NationStates Jolt Archive

I think we should increase taxes in all 1st world countries, especially the G8, by at least 3% and give the money gained to poor countries.
I think this because
- We would get all of our money back manyfold because if they improve their economy, they can buy more things from us
- There wouldn't be immediate improvement to people's lives, but, then again, most people in rich countries can spare a hell of a lot of cash. I mean, I bet you've got at least one TV. Probably two. You've probably got at least one computer and a car. And a microwave. And a dishwasher. And a tumbledrier. And so on. You don't really need all of it.
- Really poor people could be excempt.
- The people in impoverished countries need it a lot more. Millions die because they can't afford really cheap (to us) basic things. $1 spent on improving water conditions in Africa will give a return of about $4 - $34.
Basically, I think we would have a bit less cash in the short term, but later, the investment will really pay off. Of course, eventually the developing countries would develop, but by then we would be even further advanced. Unless we do this, everyone will have to drag along a lot of poor countries, while just a few are superrich (Right now, 6% of the world's population, mostly living in North America, have 60% of the cash). If we do do this though, we will be a lot better off a lot sooner - and this won't just be us, it'll be everyone.

Pretty safe bet to say that NS users have a computer I think.

yes, let's make the rest of the world become dependant on our handouts

bollocks

Lets take all Bill Gate's money that'll solve poverty plus he'll be very rich again in a week

Whats the point of giving poor countries money? It isnt going to change the reasons why those countries are poor. Then you have to factor in that most of these "poor" countries have very corrupt and innefficient governments. They money we send will only wind up in the politicians' pockets or be used to delay much needed reforms that would actually lead to improvements in their peoples lives.

You make the very false assumption that the money they take from us would be spent on foriegn aid, let alone spent well. Government programs, particulary in the 3rd world, are notoriously corrupt, expensive and innefficient.

More than likely the money taken out of circulation would hurt the economy and private, more efficient, charities.


Mandatory charity (aka theft) is not the answer to the worlds problems.

Lets take all Bill Gate's money that'll solve poverty plus he'll be very rich again in a week


Um, no that won't work

obviously you'ld need somebody you can trust giving the aid. the un could do it. and it's not like you'll be giving everyone cash to just lie around and do bugger all. you could subsidize industries so they make jobs and such. and some of the money wouldn't go to the government, but to charities like bread for the world or christian aid.

Nah, if we do that, their corrupt governments will spend it all on advanced weapons and go around pissing off their neighbors.

obviously you'ld need somebody you can trust giving the aid. the un could do it. and it's not like you'll be giving everyone cash to just lie around and do bugger all. you could subsidize industries so they make jobs and such. and some of the money wouldn't go to the government, but to charities like bread for the world or christian aid.

Oh yes, I absolutely trust the UN, it has no corruption and never wastes money...

Sorry, it's a nice thought but the whole concept has some very large flaws in it.

you don't give the governments the money. WE organise how to spend it.
BTW, mandatory charity is something that goes on all the time. it is called taxes. the state takes your cash and spends it on your neighbours.

Lerwinia, the un is still the best there is.
What flaws?

obviously you'ld need somebody you can trust giving the aid. the un could do it. and it's not like you'll be giving everyone cash to just lie around and do bugger all. you could subsidize industries so they make jobs and such. and some of the money wouldn't go to the government, but to charities like bread for the world or christian aid.


After the oil for food SCAM, I find it hard to believe that the UN would deploy the money well.

Business is already(indirectly) subsidized. Just by the fact that they are poor(standard of living wise) relative to another country gives them access to cheaper labor. This is how countries work their way out of poverty. Some help with regard to infrastructive is useful, The World Bank and IMF already provide funding for such projects(roads, dams, power plants etc).

you don't give the governments the money. WE organise how to spend it.
BTW, mandatory charity is something that goes on all the time. it is called taxes. the state takes your cash and spends it on your neighbours.
You have a very warped view of what taxes are used for.

but after the oil for food scam, the un doesn't act like that anymore. and if businesses were subsidesed more, they could pay more and get more workers. and the imf and world bank charge huge interest rates. eg in jamaica, everyone born after 197something already owes money. and most have no chance of repaying it in a lifetime while the country slides ever further into debt.
fundamentally, that is taxes. the government takes a part of everyone's cash and gives it out equally no matter how much you pay.

Raising taxes isn't necessary. There are two things needed for developing nations to develope: foreign direct investment, and security. The former is provided by and large by the private sector, and will do most of the global developement in the 21st Century. The latter can be provided only by governments. There are many nations that are cottage industries for this stuff, but only the US can provide it in bulk. Just look at the US security role in the Japanese economy. As US troops were stationed there and provided Japan with security needs, the Japanese could devout more resources to building an economy. Today, they spend less than 1% of their GDP on defense, and most of it is either for spying, or maintaining a Coast Guard-like navy.

