NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my proposal. Or at least debate it. As of right now, it can be found at the very top of page 18 in the proposals list.




Required Donations is Taxation
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Kingsland

Description: In accordance with UN Resolution #4 which states:

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

the United Nations further clarifies that:

a) any proposal requiring donations from UN member nations, defined by amount or percentage, be stricken from public record due to the clause "for any purpose";

b) the term donation be used by the definition:
a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause.

Approvals: 4 (The Kingsland, Tekania, WZ Forums, Maraque)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jan 14 2005

Heh...you should have submitted a draft here first...

Define "...worthwhile cause."

Heh...no I shouldn't have...

Apparently you aren't reading it correctly. As a "voluntary gift", the "worthwhile cause" is left to be defined by the individual nation.

Anything other than a "voluntary gift", even if it is called a donation in a particular resolution, that is required by the UN is taxation. Plain and simple.

Actually, you should ALWAYS submit a draft here first. You get advice, and if you decide not to take it, we can't stop you from submitting it anyways. But no, I was referring to the whole subject of making a legal definition of something. For example (and this is rather wierd, but you always have to consider that kind of thing) if a politicican's public opinion polls are horrible, and some buisness man makes a large donation, that might no longer be considered a donation, and instead a bribe, since the public considers him worthless.

Points on posting a proposal taken.

However, please notice the description I have written in. It should clarify the use of the definition by stating "in accordance with". Which is actually referring to the UNs ability to categorise donations and taxes. Since the UN doesn't tax us, they can only get such funding from donations. This simply clarifies that donations are voluntary and not required. Which should clear up alot of things in future proposals for tsunamis, earthquakes and what have you.

I'll just add, that this is not a way of getting away with not having to help support such causes. All nations may not be as financially endowed as yours or mine. To require a nation that is fighting hunger, civil war (or whatever just take your pick) to give X amount of dollars or X% of GDP is proposterous.

Why would donations not be voluntary? It is part of the definition of the word :}

The problem lies in the numerous proposals being put up that specify "required donations". That's not donating, it's taxing.

Name them and post text of the portions that state it. I'm too lazy to look it up.

A good example is the Global Library part 2 ammendment thingy. I assume you've read it?

yeah right, I'll get right on that one boss.

Anybody that would support this, or has taken the time to actually flip through the proposals, has seen them. Since I'm sure you''ll say it's either unfounded or illegal (rolls eyes), then I will say you have the source. proposals list (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30567/page=UN_proposal)

The Global Library Part 2 is pretty much illegal. No amendments.

I didn't mention anything about the global library, look above. Check out all of the disaster relief proposals.

I didn't mention anything about the global library, look above. Check out all of the disaster relief proposals.

Ryloss did. And considering we have a thread sticky at the top of the forum with everything up to the Eon Convention in it, you should only have trouble finding text on a couple of proposals.

So basically this is a proposal to change the use of certain words? Or is this to make the U.N. have to play the pet of the richer nations since they'll need to actually receive the money via donation?

Ok. Baring one page, which does not appear to want to load, I have found nine proposals that mention tax or funding.


Natural Disaster Aid Group


Illegal due to real world events. Also does not demand funding by law


Ban Nuclear Weapons


Says it needs funding, but does not suggest how it will get it.


Tsunami Donations


Suggests people give to charity. Does not demand it. Also illegal due to real world stuff


Endangered Species Act


Says rewards should be paid but does not suggest how they should be funded.


World Aid and Disaster Fund


This does demand 5% of a nations GDP in donations.


Ensuring Sustainabilty


This does not mention donations, but does require a payment from each member nation


Legalization for a Price


Does demand a tax, but it is a national tax, not a UN tax.


The World Tax


I really have no idea what this is doing, so it might be demanding a tax as a "donation"
There is also a duplicate proposal that does something else - it appears to be trying to appropriate money from one government for use by another.


Clean Energy Act


Mentions the UN will be paying, but does not explain how it will be raised.
Also mentions a lot of new taxes, but they are all national, not international.
Possibly illegal due to game mechanics violations.

So out of the nine proposals, only one of them actually requires donations to be mandatory. The rest either don't require them to be mandatory, or don't require them at all.


So honestly I think you are worrying about nothing.

(And, by the by, as people have pointed out, the UN Taxation Ban does not preclude the UN taxing member nations).

(And, on another topic, there are a lot of truly horrible proposals in that list)

That one about a tax on individuals in a nation is also illegal.