NationStates Jolt Archive

National Systems of Tax
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING unbalances in monetary wealth between different citizens as unavoidable in most, if not all, member nations,

DETERMINING the interpretation of this unbalance, whether as an incentive for achievement or as the bane of the poor, differs among member nations,

RESIGNED to the fact that member nations will likely never agree, with any convincing degree of consensus, on specific theories regarding taxation or agree on the quality of various economic models,

DISGUSTED that there might be some member nations which attempt to pass legislation as a cudgel to force those of dissenting economic and moral opinions on taxation into their collective, arbitrary molds of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ in taxation systems,

VALUING member nations' right of self-determination, since they may determine the individual characteristics of their government much more adequately than the UN, which is far removed from the individual nation’s various situations and unique qualities,

DEEMING, still, it worthwhile to advocate a few basic measures of social justice upon the tax systems of member nations, which are generally agreed upon by all as a middle-ground:


1 ENCOURAGES member nations, and all nations in the world, adopt progressive systems for taxation, which is to say that the tax rate for a citizen increases as a citizen increases in earnings;

2 REQUESTS member nations allow for those who cannot pay their debts to declare bankruptcy: so they may not be pursued by lenders whom they have no means to pay;

3 EXHORTS all nations to investigate, critically, their respective taxation systems, detached from political motivation, to uncover what values of human liberty and social justice their taxation system upholds and in what ways it may fail to address one or the other;

4 DECLARES it the right of the individual member nation, ultimately, to determine its individual system of tax without interference by the United Nations,

That is to say, we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax), excluding, of course, cases in which the United Nations has already resolved upon international standards for certain aspects of a member nation's system of taxation at the time of the passing of this resolution.


Approvals: 133 (Ghutam, Tactical PIE, Noxinland, Czardas, St Oswald, Banucha, Shazbotdom, Aronian States, Troubadouria, Republic of Freedonia, Gaiah, Cherry Bakewell, Zouloukistan, Dodaxnia, Unknown Peoples, The Cariebbean, GodForbid, Reehan, Jiangland, Ygkylzstan, Serene Forests, Erotic Exotic Etopia, Utopian Id, Flibbleites, Diamond Realms, Civil right democratic, Svenor, Milk And Alcohol, Bowlfish, Liberal Tendencies, Trackeendy, Hoo-Doo, Spaz Land, Many Armed Republicans, Foamynetnutsova, Wireless-1, North Koster, Markodonia, The Great UP, JoyStates, Decrogna, Schmegegi, Of Cascadia, LSDharma, Saufer, Juthopia, Sythamesc, Chunkylungbutter, Oleria, Eldar rule, Calabraxia, Vedinius I, San Ardor, Ottawa County, The Order of The Papal, The Fro Royal Family, Vegas-Rex, Jaghur, Trowk, RKEM, Eujoy, Leo I, America-Canada-Mexico, Gambloshia, Woldenstein, Hezbollah Empire Rep, SouthFerns, Ophainia, Purple Seralena, Punk Rock Leprachuans, Havl, McAnirlin, Rikonesia, The Mormon Church, Archoz, Jimbob the Jingoistic, Meilongistan, Baudrillard, Clintoned, Scotlandiana, Crooks and fiends, Pegasuras, Venerable libertarians, Seattletonia, Friendly Aliens, Auria Sol, Flagellumpa, Othelma, Pepsi Texaco, Cheasa Naed, Democracian, Crushed Purple Velvet, Chesaw, Flormontagon, KualaLumpar, Nergra Rome, Terredelyn, Tramformador, Google Anarchists, Aylandlandfive, Bredense tribes, Knuk, CNYSkinFan, Kaoto, Da Kingz of Crunk, The Republic of Orack, Sincroferbistan, Purpleation, Canine Despotism, Posul, The Eternal Kangaroo, Cawiezell, Ness Snorlaxia, Yayz0rs, Ukemi, Ushani, Punkerz, Skrittany, Laueria, Mothalsi, Deathination, Erdhyn, Aquarian Arcadia, The Giir, Ishlaha, The Great Bud, Sorrow Crown, Finbergia, Tronfagisus, Windleheim, His Majesty, The Eight Nations, Canabis Smokers)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 17 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat May 21 2005


Haven't often seen a bill which says "the game functions are now law"...

