+1.
I think the idea of a tax on wealthy countries is unimpeachable, in principle, and it’s certainly the moral thing to do (for the same reason that progressive taxation within countries is a good idea). The only thing that makes me uneasy- and it makes me very uneasy indeed- is the idea of an international institution with the power to collect and enforce the tax. I don’t think I would trust a global institution with that much power, and so I’m going to have to say ‘no’ here.
Yes, America definitely made Cuba, Vietnam, Central America, Iraq, and Afghanistan a lot more secure. Good show!
Not to mention, security is not worth very much if it’s an unjust kind of security.
Let’s apply this logic to the U.S. and its states.
Hence the “if anything” in my post. Of course it’s s stupid idea, but the point being it’s the same logic as the OP, which also makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Hector_St_Clare]
Not to mention, security is not worth very much if it’s an unjust kind of security.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on if you are in the cool countries club, or if you are one of the ‘outlaw states’, I’d say. Though I think that even unjust security is worth something to nearly every country.
Or Germany (really most of Western Europe), Japan, South Korea, etc. 
Like I said, it depends on which club you are in as to whether you benefit from the US’s often uneven security. I think John was talking tongue in cheek though and just giving a ridiculous counter to what he thought of as a ridiculous question in the OP.
What, you think that the States and people living in them should pay some sort of federal tax??? :eek:
This touches on the problem with the proposal. Although it is clear that some countries are richer than others, the real problems is poor individuals. For example taking money out of food stamps in the US and giving it to the Oil barons of Nigeria, would be taking money from a poor country and giving it to a rich country, but would miss the point. The better way would be to find a way to tax the wealthy regardless of country and use it to aid the poor of whatever country.
That’s tough to do though, since most sovereign nations will demand that money flow through their governments.
One reason that rich nations prefer to concentrate on caring for their own is because we have total control over the conditions that the money is given under and how it is distributed. Make Zimbabwe a state and I’m sure we’ll invest hundreds of billions into getting it going. The West Germans did it and are still doing it for the East Germans. But as long as kleptocrats and incompetents and killers control Zimbabwe, there’s no point.
I think the Seychelles is fairly rich. It’s more like: pay up USA, or North Korea is gonna come knocking.
Anyway, most poor countries are poor because they’re poorly run and/or because they have a dysfunctional and inferior culture. Giving North Korea or Zimbabwe some hundred of millions of dollars aren’t goint to make anybody better off, except for a few corrupt officials.
Which is exactly the way foreign aid works. Funny, that.
Beyond the million ways this is impractical-- who is going to administer the funds, and what is there agenda? Aid is political and serves political purposes. Any way you administer it is going to serve some agenda.
Realistically, it’d end up being the US who sets the agenda. So basically we will end up co-opting every other country’s foreign aid budget for our own political purposes, with obstructionism and blatant politicking being the only way other nations have to express their opinion.
Not a good idea for anyone.
Foreign aid makes up less than 1% of the federal budget, and a large portion of that is focused on security and diplomatic priorities. And even then, much of that goes right back to the U.S. through US contractors.
So while you are technically right, it’s not a heck of a lot.
If it is true (as my earlier link suggests) that there is a net flow of wealth from the poorer countries to the richer countries, then this is the wealth which could be targeted. Presumably some of this wealth is already taxed in western nations - if so, the proceeds of this tax should be earmarked to be returned to the poorer countries, since it was after all theirs in the first place.
I don’t think richer nations should be made poorer in order to help the developing world; but they should avoid a situation where the wealth flow is going the wrong way.
I’m pretty sure that the US literally got wealthy on the backs of slaves, ie. robbing the third world and making others poor.
Not that they owned the land to begin with. They had to kill a bunch of natives first. Now that you mention it, that was probably pretty hard work.
I do see one major advantage of this idea… and that is having the UN not only administer it, but able to take it away from countries that don’t pass inspection. That is, countries that are ruled by despots and commit human rights violations. Imagine the incentive to be a good country to get your $1T/yr stipend, and how pissed off your population would be if you blew it by being a dick…tator.
Sure, it’s not like the United States has been doing anything for the past one hundred and fifty years, is it? They’re just sitting around, growing fat off their old cotton profits.
But even if that wasn’t nonsense, why the fuck would slavery be a reason to tax the descendants of slaves to pay people whose ancestors weren’t enslaved and stayed in Africa?
Not that this would justify a tax, but the depopulation caused by slavery did have a lasting and measurable effect on Africa at a critical moment for development.
I agree with John though I know his reply was tongue in cheek; what would be provided to us in exchange for us paying world taxes?
Here in the US I do not pay taxes so that they can be distributed to those worse off than me, I pay taxes to fund the government and the programs it has created. These programs were created by the people and for the people through our representative democracy and include national defense, public safety, an education system, public infrastructure, environmental defense, and a social safety net. I may not agree with all of these programs, but they were ostensibly created by the popular will of the people and as a citizen I have made the implicit agreement to consent to the rules of this society whether I agree with them or not.
What similar structure exists on a world wide basis? What do I gain and where can I vote on the precepts of this world society? Show me that, and then maybe we can talk about world taxes…
This is only possible if you’re far down the income scale, since we have all sorts of welfare programs in the US funded by taxes.
Of course, one way to look at this is we fund a social safety net so the masses don’t revolt, and that is a net benefit to those in the upper economic classes. But I think most people view those programs in a more altruistic manner.
Agree entirely with both of these. I was going to include this in my post, but decided instead to leave it as an exercise for the reader. 
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote.
I do pay taxes knowing that some of my money is going to go into a social safety net that attempts to prevent my fellow countrymen dying in the gutter of an easily preventable disease, starvation, or exposure. I support these programs because I believe it is wrong for a fellow American to suffer this type of death. I also support these programs because there may come a day where I have to rely on them. That said, I do not pay taxes so my neighbor down the street who is self supporting but less well off can collect some of the money. So to reiterate what I said, I do not pay taxes so this money will be redistributed to those worse off then me (as the OP said).
It’s a fine point, but an important one IMHO.