I know...you've barely mentioned him...

isn't it ironic?

the AMT was created to properly tax yesterday's population and particularly targeted a few high earners, probably a fairness thing..... now it has you feeling all of this unfairness....there's a lesson there :uhuh:

Growth of the AMT

Although the AMT was originally enacted to target 155 high-income households, it now affects millions of middle-income families each year. The number of households that pay the tax has increased significantly in the last decade: In 1997, for example, 605,000 taxpayers paid the AMT;[49] by 2008, the number of affected taxpayers jumped to 3.9 million, or about 4% of individual taxpayers.[50] A total of 27% of households that paid the AMT in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less.

The reason it is relevant (matters) is because these candidates are making proposals about what the tax code should be.

How so? Is one required to pay a certain rate of taxation before he can make proposals? How is paying a certain rate, whatever that is, make one more qualified or expert or authoritatively relevent in any way to make such proposals?

Personally, I'd rather have someone who believed in lower rates, regardless of what his rate is, to make those proposals. And, like PRBuzz, I certainly would prefer someone who didn't cheat on his taxes to be in on the discussion.

It has to do with credibility. These guys would go out and complain about a 35% tax rate on the highest bracket. Once they have to show that they really don't pay that rate, the conversation changes. The question of " what do you actually pay matters to the people listening. Under Gingrich's plan, Romney who makes 40 million or whatever would pay 0% on pretty much his entire income, while a person making 75,000 would actually pay 15%. Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

By the same token someone who is paying 28% would bitch about someone who is paying 15%. So does that make the 28 percenter more credible? And in which direction--that the 15 percenter should pay more, or that the 28 percenter should pay less? And by the same token, should that nearly half who don't pay any federal income tax now have a say, and would they have any credibility if they demanded that everyone else should get their rates raised. And by the same token, would those that do pay 32% now have more credibility in the discussion than those who pay less? It sounds like if you are to have credibility in making tax proposals under your logic you should be in the highest bracket, and actually pay it, otherwise it might be perceived that you are for a tax code that makes OTHER people pay the burden.

And what is relevant to me is not some complex tax code concocted by actuaries who figure various percentages for different earners on some undefined, subjective standard of "fairness," but what the money is spent for. When figures like 15 trillion, and 30 trillion, and 50 trillion dollars, AND MORE are projected to be a national debt, then there is no tax bracket that is adequate. We are playing out a tragicomedy about a nation that boasted a glorious revolution of individual rights over a tiny tax on tea, that has now descended into squabling among ourselves over what size of our personal incomes should be confiscated to pay an impossible amount spent on an ever expanding transfer of wealth into a bottomless pit of mystery. And rather than revolting against that, we point fingers at each other and argue who should pay more.

some continue to blur the simple distiction between earned income and capital gains income....:smash:


The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
John F. Kennedy


this is the beauty and evil of a "progressive" tax code..politicians and citizens can arbitrarily target individuals and their wealth regardless of source based on arbitrary needs and political expedience while at the same time excluding large portions of the population who can be then be mobilized against those not paying their fair share...it's all very childish and shameful....tax policy is little more than a political club used to rile up portions of the population in order to grant politicians the ability to "institute fairness" which, as Jimmy has found, tends to envelop and adversely affect many more than was originally claimed intended like every other liberal "great idea".....

this argument over tax rates completely ignores the real problem that we have...

this is like an employee going to their boss demanding a larger paycheck.....and the boss telling the employee that they're already the highest paid at what they do they just have too many maxed out credit cards and children out of wedlock, equity loans and personal loans and they keep taking those 4 million dollar vacations when their salary is only a fraction of that(which sets a really bad example for others:uhuh:)...

and then the employee, deaf to all that was said, in response, starts bitching about how much the boss makes:)
as though that will somehow improve his situation....

"Focusing attention and attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity — whether races, classes, or whatever — has had counterproductive consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions. Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the wings of envy and resentment ideologies.

Intellectuals have all too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off. When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

Both politicians and intellectuals have made their choice."

Thomas Sowell

It's not that people are blurring the distinction between "earned income" and "capital gains income", it's that people are commenting about paying a sub-15% tax rate on their income, regardless of how it is categorized.

