NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a draft of my proposal:

Repeal "UN taxation ban"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #4 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=3) | Proposed by: UN Peacekeepers

Description: UN Resolution #4: UN taxation ban (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=3) (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING that the United Nations has grown significantly since the passing of this proposal,
RECOGNIZING that many United Nations resolutions have been passed since this resolution and that those resolutions have had problems with funding,
RECOGNIZING that as the United Nations grows funding becomes more and more difficult,
THEREFORE, a direct tax of citizens of member states of the United Nations shall be possible in future United Nations resolutions.
HOWEVER, this proposal itself does NOT create a direct tax.

Feedback is welcome.

I think you can strike the last line, as we already know a repeal can't "create" anything. Otherwise, it gets to the point, and I'd support it.

waste of time. the resolution only prevents the UN from collecting tax directly from the citizens of member nations. the UN actually gets its funding from the governments of these nations

waste of time. the resolution only prevents the UN from collecting tax directly from the citizens of member nations. the UN actually gets its funding from the governments of these nationsYes. Which is currently only on a donation basis, making funding difficult and thus making funding an argument against many major resolutions.

Yes. Which is currently only on a donation basis, making funding difficult and thus making funding an argument against many major resolutions.
they may be arguments, but it is usually from a minority, because in most of them, the issue outweighs the cost, and the costs are usually inccured at a national level, without the UN actually doing anything

Yes. Which is currently only on a donation basis, making funding difficult and thus making funding an argument against many major resolutions.
Not true.

The reason proposers resort to a donation basis is to make their proposal pallatable to as many delegates as possible. UN Taxation Ban isn't even a consideration.


p.s. My feedback: drop it. I can't imagine this passing under any circumstances.

The reason proposers resort to a donation basis is to make their proposal pallatable to as many delegates as possible. UN Taxation Ban isn't even a consideration.Of course. That's why they always cite it.

And most people think "tax is bad" but this won't actually impose a tax, it will just allow more freedom and would repeal a useless resolution (seeing that Resolution #4 is useless, according to you, anyways).

note to UN Peacekeepers: people have tried to repeal this over and over and over again. none have succeded

Of course. That's why they always cite it.

And most people think "tax is bad" but this won't actually impose a tax, it will just allow more freedom and would repeal a useless resolution (seeing that Resolution #4 is useless, according to you, anyways).
Sloppy wording on my part.

The legality in light of UN Taxation Ban is rarely a consideration on the part of most proposal writers.

Sloppy wording on my part.

The legality in light of UN Taxation Ban is rarely a consideration on the part of most proposal writers.Yes. And it is useless. So why not repeal it?

and replace it with what?

i don't particularly mind the resolution.

u agree with YGSM. there is really no need to repeal it, and in fact it is good, because it means that with any resolution proposed, there can-not be anything in there to state direct taxing of people. usually, the argument of tax within a proposal or passed resolution quickly gets shot down by saying 'the nations foot the bill, not the people of those nations'.

would .01% of a person incomes really matter to em? But then there are billions apon billions of people in un and that could really add up.

RECOGNIZING that the United Nations has grown significantly since the passing of this proposal,
RECOGNIZING that many United Nations resolutions have been passed since this resolution and that those resolutions have had problems with funding,

I have not recognized any resolution funding problems.


RECOGNIZING that as the United Nations grows funding becomes more and more difficult,
THEREFORE, a direct tax of member states of the United Nations shall be possible in future United Nations resolutions.

There is no ban on "direct tax upon member states". As this proposal states. The proposal is seeks to "repeal", states:

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

It is a ban on any tax layed directly upon the individual citizens of a member state. Not a ban on taxing the member governments (which would be classified more as "dues" than taxes...).


HOWEVER, this proposal itself does NOT create a direct tax.

Which makes since, since repeals can create no new legislation.

note to UN Peacekeepers: people have tried to repeal this over and over and over again. none have succededYes, but those never understood the original proposal. For instance, the most recent try actually agrees with the text of the resolution. However, I understand the text and it does not ban members to collect taxes - it bans a direct UN tax. Understanding the direct tax, I'd be able to write a repeal that actually works.It is a ban on any tax layed directly upon the individual citizens of a member state. Not a ban on taxing the member governments (which would be classified more as "dues" than taxes...).I understand that. Thank you for catching a careless mistake. That's why I posted it in the drafting phase.

