# Overseas aid - are we getting too generous ?



## AJC (19 Sep 2006)

I see the government are planning to give away 0.7% of GNP to overseas aid in the not too distant future. By my rough calculation, this amounts to approximately *1.7% of total tax revenue* _(Based on figures for the finance department September Economic Bulletin, GNP est for 2005 was 136.1Billion, General Government receipts were 55.4Billion. 0.7% of GNP as a proportion of government receipts comes to around 1.7%)_

Given the infrastructural deficits we still have in areas such as schools and hospitals etc. as well as other worthy causes, can we really afford to be this generous ?


----------



## cjh (19 Sep 2006)

Yes we can afford to. I think your queston is 'Do we want to?'


----------



## Afuera (19 Sep 2006)

Of course we can afford this. Are we not the second wealthiest nation in the world?
http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/WealthotheNationReport-July'06.pdf


----------



## Foxtrot (19 Sep 2006)

Yer man Bono the [broken link removed] would be very cross with us if we didn't...


----------



## hmmm (19 Sep 2006)

I think 0.7 is the least we can do for those humans living in squalour on this planet, I'd like to see more. The question I would like answered however is how this is to be managed to ensure we get value for money. I'm a fan of GOAL and some of their commentary on how money from the Irish government is allocated give me cause for concern.


----------



## bearishbull (19 Sep 2006)

Scandinavian countries give around 1-1.4% of gnp. I feel we have a moral obligation to help those struggling to just feed themselves while western corporations make billions from the natural resources of their countries. yes there is corruption in developing countries but the multinationals are part of the problem as is the western world for not ensuring aid and development assistance gets to the most needy. if you saw kids dying of hunger somewhere in ireland you would be moved to help them so why not africans or asians? Theres plenty of money to build infrastructure here and to give 1-2cents out of every euro the governemtn gets from us in tax to help the most needy and destitude people on the planet, or maybe this reasoning doesnt chime with your own philosphy on life and the world,maybe your ancestors who survived the potato famine and received help in form of food donations should have had to fend for themselves ?.


----------



## DirtyH2O (19 Sep 2006)

I would say it is better spent than giving over fifteen million of public money to a corporate event on the private grounds of a person who is a tax exile to avoid wasting good money on things like hospitals or homeless shelters instead of vintage Bordeaux.


----------



## gearoidmm (19 Sep 2006)

We should be giving more


----------



## z107 (19 Sep 2006)

There's nothing stopping individuals from giving more! - feel free, there are plenty of charities out there who would be only too pleased.

Maybe there should be a separation of state and charity. Not everyone in Ireland can be so generous with their tax euros.


----------



## bearishbull (19 Sep 2006)

umop3p!sdn said:


> There's nothing stopping individuals from giving more! - feel free, there are plenty of charities out there who would be only too pleased.
> 
> Maybe there should be a separation of state and charity. Not everyone in Ireland can be so generous with their tax euros.


Those that can't afford to pay 2cent of each one euro of their tax paid probably are'nt paying much tax in first place. Mayeb there should be a levy on high earners especially for developing countries/humanitarian aid.


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Sep 2006)

Yes, I think we can afford it, and yes, we should do it. And more.





AJC said:


> Given the infrastructural deficits we still have in areas such as schools and hospitals etc. as well as other worthy causes, can we really afford to be this generous ?


Maybe we wouldn't have such glaring defecits if successive governments didn't squander so much through incompetence, venality and profiteering?


----------



## max (19 Sep 2006)

We couldn't be over-generous when it comes to foreign aid


----------



## Eurofan (20 Sep 2006)

DrMoriarty said:


> Yes, I think we can afford it, and yes, we should do it. And more.Maybe we wouldn't have such glaring defecits if successive governments didn't squander so much through incompetence, venality and profiteering?



Was thinking about this but couldn't put it better than the above. And now not only is squandering it not enough but apparantly sure we don't need a couple of billion a year either..

Honestly given we were amongst the first to put ourselves forward for the millenium target of .7 of gdp i was embaressed and ashamed when we renaged on that slap bang in the middle of the supposed 'celtic tiger'.