Taxes are taxes, whether I write a check to the state of MA or to the IRS, just like income is income whether it was earned through dividends or a paycheck.

no difference, regardless of how it is categorized....interesting...:confused:


this should be fascinating, I'll let the numbers guys weigh in before I take a crack at that logic

crickets...OK

first, while I would absolutely agree with you that there ought to be a simplification of the code and may even agree that all of the various forms of income ought be "treated the same" when a tax rate is applied....there are simply no facts to back up your statement that "income is income" because the various incomes are derived very differently and as such have been treated historically very differently with regard to taxation....it may just be a wishful "vote them all out" of type generality but we both know that neither are very likely to occur any time soon....

so if we are talking about the reality today...the two are very different, both in how they are derived, categorized.. as well as how they are taxed...

Romney is subject to various tax rates on various forms of income and expenditures just as you are subject to various tax rates on the same...you have differing rates on income, savings and investments depending on your income and investments and can take advantage of certain investments to avoid or defer taxes....seems that many jump on the "tax everyone the same bandwagon" up until they examine their own situation closely and consider what their liability might be now and in the future if they were to pay a flat rate with no deductions, tax shelters or incentives to invest

it is absolutely "blurring the line" to complain that Romney is paying a lower rate on income which is defined by the IRS as something entirely different than your own earned income(salary), which is exactly what has been said...noone has complained that Romney pays a lower rate on his investment income than they do because they pay the same and probably less...it is just disingenuous...apples and oranges...as is often said here

someome mentioned carried interest...which is 30% of Romney's income in the two years taxes that he released and derived from his time at Bain Capital, the rest is from other investments....you can certainly argue that carried interest ought to be taxed like earned income(but show me and example where earned income can be construed as a long term investment and an earner is willing to wait 1-5 years to receive the benefits of the income)

On a typical fund, it takes at least five years before the managers begin to collect carried interest, says Emily Mendell, a spokeswoman for the National Venture Capital Association.

.... there are stipulations that come with the derivation of carried interest that differ from traditional earned income that make them very different and more to the point, changing the way that carried interest is taxed would do precious little to improve the country's economic situation but I guess it might make a few people feel better and would still leave the Romney types paying 15 or so % on the other 70% of his income

if you want to argue for a 15% flat tax for all Americans on all income...I'm sure that Romney would be quite happy to support that:uhuh::)


read this...she gets into the nuts and bolts of the topic pretty well...she is an advocate of taxing all income equally and is pretty thorough in her assesment of the whole situation

Raising carried interest tax won't solve problem

a little more on the subject...:)



Understanding Carried Interest

Is there a tax loophole that benefits fund managers?
By Alan D. Viard

Mitt Romney’s release of his tax returns has pushed the arcane issue of “carried interest” — the share of an investment fund’s profits given to its managers as payment for their services – back into the headlines. Critics have renewed their calls to tax the carried interest as ordinary income. Unfortunately, the populist rhetoric used by some critics can obscure the facts about how carried interest is actually taxed.

Some critics assert that all carried interest is taxed at the lower 15 percent that applies to capital gains and dividends. They complain that these funds are able to “turn” ordinary income into capital gains and dividends by paying managers in carried interest rather than salary, and that the funds are exploiting a special loophole not available to other firms. Looking at how carried interest works reveals that none of these things are true.


A private-equity, venture-capital, or hedge fund may earn various types of income — interest, short-term and long-term capital gains, dividends, and profits from non-corporate business holdings. These funds are organized as partnerships, with both the managers and the investors as partners. As a partnership, the fund is not directly taxed on its income. Instead, each partner is taxed on his share of the fund’s income — whether or not he removes it from the firm.

The managers pay the same tax rate on income from the fund as they would pay if they had earned the same income on their own — channeling the income through the partnership doesn’t change the tax rate. Managers pay 15 percent tax on any carried interest that reflects long-term capital gains or dividends earned by the fund, as they would on any long-term gains or dividends they might earn on their own. But managers pay ordinary income-tax rates on any carried interest that reflects short-term gains, interest, or non-corporate profits earned by the fund. The tax rate depends on the kind of income the fund earns — not all carried interest gets the 15 percent rate.

