Thread: End the UN

>> To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...<<

LOL! this is an old joke. Post a link if you have some info.

Its not like the US states trying to add sales tax to internet transactions.

That is if you buy something on line which state gets the sales tax? The one the buyer is in, the one the seller is in? The one the company is registered in?

A number of authorities have suggested paying a nominal fee for send each e-mail. I believe the figure being talked about is more like 0.01 cents. It is being discuused as an anti mass mailing spam counter, not a tax however. AOL, YaHoo and MicroSoft are amongst the players in that game, there are stories on all of their web sites, BBC, THG...

howdy,

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?

dead wrong
we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.

M.R.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20705,00.html

There's your link... the report has been used to author the BILL that is currently in the UN -- fortunately it's receiving little support but someday I'm sure it will...

>> we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, <<

So if I am unemployed, I don't get cheap healthcare, housing (rent or govt assisted loans), food or other government assistance?

As I am unempolyed I am not contributing to that tax base, purchasing or saving. In other words contibuting to the economy.

>>then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.<<

So the employees unemployment benifit is payed 100% from his former employers pre paid contributions?

No 'top up' from the federal purse?


OSR:from your link
"Raworth said that the UN would be in no position to enforce the tax, and that the proposal was merely a suggestion. Individual member nations will decide whether or not to adopt the idea."

Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........

howdy,
you are right in the respect that if you chose to apply for and receive public assistance then that comes out of the federal government/tax payers pocket.
in the state of New Mexico the employer pays into a pool that all unemployment benifits are drawn from, i'm sure if it was to run dry the state government would contribute to it however it is set up to pay out less than is payed in. all unemployment is handled at the state level AFAIK the fed's only get involved when the fund gets into trouble.

M.R.

>>Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........

Veto is ONLY in security council, which wouldn't be dealing with that resolution. It would likely go through the economic committee before being brought to a vote in the General Assembly, where it is a straight vote...one vote per country, regardless of size and human rights violations.

it's just a jingo website run by a bunch of retarded jingo $$$$asses

Originally posted by novacain
Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.

Surprise, surprise........... its the US.

The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.

Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?

on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001

on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001

And the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'.

I disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem. We need them to solve it themselves. A touchy issue. I think Israel will give up a good chunk of their territory eventually but Israel's security would be that much more in shambles. You can't trust the anti-semitism wave out there, it's definitely not in Israel's best interest.

There are too many countries that have a new anti-semitic movement within their people. Some of those countries are in the UN (i.e., France). I know their have been mistakes by the UN and the US but I trust my country's leadership (for once) to do the right things after 9/11.

Interesting letter to Woody Allen about France. Something I found on the web

I sure hope this puts things in perspective for some of you. The US seems like a war monger but there are many things going on behind the curtains.

Also, originally posted by novacain
>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<

Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?

Dude, after agreeing with what you said in that other forum topic your posts in this thread seems to have been done by a COMPLETELY different person. I'm baffled by some of the comments here.

A world government? Does anyone need a big brother? Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN? This isn't Star Trek....a world union will never happen.

And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down? Because of companies like Enron? C'mon, everyone isn't like Enron. Most of these corporations do big, big things for their communities....that's what I look at when I see such big companies. " What can that company do for the community they are in?" Enron did great things for Houston until the veil was unshrouded. It's funny because I was just thinking yesterday about how bad Enron hurt some good people in Houston :/

And before someone does it, don't take what I said about the dollar being 'almighty' serious. Sheesh.

" disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem"

.... surely there is as much anti-Islamic feeling around if not more than antisemitic.

"We need them to solve it themselves"

Then why give billions to Israel?

Anyway we don't need to let them solve it themselves, we need to put pressure on both sides to go back to diplomacy.

"world government? Does anyone need a big brother?"

A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.

"Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN?"

No.... because the complaints against the US are based on their foreign policy.

"And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down"

Big companies have one and only one goal: $$$. They pay absolutely no attention to ethical constraints. Companies like Pfizer show some of the dangers of 'big corporations'.

Plus they seem to have a stupid amount of influence over the US government (and other Western governments).

howdy,

A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.

HOW could this be a great thing???

M.R.

>>> HOW could this be a great thing???

How could it not be? Instead of spending obscene billions every year on defence against other governments, that money could be released and used to solve REAL problems.

No more, "thats not my problem it happened in <insert non-important non-ally country here>", as ALL problems/disasters etc. are everybody's.

Until we have a central planetary government, we will never really go into space, and ultimately, we must. To do so requires global effort, we will not acheive this with the continual caveman tribalism that pervades much of the world, and I include the developed nations in that category.

Reading some of the comments in this and other threads makes me really wonder if we are all the same species. If we are, then I am ashamed to be one some times.

"The State Department has approved spending
$600,000 of your income to renovate the kitchen
of the Waldorf-Astoria apartment for the U.S. ambassador
to the UN."

I'm glad the government works hard for us. </sarcasm>

howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:

• 1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
  2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
  3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
  4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
  5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.

i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.

M.R.