----------



## gearoidmm (20 Sep 2006)

Eurofan said:


> Honestly given we were amongst the first to put ourselves forward for the millenium target of .7 of gdp i was embaressed and ashamed when we renaged on that slap bang in the middle of the supposed 'celtic tiger'.



Not that it totally excuses it but you must remember that with the extremely large increases in GNP over the past 10 years in this country, even keeping the aid budget at the previous level in terms of percentage of GNP warranted a large increase in spending in real terms so we haven't done all that badly really (although I do think we could do better).


----------



## Sherman (20 Sep 2006)

If we (and I mean the great Irish public and our equally-great elected representatives) really gave a damn about the developing world, we would (a) lobby the EU to abolish the ridiculous system of farm subsidies we pay to our farmers, and (b) lobby the EU to remove all tariffs on agricultural goods coming from the Third World. Instead, we are one of the worst culprits for propping up such a ridiculously inequitable global trading system.

Of course, we'll never do that. In the spirit of the Celtic Tiger, it is far easier to throw some cash at the problem to salve our consciences, than it is to do anything that might make life just that little bit harder for us (debatable given the tiny % of EU and Irish economic activity deriving from agriculture), or that little bit fairer for those wretched people.


----------



## anseo (20 Sep 2006)

I am totally against the government giving out money to resource rich countries.

€750m rising to 1 500m by 2012. Way too much. If people wish give to an extra percent or two of their tax, then they should be facilitated. This should not be forced down peoples throats by do-gooders.

Don't forget we're spending 400m-750m pa on refugees and God knows how much on services for these people.

By the way, I would also end a lot of "welfare" schemes in Ireland as well. Those tribunals should go at once. Welfare for lawyers.

Interesting article here:
"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"


----------



## Glenbhoy (20 Sep 2006)

anseo said:


> Don't forget we're spending 400m-750m pa on refugees and God knows how much on services for these people.
> 
> By the way, I would also end a lot of "welfare" schemes in Ireland as well. Those tribunals should go at once. Welfare for lawyers.


Where do you get your figures re our spending on refugees, it's just that any figures that give a range where the top end is 90% higher than the lower, may be taken with a pinch of salt.
As for your tribunal statement, how much money do you think the various tribunals have brought in, I'm not sure myself, but if we look at the recent Bovale settlements, the Ansbacher and DIRT enquiries, not to mention the various smaller individuals who are investigated by revenue as a result of tribunal appearances, it may well be that they actually make money.
You should also remember that chances are that lawyers fees for tribunal work are taxed extensively, so say, 35% comes straight back that way.
Finally, what do you think the refugees, persons working in refugee related employment, tribunal lawyers etc do with their money?  Do they squirrel it away offshore?  Perhaps, they spend it?  If so, chances are they pay VAT at 21%, VRT at another 30%, in fact on any goods and services which in some way or another assist our overall economy and create employment in the economy as a whole.
Back to topic, Sherman makes some excellent points re subsidies, as does bearish re our moral obligations.


----------



## auto320 (16 Nov 2006)

In my view, much of the high living standards we enjoy in western economies are as a result of our effective exploitation of the third world. We owe them!

I think we should be giving more, nothing to stop us giving right up to the target that has never actually been met by any government. We look back at famine times in Ireland and at how almost nobody came to our aid, so what's the problem with learning from our own history?

The issue I would have with the manner in which aid is handled would be more specific, and maybe this is the debate that should be taking place, not looking at how we can give less.

1. Increased aid spending by Ireland is being managed by a reduced staff in department of Foreign Affairs. What kind of controls are there on this spending?

2. Why has auditing not been increased in line with increased spend? We need to know that the money is being spent effectively.

3. The easy way to spend foreign aid is to give it to governments, but its not the right way.

4. Why have we never seen public evidence that DFA has recovered money from bodies that have mis-spent funds? Surely not all NGOs are perfect? There must be some abuses, and we deserve to know about them.

