UN’s Sinister Postwar Tax Schemes Resurrected

In the aftermath of World War II, the world stood at a crossroads. The devastation of global conflict had exposed the fragility of international cooperation, prompting leaders to forge new institutions aimed at preventing future catastrophes and fostering collective prosperity.

 

Thus, the United Nations (UN) was established in 1945. Emerging as the beacon of hope with its Charter emphasizing economic and social advancement alongside peace and security.

 

And yet, beneath the lofty ideals of unity lay practical challenges: how to fund an organization tasked with global governance?

 

From the outset, some visionaries within the nascent UN proposed radical solutions, including mechanisms resembling a “global tax” to ensure stable and “equitable” financing. These early efforts, though ultimately unsuccessful, marked the beginning of a century-long debate over international taxation and resource redistribution.

 

This article explores those initial attempts in the late 1940s and early 1950s, drawing upon historical records of UN deliberations, whilst examining the motivations, proposals, and roadblocks that shaped the UN’s financing model, and why a true global tax remains elusive even today.

 

The Postwar Dream: A UN Built on Shared Prosperity

 

The UN’s founding conference in San Francisco in 1945 was labeled a triumph of multilateralism, however, financial sustainability loomed large.

 

Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which had collapsed partly due to funding shortfalls exacerbated by U.S. non-participation, the UN sought a more robust structure.

 

Article 17 of the UN Charter assigned the General Assembly the power to approve the budget and apportion expenses among member states (nations present at the UN), primarily based on a “capacity to pay” formula tied to national income and population.

 

Influenced by Keynesian economics and the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and World Bank, created in 1944), UN planners envisioned an interconnected global economy where wealthier nations supported development in poorer ones.

 

Reports from the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1946 highlighted stark income disparities, alerting the world to the “under-developed” Global South, a term that would define decolonization-era discourse. These documents argued for financing to bridge divides, including foreign aid and technical assistance in fiscal reforms.

 

Amid this, whispers of direct international levies surfaced. Proponents, including economists from newly independent or developing nations, saw a global tax not as coercion but as a moral imperative: a levy on international trade, transactions, or incomes to fund peacekeeping, development, and humanitarian efforts.

 

Such a tax, however, would sidestep reliance on voluntary contributions, which risked political leverage by donor states.

 

The Fiscal Commission: A Short-Lived Beacon of Tax Innovation

 

The most concrete early push came with the establishment of the UN Fiscal Commission in 1946, under ECOSOC Resolution 18(III).

 

Chaired by figures like American economist Roy Blough and supported by experts from Latin America and Europe, the Commission aimed to coordinate global tax policies, prevent double taxation, and promote “equitable” resource flows. Its mandate explicitly included exploring “international fiscal measures” to support development.

 

In its inaugural sessions in 1947 and 1948, the Commission delved into proposals for what could be interpreted as proto-global taxes.

 

Drawing from League of Nations precedents, like the 1928 Geneva Conference on Double Taxation, the group drafted model tax treaties (the “Mexico Model” of 1946 and “London Draft” of 1947) that prioritized source-country taxing rights for developing nations. But the real ambition lay in financing discussions.

 

A 1949 report proposed an “international adjustment tax” on cross-border profits, where a portion of multinational earnings would be pooled and redistributed to low-income countries.

 

Another idea, floated in ECOSOC debates, was a levy on international air travel or maritime shipping (booming sectors postwar) to generate revenue for UN programs.

 

These weren’t full-fledged “global taxes” like today’s Tobin tax on financial transactions, but they represented a direct challenge to national sovereignty: taxes collected globally, not bilaterally.

 

This maritime focus, in particular, foreshadowed contemporary efforts to address sector-specific externalities, such as greenhouse gas emissions from global trade routes, where shipping handles 90% of world commerce and contributes about 3% of annual CO2 emissions.

 

The Commission’s work gained traction amid decolonization, and by 1950, as Asian and African nations joined the UN, voices like India’s delegate pushed for fiscal tools to fund technical assistance, arguing that ad hoc aid perpetuated dependency.

 

A 1951 subcommittee report estimated that a 1% levy on global trade could raise $500 million annually (equivalent to about $6 billion today), enough to kickstart infrastructure in the Global South.

