Regardless of your personal feelings about taxation, though, you’re probably already feeling taxed to death. Income taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, car taxes, fuel taxes, sin taxes, phone surcharges, on and on. So how would you like to add another layer? Soon, you may be paying taxes to your town, your county, your state, your nation and… the world.

That’s right. If the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) gets its way, a global tax may be on us before we know it.

This past January, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the UNDP used the meeting as a launching pad for a new book called The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges. 

In fact, there’s nothing new here at all. Its premise is the same old endlessly recycled idea of redistributing wealth from the developed nations to the underdeveloped ones, in an attempt to lift the latter into the mainstream world economy. If we take a look at Africa, for example, it’s easy to see how well this approach has worked… namely not at all. So, true to the principle “If you don’t succeed the first time, keep doing more of the same,” for decades the world-improvers haven’t ceased to throw good money after bad. 

Now, we are as willing as anyone to let all the world’s nations have their shot at prosperity. But throwing money at the problem of poverty has proven to be a dismal failure. All that usually happens is that the financial assistance winds up in the pocket of some kleptocrat.

As we’ve pointed out in previous issues of this newsletter, Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has compiled some powerful data in support of the argument that national economic success is founded upon very simple principles. Namely, a legal system that recognizes the property rights of private citizens and that protects those rights from infringement by others.

The world’s poor, de Soto writes, have trillions of dollars in assets that they can’t use to better their lives because they can’t get clear title to them. Give them rights to their property and you’ll unleash their creative potential. Deny those rights and you ensure a grinding, never-ending cycle of poverty.

Throw all the spare money in the world at underdevelopment, without requiring fundamental legal and economic change, and you’ll accomplish nothing. But the UNDP seems blithely unaware of this.

The game is given away right in the overview section of The New Public Finance, when it states: “The equity or distribution branch of public finance, seen to support society in realizing its goals of fairness and justice, may sometimes have to achieve its objectives through income redistribution and transfer payments.”

That is to say, if a country makes an utter hash of its economy and a small clique enslaves the rest of the people, then we need to give them some money to fix things.

It’s a global village, see. You already knew that. But you probably thought of it, quite naturally, in terms of trade and communications and the like. The UNDP carries the notion further, however. It consigns to the dustbin of history the quaint notion of sovereign countries “reflecting the choices on desired state action by national constituents,” and claims that the new paradigm is some hybrid called the “intermediate state . . . reflecting the choices on desired state action by international constituents.”

Translation: We can no longer make decisions based on our own self-interest, but must take into account the larger community of nations (even, the implication is, when such decisions work against us).

But this is what we should expect from an organization which, in its 2005 Human Development Report, stated that “Aid policies should reflect a commitment to reduce inequalities in human capabilities and income.” Oh? We are of course a bit puzzled as to how one would homogenize disparate human capabilities; however, as to reducing income inequalities, the UNDP has plenty of ideas.

For example, developed nations should pay a tax based on their energy consumption, and the proceeds should go to nations that use less (after the UN takes a cut for itself, naturally). Or perhaps you’d prefer a tax on international airline tickets, another possible revenue generator. Or how about an Internet tax?

The latter was floated by the UNDP before, back in 1999, when it figured it could raise $70 billion a year (probably twice that now) by levying a charge for using the World Wide Net. The proposal failed in ’99, but sneaked back onto the agenda this year in the form of an international corporate tax. Tech companies that do Internet business in a participating country would have to pay a surcharge for the right.

Also resurrected was the so-called “Tobin Tax,” named for the Nobel Laureate Yale economist who thought it up in 1978. It was originally proposed as a painless and essentially transparent tax that would be levied only on international currency transactions. Since the world currency market does close to $2 trillion in business each day, a tax of between a tenth and a quarter of a percent would yield some big bucks indeed. (A Tobin Tax resolution was introduced into Congress in 2000 but has yet to pass; the European Parliament rejected the idea in the same year.)

Okay, most people don’t speculate in currencies, so why isn’t this a good idea? For one man’s answer, we turn to old friend Congressman Ron Paul, a/k/a the only voice in Washington worth listening to. To Paul, it’s a matter of precedent.

He calls it dangerous precisely because few would notice. It would quietly create a “politically acceptable starting point.” And thus, he says, a “dangerous precedent would be set . . . the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.” - Article Continued Below -