Now here is an Idea we can all get behind!

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I think this is a wonderful idea. I also think a world tax on cell phones would be a good followup.:mad:

U.N.'s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

U.N.'s World Health Organization Eyeing Global Tax on Banking, Internet Activity
Friday, January 15, 2010
By George Russell
PrintShareThis
The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.

Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.

The multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" is only one of a "suite of proposals" for financing the rapid transformation of the global medical industry that will go before WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board at its biannual meeting in Geneva.

The idea is the most lucrative — and probably the most controversial — of a number of schemes proposed by a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats who have been working for the past 14 months at WHO's behest on "new and innovative sources of funding" to accomplish major shifts in the production of medical R&D.

WHO's so-called Expert Working Group has also suggested asking rich countries to set aside fixed portions of their gross domestic product to finance the shift in worldwide research and development, as well as asking cash-rich developing nations like China, India or Venezuela to pony up more of the money.


These would also add billions in additional funds to international health care for the future — as much as $7.4 billion yearly from rich countries, and as much as $12.1 billion from low- and middle-income nations.

But the taxation ideas draw the most interest. The expert panel cites a number of possible examples. Among them:

—a 10 per cent tax on the international arms trade, "which might net about $5 billion per annum";

—a "digital tax or 'hit' tax." The report says the levy "could yield tens of billions of U.S. dollars from a broad base of users";

—a financial transaction tax. The report approvingly cites a levy in Brazil that charged 0.38 percent on bills paid online and on unspecified "major withdrawals." The report says the Brazilian tax was raising an estimated $20 billion per year until it was cancelled for unspecified reasons.

The panel concludes that "taxes would provide greater certainty once in place than voluntary contributions," even as the report urges WHO's executive board to promote all of the alternatives, and more, to support creation of a "global health research and innovation coordination and funding mechanism" for the planned revolution in medical research, development and distribution.

Click here to read the executive summary of the report.

The WHO scheme to transfer impressive amounts of money, technology, patents and manufacturing ability to the developing world in a global battle to conquer disease looks similar in many respects to the calls for huge transfers of wealth and technology that were at the heart of the just-failed U.N.-sponsored conference on lowering greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen.

Indeed, the volume of revenues that the experts foresee from their global indirect tax — if it should ever be approved by enough national governments — might well come close to the $30 billion annual wealth transfer that rich nations approved at Copenhagen to hand over to poor countries until 2012.

But a global health tax would go one big step further. And, as the experts point out, one trail-blazing version of their global consumer tax for medical research already exists: a germinating program known as UNITAID, which aims to battle against HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

UNITAID, which began in 2006 and is also hosted by WHO, is financed in part by a "solidarity contribution" levy of anywhere from $1.20 to $58 on airline tickets among a group of nations led by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain. According to the WHO experts report, it has raised around $1 billion since its inception, with 13 countries having already passed the airline tax legislation and "several" others in the process of doing so.

The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.

UNITAID's board chairman, Philippe Douste-Blazy, a former French Cabinet Minister and currently special advisor to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on "innovative financing for development," is also a member of the WHO expert working group.

The global financial mechanism that the experts have been exploring is the keystone to WHO's entire program for the transformation of the world's health industry, which was endorsed as a "global strategy and plan of action" by the health organization's World Assembly in May 2008.

The plan includes more than 100 specific actions across the areas of research and development, technology transfer and intellectual property rights, among others, according to an update that will also be presented to the executive board next week.

Click here for the update.

New regional and national networks for medical innovation and development are being planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa — where, for example, there will be "African-led product research and development innovation," including delivery of drugs based on traditional medicines.

Another major effort is the transfer of technology to poorer countries to produce vaccines. One example: H1N1 flu vaccine, which is being manufactured in China, India and Thailand under licensing arrangements created under WHO auspices.

After WHO issued repeated warnings of a serious H1N1 influenza pandemic over the past two years, countries such as Britain and France ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of vaccine, only to decide that they were unnecessary, leading to mass cancellations of orders. WHO is reviewing how it handled the crisis.

According to the WHO update, the U.N. organization is already promoting transfers of new medical products for vaccines against rabies, even though that disease is now something of a rarity in the West.

A significant aim of the WHO effort is expanding production and distribution of remedies for what it calls "neglected diseases," mainly meaning those that are more common in poor, underdeveloped countries than in richer ones. These include a variety of parasitic ailments, including trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.

Behind all of the effort is the "persistent and growing concern," as the expert's paper puts it, that "the benefits of the advances in health technology are not reaching the poor," which the paper calls "one of the more egregious manifestations of inequity."

