A simple proposal to humankind. Global Peace Dividend
peace-dividend.org
peace-dividend.org
Hahaha I’m sorry, but the UN? They can’t be serious...
So the goal is what, Ukraine gives up a portion of its citizens taxes to fund some famine in a far away land? As opposed to military spending on its defense? I’m sure Russia will agree to this lol
I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
This is the problem with proposals like this. It’s totally fine for donations, but don’t tax people in one country to help another. It won’t be popular.
This seems like a very strange model for taxes; maybe it works for military spending? I feel like if this were truly the goal one would not pay taxes at all, as the entire premise of paying taxes is to solve a shared problem--in this case, I am presuming "peace in our time" (I am using the Ultron reference on purpose, btw) as opposed to "a new rail line"--that some people will assuredly benefit from more than others.
It’s been the basis of taxes for all time.
You pay taxes because someone with guns tells you to. In return they try to protect you, such that you keep paying them.
Beyond that, you probably wouldn’t pay taxes. You’d buy something. It would be much more efficient to buy some shared solution to a problem, as opposed to let someone take your money by force to solve some problem that may or may not impact you.
Taxes have historically paid for civil infrastructure like irrigation systems well into antiquity. It’s unclear when such things originated because they significantly predate any systems of records. In that context taxes are rent paid to live in a society.
It isn't obvious how giving money to the UN is going to contribute to a better society for a given taxpayer. The UN isn't really an executive body, it is a diplomatic mission to try and stop governments fighting each other without a bit of discussion beforehand.
If I am paying rent for the privilege of living in a society, someone can reasonably demand that rent spent on something they recognize as part of their society as opposed to propping up competing societies. Society needs a physical fighting force to guarantee its integrity & it is unclear why a 2% reduction is deemed better than the current trend. I'm doubting that current trend even keeps up with the rate of money printing.
When you move, you leave your friends behind. And your family. Everybody that you've grown to know. Not to mention all those familiar haunts and places.
If you're moving to another country, you have to deal with immigration, and get a handle on new laws, new customs, and more than likely, a new language as well.
I was born in the US, and presently live in Japan. The cost of moving here was high in terms of all of the above, and I got to play on easy mode: Japan is massively accommodating to English speakers and I have highly-demanded job skills.
So, no, one does not just "move somewhere else".
The modern equivalent of moving outside a city for lower taxes still exists. It’s not framed as a willingness to pay more taxes but rather as access to better schools or parks etc. Still once again people are choosing to pay taxes for access to what taxes provide.
Taxes have massively increased over the last hundred years everywhere in the West. As the poster above said, there are large network effects and switching costs (border control and visas as well as actual relocation costs and language/culture barrier and losing family and friends) which practically prevent moving for most people, even if hypothetically they'd prefer to move to a lower tax location. This, coupled with the small number of countries, makes for a dire situation for international competition between countries to lower tax burdens.
It's the same reason crypto exchanges can get away with exorbitant fees. Nobody wants fees but the network effects are too sticky. So everyone pays the fees.
That’s got ~zero impact on work, family, or friends and if nothing else they had that choice before moving into that home. Which is real evidence that people are both choosing higher taxes and desire them.
Anyway, this example doesn't translate to the majority of taxation which are more akin to transfer payments, and which are harder to escape from. My ROI from tax I pay into public health care is about -98%, which is much lower than the ROI of tax spend that goes into my own kids' school district or which directly pumps up my own house price. Just because I'm not abandoning my family doesn't mean that I'm choosing to fund public healthcare. In practice, I'm being coerced.
There are always switching costs to moving even within an apartment condo, but when someone decides to move picking a location has more freedom. Just as someone deciding to move across the country have freedom to pick inside or outside of a city so does someone from the UK moving to the US had a lot more freedom to consider Canada. Rates of migration consider each year in isolation, but over say a 50 year period a large percentage of the global population does move long distances and most of those people have significant freedom.
For much of history, most people lived in empires.
I've seen it suggested in jest that to get people on board with paying taxes, reframe them as a subscription service to USA+.
What do you mean by "disabled"? Unable to work? As declared by whom? Merely needing reasonable accommodation? Is that a universal?
A chunk of familial diaspora is "disabled", but only on paper. Speaking frankly, they're just lazy and worked the system so that they could focus on their real passion: porn and drugs.
A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense, because a lawyer was running around and filing suit against any business that didn't adhere completely to ADA requirements.
It's... a climbing gym.
If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when? Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line.
Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma.
At least in the latter case, your family and friends can pull together to put more money into grandma.
...what does "some might game the system" have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> A climbing gym I used to frequent installed wheelchair access at great expense [...]
...what does any of that have to do with whether society needs to support disabled people?
> If by "disabled" you mean "unable to contribute to society", since when?
Ever since people were moved by hardships of those around them. Beggars have existed for all of recorded history I believe? And they don't beg for fun.
> Resources are finite, and every culture has to figure out where it draws the line.
Could you spell out what you are implying here? "Resources are finite" only contributes to the "taxation is extortion" argument if you insist that any non-zero amount spent improving the lives of non-contributors is better spent maximizing economical gain. Following that logic quickly leads to "kill retirees immediately".
> Socialized healthcare uses political power to determine who lives and dies -- the Prime Minister and his friends are guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Not to a significant degree, no. If they get cancer, they'll more or less have the same treatment options available to them. Also, why shouldn't the prime minister get more encompassing treatment? Society also pays for bodyguards for them, but not for grandma. Why is that?
