NationStates Jolt Archive

Money often fails to satisfy us in the era of excess. Humans need to seriously examine the long-term consquences of our society's perpetually accelerating conspicuous consumption. Economists from the Holy Empire of Saint Lucius Malfoy have developed the following UN proposal to globally study and hopefully curb luxury fever to the benefit of all nations.

A Luxury Fever Tax System

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Saint Lucius Malfoy

Description: A resolution to improve world economy and environment by providing tax incentives for saving rather than spending money irrationally.

REGRETTING the long-term threat to global stability which is the escalation of conspicuous consumption or “luxury fever” among citizens (e.g., buying a million dollar wrist watch to outdo the person who purchased a 900,000 wrist watch);

AWARE that the some of causes of escalating conspicuous consumption include irrationality and often uncontrollable innate desires to impress others;

NOTING that escalating over-consumption can impact multiple nations simultaneously;

EMPHASIZING that the citizens from consumerist societies may be at particular risk to the costs of escalating conspicuous consumption (e.g., once there is a million dollar wrist watch another person will desire the status symbol of having a 1.2 million dollar wrist watch and so on);

CONVINCED that by providing tax incentives for saving rather than spending money on over-priced luxuries will conserve resources on the planet and provide greater levels of long-term subjective well-being (e.g., ability to pay for one's education, retirement etc.);

1. ESTABLISHES a United Nations sponsored and funded Center for Tax Incentive Research (CTIR), to be staffed by a team of behavioral economists who collect and monitor tax breaks for saving money programs and subjective well-being data;

2. REQUESTS member nations to disclose tax break and subjective well-being data already being collected to the CTIR to aid in its research and monitoring program;

3. SUGGESTS that governments that do not have organizations for the study of taxation and social behavior work with the CTIR and other nations to enhance existing networks;

4. AUTHORIZES the CTIR to establish a monitoring system for the most effective taxation break system for saving money;

5. DIRECTS the CTIR to develop a standardized protocol for measuring subjective well-being that would be easily recognized by citizens cross-culturally;

6. MANDATES that the CTIR transmit advisory reports to member nations regarding escalating levels of conspicuous consumption, success rate of tax breaks for saving rather than spending programs, and levels of subjective well-being;

7. CALLS UPON member nations to provide the CTIR with all yearly data in a timely and organized fashion;

8. REITERATES the need for member nations to develop tax breaks for saving rather than spending money on over-priced luxuries;

9. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that in the event of escalating conspicuous consumption world-wide that nations will come together to reward and teach citizens the importance of saving money rather than spending on exorbitantly over-priced goods for reasons of status and/or vanity; and

10. ASKS that member nations work with world leaders on curbing “luxury fever” from over-consuming precious non-renewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels) that are nearly at peak levels due escalating global population of nation states and their citizens.

Approvals: 1 (Rosssophie)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 147 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Apr 23 2005

Krioval is not in the habit of suppressing the forces of a free market. The proposal in question would impose state control on our economy, which would more likely than not have a deleterious effect on Krioval's ability to maintain existing trade agreements. In short, the choice of people to save or spend money resides entirely within those people, as far as Krioval is concerned, and we will remain steadfast in our opposition to any proposal or law that threatens what we consider a basic human right.

You do realize that governments make millions off of luxury purchases, correct? Therefore, I find it unlikely that this resolution will garner much support.

*laughs at this one until he pukes*

No, wait, you can't possibly be serious...

*raises an eyebrow* You seriously want us to take away people's right to purchase what they wish? If somone wishes to spend a million dollers on a watch, then that's on them. I have absolutely no intention of telling them how to spend their money as long as they pay their taxes on time to pay for the necessities, the rest is all theirs to play with. THis is so a dead end proposal if I ever saw one.

our advice to Saint Lucius Malfoy is to think long and hard about submitting proposals. whilst your intentions may be noble, i can see this being shot down in an instant. probably by some freedom-loving nation's ICBM with a nuclear warhead. to us, people have earnt their money, so they should be allowed to spend it how they wish.

our advice to Saint Lucius Malfoy is to think long and hard about submitting proposals. whilst your intentions may be noble, i can see this being shot down in an instant. probably by some freedom-loving nation's ICBM with a nuclear warhead. to us, people have earnt their money, so they should be allowed to spend it how they wish.
----------------------------------------------

Saint Lucius Malfoy agrees that the proposal may not go further. Likely because of misunderstanding inherent to original version. This proposal does not limit spending, place caps on luxuries or prohibit the sale of luxuries. The proposal is designed to reduce escalating conspicuous consumption which has several nasty but unintended consequences:

1) Quality of life decreases (i.e., happiness and spending are negatively correlated).