5. Irish Aid funding also includes the cost of the clipboard carriers who attach themselves to almost all aid projects (ok, there are lots of exceptions), and who bring no added value except the production of endless reports about reports about reports. This cost should be shown separately, and the organisations that draw down aid funding shouild be encouraged to lose many of these parisites.


----------



## F. Kruger (16 Nov 2006)

If you want a really good read on this and other related topics you should get your hands on:

Making Globalization Work - Joseph Stiglitz


----------



## PMU (16 Nov 2006)

You should also look at:

[broken link removed])


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

way too much, and add the 300/400 million on the asylum system, of which 90+ % are bogus...


----------



## jrewing (16 Nov 2006)

Read Jeffrey Sach's "The End of Poverty" and you will see why we should be doing this and the great good it can do.

I would love for those who say we are giving too much to see the poverty that I saw in West Africa, while working there.

The real question is "shouldn't we be giving more ?". We have money coming out our ears in Ireland, while millions starve. The little bit we give to assuage our collective conscience can never be regarded as "too much", maybe not even "enough".

And before anyone asks, yes I do give to NGOs on top of the few euros from my tax that the government donates.


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> way too much, and add the 300/400 million on the asylum system, of which 90+ % are bogus...


 
If you are going to make claims like this, i.e. with numbers like 90%+, can you point to the source?


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

CCOVICH said:


> If you are going to make claims like this, i.e. with numbers like 90%+, can you point to the source?


 
yes, the fact that only approx 10% of applications are successful - from amnesty.ie:

'Very few asylum seekers are granted refugee status. Currently 10% of asylum applicants gain refugee status'


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> yes, the fact that only approx 10% of applications are successful - from amnesty.ie:
> 
> 'Very few asylum seekers are granted refugee status. Currently 10% of asylum applicants gain refugee status'


 
That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications.


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

CCOVICH said:


> That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications.


 
according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application.


----------



## Dreamerb (16 Nov 2006)

"That doesn't mean that they are 'bogus' applications."

Absolutely right. Quite a number of applications are withdrawn on the basis that the applicants have for some other reason been granted residency - marriage to a citizen or someone entitled to residency, Irish-born child(ren) (though less now), and a variety of other reasons. Some are refused because certain parts of their countries of origin are deemed safe, even if not the area from which they came, or because their reasons for fearing for their personal safety are not associated with the regime in their country of origin (without necessarily implying that they'd be safe there). 

It's a complicated area, and assertions of "90+ % are bogus" are neither accurate nor helpful.

And those - and there are quite a few of them - who are purely economic migrants are generally coming from countries where there is consistent and grinding poverty and the economy barely functions. If we, along with the rest of the EU, increase our overseas aid to the levels we have promised, it's just possible there'll be fewer economic migrants. And maybe fewer people needlessly starving to death, too.

"according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application."

Still doesn't mean 90+ % are bogus. Not all of them have failed; large numbers have been withdrawn, and a lot are appealed through the courts.


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> according to a few online dictionaries (google: definition false), one of the meanings of bogus is 'false' - an asylum application that fails is in my mind a false application.


 
Does that mean that if you fail the leaving cert or don't get enough points to do medicine, you have a 'bogus' leaving cert?

An application could 'fail' for any number of reasons-i.e. we have a quota on the amount of asylum seekers we will admit; we do not accept applications from certain states etc.


----------



## sunrock (16 Nov 2006)

Sherman said:


> If we (and I mean the great Irish public and our equally-great elected representatives) really gave a damn about the developing world, we would (a) lobby the EU to abolish the ridiculous system of farm subsidies we pay to our farmers, and (b) lobby the EU to remove all tariffs on agricultural goods coming from the Third World. Instead, we are one of the worst culprits for propping up such a ridiculously inequitable global trading system.
> 
> Irish farmers are making less than the average industrial wage.
> If one abolishes the cheques in the post i. e. subsidies to farmers,then farming in IRELAND will not be profitable.
> ...


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

I'd rather not get into this discussion for fear of being accused of racism, but since you are nitpicking my comments...



