The revenues accruing to world coalition government
Section XII
The revenues accruing to world coalition government
(A) It would be obligatory for the government of a country to pay to world coalition government a certain percentage of its revenue.
The system for collecting national revenue varies from state to state; and efficiency of such a system differs from state to state. Generally speaking, high national revenue would enable the government of a country to provide its population with a high standard of social welfare. Otherwise the standard of social welfare would be low for the population of that country. The formation in a country of its system of national revenue collection is contingent upon its history, culture, religions, and the importance—as evaluated by its citizenship—of the role played by its government.
After the foundation of a world coalition government, one of the sources of its revenue would be the collection from all governments and all administrations of special administrative regions. It would be obligatory for all governments and all regional administrations to pay to world coalition government a certain percentage of their revenues. As is well known, economic development varies significantly from one country to another and from one special administrative region to another. Therefore the revenue of one country or region may differ glaringly from that of another; and accordingly the sum paid by one country or region to world coalition government would differ significantly from that paid by another. But such a situation should be counted as quite normal. So long as all countries and regions would be required to turn in to world coalition government the same percentage of their revenues at the same time and according to the same fiscal procedure, equality and equitability would be ensured to all countries and regions. This would be a proper way to help all countries and regions with stabilizing their economies.
There is much to be learned from the way a number of the UN member nations having been managing to be left in arrears with their assessed contributions to the United Nations. It would be useful for world coalition government as well as its would-be member nations to draw a lesson from the UN’s system of collecting assessed contributions from member nations. One of the important prerequisites to the survival of a world coalition government would be that every world citizen would willingly be its taxpayer.
Under the unified leadership of a world coalition government which would guarantee the security of the entire human race, no country or region would still need to spend much on its defense budget or war budget. Under such circumstances a small or weak country would no longer be obliged to annually fork out a large percentage of its budget to the plate of a strong power in exchange for its security and stability. Nor would a strong power need to allocate a great portion of its financial resources to its military budget for the purpose of protecting its neighboring small countries or its satellite countries. This would mean that under the unified leadership of a world coalition administration, every government would be able to invest much, much more in promoting its economic growth and reconstruction because of whopping bigger curtailment of military expenditure than in the days before the establishment of a world coalition government. Therefore, theoretically speaking, the finance of a country or region might be just negligibly affected as a result of its payment to a world coalition government of a certain percentage of its revenue. But in reality and judging from the size of curtailment of its military expenditures, the contrary would be more likely the case that the revenues of all countries would be enhanced substantially under the unified leadership of a world coalition government, even though each of them would have to pay a certain percentage of its revenue to a world coalition government.
According to my rough calculation, under the unified leadership of a world coalition government, almost all countries would be benefited with an annual increase in national revenue. The margin of such an annual increase would range from 15 to 30 percent in the least. If the establishment of a world coalition government were scheduled for 2104, that is one hundred years from now, then the margin of such an increase in national revenue of a country at that time under the unified leadership of a world coalition government would range from 30 to 60 percent, because in the absence for one hundred years of a world coalition government from the world, all countries would have to suffer greater losses stemming from wars, from sabotage inflicted by other countries, and from deterioration of ecological environment. In the present-day world, the margin of annual increase in national revenue of such countries as are able to have in recent years scored the best national economic growth in the world has ranged only from 6 to 12 percent. So, isn’t it very easy for everybody to find out whether the establishment of a world coalition government is beneficial to all countries across the world?
(B) It would be obligatory for a transnational company to pay to a world coalition government a certain percentage of its net profit.
Payments from transnational companies to the treasury of a world coalition government is its another source of revenue.
Mighty expansion of a powerful transnational company is occasioned by the following factors: (1) its correct orientation of operation, (2) its investment in manufacturing or selling highly marketable types of merchandise, (3) its competent and efficient staff, (4) its scientific and flexible management. On the other hand, a transnational company is usually very adept in taking advantage of discrepancies in the operation of economic system and in taxation system between countries to rake in money. Therefore it would be only reasonable for a world coalition government to collect a certain percentage of the net profit earned by a transnational company as a part of the said government’s revenue.
As a transnational company would have to pay a certain percentage of its net profit to a world coalition government, some believe that would much deplete the former’s returns. But in reality that would not be the case. Let us examine how a transnational company has been faring at the present stage when no world coalition government exists. Generally speaking, a transnational company needs to brace up in order to cope with the following situations: (1) At present a transnational company must pay to the country where its headquarters is a huge amount of tax. A considerable portion of the tax it pays to that country will be spent as that country’s military expenditure; and such a portion will be enlarged in case that country has to face up to an unfavorable development of military affairs. But what is more important is that when a war breaks out, a transnational company would be more liable than any other actor (such as a state, a company owned by a state, a controller of international capital) to suffer awfully from that war. Take Coca Cola, the transnational company, for example. Since it has branches in all countries across the world, a war in any part of the world is bound to inflict loss on the company. (2) The power struggle in any country, a change of its top ruler, or any alternation in its economic system or economic structure would inevitably affect a transnational company’s interests adversely and directly; and such political or economic episodes have happened frequently. (3) It is almost compulsory for a transnational company to take the initiative in offering donations to the country where it is based and to the countries where its branches have been established, for charity, social welfare, and relief or rescue operation. In some cases such donations are actually extortions in disguise imposed on a transnational company, though it has been always struggling to avert them. The situations referred to in these three points would remain unchanged until after a world coalition government is established and begins to exercise its unified leadership in every part of the world. On the other hand, as a transnational company has been victimized before the establishment of a world coalition government, it would have to do something to support a world coalition government after its establishment which would certainly be beneficial to all transnational companies. As a matter of fact, establishment of a world coalition government would of course be favorable to a transnational company’s effort at making profit. I think boards of directors of all transnational companies ought to be clearly aware of this.
After the establishment of a world coalition government, the profits of a transnational company would be divided into three portions. One portion would be turned over to world coalition government as a payment of tax. Another portion would be paid as tax to both the country where the company has been registered and the countries where its branches operate. The last portion remains as the net profit of the company. What percentage each of the three portions should take would be a question claims a professional scrutiny and decision before the three percentages would become legally valid.
