Opinion: Eric Trump are right, under the Trump Administration, the US is becoming a “Third World State”!

“It’s really sad that we’re in an environment where tax returns are leaked by whoever it may be” (…) “Just think about it. Think about how dangerous that is, how third world that is on a practice that happened. When personal information is put out by people for political agendas. As a civilian, it’s actually scary” – Eric Trump on Fox News (Tani, 2017).

It is just one of these days where the sons of President Donald Trump speaks their mind and hits the nail. The nail is in the coffin, with the knowledge of the plans to make the republic less attractive, less business-friendly, more lassiez-faire and more focused on army than on progressive financial instruments and regulation to create growth. Trump Administration is busy with deporting millions, building a wall and starting trade-wars. The U.S. Government does not need to be transparent or accountable while doing so. Especially, not in the minds of one of his sons. That claims something unique and special. I have claimed in the near past that under President Trump, the U.S. Government could turn the Republic into a Banana Republic, a sort of style government that could be described by others as a third world one. Therefore, let the dictionary explain that!

Eric Trump needs a definition of the Third World:

“1: a group of nations especially in Africa and Asia not aligned with either the Communist or the non-Communist blocs” (…) “2: an aggregate of minority groups within a larger predominant culture” (…) “3: the aggregate of the underdeveloped nations of the world” (Merriam-Webster).

So the United States can itself soon be fitted, not that it is an Asian or African nation, neither Communist, but still it is getting underdeveloped by the way the financial framework and industry is set-up under the Trump Administration. Where the Industry and Financial industry has the Administration by the balls and no eager of taking care of nature or the resources, except for eating the profits without giving anything back to the Republic. Just like the Oil Industry in Nigeria or in Ghana. The same as the mining and mineral industry in the Democratic Republic of Congo. So the United States under President Trump, will be similar. Eric Trump is not so far off, just not the way he thought he would be.

Another man’s vision:

“This brings about complete dysfunction. It makes everything — economy, politics, roads, bridges, police, school — broken and shitty. Those who can leave do. Making it worse. This leads to more extremism, and more corruption, and more cynicism. And sometimes extreme violence. Because the other side becomes evil” (…) “The US has been shifting towards all four of these over the last 30 years, with inequality leading the way. We are more divided, economically and socially, then we have ever been (we are less divided racially. But only marginally so.)” (Arnade, 2016).

So when you have a system on the brink of collapse, a wealthy elite eating of the government plate and settling score to not pay their bills to the public, while the citizens and middle-class cannot build a steady life or afforded needed services, you know there are something wrong with the system and the state. That makes the Eric Trump words so right, that United States is becoming more like a third world country, with a sophisticated army, but cannot afford health care, schools or infrastructure. Just like the countries President Trump doesn’t want to affiliate with or been seen with. Since him and his advisor Bannon are supposed to be superior, and like a dictator in a Third World country, he believes he is always right and isn’t wrong.

So one smudge of evidence of his fathers Tax Returns from 2005 leaked to MSNBC Rachel Maddow, proves the realization of the state, that the Trump Administration would dislike. As they are not capping the debt, neither taking into account their ideas of taxation and tax-releases, as much as their will to deregularte industry and financial institutions. Therefore, leading the space of more expenses and negative environmental policies, that damage earth and only gains profit for a slim elite. Just like a Third World Country.

This is degrading for the United States, but the harsh truth, the ideas and policies in the making, the killing of health insurance, the idea of building the giant nuclear silos, while not paying for food for the starving. Proves that the U.S. Government are no closer to countries it does not want to be affiliated with, but still can be consider to be assimilated with. President Trump and his administration is clearly not wishing to be differing from chauvinistically taking charge and not caring what effect it has. Clearly, it is only his image that matter, just like any big-man and authoritarian leader.

So, soon we can say that the United States is underdeveloped and need aid, as their waters are daft, the industry is lacking technology, the roads are more potholes than tarmac, the bridges are weak, their railways not working and often not trusted. The United States has soon more expensive foreign imported goods, than what they produce and is losing money on their export of cash crops as soya and other grain. Therefore, President Trump leading his Republic to become underdeveloped or become a Third World Country.

Reference:

Arnade, Chris – ‘USA: A Third World Country in the making’ (05.10.2016) link: https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534#.ah2gi0loi

Tani, Maxwell – ‘Eric Trump blasts Trump’s tax return leak on Maddow: ‘Think about how dangerous…how third world that is’ (19.03.2017) link: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-tax-return-leak-maddow-third-world-2017-3?

