NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Radicals of Mu-Mu invite the Delegates of progressive regions and all concerned with the global environment to endorse our proposal Global Transportation Tax (on page 18 as of this post)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Transportation Tax
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Free Radicals of Mu-Mu
Description: Whereas the market price of transporting goods and people internationally by land, sea or air does not reflect the true cost of those means of transportation to the global environment that is our common heritage and that is held in trust by us for future generations of our own and other species; and

Whereas it is the legitimate concern of a body of global governance to address those issues which cannot be addressed by sovereign states acting alone, but only in concert, and therefore the function of such a body to facilitate or, as neccessary, impose such cooperation;

Be it resolved that:

1. A one percent carbon tax be levied on the cost of all international transit between UN member states, such cost to be the net price exclusive of other taxes charged to the customer by the entity carrying out the transit, the sole exception being transit by means of clean-air technologies so certified by the relevant expert bodies of the UN;

2. That the government of the state in which the transporting entity is legally registered be responsible for collecting this tax;

3. That the whole of this tax receipt, minus an administrative fee not to exceed 5 percent of the receipt, be remitted monthly to the United Nations;

4. That the proceeds of this taxation be used by the United Nations to protect the global environment and promote the develoment and uptake of clean transportation technologies

Approvals: 1 (Mikes Hope)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 6 2004


We apologise profusely for the missing 'p' in development in part 4; the typographer responsible is undergoing voluntary re-education....

We thank you for your kind attention to this initiative.

I do not support this resolution as it hinders trade, and who typed it out? :)

On behalf of the good people of The Proletariat Coalition I shall support this fine resolution!

In solidarity,

Comrade Jak
The Republic of Jako
UN Delegate of TPC

I do not support this resolution as it hinders trade, and who typed it out? :)

Please, explain to me, for humor sake. How does this hinder trade?

His Ever-Questioning
The Dominion of Evolutionary19

The point is not that it hinders trade, per se, but that it brings the cost of trade a touch closer to reality (although not close enough, possibly). The idea behind the proposal is that some small proportion of what are written off by liberal-capitalist economists as 'negative externalities' should be reintroduced into the cost equation, making the market cost a closer approximation of the true cost. Those who promote the 'free market' (which is of course not free, but always rigged in favour of the major players in the market - big business favours oligopoly or monopoly if it can get away with it, not competition) will resist any move to make the costs of production or transportation more realistic.

Didn't we ban the UN from imposing taxes already?

Didn't we ban the UN from imposing taxes already?

Yes, unfortunately we did :( Otherwise this is a good resolution that I would support entirely. A re-draft including an exemption from the original resolution would be fine or simply altering the text so that the tax is collected and spent locally would sort out this issue.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Just had another thought. Were the UN to set up an independant environmental protection agency that would administer the tax and provide grants for environmental work as well, then the UN would no longer be directly taxing the citizens of any member state.
:D

This Tax by the UN will hurt trade without the proper benefit to all.

Illaria has abolished all tarriffs to bring itself into the world economy, and taxing it now would set our economy back remarkably!

Taxes from the UN are absolutely unfounded and without precedent, we must not allow this to happen!

We support this proposal.

Ann Clayborne & Vlad Taneev
Speakers for Environment & Economy

This Tax by the UN will hurt trade without the proper benefit to all.

Illaria has abolished all tarriffs to bring itself into the world economy, and taxing it now would set our economy back remarkably!

Taxes from the UN are absolutely unfounded and without precedent, we must not allow this to happen!

It's a 1% international transport tax, not some massive tariff that would suddenly render all international trade unprofitable. Let's keep things in proportion...

The initial question here may be 1%, but Illaria fears first the appearance of similar taxes, because once the precedent is set, it's just a question of a slipperly slope.

Also, as this taxes inter-UN trade, Illaria fears that Inter-UN trade will level off or be impeded while trade with non-UN nations will rise. In the interests of greater Unity in the UN, we must continue our resistance.

It's a 1% international transport tax, not some massive tariff that would suddenly render all international trade unprofitable. Let's keep things in proportion...

A 1% tax to ship something internationally is massively huge. Such a tax would hinder international trade as it would add cost to goods imported. A small shipment of high-grade pharmaceuticals can be valued at 1 Billion Aracade Tokens. That would work out to 10 Million for the transport tax of ONLY 1%.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint wonders how adding a tax to the transport of any product or the sale of any service is expected to increase shipments or trade in that good or service.

We cannot support this proposal.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Nassland
Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003


The UN has already resolved never to tax.

[edit] The UN has already resolved never to tax individuals.

This proposal does not require the UN to tax individuals. Also the UN will not be taxing anyone directly, since it is the responsibility of member states to tax the transporting entities and then remit at least 95% of the take to the UN.

Also NB the 1% is on the cost of transportation, not the value of the items shipped (if the latter, then passenger transportation would be excluded - except in the case of slaves, were such an abhorrence to be permitted - whereas passenger transportation is explicitly within the scope of this proposal).

Proposal is currently on page 12, and has 10 approvals.

The initial question here may be 1%, but Illaria fears first the appearance of similar taxes, because once the precedent is set, it's just a question of a slipperly slope.

Also, as this taxes inter-UN trade, Illaria fears that Inter-UN trade will level off or be impeded while trade with non-UN nations will rise. In the interests of greater Unity in the UN, we must continue our resistance.