2) There are no natural limits to how expensive a luxury item becomes and therefore there is a large incentive for each individual to amass wealth that is irrationally high and leads to

3) Unnecessary environmental loss.

I feel this issue is related to the SUV craze and the heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Considering that many NationStates have consumer societies with populations over 4 billion one wonders about the long-term environmental costs.

Legislation encouraging a person to save money rather than spend it on status symbol possessions cannot be such a bad thing (in theory). Of course people will still want and purchase Prada, one of a kind watches etc. It is not the intention of this proposal to erradicate this behavior. However even a slight decrease in escalating conspicuous consumption would have positive rather than negative effects on individual happiness, monetary wealth, and the environment (e.g., oil).

I like the idea of encouraging people to save their money, but in no way can I tell them what they can and cannot buy.

I like the idea of encouraging people to save their money, but in no way can I tell them what they can and cannot buy.

Agreed. One possibility is for individuals to submit the amount of money that they have decided to allocate to a savings fund that would have normally gone into a luxury fever item. Luxury fever items could be defined by economists with correct information on wholesale price, retail price, escalating costs over time of products in the same category. Some automobiles can provide clear examples of non-luxury versus luxury fever items.

When the desired luxury item funds are re-allocated by the individual citizen (by free choice of course) to a savings fund, tax breaks for that deferred money would be gained by the citizen. If done properly it would be a win-win system. Individuals that save are happier and healthier while individuals caught up in luxury fever (e.g., out-doing the Jones') are anxiety-filled and may even die earlier. There may also be benefits to developing or third world nations who must pay for our exaggerated quality of life. Although experts in international development may be better able to assess this possibility.

You do realize that governments make millions off of luxury purchases, correct? Therefore, I find it unlikely that this resolution will garner much support.

Indeed. It is true this resolution may have a small effect on tax revenue. However, because this proposal is particularly soft the percentage bite out of revenues would not be that great. Many people would continue to make extravagant purchases despite the tax breaks for saving their money.

All this proposal is designed to do is to allow this world (in particular the nations) to thrive a little longer based on the finite set of resources. The human population in some NationStates' regions is exponentially greater that the planet Earth 2004.

What are the limits and who has the intellectual courage to set them? The United Nations must investigate the underlying causes of escalating growth / over-consumption to make suggestions to member states before it is too late. I do not think "to each his or her own" is a good resolution for the UN which must be first and foremost concerned about the tragedy of the commons.

I think it would be unwise to take any other course than laissez=faire in regards to "luxury items." However, if there was a way to entice citizens to save money, then perhaps I could support some action.

On one hand, we see our economies growing rapidly, but at the same time price inflating at and alarming rate. So do we curb our economies by not allowing or taxing individuals that want these luxury items? Or do we allow them to do as they will, forever driving the cost of living higher?

Luxury items in general are of no consequence, this I know. It someone buys a $1,000,000 watch, this does not mean that same person will pay that much for a loaf of bread. Ludicrous analogy? Consider that both can be bought for similar prices if one so wanted. However, just because someone were to spend exorbiant amount of money on a luxury and optional item, does not mean they will pay similarly high prices on basic needs.

I am of the opinion at this time that this resolution is not needed because there is no real problem. How do these luxury items affect other normal items? If this connection can be made, perhaps the great nation of Bellawyre would be more likely to support.

Out people cherish their rights to buy whatsoever they wish with their hard-earned wages. To take this away from them would be cruel. Why horde money and keep it out of the economy? It is better business to spend! By emptying your purse in a jewelry shop, that jewler can empty his into a night on the town for his family, send his children to universities, or treat himself to a night at the cabaret! It is HIS choice, not yours, ours, or anyone else's.

All this proposal is designed to do is to allow this world (in particular the nations) to thrive a little longer based on the finite set of resources.Since when does the NS Earth have a finite amount of resources?

;) Since when does the NS Earth have a finite amount of resources?
It never does seem to run out of land, and my Uranium mines still have lots of Uranium to extract....

But, I will say it's nice to have some fresh energy thrown into the UN from newcomer nations such as Malfoy - they might not get anything being the submission stage, but it is good to see them try :)

Since most people seem to have taken this proposal as an infringement of their basic right to be shallow consumerist wretches, I hereby declare that Ecopoeia offers its symbolic backing. 'Symbolic' because the proposal has no chance of passing. We just like you.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

whilst being a noble concept, i dont think this is a matter for the UN. the UN cant directly tax people, and it is through this that i believe they shouldnt dictate what they can and cant buy, so long as the item is legal in member countries.

whilst being a noble concept, i dont think this is a matter for the UN. the UN cant directly tax people, and it is through this that i believe they shouldnt dictate what they can and cant buy, so long as the item is legal in member countries.

