UN Solidarity Tax: a Violation of Rights & Inefficiency in Aid System?

You're no longer entitled to the right of freedom of choice. And if you thought that electing a western right wing government would equal to less government and liberalism (in the purest sense of the word: personal freedom, free market etc), you are wrong – those days are gone because even the Right seems to have been corrupted by the Left. By now you must be wondering what brought these thoughts about; therefore, with no further ado, I shall share the root of my apprehension: the UN and the German government want to force us all into solidarity.

As G-d's servant, I am in favour of solidarity. I believe that if each family would protect their less fortunate relatives (and by protection, in this case, I mean giving them tools to thrive – as per Confucius' wisdom “give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever”) there would be less misery in the world. In the absence of a family, then one would move on to the next group considered as such (friends, neighbours, members of community and so on).

I believe in giving assistance, in giving people that jump start in life; but I want to choose which people I help; which people will make the best of my assistance. In plain words, I want to be free to choose whom I am solidary with. Should a government (or worse, an international body composed by elements with dangerous agendas) remove that right from me, from you?

The German Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schaeuble, suggested that European countries increase the tax on fuel so that everybody contributes to the migrant crisis. A couple of days later, it was reported that the UN issued a report defending that there should be a global solidarity tax on fuel, soccer matches and entertainment to fund humanitarian crises – it isn't quite clear who inspired who, did the Germans inspire the UN or did the United Nations inspire the German Minister? Either way, it's not clear that people (who are already multi-taxed through direct and indirect taxes) would accept this clear assault to their pockets – G-d forbid, but uprisings could be organised.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. Each year, the world gives over $100 Bn (from taxpayer money, except in Rentier States) in foreign aid , yet “Poverty” has not ended, the number of refugees has not decreased, humanitarian crises seem to be on the rise and they are not “teaching people how to fish” because they are too busy demonising the only country that has the technology to actually cultivate arid countries. So my question is the following: where does the money go? This time, I will even make use of a crass leftist mantra: with $100 Bn you could feed a lot of people.  

I would remind Mr Schaeuble and the UN that too much taxation (due to miscalculated policies) was one of the factors conducive to Louis XVI's fall, resulting in his, and his family's, decapitation. Republicans fought to end – and detach themselves from - the monarchy because, according to them, the more Kings received in tax the more they wanted. And now the more Republicans, Federalists, Democrats (whatever you wish to call them) get in taxes the more they want. It's becoming clearer that the problem was not the Monarchic political system, but men...corrupt, money-thirsty men...

For all these reasons, I suspect that many countries will not follow the German and the UN ludicrous initiative. Nevertheless, I have one question: of the +$100Bn how much is spent on wages of staff, on their travelling and lodging expenses etc; and how much is really spent on aid? Hopefully, this is not a similar case to that of the Clinton Foundation that reportedly only spends 10% of total donations on charity. Therefore, perhaps the problem will be solved not by asking more money from taxpayers but by allocating donated funds in a more efficient and transparent way.

I leave you with an interesting piece of information for you to ponder upon:

The huge Azraq refugee camp, in Jordan, flaunts a big sign with 'Thank You' to Britain, the European Union and ten other nations for providing the £100 million it cost to build and run the camp; which opened in April 2014, with the intention of harbouring up to 130,000 Syrians fleeing the civil war – though only 15,000 seem to be presently there. Azraq was supposed to be the world's second-biggest and best refugee camp...and it's practically empty (source)

(Image retrieved from Google Images)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]