Why shouldn’t there be an international tax system in which many countries, particularly the wealthy ones (such as the USA, Western European nations, etc.) have to pay a tax - which would add up to perhaps $1 trillion per year - and then this $1 trillion would be diverted towards the environmental, educational, industrial, medical and economic development of the poorer nations?
Before someone says, “Is this a slam of the IRS and federal income tax?”- no it isn’t. It’s a genuine question.
In the same way that the top 10% of income earners in America earn a huge chunk of America’s income, so the top 10% of the wealthiest nations in the world earn a disproportionate chunk of the world’s income. Why not tax the wealthy and redistribute that income? A dollar goes much further in Sub-Saharan Africa than it does in the United States. Why not redistribute that wealth? Even if the United States paid $500 billion in such an international income tax per year, it would still amount to only about five percent of total US GDP.
There’s no moral basis for such a tax. Rich countries don’t owe poor countries anything, because the world isn’t a zero sum game (a carbon tax could possibly be Pareto-efficient, but that doesn’t seem to be what the OP is talking about). We worked hard and became wealthy–we didn’t gain our wealth by robbing the third world, as much as some people may wish to believe. Colonialism was a negligible part of the world economy, and was often economically detrimental for the colonizing country as well. The exact ingredients of success can be debated ad infinitum, but we didn’t get wealthy by making others poor. Thus, there’s no moral claim poor countries have on wealthy countries money.
We need to consider the effects as well. Every tax is a disincentive to do whatever is being taxed, and the way this would probably be implemented is via an income tax. This will discourage people from working, because they get less money for each hour worked. The thing is, however, that economic improvements in Western and Asian countries help those in poor countries, by making most goods and services cheaper. So such a tax could very possibly harm those we are trying to help. There’s also the fact of dependency–making entire countries permanently dependent on foreign aid is probably not the best solution long-term.
There are other problems with this as well. A very large reason why poor countries are so poor is that they are wracked by corruption, ineffective government and war. Giving them more money won’t necessarily improve outcomes, but it will most likely be stolen and squandered by those in power. It’s certainly possible to help poor countries, but there may simply not be the capacity to handle much more money than is already in the system right now. We’ve seen time and time again–in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Vietnam, et cetera–that when America dumps money into the third world, most of it winds up getting stolen by those in charge and very little goes to help the common person.
In short, four reasons against such a tax: 1) it’s not morally justified, 2) it will reduce economic efficiency, 3) it will make poor countries more dependent, and 4) the money can probably not be distributed effectively.
Because wealthy nations won’t do it willingly and nobody can make them. Otherwise I think it’s a good idea (to some extent.)
How would you enforce such a thing? If the US welches on its dues, is someone going to invade?
Who would administer it?
Who would write and approve the exact statutes? Would there be a worldwide referendum? A simple vote among all heads of state?
If a country decides to evade the tax, what would the penalty be? Boots on the ground? Would only government assets be subject to seizure for payment of back taxes (They wanna take our aircraft carrier!) or would they be able to seize the blanket that grandma gave you and ship it straight to Somalia as international aid?
I see two minor problems with this tax right away.
-
Who s going to pass this tax?
-
Who is going to enforce it?
(“USA, you’d better pay this $1 trillion tax right away, or the Seychelles are going to be all over your ass!”)
The US does welch on its UN dues all the time. Usually there are threats about moving the UNHQ somewhere else, and the next administration pays up.
Only the UN could administer such a system.
-
Do you trust the UN that much, as it is currently structured?
-
How is the notion of giving the UN taxing authority gonna fly politically?
Should there be an international tax on wealthy nations?
Only if I’m in charge of distribution. Who else could I trust?
I can’t say whether colonizers got rich off their colonies, but they certainly did go a long way to wrecking them, some colonizers more than others.
That said, I don’t know that such a tax is a good idea. I think opening up trade will do a lot more for poorer nations that giving them a bunch of money will. Foreign aid hasn’t done nearly as much to lift nations out of poverty. Also, how do you keep corrupt regimes from looting it?
Thanks,
Rob
In a true democratic world government that’s exactly what would and should happen, if that’s how the votes go. You wouldn’t worry about corrupt nations siphoning off the money for the same reason people don’t worry about U.S. governors spending all their state’s highway money on hookers and blow. Well, usually.
That’s a rosy picture though. I’d tend to think a world government would be authoritarian, either as a practical means to keeping unity over so many different cultures and suppressing dissent or because one state or collection of states would dominate over the rest and dictate policy in its interest.
The US officially gives out nearly $40 billion a year in foreign aid. Donations are a lot more (probably doubling that at least). But the US does this for a lot of reasons, many of which are humanitarian but some of which are because they are in our best interests as our elected officials seem them anyway. Now, if you are going to ‘tax’ countries, who decides what money goes where and to who and for what reasons? That’s the thing (well, one of them)…we would be talking a lot of money even if we didn’t do the ridiculous $1 trillion amount (which is more than most major nations budgets for the a year…in fact, I think the US, China, Japan, Germany and the UK are the only countries who have budgets over that per year…maybe France as well).
Also, as others have noted, how would you get countries to pay (and who decides how much)? I mean, the only country really able to project force across the globe today (and presumably make countries pay up) is the US…and, obviously you also expect us to pay as well. See the problem? 
The biggest issue I see, besides the fact that there is no way to make countries do this without the threat of violence, is who would control this money. The corruption opportunities are really staggering…hell, they happen now with a lot less means. I think this could happen if there was some sort of World Union or United States of Earth or something, but as things stand today it would be totally unworkable, IMHO.
You can trust me. I’ll make sure the needy get it. Minus expenses, of course . . .
It’s a deal. We’ll need someone to handle collections. Maybe a couple of Putin’s guys?
Poor countries are mainly poor because of corruption and oppression. Giving them money doesn’t do anything but make the ruling class richer.
What poor countries need more than a handout is the ability to trade with the rich countries. Rich countries, fearing cheap goods, put up trade barriers that keep poorer nations in poverty. Then they turn around and try to make themselves feel better about themselves by sending a trickle of aid and having their celebrities do concerts and PSAs.
Perhaps some sort of tax might be a good idea, The net flow of wealth does seem to be one way, according to certain metrics.
from here
Actually I thought that this problem had got better over that last decade or so, but it still seems to be a problem.
Oh yes- better give the source for that quote
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/12/2013/donors’-dilemma-aid-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries
(yes, I know its a blog; I’d be happy to have it proved inaccurate, but it doesn’t look good).
Why do we no longer have a starving working class? Not because of taxes, but because the owners of the means of production were forced to start paying them living wages through legislation and through changes in morals. Difficult to do on an international basis, but easier and better than just transfering money.
To some extent a movement happening already in industries such as clothing/fashion, where it’s obvious to people that someone is slaving for less money than they need to live to produce their cheap clothing. Not quite as obvious when the exploitation is happening further down the production chain.
If this is your argument, then given the actual facts of economic imperialism, you implicitly endorse the moral rightness of the concept. 
I was going to be for it for consequentialist reasons, I guess, but yours work too.
“The world” does not provide us with a safe, secure place to live, protecting us against enemies, providing us with roads, clean water, etc. In fact, one might argue that, if anything, The USA and other developed countries are the ones who make “the world” secure, and so maybe “the world” should pay taxes to those countries for doing so.
IOW, your analogy is upside down.