CCOVICH said:


> Does that mean that if you fail the leaving cert or don't get enough points to do medicine, you have a 'bogus' leaving cert?
> 
> An application could 'fail' for any number of reasons-i.e. we have a quota on the amount of asylum seekers we will admit; we do not accept applications from certain states etc.


 
the leaving cert isn't an 'application' for asylum - a bogus application is one where someone applies for asylum on unfounded grounds. if not granted, then in my mind that application was bogus and shouldn't have been submitted in the first place.

Your comment about quotas is unfounded (care to furnish some stats or links to this theory?), and rejection of an application because it is from a particular state would be due to it being a bogus application - eg. a state where no persecution occurs etc.


----------



## auto320 (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> way too much, and add the 300/400 million on the asylum system, of which 90+ % are bogus...


 
Sad to see this point of view still prevalant in this age of prosperity. What are we going to be like if there is a downturn?

The reality, despite this poster's claim that we are giving "way too much", is that even with massive budget surpluses, we still have not reached our target of 0.7% of GNP.

Its a good thing for all the irish who were forced to find work all over the world that this kind of hardline attitude is largely confined to here. Remember the Donnelly Visas, and the way our government had to lobby to allow our illegals in the US to keep off the radar?

We should be ashamed of our contribution so far. We can afford it, so why don't we do it?


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

in what sense can we afford it? when we have a 3rd world health system?


----------



## z107 (16 Nov 2006)

Don't donations go to support corrupt third world politicians, warlords and charity administration etc?

Can't see how that's going to stop anyone starving.

I think we'd be better addressing the issues sunrock has raided - but they might decrease our quality of life.


----------



## auto320 (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> in what sense can we afford it? when we have a 3rd world health system?


 
We put plenty of money into our health system, the fact that it's very badly managed by its top-heavy administration is a legacy of the health board system -- a system that local politicians didn't want to let go of because of the advantages it gave them. If we ever get real leadership, we have enough resources to have a world-class health system and still give a paltry 0.7% to countries where a child dies every minute from starvation.

With regards to giving money to "corrupt third world politicians, warlords and charity administration etc", this is a simplified take on the point I made a few posts back -- the real debate should be the lack of extra resources in the Irish Aid section of DFA and the lack of auditing, as well as the need for exposure of misspent aid funding where it exists. The way in which irish Aid money is spent is every bit as important as the level of funding.


----------



## rmelly (16 Nov 2006)

fair enough on the health system, but there are plenty of Irish causes I'd rather see the money going to (education, crime, irish poverty etc.). if people want to give overseas aid then allow it to be tax deductible at their marginal rate, and allow individuals to target where it goes.

we are throwing good money after bad in many cases because of the lack of tansparency/accountability enforced by the department of foreign affairs.


----------



## auto320 (16 Nov 2006)

rmelly said:


> fair enough on the health system, but there are plenty of Irish causes I'd rather see the money going to (education, crime, irish poverty etc.). if people want to give overseas aid then allow it to be tax deductible at their marginal rate, and allow individuals to target where it goes.
> 
> we are throwing good money after bad in many cases because of the lack of tansparency/accountability enforced by the department of foreign affairs.


 
It's not an "either/or" situation with regards to public services here and a tiny fraction of our GDP going to foreign aid. We have plenty of resources per capita to deliver world class public services; the fact that we don't have the leadership to deliver same has nothing to do with lack of funding.

There certainly needs to be a debate about accountability in the DFA regarding funding delivery and its effectiveness or otherwise. As taxpayers, we need to be sure that this funding is well targeted and not abused. There are two angles to this that I lwould ike to see addressed:

1. DFA is delivering increased funding with less staff, so controls can't be adequate.

2. When was the last time we saw a news story about an NGO having to give back funds when one of their projects was audited and found wanting? There is simply not enough auditing in this area and it needs to be done.

The last poster's stance against our government's duty to provide funding to meet UN targets is not something I could agree with. The logical extrapolation of that argument could see us stopping healthcare and education to the unemployed since they don't contribute taxes for instance. We all have responsibilities to the less well off, and in fairness our govt does go some way towards meeting those responsibilities on our behalf. Not far enough in my view, but getting there if we keep putting pressure on them.


