Do babies attract VAT?

[Blodrast]

And, just to see, good old Wikipedia (rather old data on some parts, but still):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic...n_human_beings

excerpt:

Due to the illegal nature of trafficking, the exact extent is unknown. A U.S. Government report published in 2003 estimates that between 800,000 and 900,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year, the majority in South East Asia, Japan, Russia and Europe. This figure does not include those who are trafficked internally. [3]

Between 20,000 and 40,000 people are trafficked into the United States each year.[4] According to the Massachusetts based Trafficking Victims Outreach and Services Networkin Massachusetts alone, there were 55 documented cases of human trafficking in 2005 and the first half of 2006. [5] In the United Kingdom, the Home Office estimated that there were up to 1,420 women trafficked into the UK in a 1998 study. [6] Trafficking in people is increasing in Africa, South Asia and into North America. Between 80% and 90% of victims trafficked across international borders are female and the majority of those women and girls are trafficked for sexual exploitation through forced prostitution or sexual slavery.

According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 800 persons are trafficked into Canada annually and that an additional 1,500-2,200 persons are trafficked through Canada into the United States (2004), and these figures could be higher. [7]

In Russia, Africa and South and East Asia, many countries are faced with a rising child prostitution problem and the linkage with tourism is evident. Child prostitution and the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation is also increasing in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia.

So the UK, US and Canada have decent numbers there, as well, and it's increasing in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia.
My point is this: like Papewaio is saying, the surest way to stop this is by cutting off the demand. There would be no traffic if there were no demand.
I don't think that the laws are lax (how does one explain that it's a problem in all countries ?) - it's more that the corruption and poverty push people to do crazy, crazy things. The way to fix that is to try to improve their living standards.
And that is happening, slowly...

Sadly, there will always be problems like this, and drugs, and crime, as long as there is poverty. Heck, they may still exist even after that (although I'd like to be optimistic and give humanity a bit more credit). But having a very one-sided look at things isn't helping anybody...

[Blodrast]

Pape, as you can see by some some of the stuff I've posted, it's not that the laws are too lax, or the govenrments turn a blind eye... or else, we could blame _all_ governments of that. I definitely agree with you that the punishment should be harder on the "buyers", such that they can't afford to have a second offence.

Blaming the governments for not being able to take care of this, though, is like blaming, say, the US government, for failing to win the war on drugs (and they surely have more resources than the govenrments of Eastern Europe put together). It's just not that simple.
There are, and always will be, heartless cold people who will do this, regardless of the local law and what not. Just as there will always be mafia, and organized crime - which this is just a part of. Eradicate that, and this will go away, too - except nobody's succeeded in doing that yet...

[Blodrast]

L'Impresario:
Also, one has to keep in mind that, sad and unlikely as it may seem, just like L'Impresario pointed out, there are (many) cases where all parties (except the children, of course) are _willingly_ and _knowingly_ doing the trade. When all of it is set up as a perfectly legal adoption, there is little that the law can do.
The law can only reach so far - they hardened the adoption laws - that only slowed them down, and I don't know if significantly enough, because there is only so much you can do about making adoptions more difficult, without hurting the genuine ones...

[Papewaio]

A law that is not actively enforced is not a law, it is a piece of ink on paper.

A government that cannot enforce its own laws within its own territory or look after its own children would not be my first candidate as a member of a progressive group of states.

Nor do I accept 'others are failing therefore so can we'. Two wrongs do not make a right. The buyers need to be hounded down and publically named. DNA tests need to be used to get rid of scams that claim false parenthood.

Governments whose nations are consistently used as depots for selling children do have a responsibility and they need to show that they are doing something. Yes there will always be crime, that doesn't mean it should not be policed. If there is more crime in a town, region, state or country then that needs to be more heavily policed not less.

If the government is not capable of doing such then by all means it should lose privledges such as being suspended from the EU (this should apply to both sides of the equation buyers and sellers).

Any government and society that actively supports child slavery ie the hypothetical VAT tax should be wiped off the face of the earth. We are overpopulated as it is so why keep the worst?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

As Blodrast has been saying, Pape, should we terminate all of Europe?

Obviously this is sick; I think Banquo's Ghost needs to apologize to Romania and Bulgaria for denying that they are fit to join the EU. The buyers already live inside the EU.

[Papewaio]

IFF any state actively encouraged and taxed slavery as per the hypotherical then I don't see why they shouldn't be removed.

That is not the situation as delivered in the article, the actual scenario is one where wealthy people are preying on poorer ones. It is a worse version then the sex tourists going to poor countries to get cheaper sex (at least there the people involved are more likely to be adults).

The people are buying other humans as a commodity. They are creating a demand that in turn creates organisations that sidestep the law. Remove the demand and you remove part of the problem. The other part is making sure that humans in a country can live without having to turn to crime... that is reason enough for a country to be denied entry into the EU because it is not capable of looking after its own citizens, on the other hand it might be said that entering the EU will boost the economy and help the country to look after the people.

So I would start with conditions of entry that included that the citizens would have a minimum standard of living (including education) and as long as the country works on those issues trade would be strengthened. Once high enough standards were met I would give them conditional EU membership until they finally achieve parity with other long term members.

[Mooks]

This stuff is absolutely disqusting. People that do this are on par with Hitler.

America likes to get in other peoples affairs, why not stuff like this? Its not like they would get bad PR for trying to stop underage prostitution.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Obviously this is sick; I think Banquo's Ghost needs to apologize to Romania and Bulgaria for denying that they are fit to join the EU. The buyers already live inside the EU.

I somehow doubt that those two countries are losing much sleep over my censure or otherwise.

One of the functions of the Backroom for me is to gain a wider perspective on my own thoughts and opinions. The majority of the posters here are well-informed and passionate in their areas of knowledge - or good at squirrelling out information.

It is often effective to engage such debate by provocative phrasing. From my first question, Blodrast not only made an excellent series of arguments but provided some good material for me to mull over. Papewaio articulated some of my own emotional responses - but I should apologise to him, because clearly my over-provocative title confused the issue - there is no implication that the EU will actually tax this trade, merely my ham-fisted attempt to make a link between economic priorities and the convenient overlooking of human rights that sometimes goes on in the EU's drive for expansion.

The second question was obviously phrased badly as well - the intent was to try and find out why people would use their wealth to purchase children like a commodity. The problem is not limited to the EU - and Blodrast showed some of the causal links. But can we understand the mind-set of someone who buys children? Do they consider they are providing a better life for that child?

It happens to interest me, not merely from a humanitarian perspective, but because I know someone personally who has built a family this way. A very successful business person worth many millions, has chosen to use that wealth to buy/adopt several Romanian children. They are all blue eyed and blonde, the premium brand.

I find that spooky beyond belief, yet I seek to understand what is going on through other's views.

[Vladimir]

One of the functions of the Backroom for me is to gain a wider perspective on my own thoughts and opinions. The majority of the posters here are well-informed and passionate in their areas of knowledge - or good at squirrelling out information.

It is often effective to engage such debate by provocative phrasing.

Great, it appears we have something in common.. This new form of slavery is everywhere; there were even some arrests here in Washington, D.C. Taxing such a thing would be...interesting , but perhaps beneficial. There are a few laws here, like the cocaine stamp tax in Tennessee, which serve to not only increase the penalty for certain crimes but all law enforcement another way to catch the bad guys. Tax evasion on illegal revenue anyone? (Al Capone).