RE:socialist countries taxed to death. Since many comparisons cannot be parsed out of a mixed economy the bald assertion that taxes are higher is enroneous.Note if not provided for by a tax then essential service say electric power is left to profiteers to market,say California power rip-off by Enron. The debt for example that inculdes dams etc.infrastructure improvements etc. is not held privately but listed as a jurisdictional debt,national debt is largeras a result,but gouging is minimized usually. Unfortunately the resource of certain" mantras "based on fallacies will never be depleted. The tax credits given to private fillers and corp. fillers do prod donations,only without this incentive does the largesse dry up. Those who opine the moral higher ground are probably deluded that generosity is observed when the tax benefit is what is being observed. Any how that's my take on it.

Like most academics, Mr Sylvester is full of pompous hooey. The problems are real but his solutions are fatuous.

There's nothing like name-calling as convincing argument, Kurt. When I hear someone use that as an argument, my mind is changed right away. Wow. Pompous hooey! Why didn't I think of that? You are so wise.

Is anyone actually going to address the issues raised in the article itself, or shall we all just indulge in cheap name-calling? (And there's no point responding to a commenter who uses the word "socialist" like that in a posting - it's my experience that people like him just use it as a catch-all term of abuse, and have no idea what it really means.)

Here, I would hope is one reason the tsunami disaster has become the world's largest emergency charity operation. Tourists from wealthy nations were front and centre when the waves hit. Christmas, like August, can be a problem for news fanatics and reporters, thus a live disaster show, unfolding slowly (and far too repetitively), over days, has us glued to the media, begging for refills. Then it begins to become "all those losses", "all that suffering", rather than "how many Canadians, how many Swedes"? Some are wisely cautioning that this embarrassment of assistance could upset funding plans and viability of many future charitable operations around the globe. But what if the outpouring came, ironically, because wealthy countries were force-fed the live telecasts, the terrified survivors, the initial tales of lovers being pulled apart? The suspense as we heard the ominous predictions of woe for the outlying regions cut off from communications. And then the scale of the human tragedy sinking home. Maybe, just maybe, this media immersion in disaster need finally forced its audience to note that survivors, whether tourist or native, look pretty much the same trying to recover from a tsunami. As Cam notes, the timing couldn't be better. Not only were we open to be hit up (by all those "doe-eyed children") after the show, but nations immediately saw the diplomatic value (at home and abroad), of a pile of stringed dollars flashing across the bottom of the world news channels on otherwise slow news days. There are other disasters and far greater disaster needs, no doubt, which strokes the cynic in me on this phenomenal outpouring of help, but for at least a short time I want to hold onto this sense that we've all finally become fellow villagers. And perhaps some young people, grasping this same sense, will begin living it as a reality so that when others call out they won't need a holiday occasion to pay attention.

"Here, I would hope is one reason the tsunami disaster has become the world's largest emergency charity operation. Tourists from wealthy nations were front and centre when the waves hit." writes Allan.

Which draws closest to the truth.

As for the "socialist", whatever that is, rightist ravings of US apologist, Ron Erwin, what utter hooey! No doubt US citizens have larger "disposable incomes", on the surface of it, as did the citizens of ancient Rome, secured in the course of their greater, more militaristic and userous draw upon the world's resources, in absolute and per capita terms. On the other hand, there is no want of numbers of their citizenry forced to sleep their winter nights in doorways and huddled around street exhaust vents either, or women and children in prostitution. And in their bullshit "free market", like their bullshit "democracy", where there are those more free and benefitted by it than others, depending on their birth circumstances and what spoon they were born with in their mouths; silver, pewter or none at all, and cash flow, the average US citizen spends a far greater share of their income on such critical elements as medical care as well, than those of us in so-called "socialist" countries-, if they have or can afford access to it at all. To say nothing of the other "public services" more efficiently provided by the benefit of socialist ideas and programmes-, which put money in "our" pockets in other ways, to say nothing of peace of mind and social harmony. (Which is changing even here, as our ruling class draws back to more "free market" solutions, under pressure of a belligerent and militarily aggressive US Empire.)

The other thing that amuses us, of course, is what passes for "socialism" with these right-wing ravers from the land of the Free To Be Unemployed and Home of The Let's Kick the Ass of Some Poor Backward Countrty and Steal Their Oil and Other Resources.

Give me even "so-called socialism" capitalism any day, over what these Free Market loonies from the US Empire In Decline, and getting their asses kicked (again) in Iraq, have to offer. (Every once in awhile, like in Vietnam and Iraq, the US Empire In Decline miscalculates its bullying, and one of these poor countries with a nonetheless "proud" and "determined" citizenry, up and kick their Yankee asses. And a treat for us all it is to see.)

