What about Africa

About

The What about Africa argument is a claim that no American can argue in favor of taxing the rich unless that person is willing to sell everything they have and donate it to poor people in Africa, because from the perspective of poor Africans all Americans are rich. (This is often phrased as "most Americans are in the top 1% worldwide"; apparently this is only true for those making over $50k annually.)

Objections

Where "Pro-Taxer" is the person arguing in favor of taxing the rich and "Objector" is the person raising the "What about Africa" argument:

• Selective application: Objector only raises this claim where Pro-Taxer is not rich. This implies an unequal burden, i.e. the Pro-Taxer must empty their wallet before any rich people would need to contribute, rather than each contributing according to their ability.
  • This further implies a principle that assistance must always come from the next rung up the latter, rather than coming from those with the most to spare. The principle of next-rung assistance tends to maximize income inequality.
  • It also implies that only those who are at the very bottom should receive any assistance. This philosophy bears an interesting resemblance to the resource requirements for Medicaid and Social Security, where you have to be already "in the gutter" before they'll see if you qualify for a hand up; there's no interest whatsoever in helping to prevent you from ending up there in the first place (ambulances vs. guard rails)
• Appeal to worse problems: This argument is a specific form of the "how can you talk about Problem X when there is much worse Problem Y somewhere in the world?" argument. It is nothing better than an attempt to shut down discussion of certain ideas and help maintain the status quo.
• Disregard for results: The objection that a policy of next-rung-up aid is far less effective at solving the problem is consistently ignored by Objector. The "what about Africa" mentality doesn't care about results; it just wants shame and status quo.
• False moral equivalence: Objectors may claim that that the "luxury" of having a computer is equivalent to Donald Trump having a private jet or John McCain having five houses.
  • Where "you have a computer, therefore you are rich" is specifically raised as an objection in a discussion on the internet, this is clearly an attempt to take Pro-Taxer out of the dialogue. If Pro-Taxer sells their computer, then they will effectively be removed from that discussion.
• Disregard for relative need: Living at any tolerable level in America is much more expensive than doing so in a poorer country. Pro-Taxer might be rich in terms of absolute monetary wealth, but not at all rich in terms of buying power; see below.

See /debate for further discussion.

Comparative economics

To be massaged into article form:

Someone in Africa with a herd of goats -- "rich" by the standards of her village, living in a nice grass hut with no commercial value, and owning less than $5 in local currency -- would be "poorer" than a panhandler on the corner of an American street, who might take in $20 a day to help feed his kids with high-fructose crap juice from the discount store and pay the rent on their unsafe piece of shit apartment... or pay off the corner cop to keep from being arrested for sleeping in a cardboard box in the alley.

The herdsman doesn't have to pay rent on her hut or buy groceries; she gets her water from a well, and can trade goat products for other needs. Sure, she has to live without air conditioning or medical care; I've done that too -- it's a hardship in a hot climate, no doubt, but not intolerable. I won't say I envy her, but I wouldn't say she's suffering either (specific circumstances aside)... but either way, I definitely wouldn't expect her (despite being "rich") to sell all of her goats and donate the proceeds to the starving children over in the next town.

Evidence: The Maasai of East Africa, a herding tribe who live without running water or electricity and reside in huts made of dung, are among the happiest people in the world (Diener & Seligman 2004, cited here). Oxfam has argued that the lifestyle of the Maasai should be embraced as a response to climate change because of their ability to farm in deserts and scrublands.[1]

Notes

• "It only takes $34,000 a year, after taxes, to be among the richest 1% in the world. That's for each person living under the same roof, including children. (So a family of four, for example, needs to make $136,000.)" http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm