I think the phrase your looking for is Kyoto agreement, I also think it would be more likely that the rest of the world might pay insurance, to make sure some of those nice delightful capitals, dont just catch on fire.
Seriously not going to happen.
Declan
I’m going to just use the numbers from Wiki here to paint a broad picture of what the US currently does as one of the wealthy nations. It’s different years between the private and government numbers (and leaving out military aid). 55.4 million a year. Remittances which are individual payments from family members working in the US are at 47 Billion. That’s over 100 Billion flowing out (including the remittances which would likely be impacted to raise the tax). The EU has a.7% of GDP aid target for foreign aid. Austerity is stressing that goal and has seen cuts but they are still budgeting over 900 Billion Euro.
Creating a system to administer, spend, and enforce that tax and systems to ensure it’s spent well is going to significantly help compared to what’s being done how exactly? Think of the cost savings in government workers at USAID though. Far easier to send a check than manage programs.
It already exists: it’s called the International Monetary Fund.
Poor countries can get money if they want it. But they have to prove they aren’t corrupt shit-holes and they have to be responsible enough to be able to pay it back.
Free money for piss-poor shit-hole countries is a piss-poor shit-hole idea.
Which I guess is another way of saying that they have to deal with the IMF’s loan-sharking.
But this is a version of the “don’t give homeless people money because they’ll spend it on weed” or “welfare doesn’t lift people out of poverty” argument.
And **how **they spend the aid money could be strictly enforced.
No, it’s not. Homeless people are individuals. Countries are not. Why don’t you tell us how giving North Korea a bunch of money is going to make the average North Korean better off?
How? Is Han Blix going to send them a nasty letter?
Corruption is a tricky beast.
Cutting off the corrupt seems to make moral sense. But it ignores the reality that corruption is the only efficient way to manage a weak, fragmented state.
When you don’t have a military that can project force within your borders, contracting out to local militias and warlords is the only way to keep some order. When you don’t have the tax mechanisms that allow you to pay your civil servants regularly, allowing them to collect bribes is the only way things are going to keep running- it’s basically outsourcing tax collection. When you can’t please everyone because of social and ethnic divisions, patronage politics can keep things moving.
I’m not saying that corruption is okay, just that it’s about weak states rather than morality.
The solution to corruption is stronger states- states with militaries that can counter internal threats, states that can collect tax revenue, and states that can build support across social divisions. And one of the key factors in a building a states strength is building its ability to deliver public services- things like education and healthcare. And doing that means building a set of smart, trained civil servants, and you aren’t going to get that by just cutting the government out.
It’s tricky.
Since “taxation without representation is tyranny,” I assume we’ll get to dictate policy in the countires that take our money, right?
We wouldn’t want North Korea spending their share of our money on nukes, or the latest Philippine klepocrat spending it on shoes, do we?
In what sense are “remittances” a tax? Should we count western corporations’ third world operations (and the ensuing capital flow) as a tax? :dubious:
The IMF doesn’t really do what the OP is proposing. It (and its lending functions) primarily exists to prop up the global economy by keeping exchange rates relatively stable and mollify short-term balance of payments deficits.
IMF loans can certainly benefit poor countries but generally benefit wealthy ones just as much.
The OP seems to equate taxes with charity. NO. They are two different things. Our morality results in wealthy nations like the U.S. to help out around the world quite a lot. We have no requirement to do so, which is implied by a “tax”. And shouldn’t.
It’s not a tax but it is a transfer that gets after the needs addressed in the OP. It’s also an area that gets lumped in with foreign aid numbers despite the debate about whether it’s appropriate. I did break it out along with lumping it back in. Pick your own take on that piece. If there’s an internal tax, to be able to pay the international tax bill, it’s quite possible a reduction of disposable income reduces remittances by individuals making.
The US and EU combined already voluntarily exceed the OP proposal (EU carrying the bulk of that) for a redistribution tax. It’ not hard to imagine voluntary transfers being affected if an involuntary system was imposed from outside.