research assignments among public and private entities.

Its estimated cost, in the early stages: anywhere from $3 billion to $15 billion per year.

Many of the new parts of the proposed medical industry network in developing countries would also appear, according to the report, to be fostered by WHO itself, with collaboration from other parts of the United Nations' system of funds, programs, agencies and other institutions.

The report singles out favorably, for example, a new and fast-growing group of research institutions known as the African Network for Drug Discovery and Innovation (ANDI), launched in 2008. ANDI was created under the auspices of an institution known as TDR, a tropical disease research program that is part of WHO, and is now jointly sponsored by WHO, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Program, and the World Bank (also a U.N. institution).

According to the EWG report, networks like ANDI, which could involve a welter of local public and private financing, government participation, international agencies and global pharmaceutical firms, could not only coordinate regional research policy in such areas as traditional African medicine, but also fund-raise, allocate funds between different developing countries in Africa, and work to harmonize local medical regulations.

It would all be, as the report puts it: "a multi-level, multi-party, multi-purpose partnership for global health governance, a platform coordinated by WHO and supported by high-level political commitment and policy coherence."

Not by coincidence, new health research networks like ANDI cropped up in 2008 — at about the same time that WHO's legislative World Heath Assembly adopted a global strategy and plan of action that mandated the organization, as the EWG report puts it, to "play a strategic, central role in the relations between public health and innovation and intellectual property."

Among other things, that meant driving the global health-care agenda "to promote a new approach to innovation and access to medicines, which would encourage needs-driven rather than market-driven research." The aim: "to target diseases that disproportionately affect people in developing countries."

Behind that new direction is the U.N. organization's belief, evidently shared by many medical researchers, that medical research and development in rich countries aims to cure the ailments of their rich citizens, while the diseases that afflict poor nations, like malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, are "neglected." Even when the medicines are appropriate, the EWG report relates, they are too expensive.

"In 56 of the 58 countries in which the bottom billion [poorest people] live, virtually every person has at least one neglected tropical disease," the report states. It adds that "95% of the 33 million people living with HIV are in low- and middle-income countries (68% in sub-Saharan Africa), and 27% of new cases and 31% of registered deaths from tuberculosis were in Africa."

Only a massive shift in research and development capacity to low- and medium-income countries — fueled by funds from rich ones — will correct that imbalance, the report, and the WHO strategic plan, argue.

The EWG report maintains that argument even as it also reveals that poor countries are increasingly afflicted with the same non-communicable diseases as rich ones: cancer, cardiovascular ailments, diabetes. Indeed, the report cites a projection that $84 billion in lost income will result between 2006 and 2015 in 23 low- and middle-income countries as a result of heart disease, stroke and diabetes alone."

Regardless of the afflictions, the WHO remedy remains "the production of new knowledge, especially through the investments in research and development." Especially under the many-faceted initiatives of WHO.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583670,00.html?sPage=fnc/world/unitedna… 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 28/03/2010 10:52:19
US : STATES SEEKING CASH HOPE TO EXPAND TAXES TO SERVICES 
Cory Morse/Muskegon Chronicle, via Associated Press

A LITTLE OFF THE TOP Michigan residents may have to pay a 5.5 percent tax for haircuts. States across the nation are considering similar taxes on services to solve their budget problems. 

By MONICA DAVEY
Published: March 27, 2010

In the scramble to find something, anything, to generate more revenue, states are considering new taxes on virtually everything: garbage pickup, dating services, bowling night, haircuts, even clowns. 

Fabrizio Costantini for The New York Times


A Michigan proposal would lower the sales tax but make it broader, levying it on over 100 additional types of services like haircuts, including those at Chaltraw’s Barber Shop in Standish, where Al Marden awaited his turn. 

“It’s hard enough doing what we do,” grumbled John Luke, a plumber in the Philadelphia suburbs. His services would, for the first time, come with an added tax if the governor has his way. 

Opponents of imposing taxes on services like funerals, legal advice, helicopter rides and dry cleaning argue that this push comes as businesses are barely clinging to life and can ill afford to see customers further put off by new taxes. This is especially true, they say, in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, where some of the most sweeping proposals are being considered this spring. 

But this is also a period of economic gloom for states. Pension funds are in the red, federal stimulus help will soon vanish, and revenues from traditional sources like income and property taxes are slumping ever lower, with few elected officials willing to risk voter wrath by raising them. 

“This is born out of necessity,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat. His proposed budget, being debated in Harrisburg, would tax services including accounting, advertising and data processing. 

Mr. Rendell argues that the state’s current sales tax system makes no sense. (Why, he asks, is the popcorn in his state’s movie theaters taxed, but the candy is not?) 

“Look, I’m not a crazy tax guy,” Mr. Rendell said, reflecting on recent trims to the budget. “I know what we’ve cut the last two years, and I know how deep and painful the cuts have been. So I know that in the future there’s going to have to be a revenue increase, and this is the best of the alternatives, obviously none of which we’re happy about.” 

Michigan’s revenues, adjusted for inflation, have sunk to a level last seen in the 1960s. And that may be exactly what at long last pushes through wide acceptance for taxes on more services, according to supporters of the idea, who say it makes sense in an economy that has long been service-based. In the past, such taxes have never quite been able to survive the political tussle. 



A handful of states, including Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota and Washington, already tax all sorts of services. Most states tax at least some services, particularly items like utilities. 

Nevertheless, few states have gone where political leaders in Michigan and Pennsylvania are now suggesting: adding scores of services to their states’ sales tax requirement and lowering the tax rate under a widened tax base. 

But from coast to coast, desperate governments are looking to tap into new revenue streams. 

In Nebraska, a lawmaker has introduced a bill to tax armored car services, farm equipment repairs, shoe shines, taxidermy, reflexology and scooter repairs. In Kentucky, Jim Wayne, a state representative, and some fellow Democrats are proposing taxing high-end services: golf greens fees, limousine and hot-air-balloon rides, and private landscaping. 

In June, voters in Maine will decide whether to accept a state overhaul of its tax system that would newly tax services like tailor alterations, blimp rides, and entertainment provided by clowns, comedians and jugglers. 

Though some say the proposed service taxes face opposition too fierce to succeed in many places, particularly in an election year, even some of the most ardent opponents predict that some of the taxes will scrape through. The current budget misery will probably “push the idea over the edge” in at least some states, said Robert D. Fowler, president and chief executive of the Small Business Association of Michigan. 

“And they won’t be any better off for it, either,” said Mr. Fowler, who added that his members detested the notion. “It’s the wrong time, in the heat of just trying anything to find money, to have this discussion. 

“Yes, we need more money, but is this a step toward turning the economy around?” Mr. Fowler asked. “Taking more money out of peoples’ pockets? Putting more burdens on small business? It doesn’t seem like a recipe for a state turnaround.” 

In the 1930s, with property tax revenues shrinking because of the Great Depression, states began taxing the sales of items. It was simple, and at the time, the tax matched an economy largely based on goods. 

But as the nation’s economy shifted to one focused more on services, the tax system mostly did not budge. And so, in 2009, states raised $230 billion in sales taxes; had they taxed all services, too, according to Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group, they might have raised twice that. 

Advocates say taxing services is simply a matter of fairness and good sense, and of spreading out the tax burden as widely as imaginable. If you pay tax for a ring, why should you be exempt from paying it for a manicure? But even those who agree in principle wrestle with the details. Should a bakery be taxed for the accounting work or lawn care it gets, only to pass along that cost to its customers in the price of cookies? Some in the world of taxes would describe that as pyramiding. And what to do about all the industries that would, naturally, line up for exemptions? 

“In truth, a lot of people like this concept of being taxed on what they use,” said Bill Farmer, a Republican state representative in Kentucky, who has suggested a tax on services if it was wed to the demise of the state’s income tax. “Then they say, ‘But please don’t tax me because I’m a lawyer.’ Or ‘But please don’t tax me because I’m a grass cutter, an accountant, anything.’ ” (Mr. Farmer, for the record, is a tax accountant.) 

In years past, large plans to tax services have become law, only to face sudden, sometimes embarrassing repeals in places like Florida and Maryland. In Michigan, lawmakers agreed in 2007 to a tax on services (in an episode Mr. Fowler recalls as “a last minute, midnight deal”), only to repeal it amid widespread public opposition the very day it went into effect. 

Supporters say the new plan in Michigan, put forth by Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, would solve some of the earlier complaints. In addition to adding more than 100 types of services to the 26 the state already taxes, she says she wants to lower the sales tax rate to 5.5 percent from the current 6 percent, phase out a surcharge on a business tax and direct savings to education. 

Ultimately, says Robert J. Kleine, the Michigan treasurer, the tax on services would mean $1.8 billion a year in new revenue. 

“The basic thing is that we need to update our tax structure,” Mr. Kleine said. “We’ve got a 20th-century tax structure based on a different sort of economy. The tax base doesn’t grow as the economy grows.” 

Ms. Granholm, like Mr. Rendell, cannot seek re-election this year because of term limits (something opponents of taxing services say provides a hint at how unpopular the whole idea must be with the voting public). 

Michael D. Bishop, the Republican majority leader in the State Senate, said this was one more case of Michigan’s problems being dumped onto consumers who “cannot afford anything else” and businesses who “are being run out on a rail.” 

People like Pete Tomassoni, whose third-generation bowling alley in Iron Mountain, Mich., has 20 percent less business so far this year than early last year, deemed taxation of his $3 games “a terrible idea.” 

Still, some believe the notion is certain to grow more palatable as states grasp the depths of their woes. State Senator Cap Dierks of Nebraska, who has pushed for a services tax in part because of his worries about the mounting burdens of property taxes on farmers and ranchers, said he thought such taxes were inevitable. 

“I got a lot of negative vibes when I introduced it, but eventually, we’ll have to look at it,” he said. “What else are you going to do?” 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/28taxes.html?hp 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 28/03/2010 15:53:42
US : 15 NEW TAXES THE DEMOCRATS JUST FOISTED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
Posted by RJ on March 26, 2010 at 8:22pm 
Last night, the House of Representatives passed health care reform and moved the bill to the President's desk for a final signature.

The bill is littered with tax increases in order to fund the expansion of health coverage for Americans, and the Reconciliation Act, now in the Senate, has similar increases.

Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A 40% tax on health insurance plans exceeding determined levels. Those levels are projected for 2013 to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level.

Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.

A tax on failing hospitals
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A $50,000 tax on hospital organizations, which fail to meet described quality requirements.

Imposition of annual fee on branded prescrïption pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A fee based upon the sales of pharmaceutical companies in relation to the total sale of such pharmaceutical products to the public.

Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: Medical device manufacturers must pay a fee in relation to the sales of their product in the marketplace and the total sales of devices.

Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs.

Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.

Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A tax of 5% is levied upon the ammount paid for any cosmetic surgery. This does not include the need for such surgeries created by trauma or a disfiguring disease. If the tax is not collected by that professional completing the procedure, their business is still liable for the requirement.

Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium.

Health insurance fee
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: For self-insured plans, a fee on the the sponsor whether that is the employer or the employee organization. Also, a fee on the issuer of every health care plan imposed.

Tax on non-electing businesses who refuse to supply health care
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: For firms refusing to pay health insurance, but not meeting required exclusions, an 8% tax on wages will be applied.

Imposition of tax on indoor tanning
Bill: H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
Status: Awaiting President's signature
Descrïption: A tax of 10% on the amount paid for any tanning service.

1% surcharge on individuals making more than $350,000
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: A 1% tax increase for individuals making between $350,000 and $500,000.

1.5% surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: A 1.5% tax increase for individuals making between $500,000 and $1 million.

5.4% surcharge on individuals making more than $1 million
Bill: H.R. 4872 Reconciliation Act 
Status: Yet to be approved by the Senate
Descrïption: A 5.4% increase for individuals making more than $1 million.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-bill-new-taxes-2010-3#ixz... 


 maria Administrateur
 Messages postés : 20960
 

  Posté le 09/04/2010 18:53:46
OBAMA'S NATIONAL SALES TAX 
Is the same thing is happening in your country? Don't forget, everything is now on global level.

Posted by Brian Darling (Profile) 
Thursday, April 8th at 2:00PM EDT 

110 Comments 
President Obama is vetting a new national sales tax (commonly referred to as a VAT) to extract more wealth from the private sector to sustain his insatiable hunger for more government spending.  Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have commenced a vetting strategy to convince Americans that they need to give more and more money to an every-expanding and bloated federal government.  Congress needs to just say no to a VAT — and increased taxation — as part of any pitch by this Administration to balance the budget.

Volker and Bernanke have used a two pronged strategy to vet the VAT.  First is fear mongering.  Bernanke argues that Americans need to choose between higher taxes or massive cuts in critical government programs.  He mentioned Social Security, Medicare, Education and Defense as areas of government spending that would be targeted if we don’t raise taxes. This is a false choice.  The federal government needs to reform entitlement programs, needs to root out waste fraud and abuse and should eliminate programs like the National Endowment for the Arts.  

The deficit incurred by the federal government has reached about $12.8 trillion and next year’s projected deficit is record breaking at $1.6 trillion.  Obama’s solution?  Not cutting government, not ending bailouts, not entitlement reform, and not stopping the Stimulus.  Instead, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke yesterday commenced a debate on higher taxes yesterday, see the Washington Post:

To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.

White House economic advisor Paul Volcker, and former Chairman of the Fed, urged the United States to follow Europe and impose a Value Added Tax (VAT).  The Washington Examiner has this descrïption of a VAT:

A VAT is a national sales tax that would be collected by retailers. But it can also be imposed on products as they make their way through the manufacturing process. That is, the tax for a single product is paid by manufacturers, producers, and business that add value to the product, as well as by the consumers. Critics argue that the VAT is a regressive tax that unduly places the burden on the poor.

