I allways get horrified on one hand and feel fortunate on the other when I think about how lucky we are to belong to the small percentage of people in the world that have easy access to food, water, electricity, health care, education, etc. However even with such a conscience you easily spend more than what you need. Eat more than what you need. And above all waste more than what you should. Everyday tons of food products and other goods go to the garbage. And you cant do nothing about it...? Of course that one alone can't do much to solve the world major problems, but all together we could do something. Maybe it is a very naif idea, but what about a world tax that would be aplied to everybody that earns more than enough to survive with confort. This tax would be proporcional to what you earn in a way that who earns a lot have a much bigger tax porcentage to pay. It would be collected by each government and deposited in a world bank account that would be used to help countries with development problems and populations in poverty situation. We are in a world where nothing is safe and guaranteed anymore. And you can be the next one to be in a dificult survival situation!
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
The authority to tax implies that this is a world government. World communism.
I'm pretty sure it's been shown enough times that taking from the rich and giving to the poor discourages people from working. A draining lake sinks all boats.
Also, every time communism has been tried, corruption has reigned to destroy that country.
The best economic system would encourage the best outcomes for mankind. Taxing the most productive is the easiest way to get wealth, but it is not the BEST way. Shrinking the earths population sounds nice, but the easiest & most popular techniques are inhuman.
Power corrupts. A world govt that could impose a tax would be mighty powerful.
As far as I can see all governments, local or otherwise, manage to get an element of corruption into them somehow. This is not an argument against government, it is an argument against corruption. Although productive individuals and productive businesses demonstrate the ability to utilize profits in a way to increase productivity and wealth in a good way for the business taxes for the general benefit must come from somewhere and the best place is from those sources that make the most money since poor people usually live fight up to the limits of their incomes and would suffer greatly if heavily taxed. The problem is to discover a balance between giving well run businesses the incentive to work better and expend and taking enough funds for the general benefit. To drag in the word "communism" is a red herring and not facing the problem that in a world increasingly dominated by economic forces of huge businesses there is a very large need for efficient and fair international regulation of economic forces. How this should be done is a problem that must, in the long run, be properly solved.
Sand-
I see a lot of wisdom & common ground in your comment above. However, my argument was not against govt nor corruption, it was an observation that bigger concentrations of power tend to be proportionally more corrupt. Please allow me to offer a silly example to ilustrate:
10 govts might have 10 corruption unts... but just one govt over the same size population might have 25 corruption units. If you beleive that there is a progressive scale of corruption based on the amount of power, and if you agree that corruption is a bad thing, then you want to make sure there is adequate compensation of some kind to make the additional corruption worth while.
You said taxes must come from somewhere, and that the most productive is the easist and best location. But I'd rather use the tax as an incentive to do things... avoid the tax by doing govt's job better than the govt would do. I've not seen efficient govt work, and until we find a cure for that I'd prefer to keep the govt as small as possible. Otherwise its throwing good money after bad.
Was "communism" a red herring? Well, if you give the entire world a vote on the form of govt it prefers, I predict a "spread the wealth" victory. If they do not get a vote... then we have some type of force. These are bad options. Having One World govt strikes me as the very worst imaginable kind of monopoly. Competition has bad points, but no competition is far worse!
I agree with your thinking on "...dominated by economic forces of huge businesses.." but please see my idea on how a "huge tax" could encourage smaller corporations.
sand, while I agree that I've sort-of labeled this communism when it could also be only 'socialism'.
When I think of a government that's principal goal isn't the social contract or protective association, but its goal is to take wealth from me/my country and give it to poorer people/countries, it seems like a controlled-economy type of government, which is why I think 01amsm is talking about communism.
I see no way that the (currently) productive countries could benefit from this.
Also, on the corruption thing--in a controlled economy, my factory produces goods for the government, then the government distributes. if I produce luxury cars, the government keeps a few. If you make liquor, I'm sure bottles are made that don't make it to the public store/queue. In a free market, the product goes from the manufacturer to the customer. Much less opportunity for corruption. Fewer government employees, too, so fewer people there to be corrupt.
Wizard could inject here that it's the huge companies that are corrupt (and many are), but it seems to be we can all see that huge companies are in their deaththrows even without his plan to tax them to death. I know that the current US government will work to keep them alive, but I think it's a postponement of their inevitable endings. Huge things work badly.