Haven't often seen a bill which says "the game functions are now law"...
Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48).

It IS sneaky, isn't it?

Yes, but oh-so-good! Besides, how can anyone resist a nation with a name like "Powerhungry Chipmunks". That's even better than Ambitious Groundhogs.

If only he'd tried it out here first. 'Unbalances' isn't a word...

If only he'd tried it out here first. 'Unbalances' isn't a word...
I'd rather risk a typo than a flame, quite honestly.

I'd rather risk a typo than a flame, quite honestly.
Ah. I can understand that.

I'm not sure about the proposal yet...

EDIT: I can see that my original comment probably came across as being quite snide. That wasn't the intention, but sorry for any offence.

All my comments in this thread so far have been OOC, by the way.

Out of curiousity, doesn't this:


That is to say, we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax), excluding, of course, cases in which the United Nations has already resolved upon international standards for certain aspects of a member nation's system of taxation at the time of the passing of this resolution.

...make it illegal for the UN to tax on any future resolutions?

Approvals: 157 (Ghutam, Tactical PIE, Noxinland, Czardas, St Oswald, Banucha, Shazbotdom, Aronian States, Troubadouria, Gaiah, Cherry Bakewell, Zouloukistan, Dodaxnia, Unknown Peoples, The Cariebbean, GodForbid, Reehan, Jiangland, Ygkylzstan, Serene Forests, Erotic Exotic Etopia, Utopian Id, Flibbleites, Diamond Realms, Civil right democratic, Svenor, Milk And Alcohol, Bowlfish, Liberal Tendencies, Trackeendy, Hoo-Doo, Spaz Land, Many Armed Republicans, Foamynetnutsova, Wireless-1, North Koster, Markodonia, The Great UP, JoyStates, Decrogna, Schmegegi, Of Cascadia, LSDharma, Juthopia, Sythamesc, Chunkylungbutter, Oleria, Eldar rule, Calabraxia, Vedinius I, San Ardor, Ottawa County, The Fro Royal Family, Vegas-Rex, Jaghur, Trowk, RKEM, Eujoy, Leo I, America-Canada-Mexico, Gambloshia, Woldenstein, Hezbollah Empire Rep, SouthFerns, Ophainia, Purple Seralena, Punk Rock Leprachuans, Havl, Rikonesia, The Mormon Church, Archoz, Jimbob the Jingoistic, Meilongistan, Baudrillard, Clintoned, Scotlandiana, Crooks and fiends, Pegasuras, Venerable libertarians, Seattletonia, Friendly Aliens, Auria Sol, Flagellumpa, Othelma, Pepsi Texaco, Cheasa Naed, Democracian, Crushed Purple Velvet, Chesaw, Flormontagon, KualaLumpar, Nergra Rome, Terredelyn, Tramformador, Google Anarchists, Aylandlandfive, Bredense tribes, Knuk, CNYSkinFan, Kaoto, Da Kingz of Crunk, The Republic of Orack, Sincroferbistan, Purpleation, Canine Despotism, Posul, The Eternal Kangaroo, Cawiezell, Ness Snorlaxia, Yayz0rs, Ukemi, Ushani, Punkerz, Skrittany, Laueria, Mothalsi, Deathination, Erdhyn, Aquarian Arcadia, The Giir, Ishlaha, The Great Bud, Sorrow Crown, Finbergia, Tronfagisus, Windleheim, His Majesty, The Eight Nations, Canabis Smokers, Ficticious Proportions, Canadau, Tzeneth, Shrin Kali, The Shadow-Kai, Aquatnis, Connivence, Hundom, Ruskigrad, Maciavely, Cantonria, Rhode Connecticut, Fenrig, Ryesin, Celstiere, Steinzvilleia, Jonathalia, Xochilli, Robinski, Republican Australia, Jamesburgh, Timberlacia, Sidus, East Czechoslovakia, Nightly Sins, Wegason, Ulstrup, Vastiva)


He done done it!