The reason why elites in Washington would look to a VAT before increasing income taxes (and, believe me, higher income taxes are coming) is because not enough of the population even pays income taxes to make it worthwhile for the government to use the income tax structure to balance the budget.  According to the Tax Policy Center, only about 47 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.  Meanwhile, the government can extract the most amount of your wealth from a national sales tax (VAT) and Volker’s statement yesterday evidences a will on the part of this Administration to start the fear mongering process to tee up higher taxes.

Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric on the part of the agents of President Obama when they try to downplay the effort to impose higher taxes on all Americans.  Volker and Bernanke would not be messaging for higher taxes if this Administration did not want them to.  A VAT, national sales tax, would be the end of economic freedom as we know it, because the federal government would then have the power to tax all aspects of our lives.  Until Washington can restrain spending, we should not entrust it with the power to create a brand new tax

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/04/08/obamas-national-sales-tax/ 




Dernière édition par maria le Mer 23 Mai - 17:57 (2012); édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut
Publicité






MessagePosté le: Sam 30 Juil - 14:46 (2011)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 23 Mai - 17:42 (2012)    Sujet du message: TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES - P.2 Répondre en citant

Administrateurs :maria
Forum LE VOILE DÉCHIRÉ Connecté sous maria | Se déconnecter
en ligne : Il y a 6 connectés. Cliquez pour voir la liste
Inscription
|
Profil
|
Messages Privés
|
Recherche
|
Online
|
Aide
| Créer un blog gratuit



Index du forum
ORGANISATION DES NATIONS-UNIES/UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
TAXES GLOBALES


Notification par email
|
Prévenir les modérateurs

Pages :

Prec. 1 2
Auteur :Sujet: TAXES GLOBALES Bas
maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 11/04/2010 02:13:34 (11/04/2010 11:13:34)

BERNANKE: WE MUST RAISE TAXES AND CUT SERVICES • SANE PEOPLE: NO, WE NEED TO STOP ENDLESS BAIL OUTS, IMPERIAL ADVENTURES AND FRAUDULENT SCHEMES

Washington’s Blog
April 9, 2010

This week, both Bernanke and Volcker called for tax increases. Bernanke has also raised the possibility of reductions in entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security. As I pointed out last June:

When the International Monetary Fund or World Bank offer to lend money to a struggling third-world country (or “emerging market”), they demand “austerity measures“.

As Wikipedia describes it:

In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government’s fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an ‘austerity policy’ if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as ‘IMF conditionalities’.

Wikipedia goes on to point out:

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.

***

The IMF has already performed a complete audit of the whole US financial system, something which they have only previously done to broke third world nations.

Al Martin – former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors and retired naval intelligence officer – observed in an April 2005 newsletter that the ratio of total U.S. debt to gross domestic product (GDP) rose from 78 percent in 2000 to 308 percent in April 2005. The International Monetary Fund considers a nation-state with a total debt-to-GDP ratio of 200 percent or more to be a “de-constructed Third World nation-state.”

Martin explained:

What “de-constructed” actually means is that a political regime in that country, or series of political regimes, have, through a long period of fraud, abuse, graft, corruption and mismanagement, effectively collapsed the economy of that country.

***

Given that experts on third world banana republics from the IMF and the Federal Reserve have said the U.S. has become a third world banana republic (and see this and this), maybe the process of turning first world into the third world is already complete.

But raising taxes and paring social services are necessary to dig us out of the debt hole, right? And we needed to spend that money to stabilize the economy, right?

Well, while the economy has admittedly stabilized for billionaires, it hasn’t for anyone else. And see this, this and this.

And as I wrote last month:

House majority leader Steny Hoyer – a close ally to President Obama – says the U.S. needs to raise taxes and cut spending .

As Agence France-Presse reports:

The United States must embrace a blend of tax increases and spending cuts to rein in its deficit or face a potentially crippling debt crisis like the one in Greece, a top US lawmaker warned Monday.

“It is enough to look across the Atlantic at Greece’s extreme economic crisis and understand: It can happen here. If we don’t change course, it will happen here,” said Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer…

“It seems to me that the only solution that can win the support of both parties is a balanced approach: one that cuts some spending and raises some revenue while avoiding extremes in either direction,” he said.

Of course, many others have warned of the massive debt overhang in the U.S. as well.

But why aren’t our government “leaders” talking about slashing the military-industrial complex, which is ruining our economy with unnecessary imperial adventures?

And why aren’t any of our leaders talking about stopping the permanent bailouts for the financial giants who got us into this mess? And see this.

And why aren’t they taking away the power to create credit from the private banking giants – which is costing our economy trillions of dollars (and is leading to a decrease in loans to the little guy) – and give it back to the states?

If we did these things, we wouldn’t have to raise taxes or cut core services to the American people.

And if there’s any shortfall, all we have to do is claw back the ill-gotten gains from the fraudsters working for the too big to fails whose unlawful actions got us into this mess in the first place. See this http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/hit-corporate-big-wigs-who-commited.… , this http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/ongoing-cover-up-of-truth-behind.htm… , this http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/elizabeth-warren-suspects-fraud-as.h… , this http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/10/janet-tavakoli-tells-truth-to-imf.ht… and this http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/former-managing-director-of-goldman.….


http://www.prisonplanet.com/bernanke-we-must-raise-taxes-and-cut-services-•…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 28/04/2010 23:50:14 (29/04/2010 08:50:14)

REID TO ‘BACKROOM’ NATIONAL ENERGY TAX BILL

04/14/2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is set to take charge of new legislation aimed at imposing a national energy tax on all Americans, according to Greenwire, the news service for all things environment (article available on the Senate Republican Environment and Public Works “EPW” Press Blog here.)

Called “cap-and-trade” or “climate change” or “global warming” legislation, the new attempt to place a crippling national tax on America’s energy resources is being cobbled together by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). According to the new report, the trio will not formally introduce the bill in the Senate when it’s unveiled next week.

“If we introduce it, it'll get referred to committees,” Lieberman said. “We want him to be able to work with it and bring it out onto the floor as a leader whenever he's ready.”

This opens the doors for more Reid backroom deals on the bill instead of going through the normal committee process.

“We'll unveil a full legislative language bill for discussion, for people to respond to, to see where we are,” Kerry told Greenwire. “It'll be up to the majority leader at that point where he wants to proceed.”

But all’s not well in enviro-Senate Democrat heaven. According to the report there are already turf battles brewing in the attempt to cut deals behind closed doors then rush the massive tax through the Senate.

“These bills need to go through committee,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said in the report. “If you're talking about making major deals on energy policy, it needs to go through the Energy Committee. If you're making major deals on tax policy, it needs to go through the Finance Committee. I mean, if you want to get it done.”

I asked Matt Dempsey, Communications Director for Sen. Jim Inhofe's (R-Okla.) EPW Republicans about this new development.

“Even before Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman introduce their global warming cap and tax bill, they are looking for every opportunity to circumvent the Committee process,” Dempsey told HUMAN EVENTS. “Given the success of the Democrats ability to cut deals behind closed doors to pass a health care bill, expect them to use the same game plan for cap and tax legislation.”

The backroom deal process is becoming the new normal. We call this “corruption” in third word countries.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36510

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 07/05/2010 05:44:24 (07/05/2010 14:44:24)

PENNSYLVANIA THREATENS CITIZENS WITH BIG BROTHER TAX COLLECTION SCARE CAMPAIGN: WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE

Tuesday, May 04, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) Just when you thought the truth couldn't get any stranger than fiction, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue decides to launch a creepy new Big Brother "Tax Amnesty" program aimed at getting delinquent taxpayers to pay up on their back taxes. But the state agency has stooped to using police state tactics in its advertising to scare people into paying.

If you don't believe me, watch this VIDEO on YouTube (it's real): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybcu...

In it, a robotic female voice targets a man named "Tom" who owes back taxes to the State of Pennsylvania. A satellite view from above (eye in the sky) is zooming in on Tom's house and targeting it in the crosshairs, as if he is some sort of enemy of the state.

The voice says, in classic mob-style shakedown language, "Listen, we can make this easy. Pay online by June 18th and we'll skip your penalty... because Tom, we do know who you are." This is followed up by a large on-screen text slogan, "FIND US BEFORE WE FIND YOU."

The ad almost seems like a hoax, but it's very real. The official website carries the same Big Brother message: Pay up, or we'll find you... (and do something scary to you).

Countdown timer spreads fear

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue website, its "Tax Amnesty" program was signed into law back in October, 2009. It allows for a 54-day timeframe in which delinquent taxpayers can catch a break on their late payments. There is even a countdown clock on the site that indicates the "Time Left to Pay Up".

During a time when millions of hard-working Americans are losing their jobs and struggling just to get by, the State of Pennsylvania has decided to play the role of the mafia in threatening its citizens who are late on their tax payments. It's a great example of what happens when a government becomes so estranged from the very people it is supposed to represent that it starts to bully them into submission.

The whole thing resembles something out of the book 1984, where a totalitarian regime watches and controls the people and promptly "deals" with those who are not in full compliance. It's the type of thing you would expect in communist China, not the supposed free United States of America.

Since 9/11, Americans' civil liberties have been rapidly eroding as both state and federal governments have begun treating ordinary citizens like criminals. Sure, some people are probably late on their tax payments (because they have no jobs!), but the blatant way in which the Pennsylvania government is coercively threatening people shows that it is no longer a government by the People and for the People.

The whole charade is just a sign of worse things to come in America. If this is how individual states are beginning to handle back taxes, imagine what's potentially in the works at the federal level. After all, millions of Americans are waking up to the truth about the federal income tax Ponzi scheme and the fact that the Federal Reserve can simply print all the money the government needs, regardless of how much tax money is collected.

What kind of Big Brother tactics are going to be unleashed when people simply decide to stop paying taxes into a bankrupt, criminally-operated state that wastes their hard-earned dollars on Wall Street bailouts and wasteful spending programs?

Oh yeah, don't forget: They know where you live. And they want you to be very, very afraid. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pennsylvania state government gets a whole slew of phoned-in bomb threats in response to this Gestapo tactic. It's no big shock that some people are willing to turn to violence to get back at tax collectors. Remember the guy who flew his airplane into the IRS building in Washington?

Sadly, this kind of Big Brother tax collection threat only serves to incite further anger among those who already resent taxing authorities by demonstrating that the State is, indeed, "out to get you."

How else can you interpret the language in the ad when it says, "FIND US BEFORE WE FIND YOU" ?


http://www.naturalnews.com/028715_Big_Brother_tax_amnesty.html

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 01/07/2010 00:46:47 (01/07/2010 09:46:47)

OMPI (ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE

Un autre transfert vers le gouvernement mondial. Voir les implications.

Objectifs, principales caractéristiques, avantages du système de Madrid - Publication OMPI 418
•Publication 418 en PDF
•Introduction
•Objectifs
•Qui peut utiliser le système de Madrid?
•La demande internationale
•Examen par l’Office d’une Partie contractante désignée; refus de protection
•Effets de l'enregistrement international
•Dépendance à l'égard de la marque de base
•Remplacement d'un enregistrement national ou régional par un enregistrement international
•Désignation postérieure
•Modifications dans le registre international; radiation; licences
•Durée de l'enregistrement; renouvellement
•Avantages du système


http://www.wipo.int/madrid/fr/general/

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 03/07/2010 00:06:41 (03/07/2010 09:06:41)

KERRY-LIEBERMAN CLIMATE BILL WOULD DESTROY MILLIONS OF JOBS, COST FAMILES THOUSANDS



A new study shows that the so-called American Power Act would cost the economy 5.1 million jobs and an average of more than $1,000 in extra energy costs per family.

July 3, 2010 - by Andrew Chamberlain

President Obama has repeatedly told Americans he has three main policy priorities — rewriting health care, overhauling the financial system, and imposing a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He met his first goal and he’s closer than ever on the second; time is running out if he wants to meet the trifecta by the end of 2010. But make no mistake, the president and his allies in Congress are working hard to pass cap-and-trade before this year is up. The problem is that cap-and-trade bills are expensive, they inevitably cost jobs, and the American people know it.

Last year, the House passed the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. But now that 1400+ page bill is stalled in the Senate in large part because of its massive costs to Americans. To jump start the debate, Senators Kerry and Lieberman recently announced a new strategy to impose a cap-and-trade system on Americans — the inaptly named “American Power Act.” Senator Kerry no longer calls his various proposals “cap-and-trade,” but changing a bill’s name to disguise its intentions is a time-honored ruse in Washington.

To examine the economic impact of this plan, we performed an economic and distributional analysis of the cap-and-trade portion of the proposal. The following are some of the study’s key findings:

•The American Power Act would reduce U.S. employment by roughly 522,000 jobs in 2015, a number that rises to over 5.1 million jobs lost by 2050.

•Households would face a gross annual burden of $125.9 billion per year, or $1,042 per household, with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households.

•On a net basis, the top income quintile will benefit financially, redistributing to these households roughly $12.3 billion per year from the bottom 80 percent of earners.

•Households over age 75 bear the largest burden at 2.3 percent of income, followed by households aged 65-74 and under age 25 at 2.1 percent. By contrast, the nation’s highest-earning households between age 45 and 54 years would bear the smallest percentage burden of just 1.5 percent.

•Contrary to the legislation’s stated goal of reducing price volatility by excluding petroleum refiners from quarterly auctions, the Kerry-Lieberman bill is likely to significantly increase allowance price volatility from quarter to quarter, compared to an ordinary auction in which all covered industries bid for allowances.

It is important to note that these impacts are only from the cap-and-trade portions of the bill. Like Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Lieberman includes hundreds of pages of non-cap-and-trade regulations which will increase the cost of energy and the cost of using energy, while at the same time introducing government micromanagement of many areas of our daily lives, from the choices we can make when purchasing products, to the type of house we live in and ultimately, to the way the government allows us to make our livings. It is a transformational and comprehensive set of mandates designed and marketed as nothing less than a plan to change the way Americans live.