I am sure you have either not read or misunderstood the proposal. The United Nations IS concerned with world consumption of non-renewable resources, citizen spending habits and their happiness. This is why they research, report and pass resolutions on such issues.

Cars have gotten larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As the rich set the pace, everyone else spends furiously in a competitive imitation of wastefulness. The costs are high: people spend more time at work, leaving less time for family and friends, less time for exercise. Most people have been forced to save less and spend and borrow much more.

The United Nations is also concerned with links between economic decisions, subjective well-being, disease, and mortality. It was the United Nations that discovered through their extensive international datasets that as GDP increases over time citizens within that country report being less happy.

I do believe that the resolution must be re-written to make it crystal clear to all that it is simply advocating a new research network to study the microeconomic links to well-being and proposing a tax incentive to save money which is currently non-existent in most nations. It is not a radical socialist or anti-capitalism proposal by any means. Rather it is frugal and forward thinking.

Admittedly it is a poorly written first draft :(

We of Vastiva would posit a simple, single question -

"Should not the nations which produce most, be allowed to consume most?"

We of Vastiva would posit a simple, single question -

"Should not the nations which produce most, be allowed to consume most?"

"Indeed, we whole-heartedly agree with Vastiva! We should enjoy the bounties of our own harvests, should we not?," says the Nevermoore ambassador. He then takes a healthy sip of fine wine from a golden, ruby encrusted goblet.

"From those according to their ability, to those according to their ability."

~ Raijinomics, volume 1

I am sure you have either not read or misunderstood the proposal.
yes we have read it, and our understanding is that you want to control people's spending habits.
The United Nations IS concerned with world consumption of non-renewable resources, citizen spending habits and their happiness. This is why they research, report and pass resolutions on such issues.
we aknowledge the part about non-renewable resourses, but have come across nothing on citizens spending habits, especially when it doesnt really affect the UN.

Cars have gotten larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As the rich set the pace, everyone else spends furiously in a competitive imitation of wastefulness. The costs are high: people spend more time at work, leaving less time for family and friends, less time for exercise. Most people have been forced to save less and spend and borrow much more.
hmmm, maybe in your country. maybe you should research some more, then you will realise that not every country is like that, or for that matter, not every country is the same. whilst you may posses certain ideals, others have ideals of their own.

The United Nations is also concerned with links between economic decisions, subjective well-being, disease, and mortality.

we will give you this one....

It was the United Nations that discovered through their extensive international datasets that as GDP increases over time citizens within that country report being less happy.
but not this one. we have seen nowhere these results recorded. maybe you are refering to the RL UN, which means you will have to learn to seperate it from the NSUN.

I do believe that the resolution must be re-written to make it crystal clear to all that it is simply advocating a new research network to study the microeconomic links to well-being and proposing a tax incentive to save money which is currently non-existent in most nations. It is not a radical socialist or anti-capitalism proposal by any means. Rather it is frugal and forward thinking.
okay, an research network..... i dont think that the creation of reasearch network is an UN worthy proposal, as it would probably have a very limited timespan, all it does is research, and finally, people would shoot down the findings in order to protect their spending habits, a freedom that they cherish.

Admittedly it is a poorly written first draft :(
cant agree more there, and a second draft is ill-advised

yes we have read it, and our understanding is that you want to control people's spending habits.

Not at all. We wish to encourage governments to reward their citizens for deciding on their own to save money rather than making extravagant purchases.


we aknowledge the part about non-renewable resourses, but have come across nothing on citizens spending habits, especially when it doesnt really affect the UN..

This suggests to me that a resolution is needed.


but not this one. we have seen nowhere these results recorded. maybe you are refering to the RL UN, which means you will have to learn to seperate it from the NSUN..

No the RL UN did not do such a study to my knowledge. However I am sure that RL researchers have. But since this is not relevant the point is that testing for such an effect is easily performed from NSUN. Clearly NSUN is based on RLUN which does keep extensive records of countries population, disease, economics and well-being. NSUN surely does the same.

okay, an research network..... i dont think that the creation of reasearch network is an UN worthy proposal, as it would probably have a very limited timespan, all it does is research, and finally, people would shoot down the findings in order to protect their spending habits, a freedom that they cherish..

Strange thing to say considering other NSUN proposals that have passed include research networks.

