There a wide range of people in the world who are currently living in horrible conditions which include malnutrition, cravings for food, and polluted normal water. While these folks are living in such unpleasant conditions, I am living an appropriate life and have a behavior of taking benefit of certain luxuries that are available to me, however, not to someone residing in such unlucky conditions. If a worldwide taxes was instated so that they can end hunger by contributing a mere one dollar a week, i quickly would become more than willing to aid this movement. There are some other people who would consent to and support this tax, but there's also some who disagree with this taxes. Different individuals who would have varying opinions upon this idea for a worldwide taxes are Thomas Pogge, John McMillian, Peter Performer, and Garrett Hardin.
Thomas Pogge, as shown in his article, "World Poverty and Individual Rights, " would seem to buy into the notion of a global duty to help help those in need. He writes that people have obligations, "never to expose visitors to life-threatening poverty and obligations to shield them from harms that we would be actively sensible" (Pogge 319). In other words, he is convinced that those who live in wealthier nations should not allow other people to fall season to illnesses if indeed they can afford not to. This might include leaving people to just starve when you can contribute a little part of our funds to them. Pogge also discusses this issue of how richer countries, such as the United States, remove these poorer areas of their own natural resources. He does mention these countries to cover it, but there is a problem with this repayment. "The payments we make for resource imports go to the rulers of the resource-rich countries, without concern about if they are democratically elected or at least minimally attentive to the needs to folks they rule" (Pogge 320). But the richer nations may be paying for the resources they eliminate, they are paying to market leaders who might not exactly share this payment fairly with the ones that they rule. With this notion in mind, perhaps Pogge would be even more supportive of this global taxes if it could be guaranteed that the money from the taxes would be put in the correct hands and those who require it will actually receive it.
Peter Performer is someone else who would consent to this notion of a global tax-- with an degree. In his essay, "World Poverty and Appetite, " he says that, "I (Vocalist) start with the assumption that fighting and fatality from lack of food, shelter, and health care are bad" (Singer 332). It would be an obvious realization to come quickly to from this that he would concur that everyone (who can afford to do so) adding something to folks who are suffering from those things would be a good thing. That is ratified when he suggests that, "if it is in our capacity to prevent something bad from happening, with-out thereby reducing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (Performer 332). Again, this might lead to the conclusion that he would be in favor of this duty.
Although information would support that he would be in favour of the global duty, his argument soon gets more technical than that:
"If everyone in circumstances like mine were to give 5, I'd have no responsibility to give more than 5. If the final outcome were so stated, however, it would be evident that the debate has no bearing on a predicament in which it is not the truth that everyone else gives 5" (Singer 333).
In other words, the wording of this assertion means that not everyone would be obligated to provide that amount of money. "Therefore, giving more than 5 I will prevent more anguish than I'd if I provided just 5" (Vocalist 333). Although this is more of a real-world situation, there may be research in these statements to come quickly to the final outcome that Performer would redefine this global taxes. Instead of everyone being taxed one dollar, everyone should instead give just as much as they can to limit even more hurting. He continues to state, "it follows that we and everybody else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up tot he point at which giving more one would start to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents" (Vocalist 333). He would claim that everyone who can should give around they can without leading to hurting on themselves. However, despite the idea that Singer would prefer visitors to give all the as they possibly can, he would still be in favor of the global duty as it is. As he says, "At the minimum, though, you can make a start" (Signer 338). It is better to provide something than nothing at all.
Although there are those who agree with the notion of a global tax, there are also those who not approve of this idea. One such person in John McMillan. In his essay, "Antipoverty Wars" he blatantly expresses that, "Global poverty cannot be eliminated by posting the prosperity" (McMillan 323). The global tax involved would be a good example of this notion of 'sharing the prosperity' as McMillan places it. Instead he believes that, "Really the only solution therefore, is monetary growth, to expand the world's total resources" (McMillan 324). By growth, he means "a rise in a nation's income" (McMillan 324). Something in this argument that can't be ignored is the reason why he provides for the potential failure of redistributing the wealth to people in need.
"Why don't we do some hypothetical arithmetic. Suppose the riches of the millionaires is confiscated and sent out to everyone making less than $2 per day. Dividing $25 trillion among 2. 8 billion people would give $9, 000 to each. () It might be infeasible for most reasons, one of which is that taxing income at completely would squash any incentive to earn it" (McMillan 323).
In this, McMillan says that even though it would provide a substantial amount to those in need, it could not bode well to use every one of the wealth that millionaires make. With all the global tax in question, it would only require everyone to be taxed one buck, not the entirety of your millionaire's wealth like McMillan described. Despite this, McMillan still suggests that he feels that economic development is what should be focused on to increase the prosperity in a country. Therefore it can be assumed that he would not consent to the thought of a global duty in favor for economic expansion instead.