----------



## F. Kruger (17 Nov 2006)

sunrock said:


> Irish farmers are making less than the average industrial wage. If one abolishes the cheques in the post i. e. subsidies to farmers,then farming in IRELAND will not be profitable. Inevitably the market prices for irish farm produce without subsidies,would have to be much higher if the farmer was to make a living wage. Of course you would replace irish farm produce with tarif free imported agricultural goods from the third world. Notwithstanding the fact that this food is taken from poor countries where the people are already on the brink of hunger ,what are farmers in ireland going to do?


 
I hear what you are saying, but the average European cow gets a subsidy of $2 a day : more than half of the people in the developing world live on less than that.

It would take a global effort of monumental proportions to alter the balance but I think that if Europe took a stand, and did the right thing, then it would result in a reduction in the static inefficiency and inhibited innovation that exists. Maybe then, the US and the other power houses might follow.


----------



## Purple (22 Nov 2006)

F. Kruger said:


> I hear what you are saying, but the average European cow gets a subsidy of $2 a day : more than half of the people in the developing world live on less than that.
> 
> It would take a global effort of monumental proportions to alter the balance but I think that if Europe took a stand, and did the right thing, then it would result in a reduction in the static inefficiency and inhibited innovation that exists. Maybe then, the US and the other power houses might follow.


The EU is much more resistant to changing it's protectionist stance on agriculture than the US. The common agricultural policy causes poverty and death all over the developing world. The long-term solution is trade reform, not aid. While Irish crops are cheaper in southern Africa than local crops there is no way that their agrarian economies can develop.
Does Ireland do enough? No.
Are we complicate in a system worse than the oil industries abuses in the poorest countries, which cause more long-term harm than the arms industry? Yes.
That’s the elephant in the corner. Forget about the miniscule amounts of aid we give.

In order for a country to become stable politically it needs to become stable economically (and I know both overlap). In order for this to happen their economy has to develop away from subsistence farming. Micro industries need to grow. This can only happen when clear ownership of assets can be established and credit can be raised against these assets. None of this can happen when farmers cannot sell their surplus crops for a profit, when their local market is depressed because first world countries dump their subsidised crops on the developing world.
Other issues such as ownership of natural resources and taxation of those who develop those resources are important. So is political accountability and interference in democratic processes in poor countries by developed countries. So is undoing or helping to undo the legacy of colonialism. But we in Ireland are in no position to complain about these issues while we accept blood soaked farm subsidy cheques from the EU.


----------



## daltonr (23 Nov 2006)

If you want to argue that we should give less then fine.  There are actually good arguments against it, such as discussing the difference between GNP and GDP in Ireland for instance, or any of the other argument put very well on previous posts, regarding Fair Trade etc.

But the fact is we as a nation are not willing to support fairer trade.  We seem to want to protect agriculture in Ireland regardless of the global impact.   Fair enough,  not my way of doing things, but it's a democracy so I'll accept that kind of selfish world view.

So we want it both ways now.   Protect Irish farmers, AND avoid keeping our promises on world aid.  We made a promise to give 0.7% and despite literally having more money than we know what to do with, we've never kept that promise.  That makes our leaders hypocrites, and the fact that it's tolerated by so many people makes the nation a nation of selfish hypocrites.

Ireland was eagerly waving it's hand in the air when the Millenium Goals were announced.  We were like the kid at the front of the class trying to be better than our classmates by making these commitments and appearing to be great lads.   And it turns out, surprise surprise, it was guff and nonsense.   Not only didn't we intend to meet the promises,  when we got richer we used that as an excuse to break the promise, rather than an opportunity to keep it.



> fair enough on the health system, but there are plenty of Irish causes I'd rather see the money going to (education, crime, irish poverty etc.). if people want to give overseas aid then allow it to be tax deductible at their marginal rate, and allow individuals to target where it goes.
> 
> we are throwing good money after bad in many cases because of the lack of tansparency/accountability enforced by the department of foreign affairs.


