NationStates Jolt Archive

TAKING into account the necessity for the preservation of sovereignty for the nations of the United Nations, the UN Resoultion #4, UN Taxation Ban unduely limits the ability of the United Nations to enforce its resolutions and policies.

DECLARES accordingly the UN Taxation Ban to be null and void.

AUTHORIZES the UN to set a tax to be indexed on member nations's Gross Domestic Product and inflation. The tax cannot exceed greater than 4% of any nation's GDP, and no less than 0.4% of any nation's GDP.

IN THE INTEREST of protecting nation's sovereignty, said tax can only be enacted in temporary measures, or in times of crisis. Said tax can only be enacted with due cause and only used for above cause and uses directly linked to above cause.

IN THE EVENT that a tax is enacted, it shall be enacted for no more than two fiscal years, and all surplus money must be refunded to member nations accordingly.



This a first attempt to repeal a resolution that unduely limits the ability of the UN to do its duties.

TAKING into account the necessity for the preservation of sovereignty for the nations of the United Nations, the UN Resoultion #4, UN Taxation Ban unduely limits the ability of the United Nations to enforce its resolutions and policies.

DECLARES accordingly the UN Taxation Ban to be null and void.

AUTHORIZES the UN to set a tax to be indexed on member nations's Gross Domestic Product and inflation. The tax cannot exceed greater than 4% of any nation's GDP, and no less than 0.4% of any nation's GDP.

IN THE INTEREST of protecting nation's sovereignty, said tax can only be enacted in temporary measures, or in times of crisis. Said tax can only be enacted with due cause and only used for above cause and uses directly linked to above cause.

IN THE EVENT that a tax is enacted, it shall be enacted for no more than two fiscal years, and all surplus money must be refunded to member nations accordingly.



This a first attempt to repeal a resolution that unduely limits the ability of the UN to do its duties.

Can you give examples of why the tax would need to be enacted? You say it should only be enacted in times of crisis, or only enacted in temporary measures. I am curious as to what these would be.

Re-read the UN taxation ban, mate.

It bans the UN from directly taxing citizens. It can already tax nations however it sees fit. The UN taxation ban simply stops UN agents from shaking down grandma as she walks to the corner market.

Edit: Also, Repeals can't propose new legislation, just remove old.

TAKING into account the necessity for the preservation of sovereignty for the nations of the United Nations, the UN Resoultion #4, UN Taxation Ban unduely limits the ability of the United Nations to enforce its resolutions and policies.

Generally the preliminary statement continues throughout the paragraph. As these two statements are in and of themselves contradictory... This paragraph is invalidated and contradictory through the idea it tries to express. "TAKING into account the...... sovereighty of the nations" and "UN Taxation Ban unduely limits the... United Nations" are non relative. In addition, there is no such thing as "unduely limit[ing]" the United Nations, voters, through resolutions, can apply limits or grant authority to the United Nations as they see fit... Also, HOW does the taxation ban "limit" the UN's ability of enforement. No reason is given.


IN THE INTEREST of protecting nation's sovereignty, said tax can only be enacted in temporary measures, or in times of crisis. Said tax can only be enacted with due cause and only used for above cause and uses directly linked to above cause.

Indeed, if you insist a taxation ban "limits" the UN unduely in the primary clause, and now set limits... Is that not also, by your reasoning, if you carry it out, an "undue limit" ?


IN THE EVENT that a tax is enacted, it shall be enacted for no more than two fiscal years, and all surplus money must be refunded to member nations accordingly.

This a first attempt to repeal a resolution that unduely limits the ability of the UN to do its duties.

Most resolutions that require funding operate on a loose system of funding conveyed through the resolution in which it enacts... I would argue that this resolution is invalidated by any resolution which already provides funding through law... or necessitates resolution enforcement through a nations own funds... Hense, in context, more than half of the existing NSUN resolutions would need to be repealed before such could be enacted, since their funding is based off the taxation ban.

And again the "undue" limits... Just about any resolution that grants rights, or makes provision for individual or state rights, sets limits on the UN.

There was an extensive argument / discussion on this topic at least once already, but the UN Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) was better researched than most. To address the most serious failing of the proposed repeal / amendment, 4% is ENORMOUS. 0.4% is still too big. If you're going to make up numbers, make up reasonable numbers. See this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6859303&postcount=75) for a RL example:

"The sum of individual country values of gross national product (GNP) is an obvious assessmet base. This sum is estimated at $23,580 billion for 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available in the Human Development Report, 1996; so total assessment of $1.5 billion amounts to about 0.00636% of world income. "

There was an extensive argument / discussion on this topic at least once already, but the UN Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) was better researched than most. To address the most serious failing of the proposed repeal / amendment, 4% is ENORMOUS. 0.4% is still too big. If you're going to make up numbers, make up reasonable numbers. See this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6859303&postcount=75) for a RL example:

"The sum of individual country values of gross national product (GNP) is an obvious assessmet base. This sum is estimated at $23,580 billion for 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available in the Human Development Report, 1996; so total assessment of $1.5 billion amounts to about 0.00636% of world income. "

Agreed, let's say 0.4% for the low end is in effect...

