Poverty and Affluent Societies (2)

Tom Benedetto Van der Linden ETGLS 9 November 2011 Poverty and Affluent Societies (2) While I find it true that global poverty falls out of our scope frequently, I do think that Americans have an obligation to those in need. However, because we live in a different, more affluent society though it does not mean we are at fault for not acting consistently. Normally, we tend to think of our own society because of our ontological tendencies to do so. In my argument, I elaborate on ideas that I find to be logical, and try to veer away from the idea that everyone in the world is going to start giving all they have to avert world poverty, while at the same time addressing the need for our affluent society to donate. When one does, however, think outside our society and think globally, poverty is an issue far too often ignored. It is my belief that one has a duty to all humanity, and to overcome the difficulty to think unselfishly is the first good deed one can do. Obviously, the second then is to give up a quantity of one’s excess possessions so that one can physically make a difference in a cause such as global poverty. We must give because it is our obligation to humanity to care, but it needs to effectively and frequently be done. A large problem with donations via organizations is that not all of one’s money can reach its primary target. A variety of problems occur: portions taken to cover administrative costs, corrupt governments, and corrupt systems of distribution. There are steps to undermine these problems associated with donating. Before anything, there must be an overriding system for donations to be managed and carried-out globally. With this organization providing specific numbers publicly, money could be tracked from the donor his or herself, creating new excitement and intrigue to donation-giving. One could see, through this system, where his or her money has gone, and the possibilities, as we know, are endless. But, this is not the organization’s primary objective, which is to make sure that donations are not used for anything but for the good of what is being donated to. I think this new type of donation-giving is plausible, exciting, and addresses the issue of giving in our affluent society. One could argue that it would be hard to conjure such a worldly organization, and where funding for it would come from. The United Nations, though, could be the source for the overriding system, because it has experience with making organizations such as UNICEF. Many country leaders, too, have different agendas on where exactly the money is to be put into their society. In a war-stricken country, much of the funding for food may go directly to soldiers, because that is in the government’s best interest. Some may even be smuggled without a system checking where the aid reaches, hence the overriding system of donation-giving. In addition, I would propose an optional tax to be able to donate. Simply put, Americans would have an option by checking a box on their tax forms whether or not, or how much, they would want to give to a charity. With the overriding system in place, too, it would be easy to track what one’s donations are going towards, and avoid any kind of misplacement of donations. If, though, this were unpopular among those being taxed, it could be an idea to make it a tax write-off if one gives two percent of earnings to selected organizations. One could argue that the tax write-off would deplete the idea of giving to an organization if the donator does not lose much from giving the donation. But, this would encourage the donator to give more than just the tax-donation, because they know the feeling of fulfillment donating can give. As these problems are addressed, it will become easier for an American citizen to want to donate. However, forcing one to donate through taxation is not a popular solution, as Peter Singer suggests. His suggestions are great ideas, and would help global poverty substantially. But in a capitalistic society, Singer’s proposals would not fly because the basis of America’s economic stance is to take what you have earned, and the harder you work the more you earn. I agree with him, though, 1.5 trillion in worldwide aid with his system is a number that could enhance living conditions for so many impoverished areas (handout). But, I believe it is too much of a communistic approach and depletes the progressive ideals of working hard and becoming successful. If one was to be poor, they will receive aid regardless with Singer’s universal system in place. Therefore, Singer’s good-hearted proposition is implausible. But, my idea of an organization that does not force, but rather encourage and carry-out, donations increases moral action and still encourages success. In addition, the United States spends billions on imports annually. If it is true that leaders of countries profit off of donations, then why give them the benefit of doubly profiting with the addition of United States money? The United States, because so many countries rely on it for its imports, should enact a policy that includes the following: a portion of the large amounts the United States pays for imports to a given country must go to poverty-aid in that country. I agree with Thomas Pogge’s argument that our imports are so excessive that they alter less-wealthy countries’ chances to import because our standard rates are so high That money, he argues, could also be spent on developing these countries (Kauffman 315).. My import-tax idea correlates with Pogge’s theories of large consumption impacts. The United States would charge the vendor countries, but not for profit. Rather, it would have a say in where a portion of the money paid for the imports goes. Much of the import money does not go to the manufacturers, anyway, in most countries, but to many countries’ corrupted governments. Therefore, my tax-import plan for reducing global poverty is effective and possible with the amount of leverage the United States has in the global economy. However, one could argue that that would deplete a country’s economy, given that it relies on its imports for economic welfare. But, I would argue that it actually gives the lower class in those certain countries a chance to advance. With this advance, comes more domestic growth for a country. Advancement allows for more educated people in a given country, due to , more skilled workers, less people to give aid to over time. The United States has the leverage to make this a policy, and it should fulfill an obligation to humanity that can be solved with this import-tax. To sum up my argument, I believe that to fulfill obligations and duties to humanity by giving aid to end poverty is a moral choice we must make in America. However, the current system of donating has not worked, and my opinion is that the system must be altered in order for donating to fulfill its intended moral outputs. An overriding system to carry-out donations that are also further encouraged by a new system is a necessity. It rids the problems of corruption, and makes donating effective and easy. Optional donation-taxing for citizens to choose from different, global charitable organizations their incomes go is something I also wish for. The United States, being an affluent society, has leverage and must use it to create an import-tax to countries that have large amounts of poverty. These solutions still encourage success in our society, while helping it reach a moral high-ground.

Word Count: 1,263