 
There's a flaw in your argument.  The Irish government is consistantly running surpluses,  consistently failing to spend even the amounts they budget to spend.   They literally don't know what to do with all the money they are collecting.

If you want to pour more money into Health, Education, Crime etc, then great.  Let's make it an optional tax deductable contribution,  all will happen is the contributions will be collected and added to the surplus and go unspent.

Your leaders don't know how to fix Health.  It's not a question of money.  They don't know how to radically reform the health service without butting heads with vested interests.   And there is a culture of not butting heads with vested interests, because doing so causes strikes and brings down governments.

Forget this either or nonsense, as if giving 0.7% is going to bankrupt the country or make it impossible to provide adequate services.   We've been failing to meet the 0.7% goal since we promised it, and the savings we've made haven't created the great Health System you seem to think we could have.

Either start working for a fairer global economy so that prosperity is more equally distributed, or send some of your wealth to the countries that you exploit.   Trying to have it both ways just makes you greedy and selfish.

Which is worse, to think you can buy a clear conscience, or to have no conscience at all?   I don't know, but while we're figuring it out we should at least keep the promises we've made.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2006)

I have very mixed feelings when I hear about property developer Niall Mellon organising the 'build new houses' project in South Africa. I respect that he has got up off his backside and got things moving, but perhaps if the construction industry paid its fair share of tax, such projects could be funded by right, and not by charidee.


----------



## Guest127 (25 Nov 2006)

instead of a % of GDP why doesn't the government give a % of the tax take. this way even if GDP keeps increasing and taxes not 'keeping up' the taxpayers would at least know what % of their tax went on overseas aid. 1) I don't think we are spending enough on overseas aid but would be loath to throw more money at corrupt regimes, particulary in Africa. perhaps what John O'Shea suggests might be looked at ie pick a few countries who are not corrupt and channel funds to them to encourage democracy and self sufficiencey 2) think the health service is totally out of kilter with what is required on the ground, happened to be in an A+E of a large hospital last weekend ( in error, went in the wrong door) and was appalled by what I saw, top heavy with administration, poor use of equipment. ( 9 to 5 mentality for specialists using scanners etc) 3) partially agree with a previous poster. the number of genuine asylum cases compared with the overall number of applicants is way out of kilter, and even Stevie Wonder could see that.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2006)

RainyDay said:


> I have very mixed feelings when I hear about property developer Niall Mellon organising the 'build new houses' project in South Africa. I respect that he has got up off his backside and got things moving, but perhaps if the construction industry paid its fair share of tax, such projects could be funded by right, and not by charidee.


Niall Mellon is one individual who gives a huge amount of his time to help people living in poverty. To undermine him by drawing some spurious link to tax evasion and/or immoral tax avoidance is disgraceful. There is no correlation between what he does and the case for tax reform in the construction industry.


----------



## RainyDay (27 Nov 2006)

There is no 'undermining' involved in opening up a legitimate topic for debate. There is a sense in which the 'doing it for charidee' is a magic protective cloak against which no questions can be asked. We've had the absurdity of having politicians (including one from my own party - shame) singing karaoke to raise charidee funds for hospitals on Celebrity You're A Star. You don't fund hospitals through karaoke - you fund hospitals through politics. And Vincent Brown's Village magazine exposed how little funds actually ended up in the charity pockets. We've had the tax-exile JP McManus choosing to fund his pet projects (Bertie bowl, Kemmy business school) while legally avoiding paying Irish tax. And then, we have the industry which was/is notorious for tax evasion at all levels, from the Bovale brothers to the nixering brickie, using their time to fund projects in South Africa, when perhaps these projects could be funded by the state if the industry paid its fair share of taxes.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2006)

I agree with the thrust of your post RD but I think it is deeply unfair to open the debate in the context of what one individual does for the poorest of South Africa's poor.


----------



## daltonr (28 Nov 2006)

> There is no 'undermining' involved in opening up a legitimate topic for debate.


 
There is no legitimacy to this argument whatsoever. Unless you have evidence to the contrary then we must assume that Niall Mellon is fully tax compliant. If he sees that the world including the country he pays tax in isn't doing enough to help the continent of Africa get on it's feet, then he has every right to donate time or money as he sees fit.



