NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my proposal to radically re-distribute the wealth of each UN member.

the explanation is all there

search for it under "wealth"





Re-Distribution of Wealth
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Clint the mercyful

Description: The Crisp loving lands of Clint the Mercyful pleads all right minded nations to support this proposal.

THE WHY

In order to reward the prolatariat for their blood, sweat, tears and hard work in creating many modern industrial nations.

THE WHAT, THE WHEN AND THE HOW

A law to automatically re-distribute 25% of all inherited wealth, into a tax relief fund for the poorest workers in society.
A law to re-distribute 25% of everyones finances upon their death to the same tax relief fund.
ergo....money will be taken from the rich and given to the poor. This will affect inherited wealth, rather than personally built fortunes in the immediate time scale.

SUPPORT THE RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN SOCIETY AND SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL !

thanks

Approvals

I applaud your honesty in presenting this proposal. At least you're calling a spade a spade.

However, taking money from one group and giving it to another is a form of stealing that just isn't considered honorable in my country. Thus, the people of Maubachia cannot support the proposal.

A law to automatically re-distribute 25% of all inherited wealth, into a tax relief fund for the poorest workers in society.
A law to re-distribute 25% of everyones finances upon their death to the same tax relief fund.

I do like that you choose to take from inheritance rather than from personally accrued wealth, because this is probably the situation in which it is easiest to justify taxation. But there's a slight problem with this. To me, the proposal appears to do this:

Say elderly Mr X has a personal fortune of 1 000 000 whatevers upon his death. His will says to give everything to his daughter. According to the second law you propose, 25% of the fortune will be taken and put into the fund, leaving 750 000 in inheritance. However, according to the first law you propose, we would then have to remove a further 25%, leaving 562 500 for the daughter to have.

If you actually wish to propose a tax of 43.75%, it would be clearer and simpler to simply implement one law to tax inheritance at a rate of 43.75%.

We would be in favour of a sliding scale tax rate, and of only taxing inheritance above a certain amount. We would also like you to be clearer about what the fund is to be spent on, or to actually explicitly state that nations have an element of choice, and finally you need to clarify whether there will be a separate fund for each nation, or whether there will be one international fund.

Indeed, there is no order to the system; it accomplishes nothing.

For one. There is no definition of "proletariat".

Second, it proposes to remove 25% from all inheritance, and then remove another from all in conjunction with inheritance from death. (Which covers almost all inheritance).

All of this goes into a supposed "tax relief" fund; but there is no decision as to who this money goes to; so effectively it goes to the government.

Effectively, this is not a "wealth redistrobution system", it is a system to bolster statist governments at the expense of their populace, through enforcement of NSUN legislation; and on the flip side, create an absolutely unusable money pile, for libertarian nations; who would not have anything to do with the money.

Tekania, let's mark this date. It may be the only time we agree on something.

Were this resolution to create an international fund, nearly all of the citizens of my country, with an average GDP per capita of over $44,000 USD, would be considered "rich," and be subject to this Death Tax.

Furthermore, in nations in which income is taxed, this is a second tax upon income that has already been taxed. Horrors! Let's tax it again just for good measure! Where will it end?

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. The effects of overtaxation are just the opposite.

Tekania, let's mark this date. It may be the only time we agree on something.

Were this resolution to create an international fund, nearly all of the citizens of my country, with an average GDP per capita of over $44,000 USD, would be considered "rich," and be subject to this Death Tax.

Furthermore, in nations in which income is taxed, this is a second tax upon income that has already been taxed. Horrors! Let's tax it again just for good measure! Where will it end?

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity. The effects of overtaxation are just the opposite.

Actually, if the authors intent was to impose a "tax" on inheritance, which would go to an "international fund" the res. is blatantly illegal. Since this would be a violation of:


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: 4,511
Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003


Which prevents the United Nations from imposing a direct tax upon the populace of member nations.

I SUPPORT THE CLINT !

clint was clearly trying to change society for the better.

tax the rich to feed the poor.
is not all taxation just stealing from various groups
lets hope their are more proposals infavour of the people rather than the business minded world

i support this resolution. i of course, being a socialist would want to go further, with complete distribution of all wealth like this



all people residnging in the nation give all there money into one bank. then it gets divided by the amount of people. like a mean average

ie one man earns 20 000 usd. one earns 15 000 usd and 0ne earns 18 000. this adds up to 53 000. 53 divided by 3 =1766.666666'

this is how i would run my nation, but unless some one puts worward a resolution or issue, i cant

Ugh, how gauche!

A resolution to punish families for a member being rich? This makes as much sense as a resolution that requires all families who have less than 2 million in assets to be stripped of all money and property and the surviving members to be beaten with sticks once a day for the following year.

Considering the fact the poorest workers in my nation are also the laziest, I see no problem that needs to be fixed. If they are actually having that much trouble with their jobs, the military pays well and is always in need of more people for just about every type of job you can imagine.

Don't bother, the UN has been taken over by the extreme left wing.

Don't bother, the UN has been taken over by the extreme left wing.