Understanding the direct tax, I'd be able to write a repeal that actually works.I understand that. Thank you for catching a careless mistake. That's why I posted it in the drafting phase.

But, in understanding that. The repeal is not needed. There is no need for the body of the Nations States United Nations to levy taxes directly upon the individual citizens of member states, since it does possess the power to collect funds from member state governments (which would be an indirect tax).

Thus the reason for the repeal is not directly founded upon the clause supplied.

But, in understanding that. The repeal is not needed. There is no need for the body of the Nations States United Nations to levy taxes directly upon the individual citizens of member states, since it does possess the power to collect funds from member state governments (which would be an indirect tax).

Thus the reason for the repeal is not directly founded upon the clause supplied.There is no body because that resolution was passed early on preventing it. This repeal will make it possible if the NSUN feels like it.

There is no body because that resolution was passed early on preventing it. This repeal will make it possible if the NSUN feels like it.

The reason supplied for repeal. Is that the "UN Taxation Ban" resolution prevents the NSUN from collecting the funds necessary to supply legal enactments. Or rather, in your words, "RECOGNIZING that many United Nations resolutions have been passed since this resolution and that those resolutions have had problems with funding"... Cites a funding problem, due to the fact that the NSUN enactments can only be funded by member state governments, rather than from all of the citizens of the serveral states. Such is a fraudulent claim. Since the NSUN is more than capable of collecting funds from memberstates for whatever funding is needed by resolutions. IOW there are no funding problems created by the UN Taxation ban, therefore the reasons supplied are invalid, and the repeal is unfounded and unreasonable.

Further, I see no way in which the reason supplied can be engineered to fit the stated goal of the resolution (which is to allow for UN funding), since NSUN funding is already possible by due or levy upon the member state.

Thus, the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in exercize of its powers as UN member and Delegate, will not support this repeal, or any further rewording of the repeal. Considering the legislation in and of itself as not needed, and unwarranted.

Good. That means I get to pick apart your argument. I'll start at the beginning:

The reason supplied for repeal. Is that the "UN Taxation Ban" resolution prevents the NSUN from collecting the funds necessary to supply legal enactments. Or rather, in your words, "RECOGNIZING that many United Nations resolutions have been passed since this resolution and that those resolutions have had problems with funding"... Cites a funding problem, due to the fact that the NSUN enactments can only be funded by member state governments, rather than from all of the citizens of the serveral states. Such is a fraudulent claim. Since the NSUN is more than capable of collecting funds from memberstates for whatever funding is needed by resolutions. IOW there are no funding problems created by the UN Taxation ban, therefore the reasons supplied are invalid, and the repeal is unfounded and unreasonable.And how exactly do the memberstates give funding to the NSUN? Donations. That is a funding problem in itself. If a nation does not like something established in a resolution, they simply do not fund it. This then makes it possible for people to dodge a resolution. If enough people do not donate on that one aspect, the United Nations cannot have the resolution as effective as it might otherwise be. Thus, a loophole is found to avoid resolutions. If you do not like the gay marraige resolution, you simply don't give it any funds and you cannot hold gay marraiges in the first place. That then makes it possible for nations to dodge resolutions, which is illegal. Thus, the passing of my repeal makes funding for everything easier and thus prevents loopholes such as this.

Further, I see no way in which the reason supplied can be engineered to fit the stated goal of the resolution (which is to allow for UN funding), since NSUN funding is already possible by due or levy upon the member state.Yes it is possible, but as I said in the previous paragraph not as effective for fundings.

Thus, the Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in exercize of its powers as UN member and Delegate, will not support this repeal, or any further rewording of the repeal. Considering the legislation in and of itself as not needed, and unwarranted.Thus, the United Nations' Army of UN Peacekeepers, in exercise of its own powers as UN member and delegate, will continue to draft and eventually submit this repeal. Considering I struck down your arguments, I find the legistlation needed for further growth of the NSUN.

Good. That means I get to pick apart your argument. I'll start at the beginning:

I seriously doubt that, as you so not seem to be well versed in this issue.


And how exactly do the memberstates give funding to the NSUN? Donations.

Funding is by the means outlined in the adopted resolution itself. Which can be by donation or by mandatory funding of the member government. It does not matter which, as long as the UN does not fund it by direct levy upon the citizens of the member states.


That is a funding problem in itself. If a nation does not like something established in a resolution, they simply do not fund it.

