Global Hunger, Will the fat cat's pay the proposed tax?

uprising2

Just reading an RTE news article, Trocaire Director Justin Kilcullen has called for a 0.05% tax on large transfers, that would generate 400bn per year to fight poverty, we all know this will not be.
This tax will never be applied, simply because the one who own's tax doesn't need to pay it.

I'll quote the article:

Trócaire wants financial institutions taxed.
'At the outset the Millennium Development Goals recognised that aid alone would not suffice to achieve the goals,' Mr Kilcullen said in a statement.
Advertisement

'This tax would not cost ordinary citizens a penny, but would be applied to big banks that move large amounts of currency around on money markets.
'Experts predict that a tiny tax of just 0.05% would generate over $400 billion each year - three times the current total aid levels,' he said.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0918/trocaire.html

So if not, why not?, the simple truth is that the money men want/need to keep poverty in place, control it, expoit it, these kunt's, monsanto being one of them just LOVE famine, starving people, makes easy work of robbing the minerals from under their noses with the help of a rich warlord.

So the conspiracy is that famine is a convienience for the banker's.

EDIT:
I added a few pics to help convey the message, can't edit title so maybe somebody can edit it.

me_right_one

Thats utter bollox. See how we're struggling in this country from trying to squeeze 30bn from the taxpayer? The entire tax take for the country last year was 20bn odd. You're saying that by applying a new tax, we can somehow raise 400bn magically? 20 times more than Ireland earned in tax last year? I cant afford to pay 20 times more tax. It would be US facing a SECOND famine if this were to be introduced. Famines happen, thats just a ****ty fact of life. So does disease, natural disaster, murder etc. There is no big orchestrated effort to try and starve people to death.

Torakx

I dont think he mentioned that we were going to have to pay it.I think its aimed at the big banks and corps moving massive amounts of moeny around internationally.
The charities apparently want a peice of the cake.I had thought they already got the crumbs and were happy with this profit ^^

uprising2

me_right_one wrote: »

Thats utter bollox. See how we're struggling in this country from trying to squeeze 30bn from the taxpayer? The entire tax take for the country last year was 20bn odd. You're saying that by applying a new tax, we can somehow raise 400bn magically? 20 times more than Ireland earned in tax last year? I cant afford to pay 20 times more tax. It would be US facing a SECOND famine if this were to be introduced. Famines happen, thats just a ****ty fact of life. So does disease, natural disaster, murder etc. There is no big orchestrated effort to try and starve people to death.

Your stuck in a bubble trying to look out, blah, blah.

I'm saying that these institutions will not pay the proposed tax, the figure I gave was from RTE and in the link provided, so I'm not saying they'll pull money from anywhere.
The money your talking about is money from us to the banks via govt, the money he is talking about is money from banks as a tax to fight poverty, two very different transactions, like lodgement and withdrawl.

me_right_one

But there's only so much money in the pot. Who it comes from, where it goes etc. is irrelevant. The fact is there isnt enough. Therefore, unfortunately, somebody is going to suffer. There will always be fatcats who were lucky enough in life to accumilate large amounts, and there will always be starving people who were unlucky enough to be the victims of circumstance. Either way, even if you forced fatcats to distribute their wealth to the most needy, there would still be people dying if starvation. 1+1 does not equal 3. To suggest though, that there is a conspiracy here, is just ridiculous. Harrowing pics there Uprising2. Imagine that was happening here only 4 generations ago.

gizmo

0.05%? Why not 0.5%? Hell, why not 1%? Surely they can afford it? etc...

You see where this is going?

As for the rich wanting to keep poverty in place, between the aid budgets of most Western nations and the "lost" revenue from the lack of taxation on these poor people, it's not in "their" best interests to perpetuate the current situation in the slightest.

uprising2

Haha, what's your problem?, I don't think you've got your head quite around the concept yet, it's global, a little tax to fight poverty paid by the Bank's, not the people, a fair tax if such thing exists.