Yes. It started with the second passed resolution and has pretty much continued ever since.

i support this resolution. i of course, being a socialist would want to go further, with complete distribution of all wealth like this



all people residnging in the nation give all there money into one bank. then it gets divided by the amount of people. like a mean average

ie one man earns 20 000 usd. one earns 15 000 usd and 0ne earns 18 000. this adds up to 53 000. 53 divided by 3 =1766.666666'

this is how i would run my nation, but unless some one puts worward a resolution or issue, i cant

Now Communism makes sense! None of them are good at math! It makes since they screw it all up!

$20,000 + $15,000 + $18,000 = $53,000 (yes)
$53,000 / 3 = (however) $17,666.67 (not $1,766.66~),(Since you're dealing with USD, you must round to the nearest cent) [Of course, your math works in Communism, since the Government would steal $15,900.01 of it anyway).

Considering the fact the poorest workers in my nation are also the laziest, I see no problem that needs to be fixed.

Although I'm more of a socialist, I wholeheartedly agree with DemonLord... Under what merit are we giving the "poor" people money? They're not more hardworking, not more efficient, not stronger, not more intelligent... if anything, it's a LACK of those that most likely caused them to arrive at such a position in the first place. Why are we punishing the PRODUCTIVE members of society with taxes, while rewarding the UNPRODUCTIVE members of society, who sit around doing nothing but sucking government resources.

Rather than simply throwing money at these people, the solution for improved financial equality is to use these funds to create industry, places to send these people to work and MAKE A LIVING FOR THEMSELVES.

In any case, i'll also go with national sovereignty and say that you can tax your people how you want, and I can tax mine how I want.

A law to automatically re-distribute 25% of all inherited wealth, into a tax relief fund for the poorest workers in society.
A law to re-distribute 25% of everyones finances upon their death to the same tax relief fund.I think I see what he's trying to do. Using the mythical millionaire above, if he died and left all 1,000,000 $currency to $charity, then the charity would receive 750,000 $currency, but if he chose to leave it to a person (or persons), there would be the extra 25% tax on the receivers of said 750,000.

Of course, this fails to take into account the fact that the entire estate almost never goes to the inheritors, what with funeral costs, legal fees, outstanding debts, normal death taxes (provided you haven't tossed those out), etc.

Also, I wager the poster wasn't shooting for a 43% tax on inheritance, I'm pretty certain he didn't realise that two separate rounds of 25% wouldn't add up to 50%.

Or the 25% on inherited wealth would be against the pre-tax amount, but that's just being greedy.


is not all taxation just stealing from various groups[?]Yes, yes it is. Of course, that's why I keep my nation's tax rate at 0%.

lets hope their are more proposals infavour of the people rather than the business minded worldRead over the passed Resolutions. The NSUN is hardly business friendly, especially when you consider the effects of all those environmental Resolutions.


Indeed, there is no order to the system; it accomplishes nothing.

For one. There is no definition of "proletariat".One assumes he's referencing anyone that the government considers poor.

Don't bother, the UN has been taken over by the extreme left wing.


this is because

(a) left wing ideals are more intelligent
(b) right wing ideals are based on fear, prejudice and greed
(c) you are out of touch with the sane, ordinary views of most NS-ers

p.s. I, myself,do not subscribe to a wing of political views, I am much more rounded than that (oh yes !)

Don't bother, the UN has been taken over by the extreme left wing.
It didn't reach quorum or get made into a resolution. Democracy defeated it. The extreme left wing failed.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

(a) left wing ideals are more intelligent
(b) right wing ideals are based on fear, prejudice and greed
(c) you are out of touch with the sane, ordinary views of most NS-ers

Careful...

Sane...ordinary...views of most NSers? :confused:

ROFLMAO! :D

I never thought I would see those words all in the same sentence. :)

Well, to me, "left-wing" always seemed like a generalization... Radical Communism is on the left side, yet laissez-faire capitalism is also on the left side? And fascism, which is similar to communism in government control, is far right?

Well, to me, "left-wing" always seemed like a generalization... Radical Communism is on the left side, yet laissez-faire capitalism is also on the left side? And fascism, which is similar to communism in government control, is far right?

Yeah, there are many different left-right continuums, some economioc, some moral, some revolutionary. People who act like there's a set, singular left-right continuum typically don't really know where they stand. They just want an easy way of seperating "us" from "them". Just as long as it convinces them that "us" is better than "them".

A prime example:


(a) left wing ideals are more intelligent
(b) right wing ideals are based on fear, prejudice and greed
(c) you are out of touch with the sane, ordinary views of most NS-ers

I personally think people should spend more time finding their own ways of expressing their own views and ideals, rather than parroting off partisan dogma. But that's just me.

Well, to me, "left-wing" always seemed like a generalization... Radical Communism is on the left side, yet laissez-faire capitalism is also on the left side? And fascism, which is similar to communism in government control, is far right?

Yeah, it makes no sense, and is more of a circle than a spectrum. Keep in mind the system of analysis was developed and is preached by those whom call themselves political scientists.

Nice try Clint, Wilf. Liiiiitttle to radical for me, or the rest of the UN. :p