Merriam-Webster – ‘third world’ link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third%20world

FYI: President Trump will create a Banana Republic out of the US!

Well, ladies and gentleman the super-power called the United States of America, is a dying dinosaur that Michael Moore or even Jay-Z doesn’t have the power to change. Today was a shock for many, even for me as the American Electorate decided to elect a Demagogue of ill-rhetoric towards certain ethnic groups like the Latin-American, Women and so-on. Donald Trump in his power and commander-in-chief will remarkably create havoc.

All of this is well known, but what the United States’ citizens didn’t think about when they voted against the establishment on protest against the D.C. power-structure they voted for a man with certain traits that can put certain pieces of the Government into shambles. So before I start; for those of you who don’t know, here is the definition of a banana republic!

“It was coined in a 1904 book of fiction by O. Henry, an American writer. Henry (whose real name was William Sydney Porter) was on the run from Texan authorities, who had charged him with embezzlement” (…) “His phrase neatly conjures up the image of a tropical, agrarian country. But its real meaning is sharper: it refers to the fruit companies from the United States that came to exert extraordinary influence over the politics of Honduras and its neighbours. By the end of the 19th century, Americans had grown sick of trying to grow fruit in their own chilly country. It was sweeter and cheaper by far to import it instead from the warmer climes of Central America, where bananas and other fruit grow quickly. Giants such as the United Fruit Company—an ancestor of Chiquita—moved in and built roads, ports and railways in return for land. In 1911 the Cuyamel Fruit Company, another American firm (which was later bought by United), supplied the weapons for a coup against the government of Honduras, and prospered under the newly installed president. In 1954 America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed a coup against the government of Guatemala, which had threatened the interests of United. (Historians still debate whether the CIA’s motive was to protect United or, as many now believe, to nip Communism in the bud.) Hence the real meaning of a “banana republic”: a country in which foreign enterprises push the government around” (The Economist, 2013).

Why do I believe this, it’s because of all his sort-of promises over the months. There is all kind of activities that proves the clear indications of a Banana Republic on the rise. The Americans might think otherwise, that is because there are blind on how the state really is.

“The United States recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 104.17 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product in 2015. Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 61.94 percent from 1940 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 121.70 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1974. Government Debt to GDP in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt” (Trading Economics).

So the average debt level or ratio is staggering already. This is not tackled because the creditors accept the debt levels are raising, just as seen with the numbers from Trading Economics are showing during 30 years the percentage has gone up over 70 %, which should be frightening to any economy. When you have that level of debt, you should be able to have a heavy tax-base to collect and pay the debt.

Taxing under Trump:

“US taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2012, US taxes at all levels of government represented 24 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 34 percent of GDP for the 34 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)” (…) “The United States collects relatively less revenue dedicated to retirement, disability, and other social security programs—22 percent of total tax revenue—than the 26 percent OECD average” (…) “Property taxes provided more than twice as large a share of US tax revenue—12 percent in 2012—than the OECD average of 5 percent. Almost all revenue from taxes on property in the United States is collected by state and local governments” (…) “The United States relies less on taxes on goods and services (including both general consumption taxes and taxes on specific goods and services) than any other OECD country, collecting 18 percent of tax revenue this way compared with 33 percent for the OECD. The value-added tax (VAT)—a type of general consumption tax collected in stages—is the main source of consumption tax revenue, employed worldwide in 160 countries including all 34 OECD member countries except the United States. Most consumption tax revenue in the United States is collected by state and local governments” (Hoo & Toder, 2006).

So when the Federal and Republic itself has such a giant debt ratio, the taxes should be high and should be to the levels of actually having the ability to pay it back. As they do not even have VAT on goods that is very normal world-wide, but apparently isn’t a thing in the United States. This proves the mismanagement of potential tax-base that the Government need to succeed to pay their debt. This is before the Election yesterday.

This is the taxes planned under Trump: “According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision” (…) “After accounting for the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenues by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion after accounting for the larger economy, depending on the nature of a key policy provision” (…) “On a static basis, the Trump tax plan would increase the after-tax incomes of taxpayers in every income group. The bottom 80 percent of taxpayers (those in the bottom four quintiles) would see an increase in after-tax income between 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent, under both policy assumptions.  Taxpayers in the top quintile would see a 4.4 percent increase in after-tax income under the higher-rate assumption, or 8.7 percent under the lower-rate assumption. Those in the top decile would see a 5.4 percent increase in after-tax income under the higher-rate assumption, or 9.3 percent under the lower-rate assumption. Finally, taxpayers in the top 1 percent would see the largest increase in after-tax income on a static basis, driven by both the lower top marginal tax rate and the lower corporate income tax. Under the higher-rate assumption this increase would be 10.2 percent, and under the lower-rate assumption this increase would be 16.0 percent” (Cole, 2016).

