Stamping Out Poverty
A Serpis | 22.02.2008 17:34 | World
Development network Stamp Out Poverty presents a ‘sterling solution’ to finally make poverty history. Is Britain up for the challenge?
David Hillman is a man with a vision. He wants to end poverty and he knows how to. As coordinator of UK charity network Stamp Out Poverty, his aim is to introduce a tax which could raise ₤1.7 billion revenue per year to aid developing countries, without damaging the economy of richer nations.
“It is a long term, predictable and sustainable strategy, and I think that Britain could and should take the lead,” says David.
The campaign is aimed at introducing a Sterling Stamp Duty of 0.005% on all sterling foreign exchange transactions which are traded in the United Kingdom. The duty would be collected in the United Kingdom and destined to attain the UN’s Millennium Development Goals by 2015, which are aimed at helping developing countries.
Moreover, it would also help to reach the government’s 0.7 % proposed target of Gross National Income (GNI) for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). Up till now, only 0.4% of the proposed figure has been achieved. The government aims to reach the 0.7% target by 2013. But “when that target was proposed there was no problem of AIDS or global warming,” says David. “We have to act now to avoid the cycle of poverty repeating.”
Despite the currency market being the biggest in the world, it has remained exempt from taxation. If the tax was to be implemented, the payers would be the banking institutions, which could oppose this action regardless of the fact that the rate is so low that it would not have a negative impact on trade.
The main argument against it is that it is an avoidable tax. However, since the 2001 September 11 bombings, markets can not change and adapt like before because now they are very closely monitored.
Claudia Waller, Network and Communications Officer of Stamp Out Poverty says: “Since 9/11 you can’t move around paying such a tax in order to avoid it. The Bank of England is always aware of what is happening, so it is not a valid argument any more.” Consequently, David believes that now is the perfect time for the British government to demonstrate its commitment to provide aid to Third World countries. “From 2002 this is possible mainly thanks to regulation, centralization and the electronic nature of the market,” he says.
Nevertheless, managing the money obtained and making sure that it is invested adequately poses problems, as it could end up in the pockets of those who get their hands on it first. Dr Mark Duckenfield, lecturer of world economy politics at LSE, says that “if the UK government was to receive the money, for how long would it spend it on poor countries? Why not spend it on the British NHS or on the UK transport system? And if it went to an international organisation, could it be relied upon to spend it appropriately?”
There are also growing concerns on whether corrupt governments would get access to the money and use it for illicit purposes, instead of it being destined to fund development programmes. “Would the UK distribute the money to a bunch of governments that have a long record of not using aid efficiently, being corrupt and not having bureaucratic structures in place to handle so much cash?” says Dr Mark Duckenfield.
Those are risks David is willing to take. A formal proposal has been presented to the British government and is under current evaluation. But S.C, who spent 18 months working for Stamp Out Poverty, says: “Stamp Out Poverty is definitely going about it the right way, but I don’t think this will happen in the next couple of years. It is a radical step and Gordon Brown will never do it. England surely, is not going to be the first.”
Norway was the first country to become interested in the proposal. A report written by Stamp Out Poverty and commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was presented in February 2007 in Oslo. But after the acceptance of the Norwegian government to take on the initiative, it was turned it down before it was formalised.
Despite that, Peter Howell, member of the Labour party, who has known David Hillman for many years, says: “You have to keep being optimist. It’s the next big thing after the Make Poverty History Campaign. It’s a great idea carried out by a remarkable man.”
Stamp Out Poverty’s initiative is based on the Tobin Tax proposed 30 years ago by the Economist James Tobin, who suggested a 1% tax on currency transactions, a levy 200 times the one proposed by Stamp Out Poverty. The Tobin tax, which was going to be destined to fight against daily currency trading and speculation, was never approved. Stamp Out Poverty has adapted his idea to stop international poverty.
Obtaining funds to help the poor never had such a realistic and attainable solution. “Let us hope that we can make it all happen”, says David.
“It is a long term, predictable and sustainable strategy, and I think that Britain could and should take the lead,” says David.
The campaign is aimed at introducing a Sterling Stamp Duty of 0.005% on all sterling foreign exchange transactions which are traded in the United Kingdom. The duty would be collected in the United Kingdom and destined to attain the UN’s Millennium Development Goals by 2015, which are aimed at helping developing countries.
Moreover, it would also help to reach the government’s 0.7 % proposed target of Gross National Income (GNI) for Overseas Development Assistance (ODA). Up till now, only 0.4% of the proposed figure has been achieved. The government aims to reach the 0.7% target by 2013. But “when that target was proposed there was no problem of AIDS or global warming,” says David. “We have to act now to avoid the cycle of poverty repeating.”
Despite the currency market being the biggest in the world, it has remained exempt from taxation. If the tax was to be implemented, the payers would be the banking institutions, which could oppose this action regardless of the fact that the rate is so low that it would not have a negative impact on trade.
The main argument against it is that it is an avoidable tax. However, since the 2001 September 11 bombings, markets can not change and adapt like before because now they are very closely monitored.
Claudia Waller, Network and Communications Officer of Stamp Out Poverty says: “Since 9/11 you can’t move around paying such a tax in order to avoid it. The Bank of England is always aware of what is happening, so it is not a valid argument any more.” Consequently, David believes that now is the perfect time for the British government to demonstrate its commitment to provide aid to Third World countries. “From 2002 this is possible mainly thanks to regulation, centralization and the electronic nature of the market,” he says.