Dear above, I did never talk about a tax for everybody or "comunism" nor even of a super powerfull "world government". This is also not a kind of Robin Wood proposal, to steal from the rich to give to the poor! I believe you have to read my text again!!!I dont even suggest a kind of World Bank that already exists, financed by the rich countries and runned by an international team that gives credit to the undeveloped countries. Cause this is like a normal bank, that will finance your country in case of a catastrophy or other major problems. But if you are not able to give back the money in a short / medium term it will agravate the problem, because the money is not for free in any case, as far as I know.I talk about a World Tax credited in a World Bank Account! To create a sort of a social fund with our money. This money could be even runned by us! You could regularly vote on which cause or country your money would be given to, through a list of candidates that every month would have to convince you of their needs somehow.We have such a powerfull tool in our hands called WWW and we can do so much great things with it!!! Lets use our brains and will...I also said: maybe its a naif idea, but we have to do something urgentely!!! I feel terrible and scared knowing that I live with confort because almost 10 people somewhere dont have enough to live and almost half of them fight to survive. While food and goods production in the world exceeds more than 10 times what the wealthy people can consume. And most of that goes to the garbage!I sincerely hope that none of us will EVER know what starvation is...
Ah, it sounds like a voluntary tax. OK.
In this discussion it is important to understand the basic differences between business and government. Business, once the control has left the hand of the original innovator and moved into conventional management, has only one main incentive. To be as profitable as possible and to do so with whatever means is possible. Morality does not enter into it but this must not be taken as evil any more than a tiger’s appetite should be inferred as evil. It is merely the nature of the beast and it is very useful if properly controlled.
Government, on the other hand, is constructed around morality, around seeing to it that whatever forces exist, business or otherwise, perform to the benefit of the citizens. It is government which must set the limits to the amoral operations of business and see to it that those operations are directed to the benefit of the citizenry.
To operate government needs money and business is the place where money is generated. There are many government operations that cannot be entrusted to business whose main interest is wringing its profits from its operations without moral considerations. Business cannot operate in a civilized manner without government restrictions and legal instruments to enforce compliance to contractual responsibilities. It is obvious that health, education, legal services, the military, emergency services for disasters, etc. cannot be entrusted to the amoral voracious nature of business without major suffering from the general welfare. But business must, like any controlled wild beast, be permitted to flourish to generate profit without damaging civilization. To assume that the wealth of business should be inviolable without substantial contribution to the general well being is to totally distort the function of business in society but it is evident from the current situation that business wealth has been utilized to corrupt and distort government function in a manner to the extent that business itself is destroying the environment, both social and natural, in such a way as to destroy the whole system. That is the current tragedy.
My reply to Sand:,who said:
In this discussion it is important to understand the basic differences between business and government. Business... has only one main incentive. ... Morality does not enter into it ...is very useful if properly controlled.
> Agreed.
Government, on the other hand, is constructed around morality, around seeing to ...the benefit of the citizens.
> That would be nice, but is the exception to the rule.
To operate government needs money and business is the place where money is generated.
> Or, govt could try to REGULATE more but DO less, using the THREAT of taxes to encourage people and companies to DO what benifits society.
There are many government operations that cannot be entrusted to business
> You say "many"...true... but not as many as you might think.
... government restrictions and legal instruments to enforce compliance to contractual responsibilities. ...
> Agreed.
It is obvious that health, education, legal .... cannot be entrusted to the amoral voracious nature of business without major suffering from the general welfare.
> Disagree. It is *possible* to allow businesses to set up and contribute to a health care insurance system (or educational system) where the govt monitors and taxes -- but does NOTdirectly administrate.
>If a business understands that, for instance, successful education is directly connected to its profits, then we can surpass govt inefficiencies and improve upon govt morality (which sounds like an oxymoron to me)
But business must, like any controlled wild beast, be permitted to flourish to generate profit without damaging civilization.
> Agreed.
To assume that the wealth of business should be inviolable without substantial contribution to the general well being is to totally distort the function of business in society
> Disagree in part. To view business as a servant of society worries me in that too many people feel empowered to project their views of "good for society" as a license to exceed majority optinion.
... business wealth has been utilized to corrupt and distort government function in a manner to the extent that business itself is destroying the environment, both social and natural, in such a way as to destroy the whole system. That is the current tragedy
> Another perspective is that govt has failed in its responsibilities and has embraced corruption. Trusting the govt is, IMO, as foolish as trusting business. Business seek profit, and politicians seek power. Power is even more corrupting than profit, IMO.
> Say, when the current US President Elect announced that we do not relly need a windfall oil profit tax... do you think any money changed hands? If so, who called whom?