Way to strike a quiet blow for national sovereignty, PC. Damn you're good. :)

Nice one :p Well done, you'll have my support when it goes before the whole UN

Out of curiousity, doesn't this:
...make it illegal for the UN to tax on any future resolutions?

Since the Proposal deals with taxation upon the populous; the UN is already barred from applying tax through any future resolution through the "UN Taxation Ban" resolution, of applying taxation directly upon member citizens.

Since the Proposal deals with taxation upon the populous; the UN is already barred from applying tax through any future resolution through the "UN Taxation Ban" resolution, of applying taxation directly upon member citizens.


...wouldn't that make it redundant?

...wouldn't that make it redundant?

You could look at it that way. Personally, I think the encouragement to be more progressive and the promotion of national sovereignty are new enough to warrant another proposal. Besides, this one is much more thorough and considered than UN Taxation Ban. I'm generally not so fond of Social Justice proposals, but that's really the most objectionable thing about it for me.

...wouldn't that make it redundant?
Since when has that stopped the UN? Just look at how many resolutions touch upon gay marriage.

Since the Proposal deals with taxation upon the populous; the UN is already barred from applying tax through any future resolution through the "UN Taxation Ban" resolution, of applying taxation directly upon member citizens....wouldn't that make it redundant?

No, the proposal has little to do with the UN Taxation Ban. It's not about whose right it is, or who's allowed, to tax a nation's citizens; it's about whose right it is to decide how a nation taxes its citizens (its 'system of tax'): the nation's. And no it isn't illegal. All it says is that it's the nation's right to decide this. It doesn't game-mechanics-dictate that future proposals can't be written about UN control of tax systems any more than Sex Industry Worker Act game-mechanics-dictates that future proposal's can't be written about outlawing prostitution. It's neither illegal nor redundant.

If it were illegal, in the four long days during which it's been in the list I imagine a mod would have deleted it (especially with proposals directly before and after it getting the deat).

1 ENCOURAGES member nations, and all nations in the world, adopt progressive systems for taxation, which is to say that the tax rate for a citizen increases as a citizen increases in earnings;

2 REQUESTS member nations allow for those who cannot pay their debts to declare bankruptcy: so they may not be pursued by lenders whom they have no means to pay;

3 EXHORTS all nations to investigate, critically, their respective taxation systems, detached from political motivation, to uncover what values of human liberty and social justice their taxation system upholds and in what ways it may fail to address one or the other;

4 DECLARES it the right of the individual member nation, ultimately, to determine its individual system of tax without interference by the United Nations

Excuse me, but forgive me if I'm mistaken in saying that this bill mandates nothing other than that an individual nation decides how its taxes work for itself. Encourage, request, and exhort are all verbs that do not mandate anything - they're just suggestions that happen to increase in force - and the declaration of the right of an individual nation to determine its own system of taxes is already covered by game mechanics. So we're basically paying a mild sum of money for nothing. Am I wrong? Please tell me if I am.

Excuse me, but forgive me if I'm mistaken in saying that this bill mandates nothing other than that an individual nation decides how its taxes work for itself. Encourage, request, and exhort are all verbs that do not mandate anything - they're just suggestions that happen to increase in force - and the declaration of the right of an individual nation to determine its own system of taxes is already covered by game mechanics. So we're basically paying a mild sum of money for nothing. Am I wrong? Please tell me if I am.

I'm guessing you're right, based on how I read it. I like how all those nice-sounding verbs appeal to progressives while the sovereignty thing appeals to conservatives, like me. It really doesn't do anything new but make tax law sound more dignified and stately, which I suppose really is the purpose of the UN. And it protects my nation's rights. It may be Social Justice, but I like it anyway. Good job, Chipmunks.

I'm guessing you're right, based on how I read it. I like how all those nice-sounding verbs appeal to progressives while the sovereignty thing appeals to conservatives, like me. It really doesn't do anything new but make tax law sound more dignified and stately, which I suppose really is the purpose of the UN. And it protects my nation's rights. It may be Social Justice, but I like it anyway. Good job, Chipmunks.
Still I don't if I want to bother supporting a resolution that does literally nothing.