Had this tax been around 4 generations ago I'd hope it would have been used to fight the Irish famine, and you seem to forget what part britain played in that.
Kinda proves the conspiracy.

EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Nehaxak

Well now, the plain simple fact that all the large well known charities in Ireland, when under pressure from the recession when it started to bite hard, cut back on overseas programmes, cut back on overseas based staff and even in some cases pulled out of some countries altogether - rather than make significant cuts to wages and administration costs in their home country of Ireland (all they did make were mostly peace-meal wages cuts to staff on the lower end of the scale) - would immediately raise questions as to the true motives for asking for this tax in the first place.

Most if not all of the larger well established charities/NGO's in Ireland these days are run as a business and there are too many Irish based staff content to take their high wages from what they see as just another 9 to 5 job.
Most of their higher management are on over 100k+ per year, Middle management on between 60k and 90k+ and their CEO's range in wage from 120k to over 200k and none of them, none of them, are deserving of such a high wage in a "charity". Don't even get me started on what they pay consultants !

Famines, all famines, can be averted. I know, I've worked in a few of them and all of them I experienced first hand could've been averted with proper government, proper governance and some proper planning to care for the people of the country(s) effected in the first place.

Who manages the "fund" of monies from the tax ?
Who determines as and to what NGO, programme or even country the money should be given ?
To me, the IMF are the only ones capable or competent enough of handling this fund if ever this tax/levy were imposed on banks. I'd only back it's implementation if that were the case.

gizmo

I have no problem, I simply don't agree with what you're suggesting. On top of this, given the criticism both the IMF and World Bank gets for their current relief efforts what makes you think this plan would work?

Nehaxak

gizmo wrote: »

I have no problem, I simply don't agree with what you're suggesting. On top of this, given the criticism both the IMF and World Bank gets for their current relief efforts what makes you think this plan would work?

I'm not saying it would work but it has a better chance of working if the fund were managed by the IMF rather than NGO's, one only has to look at the debacle of the IRC in Ireland recently to see how they deal with funds left "resting in accounts".

gizmo

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'm not saying it would work but it has a better chance of working if the fund were managed by the IMF rather than NGO's, one only has to look at the debacle of the IRC in Ireland recently to see how they deal with funds left "resting in accounts".

Sorry Nehaxak, that reply was meant for uprising. But you're right, it could only work if it was managed by the IMF or World Bank but as I said, since these two organizations are already criticized for their efforts, why would someone suggest they manage these funds too?

me_right_one

uprising2 wrote: »

Haha, what's your problem?, I don't think you've got your head quite around the concept yet, it's global, a little tax to fight poverty paid by the Bank's, not the people, a fair tax if such thing exists.

Had this tax been around 4 generations ago I'd hope it would have been used to fight the Irish famine, and you seem to forget what part britain played in that.
Kinda proves the conspiracy.[URL="http://"][/URL]

With all respect Uprising2, I think its YOU who hasnt your head around it. There are too many mouths to feed on this rock called earth. There will NEVER be enough to go around. The banks? Who owns the banks? the people, thats who! Yes, the people own the banks. The savers, me, you, average people all over the world who pool our savings into a building for safekeeping. Sure there are some better off than others, but if you filter any amount of money out of the international coffers, it will trickle down to the people. Yes, THE PEOPLE!

I have no problem donating what I can afford to help those less fortunate than me, and I would hope if I ever find myself starving somebody will be charitable to me, but I'm fcuked if I'd let somebody siphon what I CANNOT afford to give, without my knowlegde or permission, for ANY reason. I already give what I can and have nothing to apologise about. As for the famine here, indeed such a tax would have been welcome, but it didnt happen then for the same reasons it wont happen now. Resources are finite. Unfortunately there's nothing anyone can do about that. There was no conspiracy back then, and there isnt one now.

Nehaxak

No you're right too Gizmo, but the IMF are the only ones I can think of with enough financial competence, professionalism and ability to handle such a large fund of money for distribution onwards.