So when the government are axing it income, while the economy running on a deficit your making no-sense. Your continue to spend on deficit while cutting taxes; the taxed ones are the ones who voted for Trump, the bottom 80% will get higher taxes, while corporations and 1% riches will get less. So the richer will get richer. A real proof of a Banana Republic where the solidarity towards the ones who needs so. They who voted for him is the ones that will pay on his tax-plan, which is ironic.

This is on the direct economic sense, now on health care. Here he proves again he will hurt the ones who voted for him, the poor and what is left of the working-class:

“The policies would cause almost 21 million people to lose their insurance coverage, as the replacement health care policies would only cover 5 percent of the 22 million individuals who would lose coverage upon the repeal of Obamacare. This would almost double the number of Americans without health insurance” (…) “The largest component of this estimate comes from the “repeal.” The campaign website proposes to “completely repeal Obamacare,” which we assume to mean repealing the Affordable Care Act’s regulations, subsidies, Medicaid expansion, Medicare savings, and tax increases. Although repealing the coverage provisions would save about $1.1 trillion, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates (adjusted for recent legislation and changes in the budget window), repealing the legislation’s tax increases and Medicare cuts would cost a combined $1.6 trillion. In total, this means repeal would cost $480 billion – or $260 billion including the economic benefits of repeal” (Committee for a responsible Federal Budget, 2016).

So the Trump Administration are planning to hurt their own, the ones that has gotten through the Obamacare gotten some sorts of subsidized medical insurance, something he wants to repeal and will even make sure to cost the state more. So the educated minds will know that people has to carry insurance on their own while the state pays more to abolish the Obamacare. The 21 million individuals will regret questioning the medical treatment through Obamacare, as the Federal State will add more money. So the people are getting higher tax for the same 80% who losing their health insurance. Do the American citizens prefer punishing themselves?

As with the true implications of NAFTA:

“Customs duties reductions led to increases in trade with the other two countries of 11% in Canada, 41% in the United States, and 118% in Mexico, for the period between 1993 and 2011.5 In terms of value, American trade with Canada and Mexico increased from US$481 billion in 1993 to US$1.1 trillion in 2015. While Donald Trump claims that Americans “don’t make anything anymore,” implying that NAFTA is to blame, the American manufacturing sector has increased production by 58% since the deal came into effect” (Bedard, 2016).

So the results of NAFTA are apparently different in reality than what comes across when coming to Trump, so the reality hasn’t mattered. He wants to dissolve or change the rules and regulations, this will make it harder to export and import products between Canada and Mexico into the United States. The United States need free-movement of products and industrial products to be able to have the Corporate Capitalism that drives the USA.

So with lower taxes in general, a higher cost of health-care without concern for the 21 million without health insurance. They now are getting more problems with exporting and importing the needed products and raw-material has been possible and even at longest part of the NAFTA agreement has been positive to the US. So the regulation and cooperation with neighbours will be harder because of barriers that will be created with abolishing the NAFTA.

This is still all economic implications… then you have the gun-control, the war-lord aspects and the other social policies mixed with the economic aspect that turns the ones giant and great nation into tatters, if the President Donald Trump gets to do as he pleases without questions.

We should consider it with the implication on the policies and the foreign affairs. The US Government would lose with their plans on playing hardball with NATO and others. With the Muslims ban and deportation, also the Latin-American population that has been singled out; these groups can hurt the economy and also the basic workforce who does the needed services needed in society. That these will be sent out because of their ethnicity and faith will also prove that the United States isn’t the leaders of free-world, but another tyranny under President Trump. The fear and loathing of the Republican President Trump! That will do like the Americans did during Second World-War when Japanese for being so we’re detained into camps, or if he pleases send them packing.

This racial laws and deportations will hurt the economy and make sure the state becomes a Banana Republic; What is special is that the United States will have a free-flow of guns, ammunition, but will make it harder to import goods and also export goods with worse deals, have lesser taxes, still high debt yield and add expenses on health-care while the citizens has to cover themselves. This while the US President hasn’t a plan to help lower-classes as the minimum-pay or salaries increase for the 80% who still get added tax, also pay more for health care. The US Electorate got all reasons for feeling foolish if they even read this.