Every dollar i make is rightfully mine, and i should keep it. It is ok if my government takes some of it to protect me and for law enforcement, judiciary, and public transportation, but to take my money and give it to someone who did nothing to earn it is a dumb idea. Well if that person is in a third world country oppressed by a bad government the idea seems less absurd but think of this. THE UNITED STATES WAS OPPRESSED BEFORE WE GAINED INDEPENDENCE, it is possible to throw off the chains of oppressive government and if we did it others can too. It is stupid and wasteful to liberate other nations via American troops for the purpose of liberation. If the nations people don't want democracy enough to fight and die for it, there is a good chance they will not fight an attempt to have it taken away. We would waste the dollars and lives of all who participate. Bottom line:
investing in the stability of other nations with taxes is illogical and innefective. If all you bleeding hearts want to pour your probably not hard earned money (i.e. ur parents trust funds because if you worked you would know that you earn money and do not deserve it) into charity that is great, i give enough as it is and how charitable i am is none of your bussiness. :sniper:

The best way to help the 3rd world countries is to abolish capitalism and thus poverty.

The best way to help the 3rd world countries is to abolish capitalism and thus poverty.

The was no poverty before capitalism. No, none whatsoever..

The best way to help the 3rd world countries is to abolish capitalism and thus poverty.


That has got to be one the weirdest things Ive seen someone write in a long time.

Ever notice that when the rich have more money more jobs are created ( 1983-1989) ( 1995-1999) ? The logic that destroying Bill gates will help anyone is rediculous. how many jobs and benefits has Bill Gates created for the American population? Certainly more than you could ever get by destroying him! When the rich have more money so do everyone else. And all tha talk about helping 3rd world nations by increasing our taxes..........sounds like the new version of kiplings "the white man's burden" to me.

The was no poverty before capitalism. No, none whatsoever..

before capitalism we had stone age societies. they ALL LIVED IN POVERTY). look at the defenition of poverty. THERE WAS NO WEALTH BEFORE CAPITALISM. ONLY POVERTY.

I'm the first one to vote for raising taxes and keeping the cash, so I guess I should back it up.

Basically, I'm a supporter for acting locally, not globally. Giving aid to third world countries usually consists of ridiculous loans that end up destroying countries' economies (ie. Jamaica and the IMF... look it up).

I do think that more developed countries, especially the UK and the USA have an obligation to help developing countries that were westernized and then left to compete in a world market.

GLobalization has ruined many cultures, but I think most developed countries have a lot of work to do at home. Let's focus on getting the homeless off our own streets, and eliminating gang violence and ridiculous drug wars at home. Then let's see what we can do for other countries.

The highest real tax rates in American history were under Jimmy Carter. That was the period of highest unemployment, inflation, interest rates, and homelessness.....in modern times. The idea that a nation can tax its self into prosperity is rediculous.

Well if that person is in a third world country oppressed by a bad government the idea seems less absurd but think of this. THE UNITED STATES WAS OPPRESSED BEFORE WE GAINED INDEPENDENCE, it is possible to throw off the chains of oppressive government and if we did it others can too. It is stupid and wasteful to liberate other nations via American troops for the purpose of liberation. If the nations people don't want democracy enough to fight and die for it, there is a good chance they will not fight an attempt to have it taken away. We would waste the dollars and lives of all who participate.

OMG :headbang: . You are what I dont like about America. Ireland had several rebelions none of which worked, in the end an agreement was signed which caused a civil War(why there is north and republic Ireland), but we obviously didnt want freedom enough thats why poorly armed people lost against a superiour army.

How about NO, scott?

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/TS15.jpg

OMG :headbang: . You are what I dont like about America. Ireland had several rebelions none of which worked, in the end an agreement was signed which caused a civil War(why there is north and republic Ireland), but we obviously didnt want freedom enough thats why poorly armed people lost against a superiour army.

The person you mention is ( thankfully) in the minority here in America.

As if giving money to a person, or a country, or otherwise will end poverty.

It won't. Countries that have severe economic problems NEED SOLUTIONS, not dependency on handouts.

The same is true for individuals. They need to make different choices so as to NOT be in poverty.

There is a time and a place to use money as an aid, but that is purely a waste, until the time that the recipients have learned to make decisions that END the conditions that cause the problems in the first place.

The UN has no track record whatsoever. It fails to advocate capitalism and freedom - which are what brings prosperity to the individual. It relies upon handouts and government actions as the ONLY legitemate means of individual help. Such is pointless and just a waste of money and thereby the efforts of those who worked to earn that money.

America was not built on handouts. It was built on free enterpise. What makes you assume the modern day third world is different?

If we are gonna do this, then we need to designate large portions of the south eastern US as foreign developing nations so that we can help them. Charity begins at home

So now the government does charity. god help us.

What do you mean NOW
The person you mention is ( thankfully) in the minority here in America.
Good! I hope so

Taxes need to be raised to fix social security and get rid of national debt. Then they can be cut.