Rome II is coming down.

Put up more for Tsunami relief Yankee bullshitters, or STFU.

Even then, the US only started to get up off the couch on Tsunami relief when someone in the CIA pointed out to them, that very many of the people in these parts of the world are Muslim and much influenced by the successes of Al Quaeda. And that if they were going to undercut and discredit this influence, in this part of the world, there was only a brief window of opportunity to do so-, which did create a certain sense of panic there, in the land of the Bullshit Free. Which thankfully, for whatever reason, has worked to the benefit of these poor victims of this natural disaster.

Again, one thing that stands out about this champion of "free markets" is, that whatever charity they offer, it is greater when there is also something in it for them.

On the other hand Paul Martin's Canada only stepped up to the plate when his mentor, George Bush's USA finally started to show some "quantitative compassion", reminding me much of that old RCA Victor logo of the dog in front of the old grammaphone speaker, listening to "His Master's Voice".

Certain elements in our ruling class, and our own Conservative and Liberal rightists, do a lot of that.

OK, I’ll take some time to explain why Mr Sylvester fails to convince me.

The short answer is that people can’t eat dogma, and words are useless when it comes to dressing infected injuries.

Mr Sylvester takes to the bully pulpit and tells us that systemic change, to an idealistic new world order, will lead to social justice and erase the need for charity. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on attacking the Yanks, to bolster his argument, such as it is (even though his figures show that the US donations in terms of per capita GDP place them third, well ahead of 11th place Canada). Finally, charity, in his mind, constitutes “compassionate conservatism,” and its practitioners deserve a swirlie or snow face wash.

To start with, I honestly don’t care who American actor Sandra Bullock (who donated $1 million to the Red Cross for tsunami relief) voted for in the past US election, or for that matter, whether she refused to vote for either of the murderous and thieving thugs on the ballot. I sincerely doubt whether any of the aid recipients care either as to whether Ms Bullock is a conservative, communist, radical, liberal, heretic, thespian, or whatever.

And while I stopped believing in God a long time ago and spurn all proselytizers, if youths decide to sacrifice their allowances and donate the money to a faith-based NGO for aid and relief, I would not discourage them. I’d shake their hands and respect their charity of choice.

The same philosophy applies to Mr Sylvester, whom I presume does make donations to the relief organization of his choice. Bully for him, I’d say, and he’s just as entitled to his fancies and opinions as the aforementioned -- and I’m just as entitled to think he’s just as daft as anyone else.

As Neitzsche predicted, religion has fallen from wide favour and people have placed their faith in nation-states -- and found them just as lacking, and just as filled with corruption and incompetence. Because humans place a greater value on “safety” than intrinsic human values such as freedom, we allow thieves and thugs to rule over us and run roughshod over other nation-states which happen to not be popular for some reason or other.

The League of Nations and the United Nations were supposed to be the answer to this dilemma, but they’ve proved just as corrupt and incompetent as any nation-state. The UN failed to intervene in the Rwandan genocide (it was NATO soldiers that finally stepped in and stopped the Yugoslavian wars) and we recently learned that the UN’s Oil for Food program in Iraq not only diverted billions of dollars to Saddam and his cronies, but the money trail also leads to the upper echelons of the UN, including Kofi Annan’s family.

So, where is the evidence of an emerging new order of social justice, as Mr Sylvester described? It’s not going to happen. Nietzsche’s dark abyss yawns before us, and while idealists expound on their pet theories, real people are starving and dying.

I’m going to sign off now because I promised to help my wife organize a fundraiser for the destitute who are suffering miseries we can’t imagine in Darfur. Readers are entitled to think poorly of me and my opinions, and threaten me with a snow face wash, but I don’t know what else I can do.

Impressive response, Kurt. Much nicer than your curt initial post. Tell us where we can find a nice Nietzsche nihilist community or we will stick with going to church.

Same as Sue Clark, to Kurt-, except I still won't bother wasting my time going to church. :-) Even most of us non-believers understand, that only the more well to do and over "formally" educated can afford nihilism. The rest of us live it too much and too closely, to be fascinated by the fashionably profound cynicism that makes it so attractive to you people, Kurt.

You folks have more "wiggle" room, in the comfort of your philosophical drawing room or library, . The rest of us out on the more open and exposed ocean, find clinging to hope, like a piece of flotsam left over from a shipwreck or tsunami, a more immediately practical thing to do.

Assuage yourself, and convince us of your essential goodness, by helping your wife do "good works", by all means. We commoners are easily impressed.

