Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,045
Directly and though agencies
€640 m on overseas aid
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
Ger Fleming
Registered User
- Messages
- 61
We need to look after our own house first. Then we can help others. How can we let people die on the streets go hungry and be homeless in this day and age. These situations are going to get worse and all our government wants to do is look after the banks and multi nationals. We are building our so called thriving economy on a foundation of sand and we will pay for this in the future. Saying boom and burst economics is a thing of the past is insane. Bring on a general election and let's give Enda and Joan a taste of how people in the real world feel. One of the richest countries in the world and look at how we treat our own citizens. We should hang our heads in shame.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
We have more than enough money to ensure that all state services are provided at a sufficient level. We just have to stop wasting so much money through inefficiency and bad practices.
This should be gradually cut to zero... It's absurd that we are borrowing money at interest, and then giving this money away... If Irish citizens have disposable income and want to help, they can through the NGOs.
There is no reason why the money needs to come through the government, it does not have to be subject to majority decision \ parliament. Government should facilitate it through tax credits for donations, etc, but no direct outlay of monies.
There is no reason why the money needs to come through the government, it does not have to be subject to majority decision \ parliament. Government should facilitate it through tax credits for donations, etc, but no direct outlay of monies.
There is no real poverty in Ireland which isn't caused by social issues (people to addicted/ignorant/lazy/etc to look after themselves). Money won't solve that. Real poverty is something completely different. It has a feel. It has a smell. If you have ever seen it you would not suggest what you are proposing.
I don't understand your reasoning at all.
So what should we do, abolish all welfare payments here and send the money abroad?
Only allow people to vote who have seen real poverty? Because you seem to be suggesting that they are the only ones who should be entitled to make decisions about our tax euros.
If Ireland didn't exist, had never existed, this real poverty would still exist. 'Ireland' as an entity therefore is taking on a moral duty at a collective level but we are not morally responsible for the situation.
At the moment, citizens are indirectly via representatives, in theory at least, voting for higher taxes so that funds are available to be distributed abroad. Again, in theory this means that some citizens who don't want to help \ don't have money to help are seeing their tax euros go abroad.
There is no reason why this needs to be subject to majority voting at a collective level.
Just let the citizens directly decide for themselves what they can give and not decide for all citizens.
I am making the point that spending more money on relative poverty and social poverty in Ireland won’t solve the problem here so you are attempting to create a false dichotomy in intimating that spending the money here would solve the problems of poverty here.
I can’t really follow the rest of your post. You seem to be arguing against representative democracy.
I can’t really follow the rest of your post. You seem to be arguing against representative democracy.
I am arguing against allowing representative democracy to 'mission creep' into areas where it is not needed.
Representative democracy should only be used where it has to be or where there are benefits to collective action over and above what could be obtained by citizens coming together by association. This isn't one of those cases because even if at state level, we reduced our overseas aid to 0, at an individual level citizens who disagree with that policy decision are free to (without reference to any other citizens) donate as they see fit. Government's only role should be to facilitate those citizens.
When you say facilitate you mean give them tax breaks, right?
Surely "mission Creep" is a far bigger problem in other areas of where the government interacts with society?
Facilitate by tax deductions yes, but not directly contribute its own money. I think that will be a much better system for delivery of donations to where Irish citizens want them to go, than going through the representative democracy process.
Now you and I may disagree on where that should be - but we are also then free to try to influence citizens on that.
Mission creep is a big problem e.g. nanny statism at home, but that's no reason not to call it out here when I see it.
Financially the net result of a tax break is the same as the state paying for it directly. What you really have a problem with is the stats ability to spend our money wisely. I agree but submit that the billions spent badly in Health, welfare and Education is a bigger issue and should be addressed before we cut payments to the truly poor.
I would also suggest that while we impoverish hundreds of millions of people and kill millions through trade tariffs and, most especially, our agricultural subsidies, a token spend on aid is the least we can do.
If the money is spent more wisely then it's likely less of it will be needed as it will be targeted.
And I don't see why they are mutually exclusive, in fact I would argue the opposite... a mindset for waging war against inefficiency is needed everywhere, and turning off that mindset for certain sectors will count against it everywhere.
If government overseas aid could have worked by now, it would have, given the astronomical sums that have gone abroad.
If Ireland and the EU didn't exist, we wouldn't have trade tariffs and agricultural subsidies... how would the rest of the world be better off in that situation?
If our trade tariffs and subsidies don't make sense for us and our trading partners, then reform them, but let's not rob Peter and Paul by paying for it twice through subsidies and aid.
The problem exists at home to a far greater extent. Fix it there first.
Enslaving millions of people may make economic sense but it is morally wrong. In the same way our trade tariffs are morally wrong. We dump subsidised agricultural produce on poor countries while imposing huge tariffs on the importation of their produce. The USA does the same thing but to a lesser extent.
When we were still paying our farmers to make sugar here to was so subsidised that it was cheaper to by in a shop in South Africa than locally produced sugar (made from sugar cane, a cheaper process).
- Status