There's also one thing that should be stated here, so others are aware - if a donation is given to a charity/NGO with no specific clause as and to what and where that money should be used - it goes into a general fund for the Charity/NGO to use as they see fit themselves.
If however the monies donated have specific clauses or intentions attached (let's say you donate 1 million for a famine in Ethiopia) then that money, all of it, every single penny/cent of it, must be used for relief efforts in that country only.

I am loath to think that a fund of the size that this tax/levy could generate could be just given to NGO's to do with as they please and as they determine themselves.
That is why I would suggest a group like the IMF properly manage the fund and release funds specifically as determined for each country requirement and that every penny/cent spent is audited and accounted for.

PS., This thread is probably more suited to Politics rather than CT, there's no real conspiracy here at all but a decent debate to be had for sure.

mrblack

All the years of giving aid and what has been achieved in Africa bar a lot of self satisfied NGO's who in many cases are now just fat cats themselves with their unjustifiably large pay packets. Trade not aid raises peoples standard of living. Hunger is a weapon used by the leaders in many african states to perpetuate their corrupt regimes by starving their enemies and transferring the wealth to their supporters. Ethiopia & Zimbabwe being the chief culprits here I believe. South Korea, China, Thailand, Phillipines were all on a par with african countries in the 1950's but better governments and free trade has lifted their levels up considerably closer to the Wests. How much aid ends up in middlemens pockets rather than the needy-A lot of it I heard in a recent report on Pakistan.

I would prefer effective regulation of Banks and Bank fat cats and not just lazy transaction taxes on them which would end up ultimately being paid for by higher bank charges & interest rates on us consumers. Without international money markets our stupid Banks would be in liquidation now by the way. Free trade rather than aid is what the africaners want themselves-they don't want to be beggars forever I am sure. If Chinese can make goods which westerners want then so could Africans if they were allowed to by trade rules and their government regimes. MNC's and local business would thrive in Africa and boost trade considerably if they felt the political climate and laws would be fairly enforced and they could profit at the same time. Nigeria has incredible natural resources and would be a powerhouse economy if it was governed well-Instead its a basket case with systemic corruption and widespread absolute poverty and malnutrition. Contrast it with South Africa which despite its racial issues is economically successful due to free trade and investmentand.

As for the fat cat bankers I would like their personal assets to be confiscated to repay shreholders and the state for being negligently reckless in executing their roles as directors. Personally I doublt if they committed crimes worthy of prison because being greedy and shortsighted is not yet a crime in this country-but it is grounds to sue directors for breach of their fiduciary to shareholders I think. It has amazed me that so far Sheehy, Goggin, Fingers and co have not been chased by the shareholders into court and faced civil suit for failure in their fiduciary duty to shareholders.



Mrblack

uprising2

Why not everybody think in a more simplistic way, if you were given $400bn a year to distribute to worthy causes and kept nothing for yourself, could you do it?.

This planet is more than capable of feeding itself, despite rumours that it is not, it's just a management issue.

Economy's are controlled and manipulated, the system is corrupt to the core, the World Bank is a con, simply put the power's that be "need" poverty.
Money does not vanish into thin air unless it never existed to begin with, and it only has the value that they apply to it at any given time, it's a big complicated smokescreen thrown up to confuse with stocks and shares, markets, and other claptrap.

Some of the replies have come from the perspective of accepting the illusion as fact that we need people competent enough to do it, anybody could do it with the right information and structure beneath them.

People are too institutionalised, unable to think for themselves, just another part of the problem I suppose.

Brown Bomber

me_right_one wrote: »

As for the famine here, indeed such a tax would have been welcome, but it didnt happen then for the same reasons it wont happen now.

Lack of food wasn't the problem, poverty as a consequence of colonialism was. How many British landowners died of malnutriton?

Brown Bomber

I'd like for someone to show me some convincing evidence that there are too many mouths to feed/not enough food to go around, that free trade/free market is the magic solution, that the IMF/World Bank are the saviours. As far as I can tell the IMF and World Bank have only increased pain and suffering for the world's poor assisted corrupt governments and corporations.