Contrary to its representation, basic economics shows the American Power Act is regressive and will disproportionately impact low-income households.

Instead of distributing revenue directly to American households, the legislation filters the money through regulated utilities. If the goal were to compensate people for higher energy prices, it would make the most sense to send the money directly to people, rather than passing through electricity and natural gas companies. But to secure political support for the bill, Senators Kerry and Lieberman instead would funnel revenue through utilities. This way, utilities — and ultimately their upper-income shareholders — will be able to siphon off some of the benefits, rather than passing them on to consumers.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to the EPA’s own estimates of GDP reductions, the bill would shrink the U.S. economy by $39 billion by 2015 and up to $384 billion by 2050. Some lawmakers say that’s a good deal for climate policy. But with unemployment hovering near 10 percent and the economy pulling out of recession, is today a good time to impose higher energy costs on American families?

Andrew Chamberlain is chief economist at Chamberlain Economics, L.L.C. and co-author of the new Institute for Energy Research study, “Paying for the ‘American Power Act:’ An Economic and Distributional Analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman Cap-and-Trade Bill.”


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-would-destroy-mil…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 10/07/2010 23:41:21 (11/07/2010 08:41:21)



WORKERS ACTION INTRODUCTION

On June 28, 2010, the San Francisco Labor Council sponsored a forum on progressive taxation featuring three prominent speakers: Marty Hittelman, President of the California Federation of Teachers, Sarah Flocks, Policy Coordinator at the California Labor Federation, and Conny Ford, President of Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 3 and Vice President of the San Francisco Labor Council. The following article constituted the basis for more abbreviated introductory comments by Ann Robertson, who chaired the meeting and is a delegate to the Labor Council from the California Faculty Association.

Virtually every major newspaper in the country has reported that working people are angry: They are angry at the government’s bailout of the bankers who recklessly drove the economy off the cliff, which amounted to rewarding bad behavior.

And they are angry because, although working people did nothing to create this economic crisis, we, and not the bankers, are being handed the bill, not only through our tax dollars that paid for the bailout, but through the devastation that has wracked our lives through loss of our jobs, our homes, our health care — all directly the result of the economic crisis.

The suffering has been intense.

2.5 million Americans have lost their homes to foreclosures, which continue to rise. And according to an AFL-CIO blog, 43 percent of us have been forced to take a pay cut; 38 percent of us, or someone close to us, has lost a job, and 27 percent have lost health care coverage. (AFL-CIO blog, June 7, 2010).

As we know first hand, the devastation in California has been particularly intense.

In California the official unemployment rate is 12.4 percent, but if one factors in those who are involuntarily working part-time and include discouraged workers, then the real unemployment rate is over 20 percent.

The unions have predicted that 36,000 teachers will be laid off this coming year in California. (PBS NewsHour, June 3, 2010).

It was recently reported that the government has been going after the pensions of state workers. Thus far, four unions have made concessions, meaning the state of California will cut its contribution to their pension funds while workers in some cases will have to pay double the amount into their retirement fund than they paid before. (The New York Times, June 19, 2010). The same is happening in many other states.

The California State University Trustees just raised student fees 5 percent and will likely raise them another 5 percent before the end of the year. These raises have come on the heels of a 30 percent raise last year, which in turn followed years of creeping increases.

And here in San Francisco, as many of you know, our schools are facing $113 million budget shortfall, meaning virtually all school programs will be cut to one degree or another. 200 teachers and administrators were laid off this spring. And teachers will be forced to take unpaid furloughs next year, resulting in a cut in their pay and a shortened school year. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 21, 2010).

350 San Francisco city workers were recently laid off, and this has come after 3 years of steady job elimination because of the recession so that our social services have been dramatically cut back.

Labor unions here in SF were just pressured into giving up nearly $300 million in concessions over the next 2 years, and we will pay higher fees for city services. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 3, 2010).

In light of all this palpable suffering, one wonders what the federal government is doing to alleviate the misery. Unfortunately, after enthusiastically embracing the bailout for the banks, the Obama administration has suddenly became worried about the rising deficit and is saying it cannot afford any more major bailouts.

But in direct contradiction to the government’s unwillingness to rescue working people, the labor movement is increasingly stepping up and taking the position that money is available not only for reducing the deficit but for putting people back to work through a massive public jobs program and for saving our social services.

But in order to understand the logic underlying labor’s proposals, it is important to realize that some people are doing fabulously well in the current period. In fact they are doing better than ever before. For example, in the late 19th century, the income of John D. Rockefeller, the richest person at that time was 7000 times the average income of workers. But today the highest income, which went to a hedge fund manager, was 38,000 times the average income. (The New York Times, Paul Krugman, April 27, 2007).

In 1970 the top CEOs made 40 times the salary of the average worker. In 2003 they made 1000 times as much as the average worker. Income inequality has been spiraling out of control in this country during the past four decades, and it continues to get worse.

And even though their income is at an all-time high, the taxes of the wealthiest Americans are at an all-time low: “Taxation has become much less progressive: according to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, average tax rates on the richest 0.01 percent of Americans have been cut in half since 1970, while taxes on the middle class have risen.” (Krugman, ibid.).

To his credit, Warren Buffet has criticized our tax rates because he is only taxed at a rate of 17.7 percent on his $46 million income while his secretary has to pay taxes at a rate of 30 percent. (Dorothy Brown, The New York Times, March 8, 2009).

Moreover, between 1998 and 2005, two out of every three corporations in the U.S. paid absolutely no taxes. (The New York Times, August 12, 2008).

According to the National Education Association, “…the richest Americans pay about $5 for every $100 of their income in state and local taxes. The poorest pay about $11. Also the share of taxes paid by corporations as a percentage of their profits has declined 50 percent over the last 20 years.”

Because the income of the rich is at an all time high while their taxes are lower than those of working people, different sectors within the labor movement have been stepping forward and proposing to create jobs, save public education and save social services by raising taxes on the rich and closing the tax loopholes that have allowed corporations often to avoid paying taxes altogether.

For example, the California Teachers Associaton announced in its publication, California Educator, May 2010, “CTA has collected enough signatures to qualify the Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes initiative for the November ballot. However, legislators can and should take care of this injustice before November as part of the budget solution.”

In its April 2010 publication, Advocate, NEA reported that it has organized a campaign, called TEF (Taxes, Economic development, and Funding for schools) to address its finding that on the state and local level, the poor pay taxes at more than twice the rate as the rich. It is demanding that taxes be raised on the rich and on the corporations.

Meanwhile, the California Federation of Teachers, after enumerating the devastating cuts to the University of California, the California State University system, and the community colleges, argued:

Wealth has been massively redistributed in California and the nation over the past three decades — in the wrong direction. The top one percent of the economic pyramid own thirty-four percent of the wealth. The very richest people are paying less in taxes and keeping more money for themselves. Their luxury consumption and lower tax rates equal the neglect and decline of our public services.

So the CFT is also calling for higher taxes on the rich and closing corporate tax loopholes.

The California Faculty Association that covers faculty in the California State University system has been promoting an oil severance tax, meaning that the oil companies will have to pay a tax whenever they remove oil from the ground.

Finally, Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, has called on the government to create a massive public jobs program that would employ 10 million people while taxing Wall Street to pay for it.

Aside from the fact that it is morally offensive to skew the tax structure so that the rich pay taxes at a lower rate than working people, the proposals coming from the labor movement make good economic sense in several respects:

70 percent of the U.S. economy depends on consumption. Yet during the past four decades with the income of working people falling, our ability to engage in consumption has declined accordingly. The economy cannot thrive when most people cannot afford to buy the things they need.

But even more than this: economists have argued that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is by investing in education.

In this way citizens can acquire the skills that they need in order to become highly productive workers.

And a massive public jobs program that would put people back to work while being funded by Wall Street would reduce the deficit because their salaries would be taxed and they would no longer be collecting unemployment.

So the proposals coming from the labor movement are sound economic proposals that will have the force of lifting us out of the recession and raising the standard of living of working people.

And so the battle lines have been drawn. On one side stand the vast majority of the population, working people and the poor, who want to see those who are unemployed put back to work, they want quality affordable education for themselves and their children, and they want quality social services provided to them by their government. On the other side stand a fabulously rich minority who are tenaciously holding on to their wealth while fighting for an even greater share of society’s wealth.

It is important to realize that there are strong grounds for hope. The unions in Oregon just fought the corporations and won.

They succeeded in passing two ballot initiatives, one that increased the tax rate on the rich and the other that eliminated some corporate tax loopholes. Also, here in California, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) just spent $50 million in order to pass a measure that would have subverted the will of the majority of voters by requiring a two-thirds vote for a city to municipalize its energy. Yet PG&E lost, which goes to show that money does not always trump democracy. And finally, according to a recent Bloomberg National Poll, two-thirds of Americans support raising taxes on the rich in order to reduce the deficit and they “want their government to create jobs through spending on public works, investments in alternative energy or skills training for the jobless … and most are ready to hand the bill to the wealthy.”

On March 15, 2010, the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution calling for the building of a coalition among labor unions, community groups, and interested individuals to mount a campaign to save public education and social services through progressive taxation. This forum is a first step in the direction of implementing this resolution. Today we have brought together representatives from different sectors of the union movement to begin to unify our ranks in order to build a powerful movement.

Raising taxes on corporations and the rich is the moral thing to do. It is what the majority of people want. And it makes good economic sense. We can win this campaign.

About the Author: Ann Robertson is an Lecturer at San Francisco State University, a member of the California Faculty Association, and a delegate to the San Fransico Labor Council.

She may be reached at sanfrancisco@workerscompass.org
Related articles:

For Labor Town-Hall Meetings to Address Governement/Corporate Deficit Reduction Proposals!

Coming Soon Corporate Town Halls Against Social Security
Portland's Town Hall Meeting on the Economic Crisis
Why Are Corporate Groups Funding the Tea Party?
Articles about socialism from Workers Action:

Workers Action Statement of Principles
Why Join Revolutionary Socialist Party
Join Workers Action!


http://www.workerscompass.orgvorpahl/_07-06-2010.html

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 06/09/2010 01:53:45 (06/09/2010 10:53:45)

120 DAYS TO GO UNTIL THE LARGEST TAX HIKES IN HISTORY

From Ryan Ellis on Friday, September 3, 2010 11:10 AM

See also: Get 'Em While They're Hot: Medicine Cabinet Tax Hits in 120 Days

In just 120 days, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care tax credit will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The top capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The top dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The Tanning Tax. This went into effect on July 1st of this year. It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon. There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescrïption, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Brand Name Drug Tax. Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers. This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

Economic Substance Doctrine. The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.” This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2. This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year. While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Until this year, a retired person with an IRA could contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.” This ability will no longer be there.


http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-a5370#

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 22/09/2010 01:18:17 (22/09/2010 10:18:17)

VERS LA CRÉATION IMMINENTE D'UNE TAXE MONDIALE, PUIS D'UNE MONNAIE MONDIALE?

Classé dans: Piège à la Une — admin @ 7:50 le Mercredi 22 septembre 2010

La faim dans le Monde pourrait constituer une nouvelle opportunité très prochaine pour la mise en place d’une taxe mondiale, et par la suite possiblement d’une monnaie mondiale selon l’observation des plans occultes des élites néo-mondialistes.

Qui en effet n’est pas ému et scandalisé par le nombre toujours croissant d’enfants et d’adultes très pauvres, ne disposant même pas de quoi se nourrir quotidiennement ?

Les élites néo-mondialistes, largement responsables de cet état de fait par leur incurie et leur idéologie politique ultra-capitaliste semblent avoir compris que ce scandale, directement lié à la corruption et aux guerres instrumentalisées par les lobbies militaro-financiers, pourrait servir leur agenda, et même l’accélérer.

Sarkozy favororable à une taxe sur les transactions financières Vidéo LePost sélectionnée dans Actualité
Et c’est là que l’on voit que certaines associations dites altermondialistes et a priori sincères, mais n’ayant pas poussé la réflexion suffisamment loin, peuvent servir d’appui aux forces pro-NWO, malgré les dénégations de leurs dirigeants et malgré la bonne volonté de leurs adhérents et de leurs soutiens.

Car évidemment, il ne suffit pas de s’indigner de la pauvreté galopante dans le monde, arrivée à des niveaux records, il faut aussi proposer des solutions alternatives : et parmi ces solutions alternatives, la Taxe Tobin remise au goût du jour par ATTAC qui visait à l’origine la taxation des transactions financières semble avoir retenu l’intérêt des forces néo-mondialistes, Nicolas Sarkozy en tête, qui reprend actuellement cette proposition de taxation mondiale des transactions financières dans un forum de l’ONU dédié pompeusement aux problématiques du Millénaire (comprendre le Nouvel Ordre Mondial, pour les initiés).

D’autres proposent de compléter ou de remplacer ce dispositif de taxe mondiale sur les transactions financières, par une loi mondiale qui taxerait divers actes de loisirs de la vie quotidienne tels qu’internet, ou encore les transports (aviation en tête), etc.. etc..

Ce qui reste certain, c’est que le consommateur final (nous, vous) sera le payeur, bien évidemment.

Bref, ce qui n’a pas été possible avec le Réchauffement climatique et la taxe Carbone et qui a été renvoyé par la petite porte après le Climategate de ces derniers mois reviendrait par la fenêtre avec la problématique de la faim dans le monde et la taxe sur les transactions financières ou sur les produits financiers, les produits culturels ou de loisirs.