> I have very mixed feelings when I hear about property developer Niall Mellon organising the 'build new houses' project in South Africa.


 
What is there to have mixed feelings about? His motives? Unless you know of some ulterior motive I can't see how this can be questioned? The effectiveness of what he's doing? That's self evident.



> perhaps these projects could be funded by the state if the industry paid its fair share of taxes.


 
The fair share of taxes is whatever the state decides is fair. Only those who illegally evade taxes are paying less than their fair share. If you disagree with how they state apportions the fair share, then take it up with the state, not the tax payers. If you have evidence of builders or anyone else evading tax then tell revenue. Regardless there are no grounds for mixed feelings about any tax compliant persons charitable donations or work.

You seem to be implying that those who use legal means to reduce their tax bill have some sort of moral obligation to foregoe these incentives. 
that any charitable donation they make is subject to question simply because they avail of legal tax incentives or because they reduce their tax bill by legally exploiting tax loopholes.

I'm sure you personally have reduced your tax bill as much as you can legally reduce it. Do you pass on the savings to charity?
If you do, why don't you turn down the tax incentives available to you and send all the money to the Irish Government. Let them look after how it should be spent. You seem to feel they'll do a better job of spending it than you or Nial Mellon, or John O'Shea.

The fact is that the Irish Government are the last people you should be giving money to if you want to help the less fortunate. These projects could be funded right now without any additional tax revenue, but they are not. The State chooses to run a surplus while evading the promises it makes. Why would anyone who wants to help Africa give the money to Brian Cowan, when they could give it to John O'Shea? It defies logic.

It annoys me when people try to blur the line between Legal Tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion. It's the financial equivalent of talking about asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in the same breath.

There is no moral, spiritual, ethical or legal obligation to pay one penny more of tax than you are required by law to pay. Attempts to create some sort of stigma around tax avoidance are spurios and misguided.

I don't know how I'd describe attempts to devalue someones charitable work because they have legally avoided tax. You actually go one step further. You devalue someones charitable work because *other people* legally avoid tax.

That's not even New Pink Socialism, it's full blown Red.

Perhaps those who avoid tax and give to charity prefer to see their money go to good causes rather than into Rainyday's defined benefits pension.
I can understand why you'd have a problem with that.  But it's their choice, until the tax rules change.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (29 Nov 2006)

My point is not aimed personally at Niall Mellon, and indeed my mixed feelings arise from some admiration at his ability to get things done. We all know that tax evasion is endemic in the construction industry. Does anyone seriously believe that half the builders who travel over the SA for Niall haven't been nixering their hearts out for the preceeding months? And there is a genuine sense of unfairness around the legal tax avoidance that has also been endemic in the property business, with all kinds of tax breaks and schemes to ensure that developers and landlords have effectively no tax liability.


----------



## daltonr (29 Nov 2006)

It seems to me that what gets to you is people being lauded for their charitable work while they are evading or avoiding tax.   With the nixers and the evading side of things I agree with you.   With the legal avoidance of tax I don't.   Fair play to all who do it, and bravo to those who give some of it back in charity.   Double bravo for not being stupid enough to give it to the government who would squander it.

Those who feel legal tax avoidance is unfair would be wrong to direct their anger towards the avoiders.  They are just playing by the rules.  Anger should be directed at those who make the rules, the government.



> And there is a genuine sense of unfairness around the legal tax avoidance that has also been endemic in the property business, with all kinds of tax breaks and schemes to ensure that developers and landlords have effectively no tax liability.


 
The Irish government parties see fit to use tax law as a means of funneling money to their biggest supporters.   The construction industry would be stupid not to take advantage of this to improve their bottom lines.   In fact I believe they would be breaking the law by not doing whatever is in the best interests of their shareholders.

It's simply wrong to suggest that if people paid their "fair share" of tax (as you put it) that these sort of charitable efforts wouldn't be required.  The state has proven that even with more than adequate funds it doesn't look after the worst off in it's own country, much less those around the world.