The way I read this article, charity is being blamed for only being charity, not the correction to the flaws of the money system and the nation-state. Instead, we should wait until there is true internationalism and responsibility. (Crickets chirping.)

Charity is not a solution to the world's problems such as starvation, , environmental poisoning, human suffering and bondage. Charity is capricious. Charity neglects to understand and incorporate that the world belongs to us all and not just the biggest baboon. The word Justice, in included in the phrase social justice for a reason.

Similarly, so is "pompous" in "pompous ass"

The following chart provides some useful exercise in thought on these matters: http://romeda.org/index.php?p=39 The debate rages -- great! It's good to see some critical, discussable journalism on the subject of internationalism.

lisa, I retract a comment made in disbelief. I don't believe you are criticizing the principle of gifting as much you are articulating a need for sustained attention, e.g. through a steady (tax-funded) source. So we are not in fundamental disagreement. Up with social justice.

While Mr. Sylvester indulges in some of the excesses too common in the pundit's game, he has identified a larger issue that should not be confused with the existence of God, the hubris of the American empire or the peculiar competition between nations to "outperform" each other. The issue is defining the line between the typically volatile market response to a catastrophe and the more structured collective response in the form of foreign aid programs. He has correctly noted that the market model has been favoured by the press coverage, which further pushed the patter of colour commentators in reporting on the promises of various countries, as though it were a sporting event. The preferences of the press may be based in political views and/or easy news angle. It should be noted that charitable contributions are tax expenditures, where the allocation decisions are made by individuals. Charities are unique in this respect. To what degree should which we rely on individuals, in response to appeals, appropriate dollars which are destined to priorities set by our collectively defined authorities? Mr. Sylvester refers to the 0.7% of GDP targets for governement sponsored overseas assistance programs. Is this the right target? Should market campaigns provide supplementary funding when exceptional events occur? This is the nub of the public policy choice.

Rather than whining about what was done or not done in the past, why not celebrate the fact that this time for once both individuals, countries, religious organisations and other charities all rallied to the cause of helping these countries. It was public opinion and global media coverage that focussed attention on the plight of people and these were countries for the most part countries that were not third world but part of the devloping world and thus pouring money in has a chance of actually helping them more quickly recover from this disaster.

I think it is pathetic to see large named athletes and celeb's going public with thier "donations". In my mind they are just using the press to get exposure for tax deduction purposes.

Actually, people in the US have not given more money in private donations for tsunami relief than other countries, at least according to wire service figures: TotalUS$ Population Per capita Germany

Ron Erwin's comment that Americans have more money to give to the relief efforts because of the generosity of the American tax structure is definitely taking the narrowest possible view. The U.S. has more poor people as a percentage of its population than any other western industrial country. The U.S. does the least of all western countries to provide support for its poor. Even when support is offered it is often in the form of tax breaks that only kick in after an individual has a earned enough money to be taxed, an option not available to the poorest. The same tax system that puts money in the pockets of Americans who have money submits other American families to virtual starvation and/or go without shelter and health care. Here in Ontario we have been heading down a similar road for at least a decade. Sam Sylvester's article could just as readily applied to any state in the Union, or to any Canadian province for that matter. Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Those who argue that the state does a more equitable and less capricious job of distributing the wealth than charity does should bear in mind that that only is true when the taxpayers agree with the state’s choice of spending priorities.

For example, there’s a woman in my community who writes letters to the newspapers every year about tax time, to explain that she does not agree with taxpayer support of the Canadian military. She explains how she legally withholds that portion of her payable income tax and deposits this sum in a trust while the matter is wrestled before the courts, and she encourages others to follow her example.

I don’t happen to agree with her position although I respect her right to exercise those particular tax laws in relation to a moral issue she feels strongly about (I’d feel differently if it were the US military, but more on that later), although there are other aspects of the government from which I’d like to withhold my funds. However, I can’t afford the time and expense of attending court or having lawyers and accountants pursue it on my behalf, so I duly render unto Caesar. And I suspect the amount she withholds is so small that the government is content to wait until they can exact it from her estate, which we can be sure they will, with interest added.

Keep in mind that the government did away with debtors’ prisons a long time ago and it’s virtually impossible to enforce a court ordered payment of a civil debt, should the debtor choose to be an SOB and not pay his/her bills. However, taxpayers who refuse to pay the government will soon find themselves hit with fines and penalties, put out on the street, their funds garnisheed, and very likely, they will be imprisoned for tax fraud or evasion (that’s how they finally nailed Al Capone, and he died in prison).

There are very few avenues available to those who wish to protest the government’s spending decisions, so perhaps in that light, the ordinary Americans have much more power to shape official policy than we do, thanks to their generous tax laws regarding charities?