Qu’importe le flacon, pourvu qu’on ait l’ivresse

Evidemment, pour les planificateurs du NWO, qu’importe le flacon, pourvu qu’on ait l’ivresse : peu leur chaut que les taxes mondiales soient imposées sous le prétexte du réchauffement climatique ou sur le prétexte de la faim dans le monde, ce qui compte pour eux c’est de ramasser le jackpot et d’initier un embryon de taxation mondiale, colonne vertébrale du Nouvel Ordre Mondial.

Ce qui compte pour eux c’est de contrôler les flux financiers au plus haut niveau, en les concentrant au sommet de la pyramide (illuminatie), quitte à les redistribuer vers la base à leur gré (et à en détourner une partie au passage)…

Car le problème n’est pas tant de créer de nouveaux impôts, le problème central est de contrôler l’utilisation faite de ces impôts et d’instaurer un contrôle citoyen réel et efficace, ce qui est très, très loin d’être le cas !

Une fois le financement par l’impôt initié puis rapidement l’espèrent-elles « sécurisé », les forces pro-NWO passeront alors à la phase suivante, à savoir la création d’une monnaie mondiale, basée a priori sur un panier de devises fortes (incluant ou non celles de puissants paradis fiscaux, cela reste à déterminer), dénommé possiblement « Mondio » ou « Bancor » selon diverses recherches des membres du Mouvement pour la Vérité, le nom final n’ayant sans doute pas encore été arrêté définitivement.

Des solutions alternatives existent

Il existe bien évidemment des solutions alternatives à taxation mondiale pour lutter contre cette pauvreté mondiale, comme la création de lois limitant la concentration des richesses aux mains d’une élite incontrôlable, comme la mise en place d’embargos contre les paradis fiscaux, comme l’arrêt des guerres qui sont facteurs de déstabilisation et de pauvreté dans de nombreux secteurs de la planète, souvent soutenues ou carrément initiées par les pays développés, parfois même par l’intermédiaire de l’ONU, totalement détourné de sa mission « officielle » ! Comme la mise en place de programme vivriers et la réforme des accord commericaux mondiaux qui contribuent au pillage de certains pays pauvres. Comme la lutte contre la corruption, avec la mise en examen des personnes responsables de crimes contre l’Humanité, à commencer par certains anciens (ou présents) dirigeants US, britanniques et israëliens notamment, mais aussi de certains pays du Moyen-Orient, d’Afrique et de tous endroits à l’origine de guerres et de crimes impunis. Le tout avec un accès garanti à l’Education, une vraie éducation respectueuse et libre, déconcentrée, permettant de limiter l’explosion démographique dans certains secteurs de la planète. Etc…

Bref, ces vraies solutions alternatives sont d’évidence à l’opposé même des pratiques et des plans néo-mondialistes !

Une affaire à suivre de très près

Bien évidemment, l’Observatoire francophone du Nouvel Ordre Mondial suivra de près l’avancée de l’agenda néo-mondialiste, à moins que les gens se réveillent enfin et mettent à mal ce programme criminel de domination mondial par une élite occulte hyper-puissante.

Et comme toujours, à chacun et chacune de se forger en son libre arbitre et en son âme et conscience sa propre opinion.

+ VIDÉO :
http://911nwo.info/2010/09/22/vers-la-creation-imminente-dune-taxe-mondiale…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 01/10/2010 05:57:33 (01/10/2010 14:57:33)

USA : SENATE EXPANDS IRS FORM 1099 REPORTING REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE ALL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS

More than 10 million Americans are in for a rude awakening in January.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010
By Chris Neefus

(CNSNews.com) – Millions of Americans who own rental property are in for a bit of a rude awakening, beginning in January.

Congress has presented a bill to President Obama that would expand the IRS Form 1099 reporting requirements set out in the health-care reform law to include private citizens who own rental property.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health care law, requires that small businesses file a Form 1099-MISC with the IRS for any goods they purchase from an outside vendor valued at over $600.

But the new bill, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act (H.R. 5297), extends the mandate to private individuals who own property from which they receive rental income. Those people would also now have to fill out paperwork reporting any expenditure they make on that property valued over $600 for the year.

Section 2101 of the bill accomplishes this by considering anyone receiving rental income as “engaged in a trade or business.”

The provision is a revenue-raising measure designed to offset other small business tax incentives and the Small Business Lending Fund Program created in the bill. It is expected to create about $2.5 billion in revenue, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan body that determines the budget effects of bills that Congress produces.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at the taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), told CNSNews.com that about 10 million Americans are in for a rude awakening in just three months, when they have to begin tracking all of their expenditures related to a rental property.

“There’s 10 million people who don’t know that they’re now suddenly going to be required to do this,” Ellis said. “They don’t have to issue them until January 2012 because it’s a 2011 requirement, but they’ve got to start tracking in January (2011). So I hope their internal accounting is good.”

Writing for ATR, Ellis said, “So imagine that you're renting out your starter condo. You pay a property manager, a plumber, a repairman, a locksmith, a condo association, etc. Imagine having to get a taxpayer identification number, order 1099-MISCs from the IRS, fill them out by hand, keep a copy for yourself, send a copy to each payee (from whom you had to get a tax ID number and other information), and then finally take your legitimate rental deduction. Then the IRS finds some hiccup somewhere, and you get audited -- all to placate an insane Congress.”

Repeal Fails

There has been opposition to making small businesses file 1099 statements since the original rquirement was included in the health-care bill. Much of the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spoke out against the original requirements, valued by the Joint Committee on Taxation at $17 billion, and the chorus in favor of repeal grew so loud at one point that some Democrats began to support repealing the provision.

When Senate Democrats introduced the small business bill, several amendments were introduced to try to kill the original mandate on small business -- and its expansion to private individuals contained in the small business bill.

Ultimately, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) allowed the Senate to vote on only two amendments that would change the 1099 requirements -- one Republican amendment, sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have stripped the 1099 requirement from law, and another supported by the White House that would have kept the mandates on business and private property owners in place, but raised the threshold for compliance from $600 to $5,000.

But both failed to gain approval, leaving the original mandate from the health-care bill in place -- and the newly expanded 1099 burden contained in the small business bill.

Neither Majority Leader Reid and nor House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned requests for comments by press time.


http://preventdisease.com/news/10/080410_vaccines_mind_DNA.shtml

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 24/11/2010 06:16:21 (24/11/2010 15:16:21)

FRANCE: L'INSTAURATION D'UNE «TAXE GOOGLE» INQUIÈTE

Agence France-Presse (Paris)
24 novembre 2010 | 07 h 46



RSS - Nouvelles

Le petit monde des nouvelles technologies s'insurge contre la «taxe Google», un prélèvement sur l'achat d'espaces de publicité en ligne voté au Sénat dont les principaux acteurs de l'économie numérique craignent de pâtir.

Adopté mardi malgré les «réserves» du gouvernement, le dispositif est le fruit d'un amendement au budget 2011 présenté par le rapporteur général UMP de la commission des Finances, Philippe Marini. Il pourrait s'appliquer dès le 1er janvier 2011, s'il est confirmé le mois prochain par les députés.

«L'objectif des pouvoirs publics est clairement de taxer Google et les gros acteurs qui arrivent à échapper au système (fiscal) français», explique Marie Delamarche, directrice déléguée du Syndicat des régies internet (SRI), qui représente les principales régies publicitaires françaises.

Mais, dénonce-t-elle, «l'amendement Marini va taxer indifféremment tous les acteurs puisqu'il taxe les acheteurs de publicité en ligne» et pas les revenus publicitaires, avec pour conséquence de «mettre en péril de petits acteurs français».

Devant le Sénat, M. Marini a défendu «la taxation des annonceurs» comme «la seule solution, compte tenu de la localisation hors de France des principaux vendeurs d'espace publicitaire en ligne, tels que Google», pour «faire prévaloir l'équité entre les différents supports de publicité».

«La publicité à la télévision comme dans la presse papier est soumise à taxation. Le statu quo entraînerait une distorsion de concurrence», a-t-il justifié.

En implantant leurs sièges dans des pays à fiscalité réduite comme l'Irlande, Google et d'autres géants de l'internet échappent à toute imposition dans les autres pays, où ils engrangent la majeure partie de leurs revenus publicitaires.

L'amendement Marini se trompe de cible, rétorque Guillaume Buffet, co-président de l'association Renaissance Numérique, qui réunit chercheurs et chefs d'entreprises de haute technologie: «Ce n'est pas aux acteurs du numérique de trouver un moyen d'harmoniser la fiscalité européenne».

Stigmatisant une «méconnaissance totale du secteur et de l'importance qu'il a dans le futur développement de la France», M. Buffet trouve «désespérant» de «faire payer les pots cassés aux acteurs qui sont en France».

«On pourrait croire que 1%, ce n'est pas grave, mais ça l'est sur un métier qui génère des marges extrêmement faibles», poursuit-il.

Cet amendement «va dans le mauvais sens», renchérit Roland Tripard, président du directoire de SeLoger.com, s'étonnant qu'«au lieu d'aider le secteur à se développer, on l'assomme avec des taxes».

Avant même le vote du Sénat, l'Association des services internet communautaires (Asic) avait mis en garde contre une mesure risquant de mettre en péril l'activité de «nombreux acteurs et de l'économie numérique, qui sont en pleine croissance et qui ont besoin, pour se développer et atteindre l'équilibre, de visibilité et de stabilité sur le plan de la fiscalité».

Cette taxe de 1% sur l'achat de publicité en ligne concernera les transactions électroniques entre entreprises dites de business to business (B2B), et sera acquittée dans les mêmes conditions que la TVA. Son produit est estimé entre 10 et 20 millions d'euros.

Devant la levée de boucliers qu'il a suscitée, M. Marini a en revanche retiré un deuxième amendement dans lequel il proposait de taxer de 0,5 % le commerce électronique, et qui aurait rapporté plusieurs centaines de millions d'euros par an au fisc.


http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles/201011/24/01-4345760-france-linst…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 27/11/2010 02:13:41 (27/11/2010 11:13:41)

Voir la section DÉSARMEMENT et ÉCONOMIE http://marialerouxi.aceboard.fr/270040-1303-945-60-DESARMEMENT-ECONOMIE.htm… , concernant les mesures d'austérités qui sont en train d'être mises en place dans tous les pays afin de soi-disant combattre la crise économique.

Ces mesures d'austérités sont en fait des taxations globales (tous les pays ayants le même agenda) ainsi que des coupures de services dans plusieurs domaines. Le partenariat qu'ont les gouvernements avec le secteur privé fait que plusieurs services de bases seront transférés au privé.

En déléguant plusieurs domaines au secteur privé, les taxes, que nous donnons au gouvernement pour tous ces services, ne seront pas transférées au privé ; le gouvernement continuera de prélever (détourner) cet argent et nous devrons en plus payer le secteur privé pour avoir droit à ces différents services. Ceci n'est qu'une autre fraude de plus afin d'amener la famine et la pauvreté chez les nations. Et c'est sans compter tout ce qui ne cesse d'augmenter dans tous les autres domaines ainsi que les nombreuses fraudes bancaires et les saisies frauduleuses des maisons des citoyens.

Alors, quand votre gouvernement vous dit qu'il fait tout ce qu'il peut pour nous sortir de cette crise financière, nous pouvons clairement voir qu'il nous ment, une fois de plus, et que ses intentions réelles sont en fait notre destruction et l'esclavage total des nations.


maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 29/11/2010 01:33:00 (29/11/2010 10:33:00)

FRANCE : UNE TAXE INATTENDUE RISQUE DE PLOMBER LE STATUT D'AUTO-ENTREPRENEUR

29 novembre 2010 - 13H34


De nombreux auto-entrepreneurs vont devoir payer une cotisation au titre de la taxe professionnelle réformée sans même avoir réalisé de chiffre d'affaires, une mauvaise surprise susceptible de plomber l'engouement pour ce dispositif qui a dopé les créations d'entreprises.


Dans un entretien à L'Expansion, l'ex-secrétaire d'Etat chargé des PME, Hervé Novelli, qui a porté le projet, assure de son côté que "toutes les personnes qui n'ont pas réalisé de chiffre d'affaires en 2009 n'auront pas à payer la fameuse" taxe. AFP -

De nombreux auto-entrepreneurs vont devoir payer une cotisation au titre de la taxe professionnelle réformée sans même avoir réalisé de chiffre d'affaires, une mauvaise surprise susceptible de plomber l'engouement pour ce dispositif qui a dopé les créations d'entreprises.

"Que d'énergie dépensée inutilement... je termine mes engagements d'ici à la fin décembre et ensuite, je ferme!", lâche un auto-entrepreneur sur un forum internet, où les titulaires de ce statut sont nombreux à faire part de leur "écoeurement".

La Fédération des auto-entrepreneurs (FEDAE) s'est émue du problème: des milliers d'inscrits ont reçu un avis d'imposition pour régler la cotisation foncière des entreprises (CFE), qui remplace la taxe professionnelle.

Cette cotisation, fixée par les communes, est en effet calculée non pas en fonction du chiffre d?affaires déclaré, mais sur la base de la valeur locative du lieu de travail des auto-entrepreneurs, même s'il s'agit, dans la plupart des cas, de leur domicile.

Résultat: certains se retrouvent à payer une taxe, alors même qu'ils n'ont pas réalisé de chiffre d'affaires, souligne Grégoire Leclercq, qui préside la FEDAE. "D'autres doivent payer une cotisation bien trop élevée -jusqu'à 2.000 euros- sans rapport avec leur niveau d'activité", poursuit-il.

Depuis sa naissance début 2009, le statut d'auto-entrepreneur fait la fierté du gouvernement, en permettant aux salariés, chômeurs, retraités ou étudiants de développer une activité à titre principal ou complémentaire pour accroître leurs revenus, avec des démarches simplifiées et un régime fiscal avantageux.