A recent example concerning the IMF and flood-ravaged Pakistan.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]According to an account published in the September 8 Dawn, IMF authorities took "a very strong position" during the talks, affirming "that the IMF executive board would not be interested in considering Pakistan’s request for more funds unless it made tangible progress" on implementing the IMF-dictated economic restructuring program.[/FONT]

which include:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]The reforms that the IMF and World Bank are demanding include:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[*]The transformation of a General Sales Tax into a 15 percent Value Added Tax or VAT. The new tax will shift the burden of taxation from business to working people. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[*]The complete elimination of energy price subsidies. Previously the government had committed to increase the cost of electricity by at least 25 percent in three phrases over 6 months beginning this October 1. (The World Bank and Asian Development Back estimated earlier this year that a 49 percent increase would be required to meet the government’s pledge to end all electricity subsidies.) [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[*]Full autonomy for the country’s central bank and the cessation of loans from the State Bank of Pakistan to the government. [/FONT]

Seems like people are more worried about bank charges than people dying of hunger, sad.

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Economy's are controlled and manipulated, the system is corrupt to the core, the World Bank is a con, simply put the power's that be "need" poverty.

Please explain how keeping Africa poor aids "them" in any goal they could possibly have?

Also, what you described is a global initiative where transactions between banks are taxed. I'll ask again, if you don't think the World Bank or IMF are capable of doing it then who is?

uprising2 wrote: »

Why not everybody think in a more simplistic way, if you were given $400bn a year to distribute to worthy causes and kept nothing for yourself, could you do it?.

Some of the replies have come from the perspective of accepting the illusion as fact that we need people competent enough to do it, anybody could do it with the right information and structure beneath them.

You're confusing institutionalization with realism unfortunately. Personally no, I don't think I could do it and I highly doubt anyone here could do it either. There are too many countries which need such support and that kind of money would just breed inefficiency. The poor countries don't just need food bought for them, they need regime change and stability, they need infrastructure, they need properly trained people, they need equipment and they need continued support. The old Chinese proverb is quite relevant here: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The former is what most countries have been doing for years and it has shown to simply not be effective. It's not just a matter of throwing money at an NGO and hoping it fixes itself.

sligopark

oh my god - another tax to be placed on the tax payer - those guys are starving for a reason - elite money making on the markets - they know how to make food cheaper they just don't care enough - just shows how naive the head of trocaire really is - keep filling those lenten boxes

Brown Bomber

gizmo wrote: »

Please explain how keeping Africa poor aids "them" in any goal they could possibly have?

It preserves US hedgemony. They are undemocratic slave states enforced by CIA trained death squads who have their own indigenous elite propped up and serving the the international corporations.

You think an African man who doesn't know where his childrens next meal is coming from is immediately concerned with revolution? I don't.

Mahatma coat

This Tax has been proposed a few times before, Wont happen, as BB demonstrated the IMF are all about screwin the little guy, and lining thepockets of their Fat Cat Owners, a proposed increase in VAT, now that they'd be in favour of because it takes money from Us not Them.

African famines are a weapon being used for the Supression of the Continent, A well Fed African population might just get the time to stick its head up from the Daily Sh!t its being put through and realise it was being F***ked over, A people united by a common cause could effectivvley overthrow the tinpot puppets installed by these Western Corporations and take back the resoursces that are rightly theirs

Cant have that now, FatCats gettin Poorer on two fronts there lads

gizmo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It preserves US hedgemony. They are undemocratic slave states enforced by CIA trained death squads who have their own indigenous elite propped up and serving the the international corporations.

So despite the US having one of the most proactive anti-blood/conflict diamond policies across several administrations, you're still going to blame it on them?

Let's look at the situation in Niger so. The President decides he doesn't want to step down after the maximum number of years he is allowed to be in office, so he tries to abolish the Parliament, the constitution, initiate martial law and become a dictator. The army then step in and remove him and his cabinet from power, forming a transitional government and scheduling elections for early next year.