But, should any of it get that rate? Critics point out that, if the fund had paid its managers a straight salary, the salary would have been taxed as ordinary income. They argue that the fund should not be allowed to “turn” ordinary income into capital gains or dividends simply by paying the managers carried interest rather than salary.

But that’s not what’s going on. The way the fund pays its managers can’t change the total amount of capital gains and dividends or the total amount of ordinary income the fund has earned. Paying carried interest rather than salary simply reallocates the two types of income among the two types of partners — it gives managers more of the gains and dividends and less of the ordinary income while giving the investors less of the gains and dividends and more of the ordinary income. Nothing gets turned into anything else.

To be sure, this reshuffling of income usually produces net tax savings. The managers pay less tax because they get more of the lightly taxed gains and dividends. And the investors are often pension funds that don’t have to pay tax no matter how much ordinary income they’re given.

Critics don’t explain, though, why these tax savings are improper. The funds and managers aren’t exploiting a special loophole — they’re following the same tax rules that apply to everyone else. Because all partnerships may choose how to allocate their income among their partners, any partnership is free to allocate gains and dividends to partners who work rather than those who invest. The funds certainly have good business reasons to pay carried interest rather than salary — that arrangement gives managers the most powerful incentives to maximize performance. And managers who receive carried interest face the same risks as the investors.

These complicated issues could be avoided under a consumption tax or a better-designed income tax. Starting from today’s system, it’s hard to identify a single “right” rule for how partnerships should be allowed to allocate income. But critics have failed to make a good case for imposing special restrictions that would prevent private-equity, venture-capital, and hedge funds from using the tax rules that apply to other industries. Any tax changes that are adopted should apply throughout the economy and should be based on facts rather than populist rhetoric.

He had it right there for sure.
He understood Risk and made the right call on standing up to the
Russians in the Cuban Missel Crisis too, as scary as it was at the time.

You should have put this line in bold as it's the most important one in the entire piece.

So Justplgit's pension gives me 100 dollars to invest, I turn it into 120 dollars through my market savvy, give him his 100 dollars back + some interest we already agreed to. I keep the rest, but since it's all profit it's treated as capital gains...Justplugit's pension pays nothing as pension funds are exempt from taxes.

Now I would think you could argue that the beneficiaries of the pension funds are also getting a tax break...and they are.

I also understand that when you add it all up it doesn't fix the tax revenue problem, and that to change the tax code just a narrow part of the population doesn't make a lot of sense.

But if not technically a loophole it sure does sound like some hedge fund and private equity managers are able to get out of paying A LOT of taxes on what is really income when they whip out the cash for that new Porsche...all for taking risks with other people's money.

-spence

it's really income Spence....
these were the important points...do you have to wait typically 5 years for your efforts at work to pay out and hopefully pan out before you can whip out cash for your Porsche...or anything else?

The managers pay the same tax rate on income from the fund as they would pay if they had earned the same income on their own — channeling the income through the partnership doesn’t change the tax rate. Managers pay 15 percent tax on any carried interest that reflects long-term capital gains or dividends earned by the fund, as they would on any long-term gains or dividends they might earn on their own.

But managers pay ordinary income-tax rates on any carried interest that reflects short-term gains, interest, or non-corporate profits earned by the fund.

..............
Suppose a venture capital firm raises a $100 million fund from outside investors. The fund's manager charges an annual fee - typically 2 percent of the fund's assets - to find and monitor investments and cover its overhead. The manager pays ordinary income tax on this fee.

Once the fund has made enough money to repay investors $100 million plus the annual fees, the manager keeps 20 percent of additional profits and the outside investors get 80 percent.

This 20 percent is the carried interest. It is considered a long-term capital gain and taxed at 15 percent as long as the fund's investments are held more than a year.

On a typical fund, it takes at least five years before the managers begin to collect carried interest, says Emily Mendell, a spokeswoman for the National Venture Capital Association


The tax rate depends on the kind of income the fund earns — not all carried interest gets the 15 percent rate.

That's because it's an incentive for companies to provide for their retired
employees. They also need to file an annual report to the Labor
Dept as to insure having enough funding for everyone in the plan.
Don't know for sure but there must be penalties if they fall below a
certain level. There is risk.
The Govt still does well as the employee pays taxes on the pension $
as regular income.