Malgré les critiques des artisans, qui ont toujours dénoncé une "concurrence déloyale", il a nettement dopé la création d'entreprises ces deux dernières années: plus de la moitié des quelque 600.000 créations enregistrées en 2009 sont le fait d'auto-entrepreneurs.

Mais la CFE met désormais en péril 300.000 d'entre eux, estime M. Leclercq: "100.000 inscrits en 2009 vont se radier, 100.000 inscrits en 2010 vont se désinscrire et 100.000 autres qui auraient adhéré en 2011 ne le feront pas".

En fait, au moment de l'inscrïption, l'auto-entrepreneur peut opter pour un prélèvement forfaitaire libératoire, qui permet d'échapper à l'impôt sur le revenu et à la cotisation foncière des entreprises. Mais ceux dont les revenus dépassent un certain seuil ou qui ne font pas ce choix sont tenus de payer l'impôt sur le revenu et, à partir de la deuxième année d'exercice, la CFE.

"En gros, cela concerne principalement les très gros revenus et les plus petits revenus non imposables", explique Grégoire Leclercq.

A Bercy, où devait se tenir lundi une réunion en interne sur la question, on ne confirme pas les chiffres avancés par la fédération. Mais on reconnaît, dans l'entourage du nouveau secrétaire d'Etat chargé des PME, Frédéric Lefebvre, qu'"il est possible qu'il y ait des difficultés".

"Il était clairement prévu que les auto-entrepreneurs qui ne choisissaient pas le prélèvement libératoire devraient s'acquitter de la taxe professionnelle", tempère François Hurel, à la tête de l'Union des auto-entrepreneurs.

"Il faut trouver une solution pour ceux qui n'ont réalisé aucun chiffre d'affaires", admet-il, tout en minimisant le nombre de personnes concernées.

Selon lui, "le dispositif va de toute façon s'auto-réguler". Les députés ont en effet adopté une disposition prévoyant qu'un auto-entrepreneur qui ne déclare aucun chiffre d'affaires pendant deux ans ne pourra plus bénéficier des avantages du statut.

Dans un entretien à L'Expansion, l'ex-secrétaire d'Etat chargé des PME, Hervé Novelli, qui a porté le projet, assure de son côté que "toutes les personnes qui n'ont pas réalisé de chiffre d'affaires en 2009 n'auront pas à payer la fameuse" taxe.


http://www.france24.com/fr/20101129-une-taxe-inattendue-risque-plomber-le-s…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 20/06/2011 09:49:49 (20/06/2011 18:49:49)

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA TO TAX AND CONTROL - THE SOVIETISATION OF THE EU CONTINUES- MAY 2011

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZ6sL65_pk

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 17/09/2011 20:32:40 (18/09/2011 05:32:40)

OBAMA TO PROPOSE "BUFFETT TAX" ON MILLIONAIRES

By Alister Bull | Reuters


U.S. President Barack Obama makes a point during remarks at the Congressional Hispanic …

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, in a populist gesture designed to appeal to voters, will propose a "Buffett Tax" on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.

Such a proposal, among suggestions to a congressional Super Committee expected to seek up to $3 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years, would appeal to his Democratic base ahead of the 2012 election but likely not raise much in revenues.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a tweet on Saturday the tax would act as "a kind of AMT" (Alternative Minimum Tax) aimed at ensuring millionaires pay at least as much tax as middle-class families.

The "Buffett Tax" refers to billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who wrote earlier this year that rich people like him often pay less in tax than those who work for them due to loopholes in the taxcode, and can afford to pay more.

Obama will lay out his recommendations in White House Rose Garden remarks at 10.30 am on Monday and is expected to urge steps to raise tax revenue as well as cuts in spending.

But Congress is at liberty to ignore his suggestions and

Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, have said that they will not agree to tax hikes.

The super committee of six Democrat and six Republican lawmakers must find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings before the end of the year to avoid painful automatic cuts, and is mandated to seek savings of up to $1.5 trillion.

These savings are on top of $917 billion in deficit reduction agreed in an August deal to raise the debt limit and Obama wants it to go further.

He has separately urged it to consider $450 billion in tax increases on top of this goal to pay for a jobs bill that he unveiled earlier this month.

The Buffett Tax could help energize Obama's base by highlighting a feature of the tax code that allows the super rich to pay lower rates of tax less wealthy Americans

because the bulk of their income is capital gains, dividends and the 'carried interest' earnings of hedge fund managers.

This is taxed at 15 percent, compared to rates of 10 to 35 percent on straightforward income.

(Reporting by Alister Bull; Editing by Peter Cooney)


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-buffett-tax-millionaires-225402476.h…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 14/02/2012 09:21:17 (14/02/2012 18:21:17)

WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: "WE NEED A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX"

WH Economic Adviser: "This Is A Democratic Budget" And "We Need A Global Minimum Tax"

VIDEO :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gO5B1378P54

“He supports corporate tax reform that would reduce expenditures and loopholes, lower rates for people investing and creating jobs in the U.S., due so further for manufacturing, and that we need to, as we have the Buffett Rule and the individual tax reform, we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens," Gene Sperling said in a meeting with the White House's national economic council.

(via Weekly Standard)


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/13/white_house_economic_advi…

maria
Administrateur
Messages postés : 24147
Posté le 31/03/2012 21:26:01 (01/04/2012 06:26:01)

BIDEN: "WE WANT TO CREATE WHAT'S CALLED A GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX"

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhnHdnUewvs&feature=youtu.be

--Message edité par maria le 2012-04-01 06:26:15--


Pages : Prec. 1 2

Index du forum
ORGANISATION DES NATIONS-UNIES/UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION
TAXES GLOBALES

Haut
Aller à : Les favorisPAROLE DU SEIGNEUR POUR CES TEMPS DE LA FIN/WORD OF GOD IN THE END TIMESSITES RECOMMANDÉS NASAPRENDRE NOTE QUE :ORGANISATION DES NATIONS-UNIES/UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATIONCONSEIL MONDIAL DES ÉGLISES/WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHESRÉSUMÉ DE LA SITUATION MONDIALE PAR VICLA MARQUE DE LA BÊTE/THE MARK OF THE BEASTTERREUR SUR LA TERRE/TERROR ON EARTHLES CAMPS DE CONCENTRATION/CONCENTRATION CAMPSFASCISTE ENVIRONNEMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISTNOUVELLES LOIS ANTITERRORISTES/NEW ANTITERRORIST LAWSPROJET FUTUR POUR LES ENFANTS/FUTUR PROJECTS FOR KIDSDEPOPULATION DE LA TERRE/DEPOPULATION OF THE EARTHCANADAISRAËL et le MOYEN-ORIENTTRAITÉ DE L'AMERIQUE DU NORD/NORTH AMERICAN UNION (CANADA-USA-MEXICO)SECTION DE GAÉTANVIDÉOS/VIDEOS

Membre: Ajouter ce sujet à mes favoris | Envoyer ce sujet à un(e) ami(e) | Imprimer ce sujet
Modérateurs : Déplacer ce sujet | Fermer ce sujet | /!\ Supprimer le sujet
Ajouter une réponse rapide
Ajouter une réponse rapide


Administration
Modération
Ce forum pour votre site ?
AceBoard Forum Gratuit v 5.3
Download Premium Web Templates! - blog gratuit
audit et mesure d'audience visiteurs internet par


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 23 Mai - 17:54 (2012)    Sujet du message: TAXE SUR LES TRANSACTIONS FINANCIÈRES : UN PREMIER PAS Répondre en citant

TAXE SUR LES TRANSACTIONS FINANCIÈRES : UN PREMIER PAS

Et voilà, la taxe Tobin prend son envol. Une autre taxe globale qui va rapporter des milliards de dollars dans les poches de quelques-uns seulement. Cet argent ne servira qu'à bâtir leur nouvelle Atlantide et non pas à aider les peuples à se sortir de cette crise collective qu'eux-mêmes mettent en place.

Il leur sera très facile, avec la société sans argent cash qui prend place sous nos yeux et où les smartphones et autres paiements électroniques sont de plus en plus utilisés, de prélever la taxe Tobin sur toute transaction qui sera faite. Un autre beau système qui ne sert qu'à piéger les populaces pour pouvoir les appauvrir davantage. Pas surprenant que l'on considère de plus en plus ceux qui rejettent ce système comme étant des terroristes. Ce n'est qu'une manière de criminaliser ceux qui ne veulent pas se conformer à la nouvelle idéologie nazie de contrôle total sur les nations.  


Le 23 mai 2012 @17h30

Voici un combat que mène notre groupe de la Gauche unitaire européenne depuis tant d’années qui a trouvé un premier débouché concret : celui de la création d’une taxe sur les transactions financières.

Que cette idée politique soit traduite aujourd’hui en un rapport sur une proposition de “directive du Conseil établissant un système commun de taxe sur les transactions financières” est une victoire des syndicats, des associations, des forces progressistes comme la nôtre. Il faut maintenant s’appuyer sur ce premier acquis pour élargir la directive à toutes les transactions financières avec un taux supérieur à 0,01% comme outil contre la spéculation et un moyen d’abonder un Fonds pour le développement humain, social et écologique.

Après ce premier pas, poursuivons dans toute l’Europe les mobilisations unitaires contre la spéculation financière et pour placer la vie humaine et l’environnement au cœur des choix politiques.

VIDÉO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-1aWHwUFLlQ

http://patricklehyaric.net/2012/05/23/taxe-sur-les-transactions-financieres-un-premier-pas-video/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 26 Mai - 01:05 (2012)    Sujet du message: THE TAX WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN Répondre en citant

THE TAX WHOSE NAME CANNOT BE SPOKEN

VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqk7KJT3oc

AUSTRALIA : http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1039030#heading3 

 

Praised by Barack Obama as a model for the world, Australia's highly unpopular CARBON TAX, set to take effect from July 1st, is set to be policed by laws which forbid business owners from criticizing it for causing price rises -- with thought criminals who do so under threat of being hit with huge fines of over $1 million dollars.
"SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact," reports the Daily Telegraph.

According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, "to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations."

This draconian measure will be enforced by teams of "carbon cops" who roam the streets conducting snap inspections of businesses to ensure they are not making any reference to the tax.

The characterization of dissent against the carbon tax as a criminal offense exemplifies how the measure passed last year goes way beyond merely forcing Australia's top 500 companies to pay an extra $23.78 per each tonne of CO2 emitted. The system will be rolled into a carbon trading system by 2015.

Not only will Australians be whacked with price rises on everything from energy to food, small business owners will also be intimidated into silence when they are forced to pay out more for key supplies. Energy prices across the country have already been skyrocketing over the course of the last year.


After the carbon tax bill passed Australia’s federal parliament last year, the government set about “trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation,” wrote Miranda Devine.  
“It’s all very Orwellian: the tax whose name cannot be spoken. We are already paying for the climate-change hysteria that has gripped Australia for a decade.”  
“But no matter how Orwellian the tactics, no matter how many carbon cops are sent into hairdressing salons to interrogate barbers on the precise nature of their price rises, the truth remains: Australia has gone out on a limb, imposing a carbon tax that will send businesses to the wall, cause undue hardship to families, and tether Australians more tightly to government handouts.”  
“And soon, we will send billions of dollars overseas to buy useless pieces of paper called carbon credits. Investment bankers, lawyers and carbon traders will get rich, as will all the usual spivs and scam artists ready to stick a bucket under the government spigot raining taxpayer cash.”  
Although Barack Obama has largely been forced to abandon a carbon tax for Americans, instead targeting coal-fired power plants via EPA mandates, last year he praised the Australian system as being “good for the world.”

As we have documented, the entire carbon tax SCAM is a monumental fraud which does nothing to help the environment even if you believe in climate change hysteria, in that its primary purpose is to line the pockets of ‘carbon billionaires’ like Al Gore and Maurice Strong.  
Obama’s support for Australia’s carbon tax is unsurprising given the fact that he was “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange” via millions of dollars in donations from the Joyce Foundation, with whom Obama served as a director.

Carbon trading schemes are directly connected to people in third world nations like Honduras and Uganda being brutally evicted from their land and in some cases slaughtered in cold blood. Western companies make billions from seizing land and using it to grow trees in return for lucrative carbon credits which are then sold to companies under carbon tax schemes like the one passed in Australia.  
*********************  
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.  


Dernière édition par maria le Dim 17 Juin - 17:36 (2012); édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 17 Juin - 17:36 (2012)    Sujet du message: LA TAXE CARBONE Répondre en citant

LA TAXE CARBONE

Voici ce qui est en place comme loi en Australie pour ceux qui voudraient contester la taxe sur le Carbone, loi qui va bien sûr s'étendre dans tous les pays.

Une taxe opprimante sur fond de mensonge qui va remplir les poches des riches et aider à financer leurs projets de gouvernance globale.

Les contestataires pourraient faire face à des amendes collossalles dans le but de les faire taire. Vous conviendrez que ces satanistes ne veulent plus que personne ne se mette sur leur chemin et que tout est mis en oeuvre pour un parfait contrôle sur les nations.

On pourra émettre un avis d'infraction contre toute personne morale ou pour une société cotée de 6,600 $ et pour une entreprise cela pourrait aller jusqu'à 1,1 million d'amendes afin de faire taire les récalcitrants à cette nouvelle taxe globale.

Pour en savoir plus : http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1039030#heading3  


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 28 Juin - 20:39 (2012)    Sujet du message: SUPREME COURT JULY 28 ~ BREAKING NEWS ~ OBAMACARE SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS! Répondre en citant

SUPREME COURT JULY 28 ~ BREAKING NEWS ~ OBAMACARE SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS! (2012)



VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcW4wjbI1g


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 30 Juin - 16:11 (2012)    Sujet du message: WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS OBAMACARE FINE A 'PENALTY,' DESPITE COURT CALLING IT A 'TAX' Répondre en citant

WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS OBAMACARE FINE A 'PENALTY,' DESPITE COURT CALLING IT A 'TAX'


Published June 29, 2012
FoxNews.com



First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it's a penalty again.