Depending on the resolution issue, and how the resolution procured funding. If it is by donation, as outlined in a resolution. Then no repeal what-so-ever will correct that issue. Since you cannot alter existing resolution. Any funding problems for individual resolutions are an effect of the resolution itself, and not the presence of the Direct-Tax ban on individuals outlined in the original UN Taxation Ban resolution. Once again, the NSUN is capable of applying dues to the states. It just cannot directly tax the citizens.


This then makes it possible for people to dodge a resolution. If enough people do not donate on that one aspect, the United Nations cannot have the resolution as effective as it might otherwise be.

Once again, an effect of the funding plan outlined in the resolution words. Not of the presence of the taxation ban. There is nothing stopping resolutions from bearing words to the effect of direct taxation or fund collections from the member states by mandate. Merely they cannot directly tax the citizens.


Thus, a loophole is found to avoid resolutions.

A loophole in the original resolutions itself. And one which is not correctible by the repeal of the Taxation ban, as the Taxation ban does not limit the NSUN to donation based funding alone. It merely bans any funding through the levy of tax upon individual citizens.


If you do not like the gay marraige resolution, you simply don't give it any funds and you cannot hold gay marraiges in the first place.

Such is more than a technical violation. Member states of the example resolution are required by international law to legalize and endore gay marriage. That is, no action can be taken to bar homosexuals from being married by the member state. Also, the above example requires no funding, since it impliments nothing effectively new. It merely extends all marriage laws of member states to cover homosexual unions, and immunizes all member state laws which may bar homosexuals from using the legal means available by the law to form such contractural marriage unions.


That then makes it possible for nations to dodge resolutions, which is illegal.

Some resolutions utilize donation based schemes for funding. These schemes are a product of the resolution itself. There was nothing stopping the writers from levying tax upon the member state, or of requiring dues for support. Such can be dodged by, legally, by the loopholes in those resolutions. It is not a product of the UN bar from taxing individual citizens.


Thus, the passing of my repeal makes funding for everything easier and thus prevents loopholes such as this.

Accept it does nothing. It makes the assumption that the "ban" is on the UN levying any tax at all. Which is fraudulent. The UN is capable and empowered to levy taxes... It just cannot levy these taxes directly upon member-state citizens.


Thus, the United Nations' Army of UN Peacekeepers, in exercise of its own powers as UN member and delegate, will continue to draft and eventually submit this repeal. Considering I struck down your arguments, I find the legistlation needed for further growth of the NSUN.

You struck down no arguments. But presented the view in fact, in error of understanding the Taxation ban in itself. It is a BAN UPON the UN levying tax directly upon member state citizens... It is NOT A BAN upon the UN levying any tax whatsoever.

The reason most resolutions have been worded so as to use donation based funding had nothing to do with the UN taxation ban... It has everything to do with the original writers wanting to increase the chance of the resolutions passage in the first place.

You are assuming the UN Taxation ban resolution bans the UN from collecting taxes.... It does not... IT bans the UN from collecting tax DIRECTLY from citizens... If the UN applies tax, it can only be applied to member-state governments... not individuals.

There is valid reason for this... Since the NSUN does little work, it needs very little funding. Programs are initiated at member-state level. That is, programs which the NSUN mandates by law, be set up. For example: Under the protection of Historical Sites resolution, I am required to take legislative action to create a system whereby important historical sites are protected and maintained. It is the CRoT government which is forced to act upon the resolution, and it is the CRoT government which must fund the programs necessary to comply with the resolution (failure to do so is a violation)...

Thus, in the confederate concept of the NSUN, direct taxation is not needed, nor reasonable, Since the NSUN does nothing to actually accomplish enactments by legislation, short of the magical gnomes which come in to alter our laws (and eat our cookies while they are at it! Damn ingrates!).
Since actual activities are all national, in stands to reason, also, that the funding be national. (either by the states own internal activities, or by the collection of levy upon the member state governments). Taxation upon member-state governments is an "indirect" tax upon the people, thus not effected by the NSUN Taxation ban.

That is the issue. So, once again, you have not disproven my point. It still stands... Repealing the NSUN taxation ban does nothing which could not be accomplished by levy upon the states in resolution.