In his essay, "Living on the Lifeboat, " Garrett Hardin is another person that, like McMillan, wouldn't normally concur that this global tax is a good idea. He creates this essay with the theory in mind of the lifeboat metaphor. He talks about this metaphor consequently,
"Metaphorically, each rich nation sums to a lifeboat filled with comparatively abundant people. The indegent of the world are in other, much more crowded, lifeboats. Regularly, as they say, the poor fallout of these lifeboats and swim for some time in this outside, expecting to be accepted to a abundant lifeboat, or in some other way to benefit from the "goodies" on board" (Hardin 340).
In other words, the wealthy nations are different from, and in better conditions than, the poorer countries. The poorer nations have overflowed and are now in this inflatable water and need a boat to can get on in order to have. The decision now is if to allow them onto our (the richer nation's) lifeboat. Hardin believes that no one should be allowed onto the lifeboat for most metaphorical reasons, and then backs them up with real-world reasons. The closest example that would align to this notion of a global tax could be the "international food lender. " One of is own issues with this idea is the fact that,
"the ideas of blame and consequence are irrelevant. The question is, what exactly are the operational implications of establishing a world food back? If it is available to every country every time a need grows, slovenly rulers will not be encouraged (). Others will bail them out whenever they are in trouble" (Hardin 343).
In other words, the market leaders of the countries that are acquiring aid will not be motivated to get ready for bad times or to help themselves. They'll just become, essentially, lazy and not do anything to help themselves. They will become reliant on other countries to bail them out. "By far the most anguishing problems are manufactured by poor countries that are governed by rulers insufficiently sensible and powerful" (Hardin 344). Here's where Hardin says that the rulers aren't capable of properly leading these poorer countries and that's the reason they are not doing so well. To connect these ideas to the global duty would be to say that, since these countries are acquiring aid now, they do not have to worry about what will happen later because they'll become accustomed to thinking that they'll always acquire that aid when they believe that it is necessary. The one dollars that everyone donates may help them get out of poverty, but it could not help them to stay out of it.
My personal response to this global tax is an optimistic one. Despite Hardin and McMillan's possible views on the idea, I still consider it would in the end benefit poorer countries and lead to positive results. The biggest incentive for agreeing with this notion for a global tax is simple: it is easily affordable. It would not involve drastic reductions from a salary that leaves one without money for things that are necessary for them to are in a day to day modern culture. If everyone added one dollar weekly, it could not add up for every person individually. This idea aligns up with Singer's argument. Since I've money to spare and can give without removing from any needs that I have, I will be ready to contribute it to the people who require it. Despite the fact that McMillan makes the argument that showing the global riches would not help these nations, I disagree. I disagree because of his proposal that financial growth is the key to a nation's success. As both Pogge and Hardin explain, the leaders of the poorer countries aren't always the most suitable or rational. Pogge states that the prosperity that the economical market leaders would get are not being distributed to the rest of the nation. Hardin states that getting this aid would not encourage the leaders to start out becoming dependent on their own land. This would lead to economical growth being very hard. Also, as Pogge will point out, richer countries are arriving and either buying or stripping a country of it's natural resources. There resources are possible essentials these poorer nations might need in order to really grow.
Another concern that inhibits me to signing up to McMillan's theory is his example as to the reasons distributing the global riches is bad. The first is that it is purely predicated on the thought of completely taking away a millionaire's income for yearly. Inside our example of a global tax, one dollars weekly will hardly scratch the surface of any millionaire's profit, and it could still provide excellent results to prospects in need. McMillan's theory also requires that spreading of global prosperity is only in position for one time. This global duty would be in place for longer than that one year. This means that it would have more of a chance of being effective and collecting more for those in need.
Pogge brings up the point that not when richer countries purchase land or goods from the leaders of poorer countries, the wealth is not necessarily distributed to the people. This is why I think that the money that is taken from the global tax should be carefully moderated to ensure which it gets placed into the right hands. Because of this, I disagree with Hardin's reasoning. Although the market leaders may not continually be the best suited, the amount of money can still be distributed to prospects who need it by not providing it to prospects in control. If this money is monitored, there should be no issue of this.
A global taxes of one money per person a week would be a huge benefit to people in the world who need the money and are surviving in horrible conditions. Taking into consideration of the way the money gets sent out and that those giving the amount of money do not place themselves in danger or in need, I agree to this idea of a global taxes. Despite McMillan's and Hardin's views, I think it may be beneficial to try and redistribute the funds in the richer countries by firmly taking this really small step.