0.1% for Africa

[Don Corleone]

I know among other things Geldof & Bono were trying to highlight yesterday was a desire to get governments to pledge 0.1% of GDP to developing economic self-sufficiency in Africa. I think this is a noble and worthy cause.

However, can somebody more familiar with the cause tell me why the total must come from government pledges & not individual charity contributions as well? Making it come from a government spending program (via taxation) and not allowing chartibable contributions to be included gives it a smack of income redistribution.

If developing Africa's economies and preventing future famines is the goal, shouldn't the goal be to make every dime count, not score political points?

[ICantSpellDawg]

good point

[Krypta]

I always thought it was 0.7% GDP and it was proposal put forth by the United Nations and agreed upon by the richest nations of this planet(G8). Seeing as none of these nations have ever actually met those agreed upon goals, I think Geldof and Bono are basically saying, "its time that these wealthy countries put their money where their mouth is".

[Don Corleone]

It was 0.7% for total charitable giving. The 0.1% stands outside AIDS money, food relief, and everything else, just the money pledged to help Africa self sufficient.

My question remains valid regardless of which number you use. If the point is aid, and not setting up an entrenched system of income redistribution, why are charitable contributions not counted?

[GodsPetMonkey]

I know among other things Geldof & Bono were trying to highlight yesterday was a desire to get governments to pledge 0.1% of GDP to developing economic self-sufficiency in Africa. I think this is a noble and worthy cause.

However, can somebody more familiar with the cause tell me why the total must come from government pledges & not individual charity contributions as well? Making it come from a government spending program (via taxation) and not allowing charitable contributions to be included gives it a smack of income redistribution.

If developing Africa's economies and preventing future famines is the goal, shouldn't the goal be to make every dime count, not score political points?

Well, for a start, governments collect money from sources other then income tax too (you may have meant this, but many people read wealth distribution as meaning 'taking my money and giving to someone else'). It is a noble cause and does seem to be a very small part of these nations economies.

As for charity, well, I guess it comes on top of charity as the more money, the merrier, but also charities can be a lot more focused, dealing only with certain issues, governments would be less biased towards one cause or another (in theory). And that 0.1% GDP wont be needed to pay the wages of workers that a charity organisation would need (governments have enough public servants doing nothing as it is, surely one of them can do the job).

However, I do think the focus is to much on governments to provide the money, and not enough on individual contributions... though maybe the idea of the wealthy giving away oodles of their $$$ strikes to close to home for the mega rich rock stars

[Don Corleone]

Well, for a start, governments collect money from sources other then income tax too (you may have meant this, but many people read wealth distribution as meaning 'taking my money and giving to someone else'). It is a noble cause and does seem to be a very small part of these nations economies.

Governments can create currency, but they are incapable of creating wealth. Printing new dollars just cheapens the worth of other dollars out there. Any real worth has to either 1) come from somebody else (and governments can only get it through income tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc) or 2) wealth creation, which generally speaking, only happens in the industrial/commercial sector.
So whether I give freely or it gets taxed away from me to go into "America's big check", the money is the same, it's just the means of collecting it that have changed.

As for charity, well, I guess it comes on top of charity as the more money, the merrier, but also charities can be a lot more focused, dealing only with certain issues, governments would be less biased towards one cause or another (in theory). And that 0.1% GDP wont be needed to pay the wages of workers that a charity organisation would need (governments have enough public servants doing nothing as it is, surely one of them can do the job).

Okay, maybe they're figuring with charity, it'll really take 0.2% of a country's GDP. Why not set the bar at 0.2% and allow all sources? What's more, I think I can read between the lines, and I fail to see how providing abortion on demand would provide broad based economic improvement. Should we be required to pay for abortions abroad as well as at home? Or is there some other issue religious charities aren't willing to pay for that you had in mind?

However, I do think the focus is to much on governments to provide the money, and not enough on individual contributions... though maybe the idea of the wealthy giving away oodles of their $$$ strikes to close to home for the mega rich rock stars

I disagree. I think the idea itself is terrific, but it's being hijacked by a need to impose income redistribution at the same time. This year, 0.1% to develop Africa... 30 years from now, 10% for the world government. Sorry, if you want conservatives to sign on to what I freely admit is a noble purpose, you're going to have answer these concerns.

[Xiahou]

However, can somebody more familiar with the cause tell me why the total must come from government pledges & not individual charity contributions as well? Making it come from a government spending program (via taxation) and not allowing chartibable contributions to be included gives it a smack of income redistribution.

This never sits very well with me. Because, when you get down to it, its just government mandated charity. They take the money from you, whether you want to give it or not, and then give it as aid.

If governments really want to help, Africa needs trade not aid.

[GodsPetMonkey]

Governments can create currency, but they are incapable of creating wealth. Printing new dollars just cheapens the worth of other dollars out there. Any real worth has to either 1) come from somebody else (and governments can only get it through income tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc) or 2) wealth creation, which generally speaking, only happens in the industrial/commercial sector.
So whether I give freely or it gets taxed away from me to go into "America's big check", the money is the same, it's just the means of collecting it that have changed.

I meant to say redistribution (my bad typo). The point I was making there was governments collect tax from a lot of sources, not just your hippocket/paypacket, making sure no one goes on a rabid rant about how their hard earned cash is helping support poor people. I wasn't contending your point or saying we should just print more money

Okay, maybe they're figuring with charity, it'll really take 0.2% of a country's GDP. Why not set the bar at 0.2% and allow all sources? What's more, I think I can read between the lines, and I fail to see how providing abortion on demand would provide broad based economic improvement. Should we be required to pay for abortions abroad as well as at home? Or is there some other issue religious charities aren't willing to pay for that you had in mind?

I have to say abortion on demand came out of no where! That's not what I was thinking off, that and America is one of the most liberal in the types of abortions allowed... lets leave that for the next abortion thread (can't be to far away).

My point was that charities tend to focus on the plight of individuals which will get them the most media attention (aka. free advertising). Sponsoring a starving child is a noble cause, but grandma is starving too! Whose face looks sweeter on the TV screen?.
Religious charities are a different matter, but now you bring them up, any good religious charity should help those who need help regardless, though I'm sure there are ones that are more selective as to who they help.

I disagree. I think the idea itself is terrific, but it's being hijacked by a need to impose income redistribution at the same time. This year, 0.1% to develop Africa... 30 years from now, 10% for the world government. Sorry, if you want conservatives to sign on to what I freely admit is a noble purpose, you're going to have answer these concerns.

How can a government give money to someone (in Africa) with out taking it from someone else? Any publicly funded (ie. State) aid system can be seen as income redistribution, I don't think this is inherently bad, as long as it is kept under control (as you say) I just think more private donations should be made (or combine the two, have a government contribution of say 0.1%, and allow people to donate more into such the scheme, and have what they donate as tax deductible, however this may make charities redundant...).

However, on the World Government issue, no one can tell what it's going to be like in 30 years time, while I find it hard to see support for a world government built out of the current UN, things may change, so rather then ask questions now, we should ask them continually (like, every time the national budget comes up).

[bmolsson]

Why give any money at all ?

The people of Africa need jobs, they don't need food and money. A sustainable economy is not build on hand outs. The only chance to get Africa going is to invest in industries and let the agriculture products in to the Western markets. The starvation we see in Africa is very much based on the fact that people can't earn enough to eat. Any talk on crops being bad etc are BS. Some countries just can't grow their own food and need to be able to earn money to purchase their food.