I had a very long argument, several pages, but then I realized it'd be useless. I recommend you not waste the time arguing because your mind wont change and neither will mine. I'm going to submit this because despite what you think, it will be able to open new windows to the world of resolutions and even make possible a resolution of a direct tax that would spread the money made by the tax to areas in need, thus solving every funding problem. However, seeing as you probably like to argue, I'm not going to give you what you want. I have my reasons to submitting your repeal and I can understand your opposition. However, the way your argument is going, we could waste months on it. And truely it would be a waste because I will submit this proposal unless I lose my endorsements.

I have not recognized any resolution funding problems.



There is no ban on "direct tax upon member states". As this proposal states. The proposal is seeks to "repeal", states:



It is a ban on any tax layed directly upon the individual citizens of a member state. Not a ban on taxing the member governments (which would be classified more as "dues" than taxes...).



Which makes since, since repeals can create no new legislation.
Try as you might, it will take decades for you to achieve the fu of drunkien posting master.

Good. That means I get to pick apart your argument. I'll start at the beginning:

Your fisking technique needs polishing.
Perhaps you could sit at the feet of the master, DLE, and learn how to properly fisk a Tekania post.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this repeal pass. Problem is, it's not a high priority for me right now, and I'm not that willing to do more than approve it on the proposals page.

As I have stated on numerous occations. The Ban on the NSUN collecting tax directly from member state citizens does not prevent the UN placing levy upon state governments and spreading the collected tax upon states around where it is needed.

The UN presently has the power to tax state governments (it just has as of yet to do it). It just cannot directly place levy upon individual citizens.

As such, yet again the Taxation ban is not restricting the funding ability of resolutions, as you keep fraudulently claiming. And your claim is that, fraud. It places a single limit upon source (no fund collections directly from citizens), while leaving funding applicable either by voluntary or mandatory donations, and/or possibly levy upon states for tax.

You can keep claiming it all you want Peacekeepers... It still does not make your claim true. As I have proven.

I would suggest, rather than continuously attempting fraudulent claims; to encourage resolution writers to use more concrete funding strategies in their resolutions (like mandatory due collections or tax upon member-state governments), which would succeed in the goal of making resolution enforcement possible.

As I have stated on numerous occations. The Ban on the NSUN collecting tax directly from member state citizens does not prevent the UN placing levy upon state governments and spreading the collected tax upon states around where it is needed.Yes. I understand. However, your speach has forced me to have to defend myself. I do not like to argue. You have made me angry.

The UN presently has the power to tax state governments (it just has as of yet to do it). It just cannot directly place levy upon individual citizens.Of course.

As such, yet again the Taxation ban is not restricting the funding ability of resolutions, as you keep fraudulently claiming. And your claim is that, fraud. It places a single limit upon source (no fund collections directly from citizens), while leaving funding applicable either by voluntary or mandatory donations, and/or possibly levy upon states for tax.Of course. However, it does restrict a single source and that source is the biggest possible source of income. It is restricting the funding ability of the resolutions. That is what you do not understand. "It places a single limit upon source" is what you said and that is still a limit. In your own words it is a limit.

You can keep claiming it all you want Peacekeepers... It still does not make your claim true. As I have proven.You have proven nothing. Sorry. But by arguing, all you can do is annoy me. It's like all of those "Does God exist?" arguments in the General forum. No definate conclusion will ever be made.

I would suggest, rather than continuously attempting fraudulent claims; to encourage resolution writers to use more concrete funding strategies in their resolutions (like mandatory due collections or tax upon member-state governments), which would succeed in the goal of making resolution enforcement possible.As I have proven, you in your own words says it is a restriction.

Yes. I understand. However, your speach has forced me to have to defend myself. I do not like to argue. You have made me angry.

Oh this is great, you want to submit resolutions, but you don't want argument? You would do great in politics, Mr. Bush.


Of course. However, it does restrict a single source and that source is the biggest possible source of income. It is restricting the funding ability of the resolutions. That is what you do not understand. "It places a single limit upon source" is what you said and that is still a limit. In your own words it is a limit.

Limit upon source, not upon potential. There is a difference there. There is no limit upon the funds collected from member states, and being that member states are composed of the people, member states have the same income potential as the people they are made up of.

Thus arguing that this makes it "Easier", is fraudulent, since it does nothing of the sort. It merely makes it easier for the NSUN to oppress the people, since people would be taxed without FAIR and EQUAL representation. Something us truly liberal and free states understand, and which you oppressive monsterous dictatorships do not. The NSUN represents the states, not the people of the states, thus it should not have powers to tax the people.