Bananas and Banana Company we’re President William Howard Taft did what he could to save the companies. Now the new President might try to replicate this, but he forgets the needed international community and production as the needed bolts, tools and manufacturing are inter-connected. That is something that the modern day President Trump needs.

Side Note – International Partnerships:     

So if he builds walls, gets into whiny bitch mode and becomes a fully-blown attack paranoid mode, than the international partners will not accept being constantly bullied. I am sure that Philippines C-I-C President Rodigro Duterte will be tossed around for another power or human being. Neither will Russian President Vladimir Putin and even German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not accept it. So the price of him being brash and irresponsible thin-skinned versus the ones that questions his actions or words, isn’t really suitable with the trading partners and allies that the U.S. still needs. The US doesn’t live in a vacuum and not the only one with a giant defence and has much money to spend like on AGOA and others.

So congratulation on becoming a Banana-Republic, ready to become muffled with after playing king-pin… for decades; as your economic prospects under the Trump Administration and regime doesn’t look healthy. Peace.

Reference:

Bedard, Mathieu – ‘NAFTA: DONALD TRUMP’S CRITICISMS ARE UNFOUNDED’ (07.2016) link: http://www.iedm.org/files/lepoint1016_en.pdf

Committee for a responsible Federal Budget – ‘Analysis of Donald Trump’s Health Care Plan’ (09.05.2016) link: http://crfb.org/blogs/analysis-donald-trumps-health-care-plan

Cole, Alan – ‘Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016’ (19.09.2016) link: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016

Hoo, Sonya & Toder, Eric – ‘The U.S. Tax Burden Is Low Relative to Other OECD Countries’ (08.05. 2006) link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/us-tax-burden-low-relative-other-oecd-countries

The Economist – ‘Where did banana republics get their name?’ (21.11.2013) link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/11/economist-explains-16

Trading Economics – ‘United States Government Debt to GDP  1940-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar’ link: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

Siste Stortingsmelding viser salg av forsvarsmateriell til regimer den Norske stat ikke vil direkte assosieres med!

“Det er riktig at Norge ikke deltok i selve invasjonen. Bondevik skal ha takk for at han klarte, med god hjelp fra fredsbevegelsen og den norske kirken, å stå i mot presset fra Høyre om å slutte seg til USAs og Storbritannias angrep. Men den ubehagelige sannheten er likevel at norske våpen, norske soldater, norske politikere og norsk næringsliv både direkte og indirekte støttet Irak-krigen” (Borgen, 2016).

Igjen skriver jeg om hva freds-nasjonen Norge bedriver. Vi snakker fred og selger ammunisjon. Vi selger våpen og høyt teknisk utstyr, selv med strenge lover og reguleringer blir likevel militært forsvarmateriell til land som bryter med menneskerettigheter og de verdier som Norge står for. Dette skjer selv om forsvarlige salget skjer til våres allierte i NATO og OECD. Disse kjøper største-delen av materiellet og våpnene. Resterende ender til land som kan stilles spørsmål til. Denne informasjon kom ut og gitt til Stortinget fra Utenriksdepartementet den 10 Juni 2016. Så dette er ikke gammelt nytt, men bør sperre øynene ettersom dette er noe vi gjør for å gjøre verden mindre fredelig.

Totale våpen-eksporten:

“Den samlede verdien av eksporten i 2015 var i underkant av 4,2 milliarder kroner, hvorav drøyt 3 milliarder utgjorde salg av militære varer. Av dette utgjorde eksporten av A-materiell om lag 2,8 milliarder og B-materiell ca. 300 millioner kroner. Eksporten av A-materiell økte med 21 % og eksporten av B-materiell falt med 53 % i 2015” (…) “Den samlede verdien av eksporten i 2014 var ca. 3,6 milliarder, og i 2013 beløp den seg til i underkant av 4,3 milliarder kroner. I forhold til i 2014, økte verdien av den totale eksporten med 15 % i 2015. Eksporten av A- og B-materiell økte med til sammen 4 %” (Meld.St. 36, S: 8, 2016).

Norge solgte våpen og forsvarmateriell til Forente Arabisk Emirater både ‘elektronisk utstyr’ totalt: 2287 tonn, ‘billed/videoutstyr’ totalt: 508 tonn. også ‘Ammunisjon tilhørende deler og komponenter samt tilhørende deler og komponenter’ totale 23475 tonn .