The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul's most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court's argument -- even though that argument alone spared President Obama's law.

The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress' authority to tax.

Ergo, the fine is officially a "tax" in the eyes of the court. The law stands.

But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a "penalty."

Calling it a "tax" causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009.

Carney went on to say Friday that the "penalty" will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.

Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. "Call it what you want," he said.

But describing the fine as a "penalty" helps fight Republican claims that the court ruling confirms the Obama administration raised taxes with its health care law.

Republicans threatened to use that argument against the president and Democrats in the 2012 election.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Fox News the ruling means the law becomes a "middle-class tax increase." He said the IRS will "come after" people who don't pay.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration pressed ahead Friday with implementing the law. The Department of Health and Human Services was announcing a new program to help states set up so-called health insurance exchanges, which were established under the law.

While Romney vows to repeal the law if elected, Obama has vowed to press forward with implementation.

"Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country," Obama said, speaking Thursday on national TV from the White House.

"It should be pretty clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics," he said. "I did it because it was good for the country."

Romney pinned the court's decision to the election and asked voters to render their own ruling.

"If we want to get rid of ObamaCare," he said, "we're going to have replace President Obama."

Democrats, many of whom were bracing for the court striking down the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance, celebrated the decision Thursday. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., told Fox News that the ruling "gives us the opportunity to re-sell the bill, which we did not do before."

But Republicans vowed to re-double their campaign to repeal the still-controversial law.

The ruling "underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a written statement. "Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare."

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision.

Roberts stressed that the decision does not speak to the merits of the law. "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," he said.

The ruling did rein in one element of the law -- the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/#ixzz1zHOa0jpH


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 28 Sep - 16:33 (2012)    Sujet du message: EXCLUSIVE: AS THE UN OPENS ITS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION, IT IS ALREADY THINKING UP NEW GLOBAL TAXES Répondre en citant



EXCLUSIVE: AS THE UN OPENS ITS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION, IT IS ALREADY THINKING UP NEW GLOBAL TAXES

By George Russell
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com


United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan. (AP)



A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another “tiny” tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.

The United Nations is at it again: finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.

These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.

How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.

As the U.N. itself notes, in a major report on the taxation topic titled, “In Search of New Development Finance” -- the main topic at a high-level international meeting of the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this summer -- “These proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.”

Citation:
The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade.

-


The U.N. clearly hopes it can find a way to move ahead. “ Politically, tapping revenue from global resources and raising taxes internationally to address global problems are much more difficult than taxing for purely domestic purposes,” admits an ECOSOC document produced last April. But, it summarizes, “the time has come to confront the challenge.”

Shortly thereafter, the tax proposals — known in U.N.-speak as “innovative methods of financing”-- got a limited endorsement from a group of government ministers and other heads of national delegations who attended a major ECOSOC meeting in New York City in July.

The global taxation idea was echoed this week by Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and also a U.N. Assistant Secretary General. Sachs was recently named by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to head a new intellectual lobbying group of experts called the Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It “will work closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions and other international organizations,” according to the Earth Institute website.

On Monday, the controversial economist, a vociferous supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, called on President Obama to implement a carbon tax that in turn could be used to finance bonds, paying for investments to combat “climate change” -- one of the major focuses of the new solutions network.

Sachs was quoted by Bloomberg News as declaring that, “I’m happy to have the future pay for a lot of this. It doesn’t have to be current financed.”

In the midst of a heated U.S. national election campaign, any official endorsement of those views is unlikely.

Nonetheless, the U.N. is taking a longer view. The world organization, and its constellation of funds, agencies and programs, has been pushing “innovative financing” for nearly a decade, since the topic was discussed in depth at an international conference in 2002. The topic was endorsed again at the failed Rio + 20 conference last summer, without much detail attached.

But the need for new revenue is becoming more urgent as the world’s rich countries, gripped in recession, no longer hand out foreign aid with the same generosity as before — though the total reached $133 billion annually last year--while the demands for huge additional amounts of money for social and climate issues continues to grow.

Earlier this year, for example, the overseers of a new, U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund held their first meeting in Bonn to contemplate the spending of some $30 billion annually — rising to $100 billion by 2020 — to meet climate change needs in developing countries. Where all that money will come from is still not clear.

The U.N.’s latest roster of tax possibilities certainly has what the New Development Finance Report calls “large fundraising potential.” Or, at least some of them do. An around-the-world tax of $25 per ton on carbon dioxide emissions in rich countries, the report says, could raise some $250 billion a year. That new billionaire’s tax would raise anywhere from $40 billion to $50 billion per year, the report estimates, though it adds that the idea “is not yet in any international agenda.”

CLICK HERE FOR A TAX LIST
http://www.foxnews.com/world/interactive/2012/09/27/united-nations-tax-list…

The U.N. places the same estimated value on the proposed currency tax ($40 billion), and roughly the same thing on its proposed financial tax ($15 billion to $75 billion).

Even more innovative is a notion to, in effect, borrow the lines of credit allocated to rich countries themselves at the International Monetary Fund, and “leverage” them to create new investment funds for the world’s poor. How to do this while preserving those credit lines as a reserve asset that rich countries could draw on when required, the report admits, remains to be seen.

Another “innovative” idea that may have trouble staying afloat is the notion of charging royalties on undersea minerals more than 100 miles offshore, within what are called “exclusive economic zones” — in effect, inside some country’s sovereign economic territory.

The sensitive issue here is that the world’s current “exclusive economic zones” extend 200 miles offshore — meaning that the U.N. is suggesting that it collect royalties on mineral wealth on half the “exclusive” territory, which it refers to in the report as part of the “global commons.”

For most nations, excluding the U.S., those 200 mile zones were established by the U.N.-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, known as LOST, which came into force in 1994 after it was signed and ratified by 162 countries. (The U.S. signed but has not ratified LOST; its 200-mile “exclusive economic zone” was established by presidential decree.)

The new, 100-mile royalty proposal in the U.N.’s financing report would require a new agreement to hand over proceeds from half of that territory to the U.N.-sponsored International Seabed Authority.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell



http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fworld+%28Internal+-+World+Latest+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+Reader


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Ven 19 Oct - 02:26 (2012)    Sujet du message: BIENTÔT UNE TAXE INTERNET PAR L’ONU ? / COALITION LAUNCHED TO OPPOSE INTERNET SALES TAX LEGISLATION Répondre en citant

BIENTÔT UNE TAXE INTERNET PAR L’ONU ?

Et l'article en anglais, d'une coalition qui s'élève contre cette nouvelle taxation.

This entry was posted on juin 25, 2012, in Technology.

Des documents qui ont fuités de certaines réunions de l’ONU laissent à penser que l’organisation voudrait faire payer une taxe sur Internet. Chaque bit de donnée serait taxé selon un taux bien établi. Pour l’utilisateur, ce ne sera pas un problème sur le court terme, mais ce sont les géants du web qui vont devoir passer à la caisse. Si un internaute cherche quelque chose sur Google et que celui-ci lui envoie du contenu, Google devra payer une taxe sur cet envoi. Evidemment, les géants du web crient au hold-up, mais si cette affaire se concrétise, c’est le web tout entier qui est danger.

...

La suite : http://maniacgeek.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/bientot-une-taxe-internet-par-lonu/


COALITION LAUNCHED TO OPPOSE INTERNET SALES TAX LEGISLATION

JMiks/Shutterstock.com
By Juliana Gruenwald National JournalSeptember 13, 2012



Hoping to counter the lobbying heft of major retailers such as Wal-Mart and Lowes, hundreds of small online businesses are launching a new coalition to oppose legislation that would require online retailers to collect sales taxes from their out-of-state customers.

The WE R HERE coalition, which stands for Web Enabled Retailers Helping Expand Retail Employment, argues that proposed legislation to require online retailers to collect sales taxes from out-of-state customers would impose a huge burden on small online businesses by requiring them to comply with the tax rules of thousands of jurisdictions.

...

Read more : http://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2012/09/coalition-launched-oppose-internet-sales-tax-legislation/58072/?oref=nextgov_today_nl


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 16 Fév - 17:22 (2013)    Sujet du message: G20 LEADERS SEEK TO REWRITE GLOBAL TAX LAWS Répondre en citant

G20 LEADERS SEEK TO REWRITE GLOBAL TAX LAWS



VIDEO : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W5giOkGSJM


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 23 Fév - 14:50 (2014)    Sujet du message: UNE PETITION EN LIGNE CONTRE LA TAXE KILOMETRIQUE RECOLTE 50.000 SIGNATURES EN 2 JOURS Répondre en citant

UNE PETITION EN LIGNE CONTRE LA TAXE KILOMETRIQUE RECOLTE 50.000 SIGNATURES EN 2 JOURS

De plus en plus de pays s'ajuste sur cette nouvelle loi. Allez esclaves, il faut payer maintenant une nouvelle taxe à Rome pour pour voir se déplacer!


Le Vif
Source: Belga
samedi 08 février 2014 à 21h52


Une pétition en ligne, lancée vendredi matin, contre le projet de taxe kilométrique comptait déjà près de 40.000 signatures samedi à 22h00. "Il est inadmissible que nous soyons obligés de payer pour nous déplacer au travail ou encore rendre visite à notre famille, nos proches ou nos amis", indique Jean-Michel Libotte, l'auteur de cette pétition.


© Belga

Plus d'infos "Le projet pilote commence ce 17 février et durera deux mois, nous avons donc ce petit délai pour réagir. Voilà pourquoi je vous demande de signer cette pétition afin de tenter d'enrayer cette taxe", ajoute-t-il.

Jean-Michel Libotte estime que les automobilistes pourraient payer, en raison de la taxe, entre 500 et 1.000 euros par an selon la distance à parcourir.

Les Régions wallonne, flamande et bruxelloise ont récemment trouvé un accord sur les tarifs de la taxe kilométrique. Le principe prévoit une taxe automobile sur chaque kilomètre parcouru, en fonction des heures de pointe ainsi que du type de route empruntée par le conducteur. Le projet pilote commencera le 17 février dans la zone couverte par le futur RER ferroviaire ainsi que dans Bruxelles et sa périphérie.

Rouler en zone urbaine pourrait à l'avenir coûter 9 cents par kilomètre, contre 5 cents sur l'autoroute et 6,5 sur les autres routes, d'après le projet.


http://www.levif.be/info/actualite/belgique/une-petition-en-ligne-contre-la-taxe-kilometrique-recolte-50-000-signatures-en-2-jours/article-4000522785792.htm


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 25 Déc - 02:44 (2014)    Sujet du message: EURODAD RESPONSE TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL'S SYNTHESIS REPORT ON THE POST-2015 AGENDA Répondre en citant



EURODAD RESPONSE TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL'S SYNTHESIS REPORT ON THE POST-2015 AGENDA

Added 09/Dec/14

General issues


Eurodad welcomes the Secretary-General’s Synthesis Report and, in particular, the recognition relating to the upcoming conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa that “there are high expectations for concrete outcomes that would finance sustainable development and set the stage for a successful outcome of the COP21 in Paris”. The Secretary-General also stresses the need for countries to “scale up ambition and enhance specificity to meet the demands of the new agenda” and underlines that it “will fall upon [Member States] to set an agreed and ambitious course for sustainable development financing beyond 2015”.
 
It is important to keep in mind that the report is a synthesis, which generally summarises the progress made until now and outlines some options for the road ahead. What it does not do is provide a proposal for what the Post-2015 and Financing for Development processes should deliver as concrete final outcomes. In that sense, it provides a floor for the future negotiations rather than a ceiling and, as the Secretary-General underlines, it is now up to the governments to inject ambition into the negotiations and provide concrete proposals for the outcome documents.
 
Specific issues Tax

The report underlines the need for governments to consider an intergovernmental body on tax matters under the auspices of the UN (para 115). Currently, global tax standards are being developed by bodies such as the G20 and OECD, from which the vast majority of the world’s developing countries are excluded. While an intergovernmental UN body on tax matters is the logical solution to this problem, it has not recently been spelled out clearly and Eurodad welcomes this important step forward. The next steps must now be to spell out a strong mandate for the body and provide the necessary resources to ensure the effectiveness of its work.
 
Private finance

The synthesis report acknowledges that blended finance “must not replace or compromise state responsibilities for delivering on social needs” and that “it is important to ensure that these arrangements are subject to safeguards to verify that they contribute to sustainable development” (para 108). However, blended finance entails many risks that should be clearly spell out. These were better captured in the UN Secretary-General’s recent report to the Development Cooperation Forum wherein he said:
“Leveraging  and blending public and private financing should be guided by development effectiveness principles to prevent drawbacks such as lack of clarity about  additionality and purpose; limited influence of donors and recipients on investment design and implementation; diminished transparency and accountability; risk of misalignment of private sector and country priorities; danger of increased debt  burden; inattention to small- and medium-sized enterprises; the opportunity cost incurred when use of public money to mobilize private resources does not have the  same or a larger development impact than if it had been devoted directly to a developmental purpose; and the risks of misappropriation.”
 
ODA

The report recognises that developed countries do not only need to fulfil their previous commitment to provide 0.7% of GNI as official development assistance (ODA) but that concrete timetables are needed to ensure that the target will be reached in a timely manner (para 98). However, the report fails to recognise the fact that past experience has shown that these timetables must be binding.
 
The Secretary-General also hints at the inadequacies of the OECD leading work on ODA reporting, saying instead that it should take place “in an open and transparent forum with the widest possible participation of donor and recipient countries and other relevant stakeholders” (para 99). While the report points at the need for more effective development cooperation (para 93), it covers only selective areas of the aid effectiveness agenda, and omits to address existing commitments to use recipient country systems as the default option, untie aid, and ensure predictability.  