 

Roadblocks: Sovereignty, Geopolitics, and Power Imbalances

 

Despite the momentum, these proposals faltered by 1954, when the Fiscal Commission was disbanded and absorbed into the less ambitious Committee on Taxes and Fiscal Matters. Why? A confluence of factors doomed the effort.

 

First, sovereignty concerns dominated. Wealthy nations, led by the U.S. and UK, viewed any supranational tax as an infringement on fiscal autonomy. The U.S. feared it would bear the brunt of the burden postwar. An additional amplifying factor were Cold War tensions: the Soviet bloc abstained from funding debates, labeling them “imperialist plots,” whilst the U.S. prioritized military aid via the Marshall Plan over UN-led redistribution.

 

Second, implementation hurdles were immense. Who would administer the tax? The UN lacked enforcement powers, relying on member compliance. Proposals for a global tax authority clashed with emerging institutions like the IMF, which handled balance-of-payments issues without direct levies.

 

Finally, internal UN politics played a role. Developing countries, though vocal, held limited voting power in budget committees. The Commission’s short lifespan of a measly eight years, reflected resource constraints; it met only biennially as it was hamstrung by postwar austerity.

 

These failures entrenched the UN’s reliance on assessed contributions (about 80% of its $3.5 billion regular budget today) and voluntary pledges, a system prone to arrears and earmarking. This reliance isn’t a net-negative as some would have you believe. In fact, the UN’s reliance on assessed contributions is key to ensuring accountability. For example, if the UN were to deviate from its original purpose, nation’s have the right to withdraw their contributions, and thus, hold this unelected body to account.

 

Echoes in Today’s Global Tax Debates

 

The UN’s flirtation with global taxation a the very beginning wasn’t a full-throated “implementation” but a visionary experiment cut short as it laid groundwork for later innovations: the UN Model Double Taxation Convention (first published in 1980, updated in 2021) still favors developing-country interests, and the Tobin tax inspired 21st-century financial transaction taxes.

 

Fast-forward to 2025, and the ghosts of 1946 resurface.

 

In November 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted terms of reference for a Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, driven by African nations seeking to counter OECD dominance. This could include protocols on multinational profit allocation and taxing the ultra-wealthy, echoing those postwar redistribution dreams.

 

Proposals for a global minimum corporate tax (15%, agreed in 2021 via OECD but now UN-enhanced) and carbon levies for climate finance nod to the Fiscal Commission’s equity focus.

 

A striking modern manifestation is the UN’s push through its specialized agency, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), to implement the world’s first global carbon tax on shipping.

 

Building directly on the postwar idea of a maritime levy, the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF), agreed in principle in April 2025 after years of negotiations, introduces mandatory fuel emissions standards and a carbon pricing mechanism for vessels over 5,000 gross tons, covering 85% of shipping CO2 emissions.

 

Non-compliant ships face fees of up to $380 per excess tonne of CO2-equivalent from 2028, with revenues funneled into the IMO Net-Zero Fund to subsidize zero-emission fuels and support vulnerable nations. This hybrid levy, set for formal adoption at an IMO session this week and entry into force in March 2027, aims to drive the sector toward the globalist’s net-zero agenda by or around 2050.

 

Yet, as in the 1940s, opposition mirrors historical roadblocks. Petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the UAE, alongside economies like China and Brazil, resisted a universal levy, citing risks to trade competitiveness, food prices, and inequality.

 

Thankfully, the U.S. under the Trump administration, withdrew from talks in April, threatening “reciprocal measures” like tariffs on supporters, echoing postwar American sovereignty fears. The EU has also opposed the recent votes.

 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned in 2023 that the current system loses $4.8 trillion annually to tax havens, funds that could finance the UN’s communist-drenched Sustainable Development Goals.

 

Lessons from the Past…

 

For the UN to succeed with its globalist carbon tax ideal, it would spell disaster for the nations of the world. Fortunately, the U.S. stands in the way of the 1940s vision of a taxed, interdependent world.

 

Whether this UN agenda materializes depends on whether history repeats, or if it bends to the disastrous, net-zero agenda of globalism.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!