I det samme året solgte vi fra Norge til Malaysia både våpen og forsvarmateriell. ‘Glattboret våpen med kaliber 20 mm eller mindre, våpen med kaliber 12,7 mm og lavere samt tilhørende komponenter’ 5280 tonn og ‘Ildledningsutstyr og tilhørende systemer og komponenter’ 58 tonn.

Et annet land som ble solgt til var Oman og dette var ‘Bomber, torpedoer, raketter, missiler og eksplosiver samt tilhørende komponenter’ 10015 tonn.

Det var militære-oppdrag gjort i Norge for oppdrags-land ved å reparere våpen og forsvarmateriell. Det ble reparert materiell fra land som Forente Arabiske Emirater, Jordan, Malaysia og Sør Korea. Det ble levert levert kommunikasjonmateriell for militært bruk til Algerie, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia og Thailand.

Disse landene fikk etterforsyning av forsvarmateriell i år fra Norge: Afganistan, Belize, Israel, Irak, Kuwait, Mali og Sør Sudan.

Noe som er spesielt i rapporten og stusser over at Libya står i tabell 9.2. i Stortingsmeldingen, men har intet direkte eksport til, så hvorfor lagt inn ett mottakerland av forsvarmateriell, men ingen offisielle tall. Dette virker suspekt, resterende land har fått materiell i løpet av tidsperioden 2012 til 2015.

Disse tallene og nasjonene som blir solgt til viser til hvordan ståa er med ‘freds-nasjonen’ Norge. Allerede 1. Mars 2013 skrev jeg en blogg om våpen-regulering og salg. Der man skulle forandre lovene for å gjøre det vanskeligere å videreselge til visse former for problematiske nasjoner og land der en bryter med internasjonale lover og regler; slik som menneskerettigheter og konvensjoner for ‘rettferdig krig’. Dette gjør at lovteksten og skjønnet blir plausibelt. Noen nyanser jeg kritiserte i 2013 og likeså kan idag. Ettersom å selge våpen til Libya, Sør Sudan, Mali, Irak, Belize og Afganistan burde sees på som tvilsomme salg ettersom konflikt og brudd burde eksistere. Dette er noe en freds-nasjon ikke skulle støtte. Selv om Norsk tropper har tidligere vært til stede eller gjort oppdrag som en del Nato i flere nasjoner, der man stille spørsmål om deres oppdrag var rett eller feil. Kan en likevel still spørsmål til fortsettelsen av å selge våpen og forsvarmateriell til konfliktområder ettersom da profitten i Norge er viktigere enn menneskeliv. Peace.

Referense:

Borgen, Erling – ‘Det norske hykleriet om Irak-krigen’ (08.06.2016) link: http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/det-norske-hykleriet-om-irak-krigen/60312259

Stortinget – Meld. St.36 (2015-2016) ‘Eksport av forsvarsmateriell fra Norge i 2015, eksportkontroll og internasjonalt ikke-spredningssamarbeid’ (10.06.2016)

Press Release: Kenya must review Double Tax Agreement with Mauritius (02.11.2015)

(Nairobi, November 2, 2015) – Kenya is teetering on the brink of financial meltdown with the implosion of at least two private commercial banks in the last few months and signing of loophole-ridden double taxation agreements with tax havens Mauritius, United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Tax havens are countries or states that position themselves as low tax jurisdictions allowing companies and rich individuals to hide their wealth without paying appropriate taxes where they actually make their profits or wealth. Tax Justice Network-Africa (TJN-A) in October 2014 sued the Government of Kenya (specifically the Cabinet Secretary to the Treasury, Kenya Revenue Authority and the Attorney-General) challenging the constitutionality of the Kenya/Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement signed in Port Louis, Mauritius on May 11, 2012 and as contained in Legal Notice 59 published in the Kenya Gazette of May 23, 2014.

The Agreement significantly undermines Kenya’s ability to raise domestic revenue to underpin the country’s development by opening up loopholes for multinational companies operating in the country and super- rich individuals to shift profits abroad through Mauritius to avoid paying appropriate taxes. For example, provisions under Article 11 of the Agreement relating to interest limit Kenya’s withholding tax to 10 per cent whereas the Kenyan domestic rate currently stands at 15 per cent. This will significantly affect the tax base of the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). The Agreement also sharply contravenes Articles 10 and 201 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the principles of good governance, sustainability and accountability. The Agreement is open to abuse and this could endanger the growth and development of Kenya.

Three main reliefs sought by TJN-A are: that the High Court declares the government’s failure or neglect to subject the Kenya-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement to ratification in line with the Treaty Making and Ratification Act 2012 as a contravention of Articles 10 (a), (c) and (d) and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya.