Will there be some attempt to tax our trade with non-members? The only untaxed trade would then be between non-member states, which would give them an economic advantage over us.

This is perhaps so. But only UN members would be eligible for assitance from the fund generated, and so their transportation industries will have priviliged access to the next generation of clean-air transport technology.

wouldnt free trade just in the beginning be better than having to retake our money from a common fund built out of our own productions?

UN taxation ban
[...]
Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

To clarify what is happening here: the UN taxation ban should never have been allowed to reach the floor of the UN, as it alters the functioning of the UN and is in itself a game mechanics resolution. Other than the effect it already has had on nations, it should be ignored. Same with the spelling resolution, BTW.

Ballotonia

the UN taxation ban's use was more for embellishment, but at the same time... why is it so much a game mechanics question? It seems far more like a policy question than an actual change to game mechanics. As such, it still functions. The UN is still an entity, taxing or not.

the UN taxation ban's use was more for embellishment, but at the same time... why is it so much a game mechanics question? It seems far more like a policy question than an actual change to game mechanics. As such, it still functions. The UN is still an entity, taxing or not.

It's a game mechaniscs resolution precisely because it limits future resolutions. It means Mods would become burdened with removing all resolutions which violate prior resolutions. That's a game mechanic. Note they also don't remove resolutions with bad spelling in them. Some of those even reached quorum and were passed! Basically: one cannot pass a resolution that tells mods what to do or not do.

Ballotonia

OOC: The spelling ones etc. I ignore. but still, there are bans on other things as well, you cant just say that this one is wrong...

In principle we would support this proposal. Global warming is widely acknowledged (at least by those who have not prostituted themselves to immoral industries) as the biggest threat facing society in this century.

We should be levying tax on transport, just as many countries already do, in order to both focus the awareness of the impact (i.e. it affects the bottom line) such transport has and to provide funds that can be used to address the issue (since transport cannot be eliminated altogether).

Our concern is with the levy being on the value of the goods transported rather than in proportion to the damage caused. We would recommend that any redraft imposes the levy based on emmisions, for instance by charging a fixed amount per metric tonne of carbon dioxide released plus other amounts for other environmentally damaging materials. The details do not have to be entered in the proposal, just the outline of the mechanism.

This will have the effect of promoting cleaner transport incrementally, while awaiting clean-air technology breakthroughs.

Again - the levy is on the freight charge, not the value of the goods transported. However, there is merit in the suggestion on charging in proportion to CO2 emissions. If you can suggest an adequate formula for this I would be glad to include it when I present a refined version of this (unless this proposal gets a sudden rush of approvals before the end of tomorrow).

Currently on page 9; 11 approvals.

Illaria - "Free" Trade is environmentally damaging because it does not factor in negative externalities. This proposal is designed precisely to alter that market, currently rigged in favour of heavy-polluters, to redress the balance towards cleaner technologies and practices. So free trade would be 'better' on one balance sheet, but not in the more holistic view of economics within which this proposal is presented.

(edit: page number)

Now 12 approvals. Only 130-ish to go by tomorrow... :lol:

Anyway, I plan to reintroduce it with revisions, so keep the comments coming. And the more approvals it gets this time round, the harder I will campaign next time...

Anyway, I plan to reintroduce it with revisions, so keep the comments coming.
Why don't you post your revised copy on the Forums first, FRoM-M? Get some feedback, make some adjustments, try to make it a bit more palatable to the electorate. Once folks have had a week or so to make suggestions, post the final product as a Proposal.

Trust me on this one, Ambassadors can give excellent advice, and your proposal will be better for it.

Trust me on this one, Ambassadors can give excellent advice, and your proposal will be better for it.

Our advice would be to can the whole freakin' idea.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

The Oppressed Peoples of Nathaniistan applaud the concern that the Free Radicals of Mu-Mu have for the environment. However, we feel that this is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If and when this resolution is passed, what will become of the proceeds from each nation? I propose that the current draft be amended to include more specifics as to where the money is going. I also recommend that the proceeds be equitably distributed, according to each nation's due environmental necessities. Perhaps a new agency may need to be created in the process, to handle such a task- for instance, an agency with the similar tasks of the RL UN Environment Program, only with an expanded role in protecting the environment.

The Ayatollah of Nathaniistan

The Oppressed Peoples of Nathaniistan applaud the concern that the Free Radicals of Mu-Mu have for the environment. However, we feel that this is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If and when this resolution is passed, what will become of the proceeds from each nation? I propose that the current draft be amended to include more specifics as to where the money is going. I also recommend that the proceeds be equitably distributed, according to each nation's due environmental necessities. Perhaps a new agency may need to be created in the process, to handle such a task- for instance, an agency with the similar tasks of the RL UN Environment Program, only with an expanded role in protecting the environment.

The Ayatollah of Nathaniistan

Anyway, I plan to reintroduce it with revisions, so keep the comments coming.
Why don't you post your revised copy on the Forums first, FRoM-M? Get some feedback, make some adjustments, try to make it a bit more palatable to the electorate. Once folks have had a week or so to make suggestions, post the final product as a Proposal.


That was pretty much my plan. This was really a kite-flying exercise. I think there has been enough interest for this to be worth developing, despite the predictable reactions of the doctrinaire free marketeers. So look for a revised draft here in the near future, with a view to debate, further refinement, and a reintroduced proposal in the next few weeks.