Well, Tekania alone has a GDP of $23,601,748,617,278.93 (23.6+ TRILLION)

From my nation alone, 0.4% would be about 94 billion...

But, let's take the UN members in my region... given its small and has few UN members...

The total GDP is over $63,000,000,000,000 (63 trillion) [just two of us alone make up 98% of that GDP]... 0.4% of that is 255 billion...

Now, in terms of stronger economies, me and the other are close to the average... so let's assume all nations in the UN have our GDP... you are talking over 3,778 TRILLION dollars in collected taxes...

Well, Tekania alone has a GDP of $23,601,748,617,278.93 (23.6+ TRILLION)

Quick questions, where did that GDP number come from? I have been curious about that.

Second, for the life of me I can't think of what a 1000 trilion is. Quadillion? No that doesn't sound right.

Thanks.

Quick questions, where did that GDP number come from? I have been curious about that.

Second, for the life of me I can't think of what a 1000 trilion is. Quadillion? No that doesn't sound right.

Thanks.

Actually that is right, though I avoided it for the sake that most people don't know past "trillion"... the numbering follows latin principles

billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, hextillion(or sextillion), septillion, octillion.. etc.

As for GDP numbers, they came from the NationStates economic calculator...
NSeconomy (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/)

Gracias por la information.

Buenos Dias.

(Wow those numbers seem to go completely against everything that I have been approving when it comes to issues. I wonder what I did wrong. Thanks for the link.)

Gracias por la information.

Buenos Dias.

(Wow those numbers seem to go completely against everything that I have been approving when it comes to issues. I wonder what I did wrong. Thanks for the link.)

I don't know, seems lined up to some extent... and you are relatively new, so your nations hasn't quite "settled".

Now, in terms of stronger economies, me and the other are close to the average... so let's assume all nations in the UN have our GDP... you are talking over 3,778 TRILLION dollars in collected taxes...

Easily. Actually, your GDP is "average" not so much because of your economy (Powerhouse), but because of your population (just under 1bil).

I'm not in the UN, but by way of comparison, I'm just shy of 3 billion people with a "Frightening" economy and my GDP is 118 Trillion. My main nation is 165 Trillion. And of course, there's GDP monsters like Sunset who weigh in at a massive 189 trillion.

Switching to the UN proper, my UN nation ("Good" economy, 3 billion people) has a GDP of 26 trillion (my regional UN GDP leader is at 84 trillion). 3rd Geek's calc won't pull huge regions (and I can't find Sunset's right now), but I think it's safe to say that Kandarin (Delegate of the Rejected Realms) who has a Frightening population and a 3 billion pop, likely has a 100+ trillion GDP. It's really easy to see how even a tiny fraction of a percent of GDP would quickly add to "phat stacks of filthy luchre".

Easily. Actually, your GDP is "average" not so much because of your economy (Powerhouse), but because of your population (just under 1bil).

I'm not in the UN, but by way of comparison, I'm just shy of 3 billion people with a "Frightening" economy and my GDP is 118 Trillion. My main nation is 165 Trillion. And of course, there's GDP monsters like Sunset who weigh in at a massive 189 trillion.

Switching to the UN proper, my UN nation ("Good" economy, 3 billion people) has a GDP of 26 trillion (my regional UN GDP leader is at 84 trillion). 3rd Geek's calc won't pull huge regions (and I can't find Sunset's right now), but I think it's safe to say that Kandarin (Delegate of the Rejected Realms) who has a Frightening population and a 3 billion pop, likely has a 100+ trillion GDP. It's really easy to see how even a tiny fraction of a percent of GDP would quickly add to "phat stacks of filthy luchre".

exactly, and I did take that into account... I used my as an "average" because being close to the 1bil point for me and the other made a nice number of average between the larger and smaller... (I averaged the two, then calculated off of it...

Horrendous numbers...

The Confederacy of Ilsaradin hopes to reduce its income tax shortly. And while we would not be affected by the passage of this proposal, as we are not members, our concern for our fellow man requires us to speak out. We appreciate the NSUN's kindness in allowing us to use this forum to air our concerns.