You have proven nothing. Sorry. But by arguing, all you can do is annoy me. It's like all of those "Does God exist?" arguments in the General forum. No definate conclusion will ever be made.

As I have proven, you in your own words says it is a restriction.

Oh, I'm sorry logical and honest critisism of your failed logic annoys you. However, that is not my problem, but yours.

May I suggest you re-write your proposal to conform to your actual reasoning.


Repeal "UN taxation ban"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal | Resolution: #4 | Proposed by: UN Peacekeepers

Description: UN Resolution #4: UN taxation ban (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Argument? We don't need no stinkin' argument... We just want to, BECAUSE!

Might I suggest that you stop because that last bit is borderline flame/flame-bait?

You know what? I sumbitted the repeal because I do have my reasons unlike what you think. And even if I had the reasoning you "suggested," I'd still have better reasoning than the original one sentence resolution that has no reasoning at all!

Might I suggest that you stop because that last bit is borderline flame/flame-bait?

It's borderline nothing....

This is the UN, this is where proposals and resolutions are open to debate, arguments and critisism.

I support resolutions that conform. I oppose resoltuions which do not, and I ignore ones which I consider of no importance.

If you do not want criticism of your proposals, then do not post them. Otherwise you are open to criticism.

I do not agree with your proposal. I do not agree with your reasons... And I am going to argue against them till my face turns blue if necessary, as long as such stays on its course.

If it makes it through approval, I will vote no to it.

But I am also going to oppose its very approval. And argue consistently against it. Because, as I have stated, it does not conform to valid reason.

I am supportive of better funding in many of the resolutions, I just recognize that there are better solutions than the application of oppressive tax upon the general populace. The taxation of member-states is more than capable of supplying the necessary funds... As I have stated, and to which you have no claims against.

Merely because we can do something, does not mean we should do it. Such is my case against your proposal.

My argument is that the repeal is uneeded, because the NSUN is capable of collecting the needed funds by placing levy upon the states, in form of either mandatory donation or by direct tax upon member-state government.

Also, the creation of a system, whereby the NSUN would need to create a department to monitor the tax upon all individual citizens in all member states, would increase the UN's general funding needs by several orders of magnitude. The system of tax upon the states themselves would not need nearly as much infrastructure, yet provide the same order of potential revenue.

And such a strategy would be more inline with the principle of no taxation without representation. Taxation upon the individual citizens of the UN would be unfair, as long as they do not have equal representation before the UN (that is member power determined by population, as opposed to one vote per member).

Since to make your proposal fair and just before the people, would require an alteration of the way the NSUN operates, I oppose the resolution, while support the better alternative, that is, tax upon the state. And maintain the ban upon the UN to collect tax directly from the citizens.

Nevermoore's official response to this proposal is, "No. Forget about it. No way. You will never see a dime from us." We thank you for your time.

Nevermoore's official response to this proposal is, "No. Forget about it. No way. You will never see a dime from us." We thank you for your time.Though it never actually sets a tax. It just makes it possible.

The nation of Krioval feels that the level of histrionics demonstrated by a select minority of other nations on this issue is totally unwarranted. The proposal as it stands does have merit. Frankly, Krioval would rather that this proposal pass, as it would be far easier to have the United Nations be allowed to set up a tax structure in a resolution directly rather than forcing Krioval to determine how to "pass along" the burden. Thus, my original idea of setting up a funding tier for the ULC would have actually been workable, as the UN could have allowed for individual access to the UL without the nation participating above the "basic" level. So repealing Resolution 4 would allow for greater flexibility in writing resolutions *without* adversely affecting other aspects of the resolution. Plus, it might be interesting to be able to debate the source and nature of funding for a resolution rather than simply discussing whether each resolution is or isn't a violation of national sovereignty. Of course, Krioval is biased in this regard, since economic structure is something we value quite strongly.

The other argument I have for the repeal, albeit a weaker one, is the issue of transparency. Currently, an unfunded UN mandate can be satisfied in any way a nation sees fit. Taxing the lowest income earners, for example, is currently acceptable (through various legal forms of regressive taxation). At the same time, Krioval fully believes that if a resolution is going to preferentially benefit the wealthy, they should be covering more of the cost. If it is to benefit everybody equally, the cost should be distributed equally. Of course, if one is lobbying for wealth redistribution, they would also be compelled to admit it during the course of debating funding issues. In any case, being able to set a tax structure directly in a resolution would make it possible to customize how the money is to be raised directly, rather than hoping that every nation in the UN is automatically falls in line with the "spirit" of the resolution.

