NationStates Jolt Archive

in light of yet another humanitarian crisis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318974.stm) and drought in the third world, and at the ever-familiar condemnation by the UN of the world's rich nations lack of interest or help in the matter, i got my thinking cap on... not for too long, mind ;)

what about a specific thrid-world relief/aid tax? would you pay such a thing if you knew 1% of your income was going directly (minus obvious organisational costs) to help those starving and without even basic medical care in the world? the way i see it, the tax could be used for aid initially, but for restructuring and long-term investment in education, infrastructure and other projects to help the third world (particularly sub-saharan africa) stand proud on its own two feet.

i live in the UK, and the GDP per capita of this country is around £24,000. tax allowances are roughly £6k (to my knowledge), so 1% of the average taxable income is, by these figures, £180. times that by the working population (65%) and you have around 7 billion pounds (12.3 billion USD). a sizeable fund to invest each year, and thats just the UK... it'd be pretty easy to reach at least 100 billion dollars a year if all/most 'rich' nations adopted the tax.

so, would you support such a tax in your country?


(and yes i know there is a major problem of corrupt government officials and heads of govt in many of these places that need help. however that is a short-term problem that can be overcome (in time).)


sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318974.stm http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_826.pdf http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/eco_cou_826.pdf http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/ecn3_2005.pdf

Nope.

IMHO, nobody should be forced to give what amounts to charity.

IMHO, of course. :)

No, because it wouldn't work. The aid money would be misappropriated, siphoned off by corrupt UN/national officials (for "additional administratvie oversight" or whatever), stolen by corrupt governments, and ultimately do nothing but perpetuate dependency on the West/OECD.

Government aid is simply nowhere near as effective as private aid and debt forgiveness, with emphasis on democracy and anticorruption. We need to make Africa stand by itself, not just throw money at it and hope for the best.

IF (and that's one huge if) I knew it was going to the right people, hell yes, I'd pay it. More, even.

I don't think I'd suggest calling it a "tax" but... whatever works.

Now... In contrast to that... I never send money to the jackals on TV with their high-pressure commercials ( "Dear ghod! Won't you please help? Can't you see little Haji here is starving, right before your eyes?!? What kind of sick bitch are you?!?!?" ) and I sure as hell wouldn't trust the current American government or UN to get it there.

In fact, I think a lot of UN aid goes far enough into the wrong people's hands to actually make things worse in the targeted areas.

Nope.

IMHO, nobody should be forced to give what amounts to charity.

IMHO, of course. :)
My sentiments exactly.

I'm already paying tax so they get guns and then have wars declared on them. And now you want me to look after their welfare too? Nah. It's one thing or the other.

Oh, like throwing money at the problem ever made it better.

No.

so, would you support such a tax in your country?

I'd support paying such a tax under one condition: the beneficiaries agree to join my nation (the US), dissolve their governments, and become states. Otherwise, it'd be against my principles to support it. The government has no business exporting gobs of money to someone that can't even keep track of it.

No, because it wouldn't work. The aid money would be misappropriated, siphoned off by corrupt UN/national officials (for "additional administratvie oversight" or whatever), stolen by corrupt governments, and ultimately do nothing but perpetuate dependency on the West/OECD.

Government aid is simply nowhere near as effective as private aid and debt forgiveness, with emphasis on democracy and anticorruption. We need to make Africa stand by itself, not just throw money at it and hope for the best.
i disagree. you assume the same problems of greed and corruption are not evident in private charity - where is the evidence? besides, even if this were the case, i believe it would be worth 'suffering' the problem for the benefit the program could well bring.
plus, if this were to be an international effort, government would be an efficient collector - more so than numerous smaller charities (economies of scale)

and i didn't say just throw money at it - planned reconstruction, investment in infrastructure and slow reform, over simple aid, is a long term approach which, indeed, requires money, but is by no means as simple as "throwing money" at the problem :rolleyes:

Nope.

IMHO, nobody should be forced to give what amounts to charity.

IMHO, of course.

i believe every human has a responsibility for every other, and left to their own devices most are too either greedy to donate of their own free will, or do not see the benefit - charity is, after all, a demerit good.
if the benefit is for the whole of humanity, and government or NGO is a suitable method of providing this benefit, then i would say that the people should be "forced". they are already anyway, and it would be in their long term collective best interest to do so (this is what many/most fail to realise and what makes charity of any sort a demerit good)
of course thats also only IMHO too :P


edit: damn you americans are anti-tax...

Guess.

i believe every human has a responsibility for every other, and left to their own devices most are too either greedy to donate of their own free will, or do not see the benefit - charity is, after all, a demerit good.
if the benefit is for the whole of humanity, and government or NGO is a suitable method of providing this benefit, then i would say that the people should be "forced". they are already anyway, and it would be in their long term collective best interest to do so (this is what many/most fail to realise and what makes charity of any sort a demerit good)
of course thats also only IMHO too :P


edit: damn you americans are anti-tax...