Vague references to using ODA to “leverage” other finance (para 90) are somewhat worrying, especially due to the lack of clarity on the meaning of “leverage”, which sometimes refers to private finance, sometimes to domestic resources mobilisation (as in para 98). The former is controversial (see above under Private finance). 
 
Debt

It comes as a surprise that the report does not mention that the UN General Assembly has initiated a very important process to develop a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructurings by September 2015. Instead, the report mentions that an “informal forum on sovereign debt” could be established (116). Such a forum cannot solve most of the debt-related problems faced by countries such as predatory vulture funds’ lawsuits. A multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring should be an essential pillar of the Post-2015 Global Partnership, and it is crucial that governments focus on agreeing this framework by September 2015 as planned.
 
Checklist


The list below refers to the CSO Position Paper ‘UN Financing for Development negotiations: What outcomes should be agreed in Addis Ababa in 2015?
 
Issue
Synthesis Report
Mobilizing domestic financial resources
New intergovernmental body on international cooperation in tax matters
Yes – recommended (para 115)
Comprehensive mandate for the new intergovernmental tax body
Not included
Foreign direct investment and other international private flows
Recognition of capital account regulation as a fundamental policy tool and the need to remove obstacles to these policies
Not included
Spell out the significant problems with using public institutions and resources to leverage international private finance
Partly included (para 108)
International trade
Review of all trade agreements and investment treaties to identify all areas where they limit developing countries’ ability to handle crises, regulate capital flows, protect livelihoods and decent jobs, enforce fair taxation, deliver essential public services and ensure sustainable development
The report acknowledges the need to remedy policy incoherence between trade, finance, and investment on the one hand, and labour rights, the environment, human rights, equality, and sustainability on the other (para 95). However, no concrete proposal for a review is included
A review of all intellectual property rights regimes to identify adverse impacts
While the need to ensure that IPR regimes support sustainable development is mentioned (para 126), no concrete proposal for a review is included
ODA and other international public support for development
Binding timetables to meet commitments to provide 0.7% of GNI as ODA
While timetables are included, “binding” is not (para 98)
Ensure ODA represents genuine transfers
Not included
Implement a levy on financial transactions and use the revenue to finance sustainable development
While the issue is mentioned, no concrete proposal for implementation is included (para 112)
External debt
Reaffirmation of the commitment to agree to a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes in a neutral forum
Not included
Commissioning of independent debt audits with commitments to cancel debt which is found to be illegitimate
Not included
Systemic issues: effective, inclusive global governance and monetary system reform
Process to establish a Global Economic Coordination Council at the UN
Not included
Issuing of $250 billion in new Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) annually, with the majority going to developing countries
While the need to consider more systematic issuance of SDRs is included, no concrete amount is included (para 113)
New approaches to measuring progress that go beyond GDP and to include social and environmental well-being and inequality, including gender inequality
While the concept of “beyond GDP” is included (para 135), no concrete proposal is included
UN initiative on responsible financing standards
Not included
Integration of the women’s rights agenda into the FfD
Not included
Continuation of the UN agenda to reform financial regulation and the financial sector
While the issue is mentioned, no concrete proposal for implementation is included (para 114)
 
http://eurodad.org/Entries/view/1546311/2014/12/09/Eurodad-response-to-the-…



Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 22 Juin - 02:27 (2015)    Sujet du message: ONU : LE SAINT-SIEGE RECLAME UN « FINANCEMENT HUMANITAIRE » MONDIAL Répondre en citant

ONU : LE SAINT-SIEGE RECLAME UN « FINANCEMENT HUMANITAIRE » MONDIAL

La délégation du Saint-Siège à l’ONU propose la création d'un groupe « de haut niveau » dans le secteur du financement humanitaire et d’appliquer le « principe de non-refoulement » aux victimes de catastrophes.

Rome, 21 juin 2015 (ZENIT.org) Marina Droujinina 

Mgr Silvano Tomasi réclame un « financement humanitaire » international pour faire face aux urgences mondiales et d’adopter un « principe de non-refoulement » en cas de catastrophes humanitaires.

Le représentant permanent du Saint-Siège propose de nouvelles mesures pour « améliorer la coordination et l'efficacité de la réponse humanitaire » dans son intervention à la Section humanitaire du Conseil économique et social de l’ONU, vendredi 19 juin, à l’ONU, à Genève (Suisse).

Mgr Tomasi a souligné que dans les situations de catastrophes humanitaires la bonne volonté et « l’engagement à négocier » de la part de toutes parties concernées étaient nécessaires. Il a noté que  « la priorité de toute réponse humanitaire étaient les besoins des victimes ». « Nous devons adopter leur point de vue, une approche qui met en évidence les conséquences, conduit à l'identification des causes des catastrophes », a-t-il dit.

Il a noté que « la prévention des catastrophes » est un « chapitre » important  « de la protection de la création ». Elle « commence par la reconnaissance que «la création » n’est pas une possession: l'homme est un intendant et donc il doit prendre soin de la nature et la respecter », a-t-il ajouté en consonnace avec la nouvelle encyclique du pape François « Laudato Si’ ».

Mgr Tomasi a constaté que « malgré certains progrès » dans « la coordination et l'efficacité de la réponse humanitaire, d'importantes lacunes subsistaient ». Lorsque l'attention des médias à une situation d'urgence s’affaiblit, « les communautés religieuses locales se retrouvent avec la tâche de continuer l'assistance nécessaire », a insisté le représentant du Saint-Siège : « Pour cette raison, la mise en place d'un groupe spécial de haut niveau dans le secteur du Financement humanitaire peut être utile afin de rechercher de nouveaux moyens pour le travail de la communauté humanitaire. De cette façon, les communautés locales vont devenir plus résilientes aux crises et moins dépendantes de l'aide humanitaire ».

Pour la promotion des droits de l’homme dans le contexte des catastrophes humanitaires, Mgr Tomasi a proposé d’appliquer « le principe de non-refoulement » « à de nouvelles catégories de personnes dont la vie et les droits humains sont menacés par les conséquences négatives du changement climatique et d'une situation de violence généralisée ».

Mgr Tomasi a déploré un « manque de la volonté politique » de la part de la communauté internationale en ce qui concerne la réponse aux situations des crises : « Le monde a été témoin d'une souffrance indescriptible, a-t-il dit, les femmes vendues comme du bétail, les chrétiens et les autres croyants assassinés simplement à cause de leurs convictions, les enfants tués ou utilisés comme boucliers humains, et des millions de personnes déracinées de force ». Dans cette situation catastrophique, il y a « un risque réel » pour la communauté internationale «  d'oublier toutes ces victimes ».

Mgr Tomasi a également soulevé une question de « l'accès aux personnes dans le besoin ». Il a dit que c’était « une condition préalable pour l'évaluation des besoins et une action humanitaire efficace ». « Certains gouvernements, a-t-il continué, ont mis au point des procédures administratives lourdes pour restreindre le mouvement des convois humanitaires et l'acheminement des articles essentiels ». « Le personnel humanitaire doit avoir un accès complet et sans entrave aux personnes dans le besoin ; il doit être sauvegardé et protégé au cours de ses actions », proteste le Saint-Siège.

(21 juin 2015) © Innovative Media Inc.

http://www.zenit.org/fr/articles/onu-le-saint-siege-reclame-un-financement-…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Lun 3 Aoû - 03:01 (2015)    Sujet du message: ALERT: UN MAKES MASSIVE MOVE TO DESTROY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Répondre en citant

ALERT: UN MAKES MASSIVE MOVE TO DESTROY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 

It appears that the United Nations would like nothing better than to extend its authority to the United States, destroying America’s sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution in the process.

Now globalist forces are pressuring the U.N. to establish a tax authority — sort of like an international Internal Revenue Service — ostensibly to close the gap between the world’s poor and the profitable businesses and well-off individuals.

There is one big problem with this plan, however: The United States has a Constitution that stipulates that only the U.S. Congress has the power to levy taxes on Americans.

That hasn’t stopped a coalition of 130 national governments, including a fair share of dictatorships, which have demanded a “New World Order to Live Well.”

Also behind the move are shadowy organizations and billionaires such as Bill Gates who see a globalized, networked world as something close to utopia.

A U.N. summit held in Ethiopia last week temporarily derailed the tax plan only because groups split over which globalist organization should be given the power to collect revenue internationally. The summit attendees were largely in agreement that trillions of dollars should be taken from the First World nations and given to “global governance and sustainable development schemes.”

Unfortunately, some advances toward their goal were made. First, a U.N. Committee of Experts on International Tax Matters was formed and will meet twice a year.

Second, schemes are also under way to hike and coordinate existing national taxes into a worldwide attempt to obtain revenue and fund Third World despots and tinhorn rulers who only want to enrich themselves.

Third, a plan is afoot to help Third World leaders more effectively extract revenue domestically (H/T The New American).

Since the Obama administration is on record with its support for these U.N. ideas, the prospect is that the IRS would be tasked to help Third World authoritarian leaders become more efficient at taxing their own people.

The U.N. is an organization that has been dangerously overstepping its bounds for some time now. The last thing it needs is an independent revenue stream.

The U.N. must be stopped. Spread the word about the organization’s desire to tax the world and share this article with friends and relatives on Facebook and Twitter.

http://conservativetribune.com/un-makes-move/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-07-31


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Dim 24 Jan - 04:48 (2016)    Sujet du message: UN CALLS FOR GLOBAL TAX TO SUPPORT ITS ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING PROMOTING ABORTIONS Répondre en citant

UN CALLS FOR GLOBAL TAX TO SUPPORT ITS ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING PROMOTING ABORTIONS

International   CFAM   Jan 22, 2016   |   6:33PM    New York, NY



A UN panel on humanitarian assistance has called for a global tax to support UN activities. The proposal will be discussed at the upcoming World Humanitarian Summit at Istanbul this May.

“Fewer proposals at the UN are more dangerous than this one,” said Austin Ruse, President of C-Fam. “It must be stopped.”

The UN has never had an independent source of income, but has relied on voluntary contributions from Member States from its founding. Donor nations have always had the freedom to withdraw their funding, as the U.S. did for several years over the Oil-for-Food Scandal.

UN agencies and bureaucrats have long coveted a revenue source of their own, without accountability to donor nations. The current proposal, coming under the guise of humanitarian assistance, would provide this uncontrolled revenue stream.

“Having to rely on contributions has been at least a small check on UN radicalism,” said Ruse.  “If that check disappears, we will see an unchecked source of funding, taken from regular people all over the world, that will be used for abortion on demand and the spread of the homosexual agenda.”
 
The danger lies in the ideological divide between the General Assembly of Member States and the UN bureaucracy and agencies. Even when the General Assembly decides a question, bureaucrats will often ignore it and attempt to impose their own agenda instead, especially on controversial issues such as transgenderism and abortion. Independent funding will only exacerbate this serious problem.

The recommendation for a global tax comes under the auspices of humanitarian assistance, which has become a remarkably elastic term in recent years. The Secretary General has used humanitarian crises to advance abortion even where it is against the law.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/22/un-calls-for-global-tax-to-support-its-activities-including-promoting-abortions/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Jeu 30 Juin - 03:52 (2016)    Sujet du message: FRANCE : MATIGNON VA CREER UNE NOUVELLE TAXE POUR AIDER LES REGIONS A SE DEVELOPPER Répondre en citant

FRANCE : MATIGNON VA CREER UNE NOUVELLE TAXE POUR AIDER LES REGIONS A SE DEVELOPPER

  • Par lefigaro.fr
  • Mis à jour le 28/06/2016 à 13:04
  • Publié le 28/06/2016 à 12:07


Prélevée sur les ménages et les entreprises, elle devrait rapporter 600 millions d'euros. Le Medef dénonce une «fuite en avant très préoccupante».

Après le geste financier en faveur des maires, voici celui à l'intention des régions. Et dire que François Hollande avait promis que les impôts n'augmenteraient plus d'ici 2017! L'annonce est passée plutôt inaperçue entre les suites du référendum britannique et la tenue ce mardi d'une énième manifestation contre la loi travail. À l'issue d'une réunion avec l'Association des régions de France (ARF), le premier ministre a entériné la création d'une nouvelle taxe, baptisée Taxe spéciale d'équipement régionale (TSER), annonce l'ARF dans un communiqué.

Ce nouveau prélèvement sera inclus dans le projet de loi de Finances pour 2017 et pourrait venir s'ajouter à l'actuelle cotisation financière des entreprises à la taxe sur le foncier bâti que paient déjà les sociétés. «Cette nouvelle taxe sera a priori assise sur les mêmes bases que la taxe foncière. Les propriétaires peuvent s'attendre à voir apparaître sur leur feuille d'imposition une nouvelle ligne, explique au Figaro Frédéric Douet, professeur de droit fiscal à l'université de Rouen. La question est de savoir si on peut déduire de l'assiette des revenus
Citation:


«Cette fuite en avant est très préoccupante. L'urgence reste de baisser la fiscalité sur les entreprises»
Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux, vice-président délégué du Medef en charge de la fiscalité



fonciers le montant de cette nouvelle taxe». Cet énième impôt inquiète le Medef qui appelle le couple exécutif à «respecter leurs engagements de cesser d'augmenter la fiscalité». «Il serait temps d'être cohérent. Alors que l'impérieuse nécessité de redresser la compétitivité de nos entreprises est enfin reconnue par tous et que la situation économique reste difficile, voilà que fleurissent ici et là de nouvelles taxes. Cette fuite en avant est très préoccupante. L'urgence reste de baisser la fiscalité sur les entreprises», dénonce Geoffroy Roux de Bézieux, vice-président délégué du Medef en charge de la fiscalité.