Taxation is bad enough under representation. At least then you know that the money being extracted from you -- at gunpoint, if neccessary -- is taken by the will of a majority of a group that shares enough values with you to remain under the same government.

But NSUN votes do not neccessarily represent the will of the people represented, as is made clear by the many delegates sent by nations with extremely poor civil rights. And it is also clear that many of the members have populations with wildly differing views on the proper role of a government, let alone a metagovernment such as the NSUN.

The current ban on NSUN taxes and extortion passed for many very good reasons. I strongly urge you not to undo the wisdom of those who passed it.

There was an extensive argument / discussion on this topic at least once already, but the UN Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725) was better researched than most. To address the most serious failing of the proposed repeal / amendment, 4% is ENORMOUS. 0.4% is still too big. If you're going to make up numbers, make up reasonable numbers. See this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6859303&postcount=75) for a RL example:

"The sum of individual country values of gross national product (GNP) is an obvious assessmet base. This sum is estimated at $23,580 billion for 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available in the Human Development Report, 1996; so total assessment of $1.5 billion amounts to about 0.00636% of world income. "

Ah. Thank you for enlightening me on this. Anyway, I present the latest incarnation, with your advice:


DECLARES accordingly the UN Taxation Ban to be null and void. Although passed in good spirit, the UN Taxation Ban prevents the UN from procuring the funds necessary to perform its duties in times of extreme crisis or difficulty. Allowing the UN to impose tax would allow the UN to procure and appropriate the funds from and for the citizens most affected by such unprecedented crisis and UN action.

AUTHORIZES the UN to set a tax to be indexed on member nations' citizens income and inflation. The tax collected from said citizens must be fully disclosed and transparent and have due cause and purpose to aid said citizens' welfare and/or quality of life.

IN THE INTEREST of protecting nation's sovereignty, said tax can only be enacted in temporary measures and in times of crisis. Said tax can only be enacted upon citizens who are in the region of the event or circumstance which requires such desperate measures. The UN body reserves the right to determine if the nation and its citizens who are most affected by such situations can bear the burden of such tax. If an inability to carry the burden is found; no burden may be placed upon them

IN THE EVENT that a tax is enacted, it shall be enacted for no more than two fiscal years, and all surplus money must be refunded to member nations and their citizens accordingly.

This is just my opinion ... but I think you are doing two things with your text here.

The first statement reads like a reasoned argument in favour of repealing the UN Taxation ban resolution. Your next three clauses sound like they are actually doing something (i.e. could almost be their own resolution).

My opinion is not official by any means. But one way that I think you could fix this would be to change those three clauses as a sort of teaser. Basically find a way to include in your argument against the current resolution to say that if the resolution is voted down that you'd like to propose something along the lines you show ...


SUGGESTS that if repealed, that a new resolution can be submitted to deal with appropriation of UN funds.


Even that might be something that the game mods might not like ... I just don't know anymore. :(

Minor nit pick ... the third clause (not shown) could use a period at the end. ;) (And for the record, I make typos all the time, but sometimes another pair of eyes helps.)

Illegal as written.

Repeals cannot advance new legislation. All they do is strike out previous Resolutions. That little box is for you to give your reasons why, not to list what you wish to replace it with.

Mik's suggestions look okay, I'd have to see it in draft form to get a feel for how it flows.

I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one wondering about that then.

Hydredia, don't worry! :) I actually liked what you are doing here. I think having a "draft" proposal, even in rough outline form, already in hand when you submit your repeal proposal is a great idea. That means during the debate if people say, "Hey what do you mean we can create a new resolution?", then you can say, "Here is the start of what I have in mind. I'd welcome suggestions for changes."

I am well aware of how the resolution is currently illegal as written. That is why I believe (not sure if this is actually possible) it could be written not as a repeal, but rather as an override.

I am well aware of how the resolution is currently illegal as written. That is why I believe (not sure if this is actually possible) it could be written not as a repeal, but rather as an override.

The moderators will probably view an override as an repeal or amendment. A two step process is your safest bet.

Good call. So, if you would help write it in such a two-step process, it would be much appreciated.

Good call. So, if you would help write it in such a two-step process, it would be much appreciated.

Well the first step is pretty much finished. You want to repeal the UN Taxation Ban ... and I think your first statement is ready. I think it is OK to include in your justification to replace the ban a note that you are really doing this with the intent to find a means to get the UN funds (I'm assuming this is your goal -- my nation agrees with this idea of course).

The second step is to work on a rough draft of what you'd like to replace the resolution with (assuming it is repealed). I think you've got a rough draft in the form of clauses 2 - 4 already. And then there is the other proposal that was pointed out that you could ask to borrow sections / ideas from (I'm assuming that those authors gave up on that idea, but could be wrong).

