NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

SalLis propose a uniform tax rate for all member states.

1. Only applies to citizens who are in employment
2. Removes the burden of higher tax rates on the more wealthy citizens
3. Allows the heads of state to implement programmes which will help the more socially disadvantaged.
4. The rate should be set at 50%

:)

This could only work if Government spending was uniform in the UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

Desdemona,

If states change their "I'm alright - sort yourself out" mentality, it may just work, surely it is worth exploring.

csc

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I don't see how this is an international issue, and that means that it would violate national sovereignty. Not every government in the world is the same. Not every nation has the same needs.

Tax laws are very complicated because not every nation uses the same system of taxation. There is also rarely one single taxing group; in the United States, say, taxes can be charged at the federal, state, county, and even city levels of government.

...a uniform tax rate for all member states.

A "uniform tax rate" is horribly non-specific -- do you mean income tax, sales tax, oil tax, import tax, export tax, water tax, property tax, or any of the other nearly endless things that all of the governments of the world can tax?

1. Only applies to citizens who are in employment

There are many taxes that people without employment pay. Take stay-at-home moms, they still pay sales tax and property taxes.

2. Removes the burden of higher tax rates on the more wealthy citizens

Ban the progressive income tax? There are good arguments for and against each side of that argument, but I don't think the majority of the UN will support that move.

3. Allows the heads of state to implement programmes which will help the more socially disadvantaged.

Oh, so now we're not only setting our own tax rates, but altering the function of each government to suit our whims? Not every government wants a strong head of state who can initiate programs and taxes and push money around without any kind of approval, you know. And what about the governments that don't have a head of state?

4. The rate should be set at 50%

Of course there will be plenty of people who think that's too high. I'm sure there will also be plenty of people who think that's too low. The thing with uniform taxes is that no one can agree on them -- so why have them? Nations have the right to govern themselves.

Santin,

1. I (the nation of salLis) believe that the burden of tax should fall on those able to pay. (Mainly those in employment - I know this is not always the case).

2. I stated a uniform tax rate meaning across the board - 1 tax to cover all

3. SalLis has a uniform rate - I know we are struggling at the moment - but if everybody is on a level field surely all benefit.

4. SaLis does not wish or hope to dictate to other nations how to run their economies or for that matter how to treat their citizens, we just believe that if the the tax burden is shared amongst all members everybody will benefit (and possibly look out for other members in times of uncertainty)

csc :)

The Republic of Dovaan wholeheartedly disagrees with this proposal. We will not accept any nation trying to impose on our national soveriegnty on the issue of taxation. Furthermore, the proposal for a 50% tax in all nations is ridiculously high and unsustainable on a world wide level.

Dovaan,

National soveriegnty is assured, the propsal is not to impose on soveriegnty, it is to create a more level playing field.
When the UN makes a decision does it not automatically affect a nations soveriegnty?
The 50% is across the board - no more taxes wold be levied

csc :)

SalLis:

What??? By its very nature it imposes on our national soveriegnty:

1. In Democracies: It takes away the people's power of deciding for themselves their own taxes
2. In Dictatorial regimes it takes away the nation's power to decide taxes for its citizens

Regardless of whether you think this is "right" or not, it is illegal by most nation's constitutions because those constitutions ensure the people will have a say in their own taxes.

Dovaan,

When did you last have any say in how much tax the state wishes to relieve you of!!
If you are a member of the UN you automatically agree to abide by the rules set out by them. If the majority of states vote for something - what then of soveriegnty?

csc :)

The last time I had a say in my taxes was the last election! That is my problem with the bill, it is every country's business what to do with their tax structure. Looking around at different countries i've seen taxes from 0% to as high as 90%! Trying to impose a set figure on every country is denying that country its own right to regulate its taxes. You may not agree but I'm sure many others do and will if/when we vote.

Hi,
1. Only applies to citizens who are in employment


How would you be able to tell if anyone is employed ? wouldn't that mean people can escape taxes by being "unemployed" but collecting money in some way ?


2. Removes the burden of higher tax rates on the more wealthy citizens


Which tends to widen the rich/poor gap, because 50% of (a lot of money) is a lot more than 50% of (a little money.) The rich have more and should pay more.


3. Allows the heads of state to implement programmes which will help the more socially disadvantaged.


They can implement programmes even now, there's no need for this at all.


4. The rate should be set at 50%



Taxes should be allowed to rise and fall depending on the economy and spending power. Shouldn't be a UN decision.

:)

:)

PS. Calumnia has a strong economy and a base tax of 9% :)

Calumnia,

A census may help to find out who is employed and who is not.
(Its never stopped people up to now from claiming they are unemployed but aquiring money).

A 50% rate across the board means that everybody is paying the same at their level of income - I do not want the wealthiest to carry the burden - there is no incentive for them to create more wealth.

But the state is then duty bound to help everybody who has contributed to the "pot".

Why shouldn't it be a UN decision - youv'e had decisions on the size of hippo's :D

SalLis has a very happy and content people and a current tax rate of 53% :D

I grant you that economically we are slightly under developed :oops:

How is this going to avoid jarring against the game mechanics?

I do not want the wealthiest to carry the burden - there is no incentive for them to create more wealth.

Those rich still seem to be pretty well off despite their current taxes. In the current world situation, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer -- clearly, the taxes on the rich are not so high that they have no ability or incentive to earn more money.

Why shouldn't it be a UN decision - youv'e had decisions on the size of hippo's

Actually, no, we haven't. That proposal got voted down by a very high margin. There are assuredly people who believe that the United Nations can or should micromanage every decision that every nation makes -- apparently you're one of them -- but it is our right to vote for or against any proposal on any grounds that we choose.