Spence, can you give me the name of this savy market guy you speak of
who can turn my$100 into $120???? With these market conditions I'd be happy
to take $5 of his $20. I thought Madoff was in jail. LOL :)

I understand all that.

But consider that management of funds over 5 years is part of their job. It's not like they're earning the income, paying taxes on it, then reinvesting and getting the long-term capital gains rate. No...actually they're short circuiting the system and getting the lower rate on profits from money (i.e. risk) that wasn't theirs.

These people are in partnerships and will likely be doing this for some time, there's always another 5 year investment to back up the last one.

They should treat all carried interest profits as income, unless the profit comes from money they're investing at their own risk. Otherwise they're shorting the taxpayer out of Federal revenues as well as Medicare taxes.

I do think this issue will be very problematic for Romney in the general election.

It looks like Romney's executive retirement package allows him a very substantial share (we're talking 27 Million in 2010 alone) of Bain profits (10 years after he left!) which Romney has no capital stake in. The carried interest rule here means Romney doesn't have to treat these as income even though he hasn't made any investments nor has he been granted a stock with a tangible value at the time of issuance.

This is something only the uber-elite get to do. It may be legal under current code but that doesn't mean it's right.

-spence

not only is it not just "current code"...but apparently not all that unusal....nor are the simplistic attempts to feign unfairness :uhuh:

United Kingdom

In 1987, the Inland Revenue and the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA[3]) entered into an agreement which provided that in most circumstances gains on carried interest were not taxed as income.

The Finance Act 2003 widened the circumstances in which investment gains were treated as employment-related and therefore taxed as income. In 2003 the Inland Revenue and the BVCA entered into a new agreement which had the effect that, notwithstanding the new legislation, most carried-interest gains continued to be taxed as capital gains and not as income.[4] Such capital gains were generally taxed at 10% as opposed to a 40% rate on income.

In 2007, the favourable tax rates on carried interest attracted political controversy.[5] It was said that cleaners paid tax at a higher rate than the private-equity executives whose offices they cleaned.[6] The outcome was that the capital-gains tax rules were reformed, increasing the rate on gains to 18%, but carried interest continued to be taxed as gains and not as income.[7]

sound familiar?...you'd think those enlightened Brits would have stomped out such unfairness and declared "all income" to be "income"...regardless


this is pretty good......http://www.uschamber.com/reports/ana...tes-us-economy

no doubt...class warfare and racism are easy arguments to fire up and tough to defend...we're already seeing the wheels of both turning and it will get very ugly without question....

The existing tax code is a jumble of provisions lobbied for by business interests trying to influence legislators so the super rich can stay super rich. I think we'd both agree that a lot of what's presently "legal" isn't necessarily right.

You're ignoring your own cut and paste...The UK decided instead to nearly double their capital gains rate on EVERYBODY.

All a carried interest correction would do is ensure that partners pay a similar tax rate for their labor as other investment advisers already do for basically the same job. If anything, it's a more simple and consistent tax code.

But, I guess if I had a golden goose I'd want to protect it as well.

-spence

BRILLIANT!!!! complain about the unfairness that a tiny minority supposedly enjoy and solve it by screwing EVERYONE...

sounds like Jimmy's AMT conundrum:uhuh:


didn't ignore anything...it makes the point that the "complaint" In 2007, the favourable tax rates on "carried interest" attracted political controversy.

[It was said that cleaners paid tax at a higher rate than the private-equity executives whose offices they cleaned....

the solution to end this incredible unfairness enjoyed by the "uber-rich paying cash for Porsches unfairly gotten as a result of carried interest" was to raise the capital gains tax on EVERYONE from 10% to 18%......apparently to make things fairer for those not getting the carried interest benefit????...somehow??? victory???

although carried interest continues to be treated as gains and not income

Actually, it looks like the UK is now using two rates for capital gains, 18% for lower income and 28% for the rest which would include anyone really making much money. They also allow for the first 5,300 pounds to be exempt from all capital gains.

So while still not income, it looks like the UK is taxing carried interest at a much higher rate than the US. According to your article this should result in the UK suffering some real economic damage...More specifically your article said:

Although, as usual reality has a counter opinion...