Ah, the wonderful UN... either the resolution is bad because it infringes on member nations' rights, or it's bad because it doesn't. Speaking magisterially, We heretoforth deem this resolution a waste of bytes and time.

"DISGUSTED that there might be some member nations which attempt to pass legislation as a cudgel to force those of dissenting economic and moral opinions on taxation into their collective, arbitrary molds of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ in taxation systems,
VALUING member nations' right of self-determination, since they may determine the individual characteristics of their government much more adequately than the UN, which is far removed from the individual nation’s various situations and unique qualities,
DEEMING, still, it worthwhile to advocate a few basic measures of social justice upon the tax systems of member nations, which are generally agreed upon by all as a middle-ground:"

The resolution does a full 360 here. Our ex cathedra translation: "Our member nations are bad because they don't follow everyone's opinion at the same time; but autonomy is still good because the UN has no friggin' idea what it's talking about; but we're still going to preach at you because we really are infallible after all." This is definitely not UN material.


"2 REQUESTS member nations allow for those who cannot pay their debts to declare bankruptcy: so they may not be pursued by lenders whom they have no means to pay;"

We, the Pope of Stupendous Badassness, dogmatically refute the above-quoted statement on these grounds: lack of money (so-called "bankruptcy") is not a lack of usefulness. One's own body is perfectly acceptable payment, indeed it is paid by all eventually.


Finally, We imperially refuse to honor an agreement which makes prominent use of a non-word. The august United Nations deserves better than this.

Early returns:


Votes For: 161

Votes Against: 172

Excuse me, but forgive me if I'm mistaken in saying that this bill mandates nothing other than that an individual nation decides how its taxes work for itself. Encourage, request, and exhort are all verbs that do not mandate anything - they're just suggestions that happen to increase in force - and the declaration of the right of an individual nation to determine its own system of taxes is already covered by game mechanics. So we're basically paying a mild sum of money for nothing. Am I wrong? Please tell me if I am.
Yes, you're wrong.

You're correct in that the resolution does not mandate nations do any certain thing with their individual tax systems. However, you are not "paying a mild sum of money for nothing". First off, the declaration of the national right to jurisdiction over systems of taxation is pretty important--not "nothing". Also, mild verbs (encourage, request, exhort) do have effect. If this were not the case, there'd likely be no change in member nations' stats should this resolution pass--which there would be.

Still I don't if I want to bother supporting a resolution that does literally nothing.
This game is a game of nuance, especially now that the game is moving into new waters.

Face it: most major, partitioning issues have been covered by UN resolution already, and it's pretty darn hard to get any of the old resolutions replaced. There have 100 resolutions, what haven't we covered that we must? Proposal authoring, post-Resolution 100 is going to be less about playing pundit and more about small and incremental gains. Its going to be less about unrealistic impositions on national rights and more about level-headed compromise. If one has a problem with my realism in only "requesting" that nations conform to what I feel (I cannot claim any more than this) to be a proper system, then one can busy oneself reading resolutions 1 through 100 for all I care. This is responsible proposing. I'm sorry if it bothers some people.

Ah, the wonderful UN... either the resolution is bad because it infringes on member nations' rights, or it's bad because it doesn't. Speaking magisterially, We heretoforth deem this resolution a waste of bytes and time.

Yup. That's called freedom of thought. Some people want to force their view on the world, and get mad when a less commandeering proposal like this comes to the floor. Others realize that their opinion has no patent value over others and get angered when the UN arrogantly tramples their nations' rights--doing what is "best".

"DISGUSTED that there might be some member nations which attempt to pass legislation as a cudgel to force those of dissenting economic and moral opinions on taxation into their collective, arbitrary molds of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ in taxation systems,
VALUING member nations' right of self-determination, since they may determine the individual characteristics of their government much more adequately than the UN, which is far removed from the individual nation’s various situations and unique qualities,
DEEMING, still, it worthwhile to advocate a few basic measures of social justice upon the tax systems of member nations, which are generally agreed upon by all as a middle-ground:"

The resolution does a full 360 here. Our ex cathedra translation: "Our member nations are bad because they don't follow everyone's opinion at the same time; but autonomy is still good because the UN has no friggin' idea what it's talking about; but we're still going to preach at you because we really are infallible after all." This is definitely not UN material.