> Privatized healthcare uses money -- Jeff Bezos and his friends are also guaranteed better care than your grandma.
Again, how is that relevant to "should society support disabled people"?
You've tried really hard to come up with scenarios where society is (under certain narrow criteria) worse off chipping in. That... does exactly nothing to answer the question whether there are cases where society should chip in. And whether taxation to accomplish that goal is therefore extortion or not.
Helping people in other countries does protect yourself. Having stable regional neighbors for example is very desirable. Any money used to keep things this way is very well spent. Trying to stem the flow of thousands of refugees or dealing with conflict is hugely expensive.
You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military.
The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to supporting the common good, not some naive idea of protection.
-----
You pay taxes so that there are roads, healthcare, schools, libraries, firefighters, etc, and yes police and the military.
The bulk of taxation in pretty much every country - even the US - goes to protection, not some naive idea of supporting the common good.
-----
Also note how all of your examples are nationally bound, not global services.
Whatever helps you justify paying taxes but that doesn't make much sense in view. Protect yourself from what? Taxes pay for public services, infrastructure, often health.
I know you're expressing a common sentiment that likely the majority of people in most countries share, but planetary emergencies don't care what country you're in. The country model is ill-equipped to deal with emergencies on a global scale - I mean, just look at the past 2 years as a case study...
Not really. You pay taxes to fund the fabric of society. That means self-defense, but it also means other common goals such basic infrastructure and social services. You may not want to, but you do, and your individual want isn't the sufficient to change where your contributions actually go. We live in a democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules even if the minority is vocal and irritated by that majority decision. Subject to the constitution, of course.
[citation needed] - but like, an actual one. I know this is a popular conspiracy theory at the moment.
But if you want to dig further, you should look at the timeline of the WHO's actions and see how slow they were to recommend masks, recommend border closures, and declare a pandemic, then ask yourself if they helped or hurt our efforts to contain COVID throughout 2020. No citation is needed for that, it's all in the public domain - their press conferences and their Twitter.
Even if they don't fit that definition, they're a broken and grossly incompetent organization that covers up their own criminality, with no mechanism for accountability.
Child sex abuse, for starters
Let it not be forgotten that some of the finest wires of the Cold War came down to the delays in international diplomatic communications between Washington DC and Moscow due to the need to relay messages via embassies.
People have gotten so used to an international power structure with high speed communications and well defined diplomatic channels that they mistake the purpose of these organizations for their effectiveness. The alternative is a lot worse.
Isn't the only way to make UN more efficient to make nation states more efficient?
It was also the League of Nations failing to live up to it's principles when Japan invaded Manchuria.
The UN was a dream to try and resolve things in a multi-laterial world, and sometimes early on was effective (See Korea). after the debacle of the Korean War (Moscow boycotting rather then using their veto), the progress in the cold war was almost always bilateral. (not always though).
In it's current form, it's useful - but I think the WTO / World Bank and the Red Hotlines have been far more useful.
The appeal is that it mutual agreement has resulted in arms treaties in the past, but the closer you inspect those prior treaties, the less rosy things look. The interwar naval treaties paused battleship construction for a decade--but even at best, countries were only in nominal compliance with many of the terms, and the construction pause was driven in part by the fact that several countries were rather literally bankrupting themselves trying to keep up, so stopping meant they no longer had to spend money they didn't have. Or you can look at SALT/START, which has lasted longer. But New START is currently on rocky roads, and I wouldn't count on it lasting past this decade. The other US/USSR (now Russia) treaties have been failing (e.g., INF).
There's a lot less trust between US, Russia, and China now than there was a decade ago, and with that loss of trust, the threat of war looms larger. Wars--the big messy wars between great powers especially--tend to break out because one side miscalculates what the other side's red lines are. It doesn't even necessarily need to be a direct act by one country that breaks the red line: recall that the proximate act instigating World War I was a terrorist group outside the influence of any of the great powers. So in the current environment, anyone suggesting massive cuts to military spending seems woefully naive.
giving that 1/3rd is US, it means that US is supposed to fund the 1/3rd of the new fund. Without any comments on the merits of that specific arrangement, i think that just wouldn't fly with US voters.
In general such proposals are built on the "marketing law of big numbers" like a pitch to sell something to China - "even if our market is only 0.1% that immediately makes for 1.5M customers!"
But I agree with the point - looking at the "signatories" - this seems to be mostly tax Americans more and give it to the UN, because Europeans think so.
It's massively outpaced inflation on the total timeframe 2000 - 2021 (2.3x vs 1.6x), but dropped from 2011-2014. Also a % of GDP it's on par with 2002 today.
Globally military spending has been driven by massive increases in Asia. In the US, spending shot way up after 9/11/01 and kept increasing until the end of the Iraq War in 2011. Since then, it's been down then up and overall flat for about 10 years.
But is this in nominal or real dollars? Because a large potion of that would have eroded to inflation at this point if nominal.
Military spending has many other dependencies beyond accumulating destructive force, eg jobs, petrodollar concerns.
Disarmament treaties have a clear game theoretic rationale for the most powerful countries. This proposal does not, in fact it disadvantages the biggest militaries.
1) It's 2% cut a year, so you save 200B the first year cuts, 160B the second year cuts etc.
2) This calculation is based on happening several years out, with significantly higher military spending.
But I still "only" see .65T in savings when they start cutting 2% a year in 2025 from 2.2T budget
I missed that the first time I read that, and now that I see they're proposing sustained year-on-year reductions... it makes it even more of a daft proposal than I thought it was.