Source: Planet Ark (Reuters)

So France's Jacques Chirac wants us all to pay a special tax so we can help rid the world of poverty.

A Chirac aid says:



A tax on Carbon Dioxide? What, a penny per exhale? Do I get a "tax credit" if I plant a lot of plants?

The idea of a "world tax" is laughable.

Gotta love the French, though. Without them, there might not be any humor in the news.

And I already pay many "taxes" to fight world poverty. Like income tax, and sales tax.

Mike

I recall hearing some phrase...made up long ago...gosh, how did that go?...oh, yeah....

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Silly French. Seems history has conveniently been forgetten by the Chirac administration. I wonder if they have forgotten that their forefathers helped ours secure the right of representation.

Now I know there were a lot of ballot/voter problems in the 2000 election but I swear I don't remember Chirac being on there.

Maybe he drank some milk after the expiration date!

I would go poor paying all meaningless taxes. Then who is gonna support me huh?

I've got an even better idea, an idea that could end poverty without increasing taxes by 1 cent :

Let each nation in the world reduce its on military budget by ten percent and take the resulting savings and send it into Unicef to be used to reduce poverty throughout the world. Thus, with the military, which is the biggest threat to the population of the world, reduced by a mere ten percent, and that ten percent used instead to help people we can attack poverty on two fronts, simultaneously.

Of course the Republicans would never allow it, but it's kind of an impish , impudent, and mischievous idea that could make the politicians squirm a little. Let's make them squirm a little.

Jerry, what a joke. Sorry, but any drop in military spending at this historical junction would break the back of the American infrastructure. Much of the poverty stems from their own ignorance and lack of work ethic.

My advice to the poor: stop killing each other and share the ******* food you find. No need for every country to give to UNICEF. What you are speaking of is Communism, which is known to be a USELESS, CRAZY idea. Come back when you can think of something that doesn't involve GRAND LARCENY AND DEATHS OF AMERICANS.

Or how about this alternative - the federal government stops stealing so much of my tax dollars to redistribute it on social welfare programs and give it back to me. Then I can personally decide if I want my money to go to UNICEF or the Red Cross or any other aid agency.

I despise paying taxes to only to have my government spend it - claiming they know how to best how to spend my hard-earned money.

There is very little I would support with my tax dollars and military spending is at the top. Without the protection of the military I could not host this website where we all have the freedom to discuss the issues and criticize our leadership.

UNICEF?

Let me ask you this: How does UNICEF think they're helping reduce poverty through their "Football, the right to play" program"?

Are kids not dying due to starvation and disease throughout the world? Apparently UNICEF seems to think soccer is more important.

And how about their "Girl's Education" program. Their website actually says, "UNICEF's goal is quality education for all children, and we believe that a focus on girls is the best way to reach that goal."

What? We want all kids to learn, so we're going to teach girls.

How about their "Taking Aim at Small Arms" program. They want to rid the world of firearms.

I'm not saying that UNICEF is all bad. In fact, the do a lot of good. They, however, could not end world poverty no matter how much money you throw at them.

And that's why "the Republicans would never allow it" -- it wouldn't work.

Mike

the poverty tax of course.

i got into an enviremental arguement with someone once, "america sucks, america ran away from kyoto treaty"

well if i am correct we are ahead of everyone else. we have the highest emissions restrictions((i think)) and i know that we were the first to ban flouro-carbons.

response, "well yeah sure you did that, but c4 and c02 is still doing damage!!"

c4 is an explosive, and we will ban c02 when you quit exhaling.

some ppl are a joke, hah.

And that's why "the Republicans would never allow it" -- it wouldn't work.

Mike

Your right, it probably wouldn't work, but God, you Republicans are selfish.

meaner than Tommy Thompson,

i am republican and am only 17, so my view may change. but im pretty sure im going to stay republican with the way politics have been going lately. but im not sure what madtown was saying, are you talking about us not giving MORE money for aid? we already give billions of dollars to the UN for that, and i am all for the republican policy of taxes. cut taxes and let ppl do what they want with there money((as for giving it to charity)) ppl should be spending there money in places they think are good. has proven good for the economy too

In my personal opinion, republican policy is not to let you spend money where you want. If that were the case explain the bloated Homeland Security Deptartment concept or the prescription dugs for seniors that Bush advocated. Libertarians are the only party that truely advocates tax freedom. But I digress...

I was a little confused by Madtown's comments also. Help

Amen all the way!

republicans are for tax cuts, more money for you. therefor you spend it where you want. i am more for putting money government departments like CIA and defense, than for giving it to some black women on welfare with 3 kids not working just encouraging her to push out a few more. republicans seem to do more constructive things with there money, a way that actually benifits me, the person who is putting in the money