I, respectfully, disagree with you.

I feel as though my only obligation is to myself, and my family. If a situation in Africa, or any other place, modivates me, I will gladly give money to a private charity.

Again, my opinion. ;p

i disagree. you assume the same problems of greed and corruption are not evident in private charity - where is the evidence? besides, even if this were the case, i believe it would be worth 'suffering' the problem for the benefit the program could well bring.
plus, if this were to be an international effort, government would be an efficient collector - more so than numerous smaller charities (economies of scale)

Government is never efficent; the United States' management of its natural disasters, poverty, medical insurance, and healthcare all pretty clearly show that my government is not to be trusted with distributing money to anyone for any purpose, especially outside of the country.

There is corruption in private charity, just nowhere near as much. Furthermore, there's fewer middlemen between the aid and the recipient, and there is no politician to attach riders or pork to the donation. Government aid requires political approval, and that means special interests in droves sucking the blood from the well intended program.

and i didn't say just throw money at it - planned reconstruction, investment in infrastructure and slow reform, over simple aid, is a long term approach which, indeed, requires money, but is by no means as simple as "throwing money" at the problem

Building infrastructure requires the local government to ultimately oversee the projects, and that means all of their corruption and inefficency are going to be there. There has to be real, mandantory reform and democracy, and as fast as possible. Otherwise, the kleptocracy will just evolve in to a new form better suited to the new "reforms".

The governments, in reality, would have little control over the money once it is given to the countries, regardless of what the plans are. Private charities spend the money themselves on projects hired by private companies rather than give it to the governments to allocate and siphon off from.

if the benefit is for the whole of humanity, and government or NGO is a suitable method of providing this benefit, then i would say that the people should be "forced". they are already anyway, and it would be in their long term collective best interest to do so (this is what many/most fail to realise and what makes charity of any sort a demerit good)
of course thats also only IMHO too :P


edit: damn you americans are anti-tax...
Then if its in their best interests, then they'll do it. If they don't think it is, then they won't. It's that simple.

Fuck. No.

Government is never efficent; the United States' management of its natural disasters, poverty, medical insurance, and healthcare all pretty clearly show that my government is not to be trusted with distributing money to anyone for any purpose, especially outside of the country.
thats your government, not mine. all governments have their problems - yours, unfortunalty, seems to be (from the opinions i've gathered from NSers and american politics) very badly managed. i wouldn't propose letting the US manage such a scheme as this, in that light...
however, this may be because the US is such a large country...
There is corruption in private charity, just nowhere near as much. Furthermore, there's fewer middlemen between the aid and the recipient, and there is no politician to attach riders or pork to the donation. Government aid requires political approval, and that means special interests in droves sucking the blood from the well intended program.i agree about the politician thing, sure, but its just another 'necissary evil' (to quote an oft-used anti-government phrase)

Building infrastructure requires the local government to ultimately oversee the projects, and that means all of their corruption and inefficency are going to be there. There has to be real, mandantory reform and democracy, and as fast as possible. Otherwise, the kleptocracy will just evolve in to a new form better suited to the new "reforms".
agreed - thats why this is a long-term approach that could save up the tax revenue until it is ready to be spent, for example.

The governments, in reality, would have little control over the money once it is given to the countries, regardless of what the plans are. Private charities spend the money themselves on projects hired by private companies rather than give it to the governments to allocate and siphon off from.
well that assumes the government wants to control it itself on the ground - it may actually be more efficient, prudent and quicker to allocate the money to charities already working in the affected/appropriate areas, hence missing out the local government.
and why not just give to charity in the first place? because its not enough to bring long-term, sweeping improvements and reforms - the proof is in however many decades of charitable, and government, help and aid, there are still approximatley 80% of the population of sub-saharan africa still living in poverty. drastic and long-lasting, far-reaching (and expensive) measures must be taken - and "compulsory charity" such as this is a good way to achieve the revenue required to actually make a big difference.

Then if its in their best interests, then they'll do it. If they don't think it is, then they won't. It's that simple.
it is certainly not that simple. never heard of merit goods? something you don't appreciate the true value or worth of - like charity (in this case the vast economic market that would open up to already-rich countries like ourselves if the thrid world became wealthier), or education.
merit and demerit goods are a cornerstone of a lot of economics.

and "in their best interests"... what about the interests of others?

it is certainly not that simple. never heard of merit goods? something you don't appreciate the true value or worth of - like charity (in this case the vast economic market that would open up to already-rich countries like ourselves if the thrid world became wealthier), or education.
merit and demerit goods are a cornerstone of a lot of economics.

and "in their best interests"... what about the interests of others?
Now we go into the responsibility of others.

edit: damn you americans are anti-tax...
No shit. They fought a whole war over stamp duty!

No shit. They fought a whole war over stamp duty!

