The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:
Would shutting down tax havens help end world hunger?
Yes - because we'd have more money to spend on Third World aid - 2%
No - not unless Third World countries collect and spend their own taxes 34%
Third World countries should just collect their own taxes from land and resource rents - 57%
Other, please specify - 8%
I must admit, those responses cheer me up no end :-)
"Yes" is clearly missing the point and thus the wrong answer, "No" answers the question and is sort-of-correct, but as JQ pointed out in the comments, "Option 3 is correct, but option 2 answers the question."
In other words, it was a trick question. The full "correct" answer is something like this:
"It's the wrong question - if the governments of Third World countries were straight enough to collect the right kind of taxes in the first place, and by implication spend the revenues half-way sensibly, then there'd be a lot less hunger* in the first place, and nothing for the kleptocrats to stash away in tax havens."
* Either because they'd be using land more efficiently to grow more food, or because the absence of taxes on earnings and output means that private enterprise would flourish, so they be producing more "stuff" which they can exchange for food.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, this whole idea of sending weapons to the Syrian "rebels" troubles me greatly on many levels.
A simple Fun Online Poll would ask whether you think it's A Good Idea or A Bad Idea. But your (and indeed my) opinion depends on which factors you take into account and on how idealist/utopian or self-interested/cynical you are feeling at the time.
For example, sending them loads of weapons will clearly lead to a lot more killing and destruction and might even spark a regional civil war. An idealist sees that as A Bad Thing; an Über-cynic sees that as A Good Thing.
And so on, so I've made this week's Fun Online Poll a multiple choice, you can come back a day later and vote again if you change your mind.
Sow confusion here, or use the widget in the sidebar.
Readings for Candlemas, February 2 — Year C
5 hours ago
4 comments:
Are you proposing that arms should be sent at the expense of UK taxpayers? Or simply that the arms embargo should not be resumed?
If the former, I see no reason for the UK taxpayer to fund a sectarian conflict. They can pay to kill each other with their own money.
If the latter, I see no reason that the UK should expend any effort to stop Syrian rebels obtaining arms, at a time when the Russians and Iranians are freely supplying the government side.
Dear Mr Wadsworth
"Sew confusion here, or use the widget in the sidebar."
Did you really mean 'sow' or am I knit-picking?
DP
DEC, I'm not proposing anything.
I'm just saying that the way our government works, there is a fine line between "lifting an embargo" and "actually subsidising something", it's the old military-indutrial bloc etc.
I mean, what level of hypocrisy is involved here? A couple of years ago they extradited that poor bloke to the USA for selling batteries to the Iranians, a country with which we are not in any way at war AFAIAA, and now they are happy for people to sell far worse stuff to arguably worse people.
DP, well spotted, I have amended.
Mark,
Enforcing arms embargoes cost taxpayers money. Giving away arms costs money.
The fine line is between wasting taxpayers money and not wasting it. And it is one that politicians of all colours can be relied on to cross.
The hypocrisy regarding arms deals is breathtaking.
Post a Comment