That the Court directs the Cabinet Secretary for Treasury to immediately withdraw Legal Notice 59 of 2014 and commence the process of ratification in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act 2012.  And award cost of the petition with interest against the Government of Kenya. The case came up for mention at the Nairobi High Court today, November 2, 2015. The court will fix a date for hearing the case on November 9, 2015. Speaking at a press briefing earlier today, the Executive Director of TJN-A, Alvin Mosioma said “there is need for public participation in the process of ratification of double tax agreements…double tax agreements kill the competitive edge of local firms”. 2 Senator Hassan Omar of Mombasa County who also addressed the press said Kenya’s “Parliament needs to appreciate its responsibility in safeguarding the public’s interests,” adding that “the reason people steal is because there is complicity and people are aware of it”. Provisions under Article 12 of the Agreement which relates to royalties also restrict at- source withholding tax to half (10 per cent) of Kenya domestic rate of 20 per cent. This will significantly weaken Kenya’s ability to raise revenue to finance its development. Additionally provisions under Article 20 of the Agreement reserves all taxation of “other income” not dealt with in specific Articles to the residence state.

This effectively reduces withholding tax to zero per cent on services, management fees, insurance commissions among others, whereas Kenyan domestic withholding tax rate currently stands at 20 per cent. This is a major gap that will lead to massive revenue leakages. The Agreement is neither United Nations nor OECD compliant and it also fails to address the issue of disposal of shares in companies. The Agreement effectively reserves under Article 13.4 all taxation of capital gains from selling shares in companies to Mauritius where the effective Capital Gains Tax is zero per cent. Under the Agreement foreign investors in Kenya can acquire Kenyan companies through Mauritius holding companies and Kenya cannot tax any of the gains when they sell these businesses again. This is open to abuse. Similarly, domestic Kenyan investors can dodge Kenyan taxes by round-tripping their investments illicitly through Mauritian shell companies. Kenyan companies can also easily avoid Kenyan taxes in dividends paid to foreign investors through devices like share buy-backs therefore deny the government of development funds.

The provision is very similar to the Capital Gains Tax Article in the India-Mauritius treaty which has proved very controversial costing India an estimated US$600 million a year in revenues as a result of tax avoidance and illicit round-tripping by Indian business executives driving the Government of India to initiate steps to renegotiate its agreement with Mauritius. Under the definition of ‘bilateral treaty’ in Section 2 of the Treaty Making and Ratification Act an ‘agreement’ such as the one between Kenya and Mauritius and which is the subject matter of this legal case, is a treaty subject to the Act and therefore requires that the Cabinet Secretary to the Treasury in consultation with the Attorney General, submit to the Cabinet the treaty, together with a memorandum outlining, inter alia – 1. Policy and legislative considerations, 2. Financial implications 3. Implications on matters relating to counties, 4. The views of the public on the ratification of the treaty.

Mauritius presently has tax treaties with 13 African countries namely Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Swaziland, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Apart from Kenya, Mauritius also has signed Double Taxation Agreements with Congo, Zambia and Nigeria. Currently Mauritius is negotiating DTAs with Algeria, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Malawi and Tanzania. Unlike Mauritius’ DTA with Uganda and Nigeria, for example, which have specific provisions for withholding tax for management/technical services fees, Kenya failed to negotiate any such provisions. 

In a related development, the Government of Kenya has signed an equally harmful Double Tax Agreement with United Arab Emirates and Qatar – both of which are tax havens – in which Kenya further deems its right to tax as unnecessary in a bid to attract investment from these two countries. These agreements will deepen Kenya’s current cash crunch by allowing the further erosion of the country’s tax base. – END.

ABOUT TJN-A: Tax Justice Network-Africa (TJN-A) is a Pan-African initiative and a member of the Global Alliance for Tax Justice. It is a network of 29 members in 16 African countries. TJN-A collaborates closely with these member organisations in tax justice 3 advocacy at the national and regional levels. TJN-A seeks to promote socially just and progressive taxation systems in Africa, advocating for pro-poor tax policies and the strengthening of tax systems to promote domestic resource mobilisation. TJN-A aims to challenge harmful tax policies and practices that favour the wealthy and aggravate and perpetuate inequality. For further enquiries, please email Kwesi Obeng at kobeng@taxjusticeafrica.net (+254 726 804 400) and/or Michelle Mbuthia at mmbuthia@taxjusticeafrica.net (+254 724 994 796).