So, which ones did the CIA train? And what about the coup before that? And the government before that? You realise that after awhile it's obvious that it's not a conspiracy but just a bunch of barbarians scrambling for power themselves? And that much of the continent isn't in an almost permanent state of famine because of some massive corporate conspiracy but because of the drought and desertification?

joebucks

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lack of food wasn't the problem, poverty as a consequence of colonialism was. How many British landowners died of malnutriton?

I agree with this. This is the same in many countries where there is mass starvation and famine. There is still a ruling elite who are very wealthy and have no problem getting food.

However I agree with Gizmo that aid is not always the solution for this problem. The people only become dependent on aid and never break out of the vicious cycle of poverty. There are so many different factors involved, tribal, caste systems, effects on the psyche of locals due to colonialism etc in many of the '3rd' world countries that western NGO's don't understand so throwing money at the problem will not make it go away.

I have experience working for a charity in Dublin after the Asian tsunami and the public donations were incredible, however the amount of money wasted by the charity on admin costs was unreal. But that was only the start of the problems. Getting what money and aid was available to the people that most needed it was the real problem. Local businessmen, politicians, military regimes etc all wanted their taste of any aid money and their interests looked after before the masses were dealt with.

Anyway it's a very, very complex issue and if anyone on this forum can come up with a solution then I think we should put them forward for a Nobel prize.

pablo_escobar

gizmo wrote: »

So, which ones did the CIA train? And what about the coup before that? And the government before that? You realise that after awhile it's obvious that it's not a conspiracy but just a bunch of barbarians scrambling for power themselves? And that much of the continent isn't in an almost permanent state of famine because of some massive corporate conspiracy but because of the drought and desertification?

We know Africa is a huge continent, rich in natural resources that many of our foreign corporations covet. ( oil, gas, diamonds, gold, silver, copper )

Geographically, It's one of, if not the most resource rich continents on the planet, yet it's the place we associate with war and famine.

A healthy democratic society with educated people would prevent outside corporations exploiting it so easily for profit.

Sani Abacha of Nigeria, a repressive dictator and kleptocrat, loved by US oil corporations.
Laurent Kabila of Congo , Idi Amin of Uganda and not to mention dozens of countries rich in natural resources ruled by dictators from south america to asia all fully supported by US administrations.

You used 2 very selective set of circumstances to argue external influence by secret agencies of the US is unfounded and nothing but a "Conspiracy Theory"

There's more evidence to suggest outside influence is the main cause of Africa's problems than drought itself.

Nehaxak

In fairness, the Chinese are more active in Africa exploiting the resources there than Americans but everyone seems to single out America when they're doing something wrong at all

Mahatma coat

Yeah, but Chinese colonial Ambitions are only in their infancy yet, Dont worry I'm sure a lot of people are Watching China, but they dont utilise the notion of accountability like the Western organisations claim to, so there is No double standard there, the Chinese Will just Act like a Shower of C***s if they feel like it, they dont seem to be pretending to do anything else other than that, now dont get me wrong I'm no fan of Chinese Expansion, but surely its up to us to get our own house in order first, start pulling these organisations up on this concept of accountability BEFORE they run the thing ragged and disappear off into the night

gizmo

pablo_escobar wrote: »

A healthy democratic society with educated people would prevent outside corporations exploiting it so easily for profit.

I completely agree and this is what I advocated above, rather than just spending billions in "aid" and food directly.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Sani Abacha of Nigeria, a repressive dictator and kleptocrat, loved by US oil corporations.
Laurent Kabila of Congo , Idi Amin of Uganda and not to mention dozens of countries rich in natural resources ruled by dictators from south america to asia all fully supported by US administrations.

