Imagine the following situation. I have 1500 income, you have 1100, and our homeless friend 200. We decided to help him by donating 10% of our income. Is this contribution fair?
So I’ll give him 150, you 110, 260 together. I’ll stay in my pocket 1350 and you’ll get 990.
But the necessary expenses, such as rent, for each of us both are 1000.
So after paying the necessary expenses, I will have the amount of 350, and you will run out of money!
We can not agree on a seemingly equal percentage contribution.
All types of contributions are fair if they are equal to the percentage of the disposable amount, ie the amount remaining after the necessary expenses have been paid.
Of course, the amount of premium strongly depends on what amount we consider necessary to spend.
Before the premium I have 500 free and you 100. Together we have a sum of 600. If we want to give homeless 260, it will constitute 43.3% of our common disposable amount. So I should give 43.3% of my amount and you have the same percentage of your disposable amount. I will give the homeless 216,67, and you 43,3. Me will be in my pocket 283,33, and you will be 56,7.
The principle of collecting premiums only from the amount available is applicable to income taxes that are not levied on the “tax-free” amount.
It seems logical that, with international contributions, the necessary amount should safeguard national income per capita equal to global average income. And with the assumption of such a “tax-free” amount, we calculated the capabilities of individual countries to support less developed countries.
“Tax-free” and the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals
In 2015, 35 highly developed OECD countries completed the Millennium Development Goals program. This program has brought about a significant improvement in the living standards of poor societies, but less than expected. Few signatories have fulfilled their commitment to donate 0.7% of their national income to support the underdeveloped countries.
When making a commitment to spend 0.7% of the GNI, no “tax-free” amount was taken into account, ie the sum needed for each country to secure the necessary expenses. As a result, the burden on national budgets was uneven and Mexico and Turkey would have to increase the gap between them and the world average.
0.7% GNI and a percentage of the disposable amount after securing world average national income per capita
|OECD||Countries with GNI per capita greater than average in the world||The percentage of "disposable" national income, as would be deduced to a contribution of 0.7% GNI|
|Antigua and Barbuda||3.7%|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||2.5%|
|Trinidad and Tobago||1.7%|
|United Arab Emirates||0.9%|
|OECD||United States of America||0.9%|