No it doesn't do a '360'. It tries to find a happy medium. Moderation. If anything it does a '90'. To appease those with super-strong feelings about 'right' and 'wrong' in taxation systems, it suggests certain basic measures. To hold to the higher moral code of liberty, it allows for nations to make decisions, on their own.


"2 REQUESTS member nations allow for those who cannot pay their debts to declare bankruptcy: so they may not be pursued by lenders whom they have no means to pay;"

We, the Pope of Stupendous Badassness, dogmatically refute the above-quoted statement on these grounds: lack of money (so-called "bankruptcy") is not a lack of usefulness. One's own body is perfectly acceptable payment, indeed it is paid by all eventually.

Finally, We imperially refuse to honor an agreement which makes prominent use of a non-word. The august United Nations deserves better than this.

First off, on the matter of non-words, "heretoforth", which you opened with, is not a word. And, there is no [/i]mandate[/i] that you provide protection through bankruptcy laws (which is funny, because its lack of "doing anything" is what angered you in the first place over this proposal).

Early returns:


Votes For: 161

Votes Against: 172


Why post that here?

Because, PC, all the returns are usually posted daily - that was what I saw when I got here.

This should pass by about 18,000 to 5,000 (or equivalent) given the general stance of the nat.sov. crowd, plus the impressive list of endorsements it received.

There, all better now? Do stop taking things personally when they're just informational.

Fair warning - I plan on posting returns for each and every day.

Even though there is nothing in the mandate that would force a country to change, esepeceally in the real UN, anyone who does not fall into compliance often has other member states put great pressure. This oftern comes in the form of economic sanctions

Because, PC, all the returns are usually posted daily - that was what I saw when I got here.

-snip-

There, all better now? Do stop taking things personally when they're just informational.

Fair warning - I plan on posting returns for each and every day.

I've never seen daily updates on votes during debates. Not once in the year that I've been here. My experience has been that maybe once during a vote someone would post an update (usually to complain about how the vote was going), but that was once in a four-and-a-half day vote, and it is the exception, not the rule.

And I will take it personally, because you have a history of personally attacking me and because there is no precedent for doing so (posting returns, that is).

That said, I ask that you not post these 'daily updates'.

Even though there is nothing in the mandate that would force a country to change, esepeceally in the real UN, anyone who does not fall into compliance often has other member states put great pressure. This oftern comes in the form of economic sanctions
Bear in mind that this is not the RL UN, and we do not have the power to impose sanctions.

I've never seen daily updates on votes during debates. Not once in the year that I've been here. My experience has been that maybe once during a vote someone would post an update (usually to complain about how the vote was going), but that was once in a four-and-a-half day vote, and it is the exception, not the rule.

And I will take it personally, because you have a history of personally attacking me and because there is no precedent for doing so (posting returns, that is).

That said, I ask that you not post these 'daily updates'.

*sigh* As I'm often the one posting them, I know they're there.

BUT in the interests of burying this particular hatchet, I'll make another peace offering: won't post any more numerical updates on progress in this thread, with the possible exception of final numbers if no one else does.

So - PC - chill. Fair?

If this proposal goes through I think I might just resign

If this proposal goes through I think I might just resign

*baffled* Alright, why?

*sigh* As I'm often the one posting them, I know they're there.

Like I said, I've never seen them. My experience has primarily been in the five of my own proposal debates and as well as a few more beyond that. Perhaps you’ve been posting them in the other resolution debates, but I’m pretty sure you missed mine.

BUT in the interests of burying this particular hatchet, I'll make another peace offering: won't post any more numerical updates on progress in this thread, with the possible exception of final numbers if no one else does.

Another peace offering? I'm not sure where this is coming from. Yes, I would appreciate it is you would not post these updates. But if this is going to become some sort of score sheet ("look how many times I've tried to reconcile with those demonic chipmunks..."), then count me out. I don't recall any time previous you've delivered a "peace offering", and I don't really see any reason for there to be a "peace offering", as I don't believe I've personally attacked you.

So - PC - chill. Fair?