I can't find any info on US support for the former two dictators but Amin is a different story, shortly after his rise to power and his subsequent expulsion of Asians in the country (amongst other things) the US closed their embassy and denounced his government. That clearly had no effect. They later began a long line of economic sanctions against the country including the coffee boycott which indirectly led to his downfall. This is hardly a show of support from the US administration?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

There's more evidence to suggest outside influence is the main cause of Africa's problems than drought itself.

There are indeed many problems however it remains a huge one. Personally I'd rate the colonization by European nations as the first cause for the troubles, followed closely by the sheer unforgiving climate of the continent.

pablo_escobar

Nehaxak wrote: »

In fairness, the Chinese are more active in Africa exploiting the resources there than Americans but everyone seems to single out America when they're doing something wrong at all

You cannot preach about the value of human rights and democracy while also stripping away the rights of millions in pursuit of wealth.

When the US imposed sanctions on Iraq some years after arming both Iraq and Iran to fight each other, many innocent people suffered.

In a 60 minutes interview, the presenter Lesley Stahl put forth a question to Madeleine Albright.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

So there you have a US state representative admitting on television that being indirectly responsible for the deaths of half a million children is worth it.

And since 2003, how many other people have died?

gizmo

The issue of whether western nations should use economic means to put the squeeze on foreign regimes is one which has come up time and time again. Indeed it was a major issue around the time of Idi Amin since coffee was the largest export out of Uganda and the US were responsible for about 75% of this figure.

The problem then is, if economic sanctions are decried and military intervention is decried then what can be done? Should we condemn these nations to generations of tyrannical rule under these monsters?

uprising2

Were all connecting it to Africa and 3rd world countries, but seem to be forgetting that numbers of children woke up to empty fridges in Ireland today, no food to be had, and probably were living over a shop filled to the brim with goody's.
Actually in every 1st world city a number of children woke today with no food either, so isn't just plain greed a major contributing factor?
Shouldn't the system be changed to put humanity before profit, because that isn't the case right now, profit alway's comes first, isn't that morally wrong?

Govt's all over the world subsidise land, not to grow food,

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

It's all just about profit.
http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2003/Myths_PREP_PDF_TWO.pdf
EDIT:

Today, agriculture demands improved productivity and efficiency. Cutting costs,
saving time, and ensuring the entire agricultural enterprise is more efficient and
accountable is essential to compete in domestic and global markets. (Trimble
Navigation Limited; http://www.trimble.com/agriculture.html )
Efficiency will be the watchword of successful farming in the new millennium.
Considering what’s going on with soybean growers in Brazil, as one notable
example, you have no choice but to become ever more efficient. (Donald R.
The Farm Crisis, Bigger Farms, and the Myths of “Competition” and “Efficiency” Page 2
Margenthaler, President, John Deere Foundation, National Outstanding Farmer
Luncheon Address, Mobile, Alabama, February 27, 1999)
[T]here are some who don’t understand modern farming and what it takes to
survive in a global marketplace with low commodity prices. . . . The [farmers] who
remain in full-time farming have been forced to use economies of scale. That is,
they’ve had to become more efficient by using technological advances and raising
more animals. (Bruce L. Hiatt, President, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, The
President’s View, August 1999; www.vafb.com/opinions/1999/op_8_99.htm )
Farmers must be encouraged and assisted to compete aggressively in domestic and
international markets on the basis of efficiency and quality. . . . (Bob Speller,
Liberal Member of Parliament, “PM’s Task Force hopes to work with Agriculture
Minister, rural and farm organizations, consumer groups, to establish a vision,” Hill
Times, April 2, 2002)
[P]roducers must become more efficient and competitive in order to survive in an
increasingly global marketplace. (Senator Paul Coverdell, news release, Georgia
Peanut Commission, May 12, 2000)

gizmo

uprising2 wrote: »

Govt's all over the world subsidise land, not to grow food.

Were it not for the subsidies the EU provide our own agricultural sector, most farmers wouldn't be able to survive so that's hardly true. Also, in terms of our own country, our social welfare system is far fairer than other EU countries. If some kids are waking up to no food in their fridges then the level of child neglect is of greater concern.