Nevertheless, managing the money obtained and making sure that it is invested adequately poses problems, as it could end up in the pockets of those who get their hands on it first. Dr Mark Duckenfield, lecturer of world economy politics at LSE, says that “if the UK government was to receive the money, for how long would it spend it on poor countries? Why not spend it on the British NHS or on the UK transport system? And if it went to an international organisation, could it be relied upon to spend it appropriately?”
There are also growing concerns on whether corrupt governments would get access to the money and use it for illicit purposes, instead of it being destined to fund development programmes. “Would the UK distribute the money to a bunch of governments that have a long record of not using aid efficiently, being corrupt and not having bureaucratic structures in place to handle so much cash?” says Dr Mark Duckenfield.
Those are risks David is willing to take. A formal proposal has been presented to the British government and is under current evaluation. But S.C, who spent 18 months working for Stamp Out Poverty, says: “Stamp Out Poverty is definitely going about it the right way, but I don’t think this will happen in the next couple of years. It is a radical step and Gordon Brown will never do it. England surely, is not going to be the first.”
Norway was the first country to become interested in the proposal. A report written by Stamp Out Poverty and commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was presented in February 2007 in Oslo. But after the acceptance of the Norwegian government to take on the initiative, it was turned it down before it was formalised.
Despite that, Peter Howell, member of the Labour party, who has known David Hillman for many years, says: “You have to keep being optimist. It’s the next big thing after the Make Poverty History Campaign. It’s a great idea carried out by a remarkable man.”
Stamp Out Poverty’s initiative is based on the Tobin Tax proposed 30 years ago by the Economist James Tobin, who suggested a 1% tax on currency transactions, a levy 200 times the one proposed by Stamp Out Poverty. The Tobin tax, which was going to be destined to fight against daily currency trading and speculation, was never approved. Stamp Out Poverty has adapted his idea to stop international poverty.
Obtaining funds to help the poor never had such a realistic and attainable solution. “Let us hope that we can make it all happen”, says David.
A Serpis
Comments
Hide the following comment
opinion
22.02.2008 22:10
And that should be the solution.
The one that is proposed above just aims at taxing in the west a part of the loot to redistribute it to the poorest victims if I have understood correctly the proposal.
Speculation on currencies affects negatively permanently the wealth of any nation to the sole profit of private entities, some of whom are amassing amazing quantities of money this way, which they often reinject partially and usually very visibly in "philantropic" activities and organizations dependant to survive on the input of money from the "philantropists".
"Philantropists" aren't actually benefactors as they claim, first because the way they gather their wealth is immoral as it only impoverishes and increase the quantity of the poorest layers of societies, and second because their philantropic activities invariably serve the furtherance of certain ideological/political/geostrategical objectives defined totally undemocratically by the ultra-minority who redistribute this way a portion of their theft.
So what does the above proposal amount to ?
No more than an institutional equivalent of the philantropists IMO where Britain and other western countries are going to benefit from a new pool of capital that is going be just a bit more of what they already give in foreign aid and that is going to be subjected to the same requirements of complying with certain politically-motivated criterias.
In other words, a new variant of a financial neo-colonial tool IMO.
Maybe it could be argued that it is still good because a bit more of the wealth will be redirected to the third world.
And what about poverty in the UK and the west BTW ?
Felt the 2007 inflation hit affecting primarilly energy and by repercussion all basic survival goods such as foodstuff ?
The more you felt it, the poorest you are.
As far as I am concerned, I haven't benefited at all from an equivalent increase in income to match for the significant loss of purchase power due to inflation I have suffered from last year.
All of it due to the artificial inflation of price of oil thanks to the Iraq war.
In the years 2004-2005, each time an iraqi pipeline was targeted by "insurgents", it resulted in an increase of the price of the barrel of oil on the world markets.
And so we are today with a barell worth more than $100 when it is not scarcer than it was 10 years ago and it's availability has never actually been threatened a single time in that period, unlike happened with the OPEC crisis in the 1970s when the spectre of shortage has been successfully used by certain oil producing countries as to renegociate and obtain prices that were fair.
Today were are in a scenario where the prices did inflate artificially for no other reason than some buzz on the markets. The beneficiaries seem to be the major oil producing companies who exploit oil fields as they have all reported huge and unprecedented profits in the recent years. All the planet suffers hardship from that situation and of course the poorest layers have been thrown everywhere, but notably in the industrial world, into deeper poverty.
It should not be allowed that such a situation can occur where an essential and strategical commodity that is not in short supply in any way can see it price inflate artificially.
The price of the barell of oil should be reinstated to what it is actually worth in terms of cost and not in terms of market buzz.
In addition I believe that the oil companies should be integrally taxed of those extra profits they made in the recent years, that sum should be split equally into the number of single human taxpaying entities (no companies etc...) in the country, and of course distributed for minimal cost by the Inland revenue services who will send a cheque or offer an equivalent tax rebate to those entities.
Well, I believe that this is what should be done immediately not only to tackle poverty but also to help create true democracy.
1) Banning speculation on currencies worldwide.
2) Prices of commodities dependant solely on costs of production and transport.
3) And curtailing worldwide the amount of wealth a single individual can own or control to say $100 Million. Is that too much ?
skunk