We are spending billions on foreign aid, and the UN would even like to create a global tax. Do you think a Global tax is a good idea, especially with the amount we are spending onf foreign aid already? Do you think it is appropriate to increase the amount of foreign aid as we have the last few years when the country is in extreme debt already?
Obama Increased Foreign Aid 80%; Spent 76% More on Foreign Aid Than Border Security | CNSNews.comFrom fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2011, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government increased spending on foreign aid by 80 percent and, in fiscal 2011, spent 76 percent more on foreign aid than it did securing the borders of the United States.
In fiscal 2008, the government spent a total of $11.427 billion in international assistance programs, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. In fiscal 2011, according to the statement, it spent $20.599 billion?an increase of $9.172 billion, or 80 percent, from 2008.
Prior to President Obama taking office, international assistance spending had been trending down for three years, according to the Treasury. In fiscal 2005, it was $14.787 billion. In fiscal 2006, it dropped to $13.914 billion. In fiscal 2007, it dropped again to $12.764 billion. And, in fiscal 2008, it dropped yet again to $11.427 billion.
Since 2008, international assistance spending has increased each year. In fiscal 2009, it climbed to $14.827 billion. In fiscal 2010, it jumped to $20.038 billion. And, in fiscal 2011, it climbed again to $20.599 billion.
Read more: EXCLUSIVE: As the UN opens its General Assembly session, it is already thinking up new global taxes | Fox NewsA 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.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
I think the UN should change its funding structure. Right now, the UN determines how much money it needs (about $7 billion this fiscal year) and then assigns each member country a percentage of that amount. The maximum rate is 22 percent, which is what the US pays; that's about $1.5 billion. The minimum rate for the poorest countries is 0.001 percent, or about $70,000 in US dollars. The assessment rate is supposed to be determined by per capita income but there are richer countries that are paying a much lower percentage rate than the US. I think there should be a flat rate assessed on all countries as a percentage of their Gross Domestic Product or some other economic standard. Even per capita income could be used, but apply the same rate to all countries. The poorest countries will still pay less, but those richer countries that aren't the U.S. will have to pay their fair share. I think the US is already providing enough support to the UN. We also need to stop being the world's playground monitor and let the UN do its job but that's probably another debate...
Edited to add an example. Switzerland's support rate is 1.13% which puts it 16th on the list of top UN contributor nations. US is the top at 22%. But Switzerland's GDP per capita, in US dollars, is close to double that of the US. If Switzerland paid anywhere close to the rate the US does, that would make a huge difference to UN funding and to its reliance on funding from the US.
GDP per capita:
United states 48,387
Last edited by Spacers; 10-02-2012 at 06:45 PM.
The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!
But who's more likely to need the UN's help? Switzerland-who keeps it's nose out of other people's business or the US who thinks it has the right to fix other countries?
And no to increasing Global Aid. People waste that money so fast. Let the citizens choose individually who they want to support.
No way..! BOSTON TEA PARTY take 2. Some of the current UN bills I totally disagree with.. to the point of serious uprising if we sign on to them.
DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03
I thought this was going to be about how the US taxes its citizens even if they live elsewhere.