Global Financial Centres Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-spence

Come on, I think you can manage better than 5%!

-spence

i'm taking them to the casino

i have a system :btu:

this is perfect...thanks for pointing it out

sooooo....

the problem...favourable tax rates on "carried interest" attracted political controversy....

the argument.....and since "income is income" it is unfair and "carried interest" should be taxed as earned income and not as capital gains

solution....raise the tax rate on All capital gains by 8%....I know there are exclusions for low earners, we have them too(some might call these "loopholes") instead of whacking earned interest as capital gains as we originally argued, we'll just whack all capital gains...it's more money...it's fairer...sort of...and probably "for the children"

solution?....carried interest continues to be treated as gains and not income

another problem....still not fair enough....need more money to fund the nanny state

solution....raise capital gains on high earners to 28% wow, that's even more than last time!!!

arrrrgggghhhhh...carried interest continues to be treated as gains and not income

and thank your lucky stars it wasn't worse....because...

"There had been speculation that CGT would be lifted to 40pc as the Liberal Democrats had promised before the election, or even 50pc in line with the top band of income tax.
The move was seen as a key victory for the Lib Dems." no doubt:uhuh:


Budget 2010: Capital gains tax rate increased to 28pc - Telegraph


this shows you that lib dems are pretty much the same wherever you go:uhuh: I imagine they'll get their 40,50 eventually...just keep pecking away

Not taxed as income obviously.

What you still haven't answered is why profit without capital investment deserves to be taxed at a rate specified for capital gains.

This isn't about treating private equity managers differently, in fact the idea is to simplify things so they're treated the same.

-spence

what this is about is a simplistic argument claiming unfairness with no real basis....I have posted reasons as to why carried interest is and has historically been taxed as capital gains and why capital gains are different from earned income(can't believe it was necessary)...apparently the reasons are suffucient and proper to keep it(carried interest) categorized that way despite the rhetoric both here and abroad in a far more "fair" and leftist place ....I have no pony in this race, I don't care how they are taxed, it doesn't affect me, the issue that I have is the ginned up resentment(and you've displayed it in many of your comments...) based more on bitter sentiment than facts all in an effort to impose fairness to further feed the very big mouth of government :biglaugh: and all of this takes the focus off of the real issue which is SPENDING!!!...:)

we've gone from...

it's not fair that millionaire Romney pays lower tax rate on his "income" than Joe the Butcher
to.....
income is income.......... no matter how it is derived
to....
"answer why profit without capital investment deserves to be taxed at a rate specified for capital gains"..... despite the fact that it isn't and hasn't been in any example we can find:confused:

I'm cool with one tax rate for everything, everyone...something tells me that the "lib dems" would still spend every waking hour(and probably in their dreams too) trying to figure out how to push it higher and higher and higher:uhuh:

Britain's most talent workers flee to avoid high tax rates - Telegraph

Nick Clegg: 'we'll stick to our guns on mansion tax'

Nick Clegg vowed that the Liberal Democrats will “stick to our guns” on a mansion tax, insisting owners of £2m homes should be made to pay more. OCCUPY ENGLAND

The Deputy Prime Minister attacked “eye wateringly lucrative assets so often hoarded at the top” calling for the Coalition to do more tax “serious, unearned wealth”. they just start drooling don't they?

"They need help quickly as they're facing high bills, they've had to face very high energy and electricity bills, and I think the Government should - we already are - but we should try and do more for exactly these people," he said. sign em' up!

A source close to the Lib Dem leader said: “Nick wants to call time on a tax system that has passed its sell-by date. Between now and the Budget, Nick and Danny [Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury] will be arguing for faster tax cuts for hard-working families, paid for by increasing the amount paid by the richest. quit fiddlin' Nick...just take it all!!!


The Office for National Statistics announced yesterday that gross domestic product had fallen by 0.2 per cent during the final three months of 2011. If the economy fails to grow in the first three months of 2012, Britain will have slipped into a double-dip recession for the first time since the 1970s. has Obama been "focusing like a lazer" on the British economy?

Yesterday, David Cameron called the latest figures “disappointing”. he should have Obama do his figures
But tax increases for the wealthy are controversial. The 50p top rate of income tax, the reduction of which the Lib Dems have opposed, has been blamed for making Britain unattractive to wealth creators. no way??!!