Good-Deeds list of 2015: A Global report of the East African Countries

This here is to prove what I have found in this report. There would be more meat to the bone if it wasn’t just from one source. But is still worth looking at and from the perspective of the donors, also who the recipients are and the size of the monies. I will take the perspective and look at directly how this affect the East African Countries. Some of the numbers aren’t surprising to those who have followed it. More the amount and changes that has been. Essentially that so many of the countries have been in the top 20 of countries receiving Humanitarian Assistance. That should be a worrying sign of the leadership. The good news for the matter in this case is that Tanzania is nearly out of it all; Burundi stopped being in the top 20 after 2008, also that Uganda went out of the list since 2010. But take a look and see if you catch some wisdom!

Humanitarian assistance is this:
“Humanitarian action is designed to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain
and protect human dignity during and in the aftermath of emergencies”
(…)
“4 Principles:
• “humanity – saving human lives and alleviating suffering wherever it is found
• impartiality – acting solely on the basis of need, without discrimination between or within affected populations
• neutrality – acting without favouring any side in an armed conflict
or other dispute
• independence – ensuring autonomy of humanitarian objectives from political, economic, military or other objectives” (GHA, P: 20).

UN-Coordinated Appeals:
“The UN-coordinated appeals represent the largest collective request for international humanitarian assistance” (…)”The UN-coordinated appeals are based on the needs assessed and responses planned by a group of UN agencies and NGOs in specific countries” (GHA, P: 22).

Where are the money coming from:
“The group of 20 largest government donors of international humanitarian assistance in 2014 was largely the same as in previous years, and the US continued to provide the largest sums. However, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the ten largest and 20 largest donors respectively. Driven by the conflicts in the region, total contributions from Middle Eastern donors increased by 120% from 2013” (GHA, P: 29).

Government donors:
“Government donors gave a record amount of international humanitarian assistance in 2013, but in 2014 they gave even more – reaching a new high of US$18.7 billion. This was up by nearly a quarter (24%) from the US$15.1 billion given in 2013 and was the largest rise in volume in the past 15 years” (GHA, P: 30).

Largest recipients of international humanitarian assistance, 2013:
“Five of the ten largest recipients were in sub-Saharan Africa – Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – and these received a combined total of US$2.8 billion, 13% of international humanitarian response” (GHA. P: 52).

Country by County facts for the East African Countries:
This is the countries on the listed as the ones getting the most Humanitarian Assistance from 2004 – 2013. In that period the South Sudan country got 2% which is combined $2Bn. Uganda got also 2% which is combined $1,6Bn. Ethiopia got 6% which is combined $5,9Bn. Somalia got also 4% which is combined $4,7Bn. Democratic Republic of Congo got also 4% which is combined $4,6bn. Kenya got also 3% which is combined $3Bn (GHA, P: 53).

From the Top Country recipients from 2004 – 2013:

Country/Year	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Burundi	10 – $176M	14 – $182M	14 – $162M	18 – $177M
Democratic Republic of Congo		9 – $331M	6 – $472M	3 – $451M	6 – $573M	6 – $623M	7 – $501M	12 – $449M	8 – $472M	10 – $449M
Ethiopia	4 – $481M	5 – $709M	9 -$383M	7 – $334M	2 – $924M	3 – $747M	4 – $685M	5 – $693M	6 – $488M	8 – $457M
Kenya	19 – $100M		11 – $273M	14 – $208M	11 – $327M	9 – $426M	8 – $305M	8 – $538M	11 – $407M	14 – $314M
Tanzania
South Sudan								10 – $495M	1 – $875M	4 – $664M
Somalia	11 – $174M	11 – $213M	10 – $349M	8 – $299M	5 – $646M	7 – $611M	10 – $256M	2 – $1,073M	4 – $589M	7 – $458M
Uganda	9 – $183M	13 – $197M	12 – $249M	12 – $248M	13 – $257M	16 – $167M

(Source: Development Initiatives based on OECD, DAC, UN, OCHA FTS, UN CERF, IMF, WED and UN SCEB data).
– The first number is the actual place on the table because this is the ones that was a part of the 1-20.
– The amount of money is US Dollars in Millions.

Some information about the different Countries:
Democratic Republic of Congo:
6, 8 Million people affected including refugees (GHA, P: 12).
4, 7 Million people targeted in UN-Coordinated Appeals. (GHA, P: 13).
The percentage of the UN Appeals that was met in 2014 was totally 46% /GHA, P: 23).