As with "climate change" at Copenhagen, the WHO's experts see that health inequity as a malady that innovative and permanent forms of global taxation are just the right thing to help cure.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Once we allow the UN to impose a global tax for any reason, there will be no end to their thirst for more of our money. It would set a dangerous precedent. By accepting the UN's authority to tax us, we are explicitly placing ourselves under the UN's dominion. Sovereign nations do not enter into such arrangements. Any entity which takes upon itself the power to tax us carries the power to dictate our daily lives. Why would any nation turn over its autonomy and self-determination. Unless one believes in world government, it doesn't make sense.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No new taxes, NEVER NEVER NEVER a tax by ANYONE other than governments withing our borders!!! EVER!!! (yes I am shouting) Remember "no taxation without representation"? (not that we really have representation here anymore) Besides, we already pay a cell phone tax, the Universal Service Tax, to insure that welfare people can get a cell phone. What a great idea, luxury items, like cell phones, paid for by taxing people with the gumption to earn their way through life!!

You have got to be kidding, pay a tax to a foreign power, amazing that anyone in this country would even consider it.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Did you guys miss reading comp 101? gee whiz...

The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax on such things as Internet activity or everyday financial transactions like paying bills online.
It would be your own government..NOT an outside thingee....gawd you guys get your shorts in a knot...:rolleyes:
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Once we allow the UN to impose a global tax for any reason, there will be no end to their thirst for more of our money. It would set a dangerous precedent.

Come on Mark, you really don't believe any tax levying body would impose more taxes just to gain extra revenue do you? You must have skipped over this paragraph:

The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.

Indirect, small and relatively painless. Wouldn't you like to buy the world a Coke and live in peace and harmony?
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Did you guys miss reading comp 101? gee whiz...

It would be your own government..NOT an outside thingee....gawd you guys get your shorts in a knot...:rolleyes:

OVM, let's you and I compare our LSAT scores then we can discuss reading comprehension. How did you fare on the grueling sections covering analytical reasoning and logical reasoning? If you didn't obtain a composite score at or above the 90th percentile, please explain your deficiencies.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I've read that article 3x's and no where did it say the WHO or the UN would collect such a "suggested" tax...
Did I miss something? Some posted about paying an "outsider" any tax money....or loss of our sovereignty...which by the article itself state...
"a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax"
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Come on Mark, you really don't believe any tax levying body would impose more taxes just to gain extra revenue do you? You must have skipped over this paragraph:

The idea, as with the "indirect" taxes that WHO is about to consider, is that a relatively small consumer levy, once implemented, is a low-profile and relatively painless way to create a global health-care tax system.

Indirect, small and relatively painless. Wouldn't you like to buy the world a Coke and live in peace and harmony?

Indirect, small and relatively painless??? You're describing my interaction with humanity. Even on a good day, I resemble Charlie Brown with the dark cloud hovering over his head. @#$!^% Socialists!! Soon we all will be buying the world a Coke.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
But don't we already do more than our fair share when it comes to supporting the research of the pharmaceutical companies by not negotiating lower prices as other Countries do?

Maybe they (U.N.) should enact a tax on carbon emitting vehicles. We should start paying our fair share in this world we live in don't ya think?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
My wife, bless her heart, pointed out where the confusion may lie...to her reading and I quote..."I'm reading that to say that the taxes would be spent by the globe and not our own country...read it again dear."


That is true as stated The US would impose the tax and then transfer it over to be spent globally...
BUT Aristotle said and I quote.
"Once we allow the UN to impose a global tax for any reason, "

to which I replied that no it would not be the UN iimposing the tax it would be the US imposing said tax and to which I referred to the opening line of the article and again I quote..
"considering a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax "
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I've read that article 3x's and no where did it say the WHO or the UN would collect such a "suggested" tax...
Did I miss something? Some posted about paying an "outsider" any tax money....or loss of our sovereignty...which by the article itself state...
"a plan to ask governments to impose a global consumer tax"

Such a scheme could raise "tens of billions of dollars" on behalf of the United Nations' public health arm from a broad base of consumers, which would then be used to transfer drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities, among other things, to the developing world.

You need to put the two paragraphs together.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I guess your right OVM. Just like when the Democrats pass a tax on the people, it's not them that collect the tax. Kinda like getting mad at wood because I got a splinter.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I am trying to say..it is NOT the UN imposing any tax....nothing else...it would be our own government...and that would be wrong for the money to be spent outside the country...
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I am trying to say..it is NOT the UN imposing any tax....nothing else...it would be our own government...and that would be wrong for the money to be spent outside the country...