ÞThe Coalition’s new pension scheme, under which firms would automatically enrol every employee into a company pension plan and contribute, is to be delayed by two years, ministers admitted yesterday.just "deem it passed" and give Obama Care type waivers to all of your buddies and screw everyone else, it's working just great here in the Colonies Steve Webb, the pensions minister, said the scheme would not be fully phased in until October 2018. this sounds great...I like "scheme"
Nick Clegg: 'we'll stick to our guns on mansion tax' - Telegraph

Wrong.

Investing in a company (whether you are hoping for dividends or capital gains) involves RISK, LOTS OF RISK. We need to encourage investors to take on that risk, and the way you do that is to make the "reward" comparable to the risk.

Capital gains are the "cost" of making money by investing. Chapter 1 of any economics text will clearly state that when you increase the cost of something, the demand for that something (no matter what it is), goes down. You don't want to stifle the demand for investment returns, particularly in a recession.

Money earned through investing is very, very different than what you earn in a bi-weekly paycheck. I don't need to risk any of my personal assets in order to earn a paycheck. There are, in my opinion, valid reasons why capital gains are taxed at a rate lower than income.

Here's what gets me about all this...John Kerry is worth 10 times what Mitt Romney is worth, and Kerry's effective tax rate is a little lower than Romney's. Where was all this outrage when Kerry ran for President? Menaing, it's OK when rich liberals do this, but when conservatives do it, they are out to screw the middle class. It's bullsh*t.

God help me, Im on the side of the libs with this one!
Why this wasnt an issue with Kerry is because the republicans were not making the deficit a major battle cry when Kerry ran. They couldnt because Bush was key culprit in raising it
To be straight - I am for significantly lowering government spending and for lowering taxes. But we have significant loopholes that WAY overbenefit the wealthy and honestly are not fair. I've spent my career in investments, i know cap gains inside and out. I get this stuff.
But its crap that I pay $30 a day to commute to my job, make good money, take the "risk" every day of major decisions, sacrifice a shat load but due to AMT, I can barely take any deductions and NO TAX code benefits me. Yet multi millionaires can take all kinds of deductions and pay a less effective rate. The tax code needs to be changed. Loopholes need to be closed

Fine, eliminate loopholes, get rid of the AMT, give RIJimmy a tax code that benefits him, etc. I don't think Jim in CT was talking about that. I think he was clearly explaining the rationale behind using the tax code to encourage investment.

Jim, you know that I love you and harkening back to the Sowell quote I posted earlier, "if you care about people you tell them the truth"...I was reading the CBO projections going foward the other day and the two scenarios mentioned were the "rosy" scenario and the one where we were screwed....the "rosy" scenario is counting on the Bush tax cuts sunsetting and an expansion of the AMT to adversely affect many, many more Americans, so I'm telling you the truth...you will continue to get screwed and it is very likely to get worse for those in your earning range because you represent the largest portion of the population both actually paying taxes and sitting on significant savings and investments...and you have stuff like trucks and boats(I think Spence referred to these as luxuries when you mentioned them previously) so noone is going to feel sorry for you...if you have money they have a bullseye on you...that's just how it is :uhuh:

and they never, ever stop...

The UN also has a habit of using money designated for relief projects to enrich its own coffers, including the $732.4 million budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti, two thirds of which was spent on “the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.”

UN Wants World Tax To ‘Help The Poor’

Global levy needed to aid “needy people” get free housing, education and healthcare

Friday, February 3, 2012

The United Nations wants a world tax imposed on all financial transactions to fund a global model of social services that will provide “needy people” with a basic income, free healthcare, education and housing.

The drive is part of the UN’s mission to create a “social protection floor” under the auspices of the Commission on Social Development, which began this week in New York. The SPF will become the UN’s primary focus from 2015 onwards when the Millennium Development Goals project concludes.

“The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax,” reports the Deseret News, quoting Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program, who said that a long term funding plan for the project would center around “a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue.”

“No one should live below a certain income level,” stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. “Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services.”

According to the report, the new global tax is designed to be a progressive scale, with higher earners paying more to help provide “all needy people with a basic income, healthcare, education and housing.”