The Country got in total $449M, which was the top ninth country in the world, of the pledges it got 71% and underfunded 29% this was in the year of 2013 (GHA, P: 51).

The things they have mentioned the forgotten crisis the Humanitarian assistance there has no more than 3 Incidents on the FCA index since 2004. This incidents are caused by the troubles of LRA (GHA, P: 64).

Ethiopia:
The Country got in total $449M, which was the top ten country in the world. This was in the year of 2012-2013 (GHA, P: 51).

Kenya:
“Periodic incidences of inter-communal violence combined with climatic shocks and food and livelihood insecurity have left many people vulnerable and in need of assistance in Kenya over recent years. In 2013 approximately 1.7 million people were estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance, compared with over 4.4 million people in 2012” (GHA, P: 55).

The country received directly support from Saudi Arabia $ 43M in 2014, which is 6 % of the total allocations from the Arabic country (GHA, P: 35).

The things they have mentioned the forgotten crisis the Humanitarian assistance after result of the refugee crisis from Somalia, there has more than 1 Incident on the FCA index since 2004 (GHA, P: 64).

Tanzania:
The things they have mentioned the forgotten crisis the Humanitarian assistance there has no more than 1 Incident on the FCA index since 2004 (GHA, P: 64).

South Sudan:
“Insecurity and displacement has left millions of people in South Sudan vulnerable and in need of assistance. Approximately 4.4 million people were estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance in 2013. This compares to the estimated 4.6 million people requiring assistance in the country in 2012″ (GHA, P: 55).

7, 8 Million people affected including refugees.
64% of the people in the country affected (GHA, P: 12).
4, 5 Million people targeted in UN-Coordinated Appeals.
40% of population targeted in UN-Coordinated Appeals (GHA, P: 13).
South Sudan Refugee Response Plans (RRP) UN-Coordinated Appeals in 2014 was 54 % met. The main South Sudan Appeal in 2014 was 90% met (GHA, P: 23).

The Country got in total $644M, which was the top third country in the world, of the pledges it got 72% and underfunded 28% this was in the year of 2013 (GHA, P: 50).

Somalia:
“Somalia has suffered over two decades of conflict, displacement, poor basic service provision and severe food insecurity. In 2013 around 3.2 million people were estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance. This compares to 2012 when, at the beginning of the year, an estimated 3.8 million people were in need of humanitarian response” (GHA, P: 55).

19 % of population targeted in UN-Coordinated Appeals (GHA, P: 13).
The country received directly support from Saudi Arabia $ 1M in 2013, which is 0, 4% of the total allocations from the Arabic country (GHA, P: 35).

The Country got in total $458M, which was the top eight country in the world, of the pledges it got 51% and underfunded 49% this was in the year of 2012-2013 (GHA, P: 51).

The things they have mentioned the forgotten crisis the Humanitarian assistance there has no more than 2 Incidents on the FCA index since 2004 (GHA, P: 64).

Uganda:
The things they have mentioned the forgotten crisis the Humanitarian assistance after result of the war against the LRA, there has more than 3 Incidents on the FCA index since 2004 (GHA, P: 64).

The numbers here are set for certain amount of time and most for the biggest receivers and donors. So what other has gotten is not in the report. But knowing the areas and situation there been more money donated then I have seen here. This money and contexts are set for one set of people and their struggles.

The numbers will be different for 2015 because of the new progressions that has been in the countries. The results and share difference is not only with the more Internal Displaced People (IDPs), but also with refugees from their neighboring countries. This with the continuation of fighting internally in the South Sudan has led into people fleeing to Kenya and Uganda. We will hope that the new peace agreement will lead again to more stability in South Sudan. As there has been people fleeing from LRA in DRC as they still have ability to come down there from C.A.R. The Burundian sham election and third term for Pierre Nkurunziza will make more humanitarian assistance in Tanzania and Uganda. This will lead to more pledges in the next year, even if there might be cuts of direct Governmental donor funds directly to Burundi as reactions to the situation which is now in place. So because of this I am sure the numbers and statistics will be different.

Still, it’s still healthy to see what it was in this report. And what it really says about the countries. That you usually wouldn’t read in the paper. That’s why I picked this numbers and quotes in, so you get something inspiring and seeing how things are changing. All amounts of monies are in US Dollars. Just so you know! Peace.

Reference:
Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2015

“the Agreement”: MoU between MRA (Mauritius) and SARS (South Africa) – On double taxation (17.05.2013 – Maputo, Mozambique)