It is sort of a timeframe issue. Most pressing concerns for the globe are highlighted first and the UN must address these as "maximum priority". However this proposal deals with negative possibilities in the future. It is one way to deal with future costs of consumption that are not too difficult for citizens from capitalist consumerist nations to cope with. It is subtle reminder that we are living in am interconnected global village using the same resources (tragedy of commons) and need to consider the well-being of future generations when we engage in our daily lavish impulses.

I think some sort of resolution is needed to address this issue and could have a positive impact on the economy and the environment. It is actually a challenging proposal to write so that it does not offend nations "right to choose"
module.

My government does not believe in capping off the maximum market price on a commodity. The market should be free to establish its own maximums.

However, even though Mikitivity is capitalist by nature, we do have minimum wages and rent controls, which aren't capitalistic by their very nature.

Similarly, there is a higher income tax placed on citizens whom earn significantly more than others. As for the poll, we voted that luxuries should be considered for taxation, but were unclear about why we'd want to penalize savings.

That said, I would not rule out a resolution idea on this subject ... it is an interesting debate, and I'm seriously encourage that a friendly discussion continue.

Here's a point.

The more efficient cars? The luxury models? They cost more then regular luxury models - but they pay for themselves in fuel savings.

Yes, you have to pay three times as much for the silver-imbedded woven fiber clothing. However, you never have to clean it, and it never looks rumpled. It also wears at a fifth of the rate.

See this watch? Twenty-six thousand PC. However, it will never need winding, connects to any broadcast or narrowcast station I desire, has a full suite of functions including memos, date book, address book. It also can act as a cellular suite.

In other words - the good toys cost money.

This bill is a typical utterance from the liberal left! It reaks of contemptible socialism! How DARE you demand that we tell our citizens not to enjoy the fruits of their own labors!

Only a people with a deep hatred of capitalism, freedom, and success would support such a bill!

--Welsh

This bill is a typical utterance from the liberal left! It reaks of contemptible socialism! How DARE you demand that we tell our citizens not to enjoy the fruits of their own labors!

Only a people with a deep hatred of capitalism, freedom, and success would support such a bill!

--Welsh

We like the bill and we are thriving capitalists with a conscience. How do you explain that? Making money is good the proposal does not appear to violate that premise. Furthermore the proposal does not heavily tax luxury goods (even better). To tell the truith I am not sure how socialist it is to give people money for saving their money! I think this idea is a clever way to have our cake and eat it too in an increasingly socially conscious world. I am surprised the UN does not endorse it immediately without a vote.

Here's a point.

The more efficient cars? The luxury models? They cost more then regular luxury models - but they pay for themselves in fuel savings.

Yes, you have to pay three times as much for the silver-imbedded woven fiber clothing. However, you never have to clean it, and it never looks rumpled. It also wears at a fifth of the rate.

See this watch? Twenty-six thousand PC. However, it will never need winding, connects to any broadcast or narrowcast station I desire, has a full suite of functions including memos, date book, address book. It also can act as a cellular suite.

In other words - the good toys cost money.

Some point. Are you suggesting that all luxury goods are designed to have functionally better properties? I wish that were the case. The difference between the Rolex Supremo and Casio El Cheapo does not have to do with an enhanced or carefully crafted timing mechanism inside the former.

Some point. Are you suggesting that all luxury goods are designed to have functionally better properties? I wish that were the case. The difference between the Rolex Supremo and Casio El Cheapo does not have to do with an enhanced or carefully crafted timing mechanism inside the former.

Discernment is a lesson to be learned. How one learns it is entirely one's own business.

It has been said, truly, that 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. If one chooses to be foolish, one deserves the results one gains - pardon the humor.

Our cars are getting lighter - not heavier - because of metalurgical advances. More power, less space. Fuel usage is more efficient with the onset of hybrids and multisource engines.

Let us be open about these things - Vastiva mandates the recycling of used cooking oils not used or sold. We collect it and use it to heat our greenhouses, which gives a lovely 'french fry' scent. It also completely removes the oil from becoming "garbage". We give a slight tax break to places which sell or recycle, keeping record of what is sent where.

One particularly enterprising individual has developed cooking-oil diesel engines, which are placed in monobikes and the like. These are more expensive then normal cars - however, the fuel cost is negligible. Luxury? Possibly.

In short - why should the UN protect morons from spending their money on garbage, and why should it attempt to limit the methods by which the newer, better, and cleaner technologies emerge?

Discernment is a lesson to be learned. How one learns it is entirely one's own business.

It has been said, truly, that 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. If one chooses to be foolish, one deserves the results one gains - pardon the humor.

Our cars are getting lighter - not heavier - because of metalurgical advances. More power, less space. Fuel usage is more efficient with the onset of hybrids and multisource engines.