Impose: require (a duty, charge, or penalty) to be undertaken or paid.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
If I told you 10 years ago that you would pay a tax so that the poor could have a free cell phone your comment would be what?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
If I told you 10 years ago that you would pay a tax so that the poor could have a free cell phone your comment would be what?

That is not exactly accurate but in essence true....

Now how many poor people does anyone know who gets cheaper service because of this tax?
Not me...and no one I know...

Last year, the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., which administers the fund, shelled out $5.4 billion, including $3 billion, or 56 percent, to 1,500 phone companies that offer service in costly areas. The rest subsidized service for poor people, rural health care providers and the "e-rate" technology program for schools and libraries.

So you see...some have picked an issue out of the basket of services this tax covers...Out of that 5.4 billion$$ just how much was actually alloted for poor people?
One cent would be too much!
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
That is not exactly accurate but in essence true....

Now how many poor people does anyone know who gets cheaper service because of this tax?
Not me...and no one I know...

Last year, the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., which administers the fund, shelled out $5.4 billion, including $3 billion, or 56 percent, to 1,500 phone companies that offer service in costly areas. The rest subsidized service for poor people, rural health care providers and the "e-rate" technology program for schools and libraries.

So you see...some have picked an issue out of the basket of services this tax covers...Out of that 5.4 billion$$ just how much was actually alloted for poor people?
One cent would be too much!

Tracking Your Taxes: Wireless Welfare
By William Lajeunesse - FOXNews.com
If you own a phone, you're paying for the fastest growing welfare program in the U.S.: free cell phones for low-income Americans.

PRINTEMAILSHARE RECOMMEND (2)
If you own a phone, you're paying for the fastest growing welfare program in the U.S.: free cell phones for low-income Americans.

The program, which is paid for through a tax on all home phones and cell phones known as the Universal Service Charge, is expected to exceed $1 billion this year, according to Erik Iversen, spokesman for the Universal Service Fund, the quasi-governmental agency set up to administer the program.

That's up almost 20 percent over last year. And in some markets, the number receiving this benefit is exploding, up 600 percent in New Hampshire and up 900 percent in New Jersey in just two months, according to government figures.

"The reality is this is just frosting on an enormous cake," says Robert Rector, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation. "We spend over $800 billion a year providing various types of assistance to the poor. That's one dollar in every 20 in this economy. It's huge and we really can't afford it."

The goal of universal access to telephone service began in the 1930s for rural Americans and expanded to low-income individuals in 1997. The Federal Communications Commission approved the subsidy for cell phones under President Bush in 2008. Growth was slow until TracFone, a company out of Miami, figured out a way to use the $120-a-year government subsidy to provide a free phone and 60 minutes of free monthly service. Heavily promoted on television, the SafeLink program is a hit with eligible Americans.


"If they would give us free phones, that would be fantastic," said Lester Frasier, outside a welfare center in Los Angeles. "It will free up more money for me, that's one less bill for me."

While all 50 states currently use money collected from the Universal Serivce Fund for home phones, just 19 states have approved the subsidy for cell phones. California officials are considering it, but even advocates have concerns.

"Those who currently qualify for the land line subsidy might prefer, like everyone one else, to have a mobile phone," says Bill Nussbaum of the Utilities Reform Network. "But from a public safety perspective, what happens when the mobile phone leaves the house? When there is an emergency? What happens when the power goes out? Those are concerns."

Qualification for the subsidy is dependent on income. However, if a person is already enrolled in any of the popular federal welfare programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, low income housing, or the free school lunch, they are automatically eligible for a free cell phone. The cell phones are invaluable to many people trying to get contract or short-term work who do not have a phone number in their homes.

What concerns critics most is fraud. The program is supposed to be "self-verifying" -- that is, as long as a person claims they qualify for the subsidy, no government agency is auditing or enforcing the subscriber rolls.

"We are focused on the carrier and making sure the carriers are submitting the proper information to us," says Laura Bettencourt, an administrator of the Universal Service Fund. "We are not focused on the subscriber."

Rector says no one is guarding the hen house. So if an individual signs up for the program while on food stamps, then gets a job, no regulatory process exists to assure the subsidy ends.

"It certainly is a recipe for fraud, and one major problem with this type of program is that it doesn’t create any incentive for additional work or for moving toward self sufficiency," said Rector.
 
Top