Therefore, rather than it being an income tax dodge disguised in a self-aggrandizing, ostentatious display of moral principles when US celebrities announce their large donations to tsunami victims charities, maybe what they’re really saying is that they can’t bear to turn that money over in the form of taxes to help fund an obscene and grotesque war in Iraq, and would rather give it away to the destitute or needy? And that they’d like it if a large number of average Americans followed their example?

Of course, that’s hopelessly naive and will never happen, as a large number of Americans believe they are fighting a moral war in Iraq. And that’s why it’s naive to believe that states are capable of a more equitable and less capricious job of distributing the wealth than charity.

I had a great bely laugh while reading the comments. Keep going gals/guys... I need the humour or castor oil... Charity starts at home, we have many "tsunami" like victims here in Canda because of the enforced poverty that many of us are facing.... 6 bucks a hour sucks and 10 bucks a hour is not much different. Democracy is a pile of pooheey.

I think the message below is an appropriate one to share in this thread, especially given the context of the article above. It comes from an email I received earlier today. (It's unedited). p.s. I do sympathize with those affected by this unprecedented disaster. ---------------------------

(NOTE: Please feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested.).

Friends,

Since I am in Southeast Asia at the moment a lot of people have been asking me about the tsunami and also support for aid efforts there. I am not in the area where the tsunami hit, in fact I am in landlocked Laos at the moment. But I have been talking to a lot of people who are involved in or observing the aid effort.

I would caution anyone thinking of providing further monetary assistance to these relief efforts. The well-known agencies are already drowning in funds. They may not say so but this is basically the case. Much more than they can rationally use. In Aceh it is total chaos with, I think, more than a hundred groups all trying to set up programs, fight for turf, and spend money. There is little coordination among many of these groups. There are already more medicines than they can possibly use but everyday more planeloads are arriving. When you give, say, $100 to a large mainstream US based relief agency this is considered "unrestricted" funds. Most or even all of your contribution can be used for management, administration, or fundraising costs in the US rather than for direct aid to local beneficiaries. Even when you designate your contribution for a specific cause, like the tsunami, many agencies will take a quarter or more of your contribution off the top for their well-paid (quite possibly more well paid than you!) staff and related expenses in the US. They do this as a percentage of their overall costs so there is also a pressure to move funds and spend as much as they can in order to justify higher costs in the US. The tsunami has become a huge bonanza for some of these groups, they literally don't know what to do with the money. Not all groups operate like that by any means but you do need to be careful about who you give your money to.

While the tsunami was certainly a compelling and dramatic event, it needs to be put into perspective. Everyday around the globe thousands of people are sick and hungry and die because of preventable reasons. What is really needed is continued support for local groups and movements that are committed to peace, social justice, and ecological restoration and are trying to work on these long-term issues. If you are really interested in helping the tsunami victims I would suggest that you consider providing your support to some lesser known groups that are doing long-term work.

One I can recommend is the Mangrove Action Project (MAP) which is affiliated with the US based Earth Island Institute. MAP is working to protect and restore coastal mangrove forests in Southeast Asia. Mangroves provide important livelihood benefits to local communities but these once-extensive coastal forests have been increasingly uprooted for development projects, tourist resorts, and shrimp farms mainly benefiting outside interests. Mangroves also provide significant protection against the type of devastation that occurred with the tsunami. One these mangroves are gone, coastal communities are much more exposed and vulnerable. MAP is working with local communities to restore mangroves. They get by on very little money, work closely with local groups in Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia, and are doing good work. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal had a December 31st article about how the loss of mangroves has contributed to the tsunami impact. MAP's efforts are the type of long-term work that is needed and I believe that support for this kind of thing is much more effective than is that for short term relief work. MAP could use your support. You can find out more about them on their website: http://www.earthisland .org/map/map.html.

I also do hear of other efforts here in the region I work in (Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia) that are particularly worthy and I am happy to provide more info on some of these groups to anyone interested. I also urge you not to forget your own local groups, particularly alternative community media efforts, that are working in the US in order to better provide Americans with access to non-corporate controlled news and information. For more information on those efforts check out the website www.democracynow.org.

All the best, Bruce

Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss

-----------------------

The writer of the above message isn't aware it's been posted here, nor am I able or willing to contact him. Instead, I've taken his encouragement to share it with anyone interested.

Great article, thanks Cam Sylvester and Tyee

I will not comment on the article specifically but instead say, wow: I am so impressed that the Tyee allows for such dialogue. This is really something. Everyone has something to say and through this is given an outlet by which they can share with others their opinions and also rethink some of their own. People shaping people. i love it!