La taxe sera collectée par l'État auprès des ménages et des entreprises pour être reversée aux régions selon des modalités qui n'ont pas encore été arrêtées. Le montant des recettes attendues est quant à lui fixé à 600 millions d'euros dès 2017. «Le gouvernement voudra sans doute faire passer cette nouvelle taxe pour une hausse de la taxe foncière, poursuit Frédéric Douet. Mais qu'il s'agisse de l'un ou de l'autre, la pression fiscale va encore augmenter, dans des proportions encore inconnues. Chaque nouvelle question se traduit par un nouvel impôt plutôt que par de vraies réformes, notamment fiscales. La folle fabrique des impôts semble avoir encore de beaux jours devant elle».
Citation:


«On sent bien que le gouvernement a l'intention de travailler avec les régions, la question se pose de savoir comment tout cela peut se boucler financièrement»

Philippe Richert (Les Républicains), le président de l'Association des régions de France



Matignon a donc accédé à une demande des régions d'obtenir une recette dont les assiettes foncières progressent. «Nous tablons sur une croissance annuelle de 2% à 2,5% de cette taxe», explique l'association d'élus, citée par Les Échos. Les régions réclamaient plus de moyens pour financer le soutien aux TPE-PME et l'accompagnement économique qui était auparavant assumé par les départements et qui est passé dans le champ de compétence des régions depuis la loi NOTRe (Nouvelle Organisation Territoriale de la République). En application de la réforme territoriale, ce sont donc désormais les régions qui sont en charge de cette mission. «Le gouvernement a entendu la demande des régions de disposer de nouvelles ressources pour le développement économique et l'emploi», répond Matignon. L'entourage de Manuel Valls précise que «toutes les régions, sauf une, se sont engagées pour la mise en œuvre du plan “500.000 formations pour les chômeurs” présenté le 18 janvier par le Président François Hollande».

Par ailleurs, huit régions, sur les 13 que compte la métropole, «auront signé des conventions de partenariat renouvelées avec Pôle emploi d'ici l'automne». «On sent bien que le gouvernement a l'intention de travailler avec les régions, la question se pose de savoir comment tout cela peut se boucler financièrement», estime Philippe Richert (Les Républicains), le président de l'Association des régions de France.

Le 30 mars, Manuel Valls avait signé avec les présidents de région, désormais majoritairement de la droite et du centre, un accord pour mieux coordonner les actions de l'État et des conseils régionaux en matière d'emploi et de formation. Un accord qui vise notamment à mieux adapter les formations et les parcours des demandeurs d'emplois aux besoins locaux.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/impots/2016/06/28/05003-20160628ARTFIG00145-matignon…



Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 13 Juil - 04:51 (2016)    Sujet du message: MATIGNON A VALIDE LE 27 JUIN EN CATIMINI UNE NOUVELLE TAXE QUI DEVRAIT AUGMENTER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS DES PARTICULIERS DES 2017. L’UNPI DENONCE UNE « MESURE CONFISCATOIRE » POUR LES PROPRIETAIRES. Répondre en citant

MATIGNON A VALIDE LE 27 JUIN EN CATIMINI UNE NOUVELLE TAXE QUI DEVRAIT AUGMENTER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS DES PARTICULIERS DES 2017. L’UNPI DENONCE UNE « MESURE CONFISCATOIRE » POUR LES PROPRIETAIRES.

Par Sandra Mathorel | investir.fr | Le 01/07/16 à 17:23 @MathorelS


Bientôt une nouvelle taxe sur le foncier bâti  | Crédits photo : DR

Entre le Brexit, les manifestations contre la loi Travail et l’Euro de football, l’annonce est passée quasi inaperçue… Ce lundi 27 juin, le Premier ministre Manuel Valls et Philippe Richet, président de l’Association des Régions de France ont entériné la création d’une nouvelle taxe, baptisée Taxe spéciale d’équipement régional (TSER), dont les contours seront définis dans le projet de loi de Finances 2017 (PLF 2017). Prélevée sur les entreprises, mais aussi les ménages, elle devrait rapporter 600 millions d’euros aux régions.

Pour les particuliers, cette nouvelle taxe touchera le foncier bâti. Prendra-t-elle la forme d’un troisième impôt foncier, en sus de la taxe foncière et de la taxe d’habitation, ou d’une nouvelle ligne sur la feuille des impôts fonciers ? Comment sera-t-elle calculée ? Augmentera-t-elle sensiblement les impôts ? Pour l’instant, rien n’a été précisé. Il faudra attendre la présentation du PLF 2017 à l’automne pour le savoir.

Les représentants des entreprises et des propriétaires ont, cependant, d’ores et déjà vivement réagi à ce futur dispositif fiscal. « Cette nouvelle taxe est annoncée, comme d’habitude, au dernier moment à la veille de la période estivale, a dénoncé Jean-François Buet, le président de la Fédération nationale de l’immobilier (Fnaim). Ce n’est pas une bonne nouvelle, tant pour les Français que pour les professionnels de l’immobilier ». L’Union nationale des propriétaires immobiliers (UNPI) lui a rapidement emboîté le pas vendredi 1er juillet, rappelant que les impôts fonciers ont augmenté de 16,5% en cinq ans selon leur Observatoire des taxes foncières. « Le bilan de cette mesure sera extrêmement négatif pour l’économie locale : report ou annulation des travaux, dégradation du parc de logements, perte d’activité des entreprises du bâtiment qui n’embaucheront plus ». Aux yeux du président de l’UNPI, Jean Perrin, les conséquences seraient pour le moins sombres et alarmantes... « La vache à lait sera bientôt en rupture et le gouvernement aura alors rempli son objectif : une France de locataires appauvris » !

@MathorelS

http://investir.lesechos.fr/placements/impots/actualites/bientot-une-nouvel…


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 20 Aoû - 02:38 (2016)    Sujet du message: LE PORTUGAL IMPOSE UNE TAXE SUR... LE PAYSAGE Répondre en citant

LE PORTUGAL IMPOSE UNE TAXE SUR... LE PAYSAGE


© Flickr/ Adventures of KM&G-Morris
Société
22:59 19.08.2016

Poisson d'avril? La plupart des Portugais l'ont cru aussi, mais le gouvernement n'entendait pas plaisanter: désormais, les chanceux qui apprécient chaque matin une belle vue par leur fenêtre doivent payer une taxe pour avoir cette possibilité.



© Sputnik. Alexander Vilf
Comment rendre les villes moins déprimantes? La solution d'un artiste italien

Oui, c'est sérieux. Les propriétaires de maisons et d'appartements situés dans des zones pittoresques, ensoleillées, et ayant par conséquent une belle vue écopent d'une taxe supplémentaire, et pas modique de fait.

La vue sur la mer, par exemple, peut augmenter la taxe d'habitation de 20%, et les Portugais qui ont la chance de l'admirer devront dorénavant la payer, signale Deutsche Welle.

"Cette idée a été un gros bouleversement pour nous", a confié Louis Menesez Leitau, le chef de l'association des propriétaires de Lisbonne. "Le gouvernement n'a pas discuté avec nous, et a pris la décision de modifier la loi au cours des vacances parlementaires, donc aucun débat n'a eu lieu à ce propos".


© REUTERS/ Rafael Marchante
Le Portugal est en feu: l’aviation russe appelée à la rescousse

Actuellement, les services financiers ont besoin de revenus supplémentaires car, lors de la crise, beaucoup moins de biens immobiliers ont été construits dans le pays. Les revenus de la taxe d'habitation sont en baisse, ce qui doit être compensé, d'où l'initiative en question.

Par conséquent, le peuple affronte une situation plutôt absurde: la taxe sur les appartements dans le même immeuble varie selon l'étage qui détermine le niveau du pittoresque de la vue. Ainsi, la vue sur un cimetière peut faire baisser la taxe, mais si derrière le cimetière commence la mer, la taxe augmentera…

https://fr.sputniknews.com/societe/201608191027368632-portugal-taxe-vue-fenetre/


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Sam 20 Aoû - 02:41 (2016)    Sujet du message: WYOMING - STATE NOW CLAIMS IT OWNS the WIND: TAXING RENEWABLE ENERGY “OUT OF EXISTENCE” Répondre en citant

WYOMING - STATE NOW CLAIMS IT OWNS the WIND: TAXING RENEWABLE ENERGY “OUT OF EXISTENCE”



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86grsXrYtGQ

STATE NOW CLAIMS IT OWNS THE WIND: TAXING RENEWABLE ENERGY “OUT OF EXISTENCE”


Revenir en haut
maria
Administrateur

Hors ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 24 686
Féminin

MessagePosté le: Mer 12 Oct - 18:18 (2016)    Sujet du message: ZIEGLER : UNE REFORME DU DROIT DE VETO S'IMPOSE A L'ONU Répondre en citant

ZIEGLER : UNE REFORME DU DROIT DE VETO S'IMPOSE A L'ONU

Reconduit à un organe du Conseil des droits de l’homme, Jean Ziegler dénonce l'"impuissance" de l’ONU. Il estime que le conflit syrien va forcer une réforme du droit de veto au Conseil de sécurité. Et veut un impôt mondial pour financer les organisations onusiennes.

En Syrie, l'ONU est "réduite à être une spectatrice impotente", estime le Genevois dans un entretien à l'ats à l'occasion de la sortie de son livre "Chemins d'espérance". Le vice-président du Comité consultatif du Conseil des droits de l'homme cible le veto russe qui empêche toute action militaire comme une force internationale ou une zone d'exclusion aérienne.

M. Ziegler veut croire en une fenêtre d'opportunité pour une réforme du Conseil de sécurité. "L'espoir, ce n'est que les Nations Unies", dit-il plus de 70 ans après la création de l'organisation. Il souhaite la mise en ½uvre du plan de 2006 de l'ancien secrétaire général Kofi Annan pour abolir tout veto en cas de suspicions de crimes de guerre ou de crimes contre l'Humanité.

Une idée reprise récemment par le Haut Commissaire aux droits de l'homme Zeid Raad al-Hussein. Mais ce changement requiert l'aval des membres permanents de l'exécutif onusien.

Guterres a la carrure

Sans être "naïf", le Genevois assure que "la ligne de flottaison" des consciences est montée après l'horreur en Syrie. L'UE, la France ou l'Allemagne s'activent en coulisses, et le prochain secrétaire général de l'ONU, le Portugais Antonio Guterres, aura la "carrure" pour changer la donne.

"Puisqu'il était président de l'Internationale socialiste", ajoute avec malice l'ancien conseiller national du PS au sujet de celui dont le pays est pourtant réputé proche des Etats-Unis, l'un des ennemis de M. Ziegler. La Syrie comme le Yémen ou le Soudan sont révélateurs d'une autre réalité préoccupante pour l'ancien rapporteur spécial sur le droit à l'alimentation.

"La privation de nourriture comme arme de guerre se généralise", estime-t-il. Là aussi, une réforme du Conseil de sécurité lui semble indispensable. Le Chapitre VII de la Charte de l'ONU, qui permet des sanctions ou une action militaire, devrait être activé "automatiquement" en cas de violations graves des droits de l'homme, plaide-t-il. Il veut aussi que la Charte soit enseignée dans toutes les écoles.

Sous-alimentation organisée

Jean Ziegler accuse des Etats comme Israël, une autre de cibles préférées, d'organiser la "sous-alimentation". Il déplore que le Programme alimentaire mondial (PAM), qu'il aime tant, soit contraint d'en faire autant, faute de moyens.

Pour faire face aux problèmes budgétaires des 23 agences onusiennes spécialisées, il propose une contribution "de solidarité" calculée "au prorata du PIB" des Etats membres. Un système qui ressemblerait à celui du financement général de l'ONU.

A l'heure actuelle, les Etats-Unis financent un quart des programmes de l'ONU. Mais ils ne croient pas au multilatéralisme, déplore le vice-président du Comité consultatif. Il accuse Washington de faire nommer ses favoris aux postes importants, notamment à Genève.

Aveu sur Kadhafi et Pyongyang

Dans son livre, Jean Ziegler consacre deux chapitres entiers à une charge en règle contre Israël et les Etats-Unis. "Je voulais m'expliquer", confie-t-il. Parfois dans des termes forts, comme ceux d'une ONU "impuissante" pour laquelle travaillent de "mornes fonctionnaires" qui sont "grassement payés". Aux multinationales, il reproche de contrôler les gouvernements.

Il ressent aussi ce besoin de clarification au sujet de ses visites controversées en Corée du Nord ou auprès de l'ancien dictateur libyen Mouammar Kadhafi, qu'il a vu "deux ou trois fois de trop". Des regrets qui ne s'appliquent pas à la rencontre avec Saddam Hussein en Irak parce qu'elle a permis de libérer des otages suisses.

Il raconte enfin comment l'ancien président de la Confédération Flavio Cotti l'a qualifié de traître dans l'affaire des fonds en déshérence. A la Suisse, il demande aujourd'hui de militer pour le désendettement des 50 Etats les plus pauvres au monde.

A plus de 80 ans, M. Ziegler rend hommage à ceux qu'il a admirés: les anciens secrétaires généraux Dag Hammarskjöld, Boutros Boutros-Ghali et Kofi Annan à l'ONU, mais aussi le Burkinabè Thomas Sankara, le guérillero Che Guevara ou encore l'ancien président cubain Fidel Castro.

(ats / 12.10.2016 13h32)


http://www.romandie.com/news/Ziegler-une-reforme-du-droit-de-veto-simpose-a…


Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé






MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 18:13 (2016)    Sujet du message: TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES - (PARTIE 2) P.1

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum -> ORGANISATION DES NATIONS-UNIES/UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION -> TAXES GLOBALES - GLOBAL TAXES (PARTIE 2) Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 2 Heures
Page 1 sur 1

 
Sauter vers:  

Portail | Index | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com