And a little one at that. :D

in light of yet another humanitarian crisis (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318974.stm) and drought in the third world, and at the ever-familiar condemnation by the UN of the world's rich nations lack of interest or help in the matter, i got my thinking cap on... not for too long, mind ;)

what about a specific thrid-world relief/aid tax? would you pay such a thing if you knew 1% of your income was going directly (minus obvious organisational costs) to help those starving and without even basic medical care in the world? the way i see it, the tax could be used for aid initially, but for restructuring and long-term investment in education, infrastructure and other projects to help the third world (particularly sub-saharan africa) stand proud on its own two feet.

i live in the UK, and the GDP per capita of this country is around £24,000. tax allowances are roughly £6k (to my knowledge), so 1% of the average taxable income is, by these figures, £180. times that by the working population (65%) and you have around 7 billion pounds (12.3 billion USD). a sizeable fund to invest each year, and thats just the UK... it'd be pretty easy to reach at least 100 billion dollars a year if all/most 'rich' nations adopted the tax.

so, would you support such a tax in your country?


(and yes i know there is a major problem of corrupt government officials and heads of govt in many of these places that need help. however that is a short-term problem that can be overcome (in time).)


sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318974.stm http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_826.pdf http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/eco_cou_826.pdf http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/ecn3_2005.pdf

Sickening. Of course not.

No shit. They fought a whole war over stamp duty!
and the french revolution was over salt tax :p
at least our revolution was because the king was a wanker ;)

and the french revolution was over salt tax :p
at least our revolution was because the king was a wanker ;)

And we then put him back. That's Britain for you!

Mind you, the queen's a bitch, so why aren't we having a civil war...

Oh, and I would support the idea, but the Tobin Tax would perhaps be a bit more acceptable, since it's not a direct tax on earnings.

if I knew it would help, and not hinder, as is basically inevitable, then yes I would. As it stands, I'm very sure it wouldn't be any help at all. Tell me how someone in an ethiopian village is gonna pop along to the supermarket with British pounds and by a plough? That said, if the money was pre-spent on equipment, food, etc, and sent in such a way that bypassed the local government, then I'd be for it.

How about getting the arms industry to give up some money to fix the mess they help create instead?

I'm FROM the third world, and I think this is a bad idea.
Look, what we need is not some kind of expanded version of the current aid regime. What we need is for the First World to stop shafting us on trade. That's the kind of solution that I'd get behind and promote.

Ya its a good idea, but it wouldn't be fair to apply it to everyone as some ppl just couldn't afford that. For ppl in a higher tax bracket it would be ok maybe .5 of %. I would pay it but then ppl maynot give to charities as they would see their 'bit' as being done.

I would if the taxes I pay to my snotty "socialist" government were reduced. Mr. Brown already takes far too much of my pay packet. Perhaps he should do more on my behalf.

No, I don't pay it now and wouldn't pay it if you called it a tax. I'm not sure why you'd call it tax if it was voluntary. Now if you're thinking, "I'd happily pay it but only if everbody else had to", fuck off and leave me alone you god-damned pussy who can't do anything yourself.

so, would you support such a tax in your country?


I would support such a tax, provided it was a graduated tax (exempting the 40-50 millions of poor in the USA) and provided it was distributed by the U.N. with substantive in-put from the donor country. I think that each of the richest countries should choose a number of 'foster countries' and then invest in certain specific things: infrastructure (railroads, roads, bridges, communications networks, sewage disposal, etc.), schools (with instruction in the native language, national language, and language of the donor nation) and hospitals, locally owned and operated agricultural and industrial enterprises, etc. I would not support any funds for the military or for 'baksheesh' to government officials. Some monies would support university or technical school training in the donor country for qualified students. This process would take many years, but the peoples in underdevelopped countries would have no chance otherwise to live decent lives and to contribute eventually to the lives of us all.

I'm FROM the third world, and I think this is a bad idea.
Look, what we need is not some kind of expanded version of the current aid regime. What we need is for the First World to stop shafting us on trade. That's the kind of solution that I'd get behind and promote.
Your point is 100% correct and I would add that to my previous posting. A relaxation of trade barriers to produce and manufactured goods from developping countries would have to be introduced, the sooner the better.

I wouldn't mind at all to shell out if I knew it actually benefitted those in need. As it is, it is common knowledge these days that money going to aid organisations more often than not ends in the wrong hands, ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit with the "more often than not".

Another matter that would concern me with a tax like that is if it isn't money thrown into a bottomless pit. I mean, you provide money for basic needs (tools, infrastructure, medicaid, education, food, etc) and next a new civil war breaks out and there goes all the good work out the window.

Personally, I don't want to make a gesture to a third world country until they have proven that they can keep their act together and aren't about to be taken over by yet another dictator, in addition to respecting the declaration of Human Rights.

I would not support such a tax. The obligation individual people have to help those less fortunate than themselves is a moral obligation, not a legal one. No one should be forced to be charitable, or that would defeat the whole purpose of charity. Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex.

Great, now we've got topic creator here who wants us to pay the freaking jizyah. NEVER.