Global resources dividend

[2] Under the scheme, nations would pay a dividend (tax) on any resources that they use or sell,[3][4] resulting in a sort of "tax on consumption"[5] Pogge's scheme is motivated by the positive duty to alleviate poverty, but also on the negative responsibility of the rich not to use institutions that perpetuate economic inequality.

Pogge estimates that a dividend of just 1% could raise $300 billion each year; this would equal $250 for each individual in the world's poorest quintile.

We must be realistic, but not to the point of presenting to the parties in the original position the essentials of the status quo as unalterable facts.

Since no one would benefit from a futile attempt to maintain impracticable institutions, we should all just rest content with the global inequalities of the status quo.

Pogge's main justification is that, even if the idea of GRD would be refined over time, and would be difficult to implement, it is nevertheless the right of those who are the worst off.

[6] Pogge argues that national borders are morally arbitrary in the first place, and are born from a history of coercion and violence.

He sets these issues aside, however, and focuses on the following claim: any conception of global justice (even if we accept existing national borders as they are) must acknowledge international inequalities.

Equally difficult to justify might be the assumption that every person has a right to absolute control over the resources they happen to have within their borders.

Supporters of the global resources dividend argue that it would also have an environmental benefit by reducing demand for non-renewable energy sources.

He argues that increased financial flows could hurt an under developed economy and that an internal distribution with GRD is not resolved.