Overseas aid - are we getting too generous ?

[Guest127]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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