My opinion is that the UN should, whenever possible, govern only international issues -- that does not mean issues that apply to more than one nation, but issues which a single nation could not or should not govern independently. That includes most any problem that does not remain within a nation's own borders. That includes things like terrorism, pollution of the environment, keeping the peace, humanitarian aid, and the like. There are some exceptions I make to my rule of thumb, most notably when it comes to some resolutions on limiting government (or human rights, if you prefer to phrase it that way).

SalLis has a very happy and content people and a current tax rate of 53%

And the people of Santin are likewise quite happy with their low taxes. I see no reason to alter the status quo so dramatically when so much is at stake.

Santin,

What is at stake? Do you not want other nations to succeed. We propose a system where those that are able are required to contribute to the welfare of their nation. If your citizens are only having 9% of their wealth removed, how are your citizens who may not be as well off coping - or do you not really care :)

Do you not want other nations to succeed

That's not a legitimate argument. What other nations do with their own taxes is THEIR business, not mine or yours. Do you presume to know what is best for every nation in the world? Do you then presume that you can reduce that knowledge into four bullet points of legislation? If another nation finds that a tax system such as the one you propose would be beneficial, by all means they may enact it without any interference on my part, but you have provided no real justification to have the United Nations legislate this matter.

If your citizens are only having 9% of their wealth removed, how are your citizens who may not be as well off coping - or do you not really care

While it is true Santin does not have a high income tax rate, social programs account for almost the entire federal budget.

In a capitalist economy, people work to earn something for themselves -- usually money. It's just that simple. In Santin, if they want to help other people, that is their choice, and they may do so by donating money to a charity, but massive, mandatory charity on such a massive scale is not an ideal that the people of Santin find appealing.

You might do well to realize that higher tax rates do not necessarily equal better living conditions. Taxes hurt the economy. The economy provides money. Money buys things. "Things" affect living conditions. You might also do well to do some research and find that pouring more and more money into welfare has actually never produced better living conditions. Look at the plight of the Indians in the United States -- the government has been helping these people for over a century, and they are some of the poorest people in the entire country.

Looking at the situation of the world today, it is quite obvious that high taxes don't necessarily have anything in common with national success -- some would argue that low taxes do tend to lead to success.

It doesn't matter where you live in the world -- if you're rich, things are good; if you're poor, things are bad. The only really telling measure of a society is how the middle class lives, especially considering that the VAST majority of people fall into that category.

So what IS at stake? My economy. The world economy. The living conditions of my people and people throughout the United Nations. The right of all nations to govern themselves.

We propose a system where those that are able are required to contribute to the welfare of their nation.

I'll bet that's what many a dictatorial government has said to its people to justify a good many projects. The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt would never have been built, if not for the required contributions of those who were found able.

As the nation which I represent is a Confederacy, in which the citizens elect representatives who gather to make law about such things as the level of taxation (among others), I notice that this proposal rather blatantly promotes destruction of the right of national self-determination of economic legislation. I must therefore say that I could never support such a proposal.

Shaviv
Emissary

** A woman all clad in night blue steps out of the shadows **

That system won't work.
You simply conceived it based on your own economy.

Not that this proposal would even affect our nation.
We only use money for convenience trade with our neighbours.
It is of no use internally.

Here in Geal, there is no such thing as « private property », « salary », or any other flawed concept brought in by corrupt capitalist views ( sorry for the pleonasm ).

People work to make the Island run, the Island provides them freely with whatever they may need or want.
Nobody tries to accumulate wealth, because we're educated people and simply know it serves no purpose.

Take into account that here some peoples live well and happily without money, competition, greed, corruption, and you could come up with a better-tought resolution.

May the Moon shine upon your road.

** Bows then go back to the shadows **

Uniform taxation is a euphamism for regressive taxation, distributing more wealth to the people who least need it (ie the most wealthy).

Such foolishness would cause huge resentment and damage social cohesion.

it's not quite clear how we would impliment this in a nonmonitary economy
nor is there very often in our nation a clear demarcation between employment and the lack of it

i can see how any nation that wanted to tax less could collect the 50% and then give back however much they wished and those that wanted to tax more would have to raise funds some other way

but in our nation everything is made and designed and maintianed by whoever enjoys and knows what the're doing doing so.

we have no government expenses for the same reason. and so, while monitary economic theory may say our economy is in dire straits this is almost meaningless.

the red tape and beaurocracy of trying to translate how we live and what we do into monitarily economic terms, just isn't how anyone in our country that i know of prefers to spend their time.

i suppose if someone else wanted to come by and spend all they're time trying to make such a translation they'd be welcome to do so as long as they stayed out from under foot.

but really we have no interest in what it would take to implement even trying to determine in what way we might or might not be in complience with it.

there is no hourly wage and no monthly sallery to tax. everyone has food and shelter and unlimited access to education and means of creative expression and means to make for themselves better housing and food if they so desire.

even local and medium range transportation is free.

we really have no idea how complience could be implimented if it were imposed. most likely we'd be forced to withdraw from participating in this organization which in spirt we would none the less continue to support.

so to make a long story short
much as we might applaud the intent
(if we had the slightest idea what it was)
we cannot see how we could possibly support such a concept
(or even impliment it for that matter)

=^^=
.../\...

The logistics of administrating such a concept are well beyond the UN's ability. Consider for just a moment how monetary rates change sometimes minute to minute. We would have to calculate the exchange rates, which in turn would vary wildly. Otherwise we'd have to create a global currency that was stable. Then too, in whose hands would we trust the administration of such large sums?

Desdemona,

If states change their "I'm alright - sort yourself out" mentality, it may just work, surely it is worth exploring.

csc

My government wouldn’t be able to help our people never mind anybody else’s.

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

SalLis assumes that this is a "dead duck" then (no offence to ducks or duck lovers).

We the people of sallis thank all the nations who took part in this debate :)