Reposting your most current copies of things once every few pages of debate I think is a good idea. It can help to bring the focus back to the issue at hand.

Note: Don't actually propose the second part until UN Taxation Ban is repealed, otherwise it will fall afoul of the rules and be deleted.

Note: Don't actually propose the second part until UN Taxation Ban is repealed, otherwise it will fall afoul of the rules and be deleted.

Good point. But wouldn't it be possible to post the "draft" proposal here in the forum?

Interesting development: a repeal has been proposed already. So it merely remains to write the amendment, assuming the repeal proposal advances.

Here is the draft as Hybredia now sees it:

RECOGNIZING the need for the UN to provide special services and necessities, it is clear that the UN requires the authority to levy a tax in order to perform is duties in extraodinary situations.

AUTHORIZES the UN to set a tax to be indexed on member nations' citizens income and inflation. The tax collected from said citizens must be fully disclosed and transparent and have due cause and purpose to aid said citizens' welfare and/or quality of life.

IN THE INTEREST of protecting nation's sovereignty, said tax can only be enacted in temporary measures and in times of crisis. Said tax can only be enacted upon citizens who are in the region of the event or circumstance which requires such desperate measures. The UN body reserves the right to determine if the nation and its citizens who are most affected by such situations can bear the burden of such tax. If an inability to carry the burden is found; no burden may be placed upon them

IN THE EVENT that a tax is enacted, it shall be enacted for no more than two fiscal years, and all surplus money must be refunded to member nations and their citizens accordingly

There has been at least one repeal for that resolution in queue semi-continuously since repeals were allowed. I assure you that it won't make quorum unless someone actively campaigns. Also, the text of the repeal is as important as the concept of a repeal - there were probably 50-75 Repeal the Axis of Evil proposals before somebody campaigned enough to get one approved.

"Don't get your hopes up yet, lad - it's a long row to hoe."

OOC:

I am curious. Why does the UN need to take money?

Why can't it earn its income from a international form that should be handled by the UN anyway? Say Military weapons...

The UN could add in an additional 5% overhead charge, and not have to concern its self with taxation, collecting taxation, determining the appropriate amount of tax per the country's economic indication, or make a board to look through all 11.000 countries to figure out what the correct number to add to the country's expenditures.

And as a side bonus, you would be able to control all weapons that are available to all country's; so that certain things like untested new, or questionably insidious weapons would not be allowed in the military of any country.

Any excess in funds could be used to support small nations that do not have a defense, or they may be used to support a UN health organization or some such program.

There is no need to repeal the resolution, just work around it with a plan like this one... or maybe a tariff on all items that cross international borders.

OOC:

Well, first what you propose would be a damper on trade to say the least. Which would be far more detrimental to the UN than any tax.

Right now, there is no express need to tax. But the authority to tax is important not only symbolically, but also in the event of economic crisis, or other such crisis which we cannot forsee. This would give the UN immediate disposable funds to protect its citzens.
Example (unlikely, but stay with me): Aliens attack the earth. This would be a daunting task for individual nations and alliances to deal with. A UN that could collect funds and put together its own defence etc. would be essential.

Well, first what you propose would be a damper on trade to say the least. Which would be far more detrimental to the UN than any tax.

OOC: - clarified

I do not think that the UN selling military equipment, instead of nations in regards to international trades, will in any way dampen any trade what so ever. If you can prove me wrong please do.

And if the UN does not need the money right now, asking permission to take the money from countries in time of crisis, is like taking the clothes from a person who was just burned out of their house.

To set aside a slush fund for times of crisis, though they will most likely never come, would eventually, if the principle is never used, turn into it's own method of making interst income, and would help support these mandates that everyone wonders where the money will come from.

I beleive that UN control of military sales between countries would be the most effective and least interfering way for the UN to become wholly self sufficent, and also be able to find funding for future expences that would benifit all nations.

I beleive that the UN selling military gear to member nations, would be an excelent way to work around a perfectly good resolution like UN ban on taxation. It would help to bolster unity of the nations; it would provide a safe and secure service for all member nations; it would tax what is ostensivly an international issue anyway, once any military becomes involved in a problem; and it would also be viewed as an acceptable Sin tax.

(you don't need to say OOC in the UN. We're only semi-RP, and it's not enforced)

Dhulus, I don't like your idea a bit. That said, I encourage you to put it into the form of a proposal. I don't think anyone has tried it before, and it might just have merit if phrased properly. Best to break it off into its own idea, as it only barely relates to this topic. You'll never know until you try.