> We all know that tax evasion is endemic in the construction industry


 
Good to see sweeping generalisations haven't been completely killed off.  

If you are right, then it's endemic because there's a country full of people willing to pay cash to get the job done cheaper.    So a big chunk of that money that Ireland so proudly gave to Live Aid,  all those trocaire boxes, all those Raffles at the local pub have been funded at least in part by money saved though tax evasion - by the customer.

For what it's worth,  your government still squanders far more than it fails to collect.   It would take a lot of construction nixers to build up a tax liability to match the money squandered by Martin Cullen in the last few years.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (2 Dec 2006)

Believe it or not, I can agree with most of your post, specifically



daltonr said:


> Those who feel legal tax avoidance is unfair would be wrong to direct their anger towards the avoiders.  They are just playing by the rules.  Anger should be directed at those who make the rules, the government.
> 
> The Irish government parties see fit to use tax law as a means of funneling money to their biggest supporters.   The construction industry would be stupid not to take advantage of this to improve their bottom lines.   In fact I believe they would be breaking the law by not doing whatever is in the best interests of their shareholders.
> 
> ...



My concern isn't really anything to do with who gets lauded, and who doesn't. It is about this blinkered view that anything with the 'charidee' label must be a great thing, while any suggestion about rights for those who need it most must be stamped out. It's taking us back centuries to the days of yore, when the peasants were dependant on handouts from the lord of the manor.

In relation to tax avoidance, I'm sure that I have made use of tax avoidance schemes that would seem unethical to some people (e.g. residential mortgage tax relief, medical insurance tax relief) and I made sure to take full advantage of the SSIA scheme, though I believe it was a crazy scheme in the first place. My gripe isn't really that the construction industry takes advantage of the schemes - my gripe is that I know they would fight tooth and nail to stop any rebalancing of the tax system to make it a bit less unfair.


----------



## daltonr (4 Dec 2006)

I think we broadly agree (for once).

Although I wouldn't have used the Building industry as an example of some sort of hypocrisy or whatever. The Farming industry I think have far more to answer for on this one.

The Builders build houses in Ireland, they do what they can to get whatever tax breaks they can, but their industry, to the best of my knowledge isn't impacting on Africa, other than as you claim, by depriving the government of tax revenue that could be spent in Africa. But we've been through that, it's the government who set the tax law, and the evidence is that even if they received more they wouldn't pass it on.

So if Nial Mellon or any other tax compliant builder gives to charity, then you shouldn't have mixed feelings about it. 

The Farming industry on the other and, lobbies aggressively for protections for Irish farmers and for European and global policies that directly hurt farmers and others in developing countries. Making it easier for us to dump cheap product into Africa making it harder for African farmers to compete, while also working to keep Africans for exporting their product to Europe etc.

So charities like Bothar probably deserve to be put under the spotlight more than the builders.

I must admit I hadn't made this connection and last year I actually asked people to give to bothar rather than buy me gifts. Perhaps I'll need to look for a different (non agricultural) charity this year.

Not that Bothar don't do good work, and their efforts would probably still be needed even if world trade was reformed, but I do agree with you there is a hypocrisy in charities rooted in particular industries like agriculture, not being willing to face up to the impact their industry has on creating greater need for the charity.

This problem is universal.  If we in the developed countries wan't to lift the worse off out of poverty then we have to be willing to come down a little in our lifystyles to meet them.   We can't protect Irish Farmers and expect African farmers to overcome both their environment and our rules that keep them down.

In the US the issue of Mexico is the big deal at the moment.  People wan't Mexican's to stay in Mexico, but they also wan't to avoid the investment that would be needed to raise Mexico's economy to a level that would make people wan't to stay there.   They wan't to deny Mexican immigrants health care and other rights, but they also wan't the cheap fruit in the supermarket that comes from having illegal immigrants picking it in California.  

I guess my problem with the Governments in Ireland and the developed countries in general is that as well as creating rules that help keep the developing countries underdeveloped, they also renage on the pledges of aid.   They aren't even willing to share some of the money that their rules have generated.

-Rd


----------