The was no poverty before capitalism. No, none whatsoever..
Thats like saying that you could end starvation by passing legislation banning hunger. And that is using the inherently stupid belief that there is a decent alternative to capitalism. More appropriately would be saying that by banning farming you could end world hunger.

Back on topic, other countries should just have to deal with their own damn problems. It is not the U.S.'s job to look after other countries, only after U.S. interests. The same goes for all other countries.

Thats like saying that you could end starvation by passing legislation banning hunger. And that is using the inherently stupid belief that there is a decent alternative to hunger. More appropriately would be saying that by banning farming you could end world hunger.



What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?
Well first off, I mistyped.
I meant to say "decent alternative to capitalism", but I was distracted while typing and said "decent alternative to hunger".
I have since corrected my post, assuming that you knew what I was trying to say and weren't commenting on my "capitalism"/"hunger" mistake:
I meant that you can't get rid of your problems (poverty) by legislating (abolishing) them. This is all that abolishing capitalism would do.
However, do to the fact that ther is no working substitute for capitalism, you would be trying to attack a problem (poverty) by attacking its only possible cure (allowing those in poverty the freedom to go out and make money).

Well first off, I mistyped.
I meant to say "decent alternative to capitalism", but I was distracted while typing and said "decent alternative to hunger".
I have since corrected my post, assuming that you knew what I was trying to say and weren't commenting on my "capitalism"/"hunger" mistake:
I meant that you can't get rid of your problems (poverty) by legislating (abolishing) them. This is all that abolishing capitalism would do.
However, do to the fact that ther is no working substitute for capitalism, you would be trying to attack a problem (poverty) by attacking its only possible cure (allowing those in poverty the freedom to go out and make money).

I was being sarcastic in my first post. A am a radical free-market capitalist.

I was being sarcastic in my first post. A am a radical free-market capitalist.
I still had to clarify the fact that, yes, I do believe that there is a decent alternative to hunger. Many studies have been done to reveal the fact that, as far as human science can see, starvation isn't the best answer to the dilema of whether to eat or not.

I still had to clarify the fact that, yes, I do believe that there is a decent alternative to hunger. Many studies have been done to reveal the fact that, as far as human science can see, starvation isn't the best answer to the dilema of whether to eat or not.

No, starvation is basically self correcting.

It is Malthus' problem, malnutrition, that is the real problem. You wind up with an individual who consumes the same resources as a normal person but is far less productive.

there is a difference between the us a few hundred years ago and the modern world. first off, taxes were a hell of a lot lower in n america ( about 10c to 1$) than in england (55p to 1£). the taxes WEREN'T that high. then, the americans had a chance. they had access to weapons and allies. nowadays, a lot of despot tyrannical governments have well-equipped armies that can completely slaughter rebelling people.
most of the cash you invest (not neccessarily through the un, can be charities too) will give you a really high economic return. you get more workers, better workers, more thinkers etc - plus if everyone has more money there they can buy more things - which is great for the economy. which is great for us. i am NOT saying we should give 50$ to everyone. we should give them stuff like food until they can make or buy their own. we should build wells so they have decent water. and the money would allow the kind of changes needed to attract industry.
charity begins at home - yes. but this entire planet is your home. wouldn't you want help? and if we don't help them, they wont advance as quickly. wont make as much food for instance as they can, and we get food shortages. they'll probably have more stupid wars - which affect us. more terrorists woudl fight us. we'd be doing ourselves a favour in the long run.

won't anybody back me up? 5 other people voted for the first option!

there is a difference between the us a few hundred years ago and the modern world. first off, taxes were a hell of a lot lower in n america ( about 10c to 1$) than in england (55p to 1£). the taxes WEREN'T that high. then, the americans had a chance. they had access to weapons and allies. nowadays, a lot of despot tyrannical governments have well-equipped armies that can completely slaughter rebelling people.
most of the cash you invest (not neccessarily through the un, can be charities too) will give you a really high economic return. you get more workers, better workers, more thinkers etc - plus if everyone has more money there they can buy more things - which is great for the economy. which is great for us. i am NOT saying we should give 50$ to everyone. we should give them stuff like food until they can make or buy their own. we should build wells so they have decent water. and the money would allow the kind of changes needed to attract industry.
charity begins at home - yes. but this entire planet is your home. wouldn't you want help? and if we don't help them, they wont advance as quickly. wont make as much food for instance as they can, and we get food shortages. they'll probably have more stupid wars - which affect us. more terrorists woudl fight us. we'd be doing ourselves a favour in the long run.

won't anybody back me up? 5 other people voted for the first option!
Gee, the way you talk you make it sould like you expect the US to be the largest providor of charity money to the world..

OH WAIT, WE ARE!!! Both on a private as well as a Federal level.

Too bad the rest of the developed world isn't pulling their weight. Maybe you oughta tax them.