Sure, more resolutions might not pass if funding is an added dimension in the resolution, but there's nothing that compels a nation to make a directly-funded proposal in the first place, in the event Resolution 4 is repealed. The repeal would only serve to add options, rather than the current resolution, which does nothing to advance the cause of social equality, as it was originally intended to do.

would .01% of a person incomes really matter to em? But then there are billions apon billions of people in un and that could really add up.

Unfortunately, a billion people to pay tax means two billion who need to recieve smallpox vaccinations (for example). I say two billion because in many countries children and seniors, as well as others, are exempt from tax. There are also people who earn nothing: 0.01% of nothing is still nothing.

Furthermore, 0.01% tax may not seem a lot to you, but if you're already paying 100% national tax, that means YOU PAY MORE THAN ALL THE MONEY YOU EARN. That means you have to borrow money to pay tax. And if you never get any money (since it's all being taxed), you can never pay back that loan.

Unfortunately, a billion people to pay tax means two billion who need to recieve smallpox vaccinations (for example). I say two billion because in many countries children and seniors, as well as others, are exempt from tax. There are also people who earn nothing: 0.01% of nothing is still nothing.

First, there are different types of taxes. Typically, people who generate no income pay no income tax. Krioval, for example, has a flat income tax usually between thirty-five and forty percent, depending on which social problems are sent to Parliament. Our economy is quite strong, so that generates a lot of money with which to run our government. To finance the smallpox vaccines, for example, one would have to first calculate the cost of vaccinating one's entire population and either raise taxes to cover or cut spending elsewhere to maintain the tax rate where it is.

Furthermore, 0.01% tax may not seem a lot to you, but if you're already paying 100% national tax, that means YOU PAY MORE THAN ALL THE MONEY YOU EARN. That means you have to borrow money to pay tax. And if you never get any money (since it's all being taxed), you can never pay back that loan.

If the government is taxing its citizens at 100% and an additional expense is incurred, the government will not be able to raise taxes. Think about the logic here. People would quit their jobs in order to avoid an "above total" tax on their income. It's actually a ludicrous proposition. What would likely happen is either the government would borrow money to finance the extra burden or the government would cut spending elsewhere to keep a balanced budget. If one finds a government charging an income tax above 100%, I would love to hear about it.

I believe what UD is raising, is the two seperate independant, and disconnected tax schemes are inoperable. That is, that people paying 100% of their income for government services (found extensively amongst the more socialistic states), would also be applicable to the same tax structure for their "UN income tax".

Let's say Federal Income Tax is 100% in Taxopia. And Taxopia in turn provides all the necessary services. And the UN has a 0.1% tax.

Mr. Smith makes 25,000 thousand credits per year. He owed 25,000 credits to Taxopia for federal tax, and 25 dollars to the UN taxing commission.

Mr. Smith owes 25,025 credits, more money than he makes. While he does not necessarily need any money, (due to the provision of services by Taxopia), he is in effect in perpetual debt. His perpetual yearly net income is (-25.00) credits. And he would then be liable for prosecution to whichever tax he is short on.

Since the effect of NSUN legislation funding to support state programs for the people; the effected tax should be placed in NSUN member-state governments... (Since this negates the previous). Taxation of member-governments is perfectly legal under the present legislation. And it is more logical.

So the question arises, why lift the legislation banning the taxation of the individual citizens, when it is already obvious and logical that such a tax scheme would create more problems than it solves? And when there are better options already on the table than what this provides?

Thus, I would rule that the "lift" to create the option, is in itself non-viable. That it should never be an option to fund UN programs at the direct expense of the member-state citizens; but rather the burden should be upon the member-states themselves (with option for tax upon them).

This "repeal" is fiscally irresponsible towards the citizens of all NSUN member-states. And counter to the NSUN's series of goals and intents to protect the rights of the citizens.

The direct taxation of member-state citizens, should never even be an option.

And this repeal, much like the "Abortion Rights Repeal", "Repeal Gay Marriage", "Repeal Definition of Marrriage", and the like, is classed into a group of repeals seeking to remove the rights and protections of the individual. And is therefore inconsistent with the present ideals expoused in present NSUN legislation.