Let us be open about these things - Vastiva mandates the recycling of used cooking oils not used or sold. We collect it and use it to heat our greenhouses, which gives a lovely 'french fry' scent. It also completely removes the oil from becoming "garbage". We give a slight tax break to places which sell or recycle, keeping record of what is sent where.

One particularly enterprising individual has developed cooking-oil diesel engines, which are placed in monobikes and the like. These are more expensive then normal cars - however, the fuel cost is negligible. Luxury? Possibly.

In short - why should the UN protect morons from spending their money on garbage, and why should it attempt to limit the methods by which the newer, better, and cleaner technologies emerge?


Appreciate and admire the innovation of your nation which is perhaps a benchmark for others. However the UN must provide guidance for nations that are behaving impulsively with world resources because if the resources are over-used and eventually depleted it will affect all nations including your own.

You may believe that your nation is completely self-sufficient and does not depend on the resources of other nations but this certainly cannot be the case. The air we breath, the rain that falls upon our land, the water, the ozone, and other interconnected ecological systems are a shared resource and part of the UN's mission is to ensure that one nation does not selfishly impinge on other nations' rights to use such resources.

No worries the proposal did not make it through and we will probably not write another at this point in time because of a general lack of interest in its core principles.

It has been said that the wealthier nations of this planet should lower their standard of living otherwise the ecology of the planet will force all of us to lower our standard of living to obscenely low levels (a proposal that we cannot vote on unfortunately). The idea is simple economics and evolutionary biology. Population size will deplete resources and complex life such as our own will become nasty, brutish and short once again. A fearful proposition I think.

No the RL UN did not do such a study to my knowledge. However I am sure that RL researchers have. But since this is not relevant the point is that testing for such an effect is easily performed from NSUN. Clearly NSUN is based on RLUN which does keep extensive records of countries population, disease, economics and well-being. NSUN surely does the same.

OOC: FWIW, he's allowed to "quote" any study by the NSUN he cares to make up. Follow ups in OOC of RL studies are appropriate but not necessary. After all, Vastiva's study of "children of human/penguin marriages" is on file in the NSUN. :rolleyes:

Appreciate and admire the innovation of your nation which is perhaps a benchmark for others. However the UN must provide guidance for nations that are behaving impulsively with world resources because if the resources are over-used and eventually depleted it will affect all nations including your own.

You're polite, I'll give you that.



You may believe that your nation is completely self-sufficient and does not depend on the resources of other nations

*laughs himself off his chair* you should see our import/export paperwork. Most certainly, this is not the case.



but this certainly cannot be the case. The air we breath, the rain that falls upon our land, the water, the ozone, and other interconnected ecological systems are a shared resource and part of the UN's mission is to ensure that one nation does not selfishly impinge on other nations' rights to use such resources.

No worries the proposal did not make it through and we will probably not write another at this point in time because of a general lack of interest in its core principles.

Perhaps a better proposal would directly address those core principles, rather then skirting through what is, essentially, an extraneous topic.

We shall address cooking oil. To many nations, this is a waste product, which is placed in landfills and does very little good. Vastiva uses this oil in biofuel diesels, which warm our greenhouses, resulting in a net gain of power and a lowering of waste.

Equally, Vastiva mandates recycling of all that can be recycled, and we do have those who "sort the trash" before it is done with as it is done with, to insure the greatest amount is recycled.

We do this because Vastiva cannot afford not to do so. As such, we would support resolutions which affected our ecology, and that of the planet - but we will not support that which goes against our basic belief in property; specifically, you have the right to do as you wish with what is yours, including your money.



It has been said that the wealthier nations of this planet should lower their standard of living otherwise the ecology of the planet will force all of us to lower our standard of living to obscenely low levels (a proposal that we cannot vote on unfortunately). The idea is simple economics and evolutionary biology. Population size will deplete resources and complex life such as our own will become nasty, brutish and short once again. A fearful proposition I think.

Or we shall expand upwards and downwards and seawards and spacewards. Would that not solve the problem as well?

Or we shall expand upwards and downwards and seawards and spacewards. Would that not solve the problem as well?

It would help. We would still need the current planet's resources to mount missions spacewards. Assuming there is a finite amount of resources here there may be some sort of time limit of this strategy. Nonetheless it is a wise and creative move. For example Planet X and Y may have enough resources to sustain current standards of living here. Unfortunately we do not know the costs of finding, retreiving, and transporting the resources back to our planet. Alternatively we could move all living things to another planet but this seems a little far-fetched.

Definitely admire your creativity...