Again, I don’t see where this is coming from. I’m not “heated” so I don’t think I need to “chill”. I think you’re reading agitation into my posts which simply isn’t there.

Krioval is vaguely against this not because it's a poorly worded, but it reads as both sanctimonious and ineffectual at the same time. First, while the concept of a progressive tax is not exactly alien to our nation, we prefer instead to have a flat percentage with the first [X] kTr exempted from taxation. We are also not "disgusted" by nations attempting to foist their viewpoints upon this institution with regard to taxation to any larger degree than any other aspect of national governance. Furthermore, Krioval does not see the stampede of proposals reaching this body's floor that seek to alter tax structures outside the flood of unfunded mandates that are the essence of the United Nations. In any case, it smacks of hypocrisy to thoroughly condemn others for breaching national sovereignty and then advocate, in the very next sentence, that nations perform various economic strategies.

While the author seems to be of noble intent, I cannot promote the line of thinking that the United Nations exists today solely to issue weak proclamations against various concepts (unregulated capitalism, in this case), while mandating funding, however slight, to enshrine one's national principles in a United Nations resolution. Krioval regrets that we cannot support these issues on some level, but our aversion to unnecessary bureaucratic inefficiency leads us to the conclusion that this resolution is unnecessary. National tax rates are affected by United Nations resolutions frequently - I will not pretend that the passage of this resolution will do anything but compel nations to find "creative" means by which to fund future mandates.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

PC, free piece of advice: Shut up. If you can't be bothered to at least have a good reason for posting, then do us all a favor and stop spamming the thread with your rediculous accusations. And, considering my own history with you and watching how you act, if Vastiva were to drive to your house and set you on fire, he could probably get off with only having to see a therapist twice a week. And he'd certainly be justified to try.

Oh, I'm back. I'll be rejoining the UN as soon as I deal with an email problem.

PC, free piece of advice: Shut up. If you can't be bothered to at least have a good reason for posting, then do us all a favor and stop spamming the thread with your rediculous accusations. And, considering my own history with you and watching how you act, if Vastiva were to drive to your house and set you on fire, he could probably get off with only having to see a therapist twice a week. And he'd certainly be justified to try.

Oh, I'm back. I'll be rejoining the UN as soon as I deal with an email problem.

Its baaaaaaacccck..... :D

Krioval is vaguely against this not because it's a poorly worded, but it reads as both sanctimonious and ineffectual at the same time. First, while the concept of a progressive tax is not exactly alien to our nation, we prefer instead to have a flat percentage with the first [X] kTr exempted from taxation. We are also not "disgusted" by nations attempting to foist their viewpoints upon this institution with regard to taxation to any larger degree than any other aspect of national governance. Furthermore, Krioval does not see the stampede of proposals reaching this body's floor that seek to alter tax structures outside the flood of unfunded mandates that are the essence of the United Nations. In any case, it smacks of hypocrisy to thoroughly condemn others for breaching national sovereignty and then advocate, in the very next sentence, that nations perform various economic strategies.

While the author seems to be of noble intent, I cannot promote the line of thinking that the United Nations exists today solely to issue weak proclamations against various concepts (unregulated capitalism, in this case), while mandating funding, however slight, to enshrine one's national principles in a United Nations resolution. Krioval regrets that we cannot support these issues on some level, but our aversion to unnecessary bureaucratic inefficiency leads us to the conclusion that this resolution is unnecessary. National tax rates are affected by United Nations resolutions frequently - I will not pretend that the passage of this resolution will do anything but compel nations to find "creative" means by which to fund future mandates.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Not in detail, but in essence, I agree with Krioval.

Furthermore some individuals go bankrupt at will again and again. They should not be taken lightly. I advocate a 'no' to this resolution.

I, too, agree with Krioval. This resolution seems to me more like a lecture than a piece of legislation. I endorse the sentiment behind it (I think), at least in that I support progressive taxation, protection of individuals (not necessarily corporations, though) from creditors, and - to a degree - the rights of other nations to have and enforce economic values other than my own. And my nation places a high priority on social justice. But I can't vote for a resolution that seems to say "the UN wishes to congratulate progressive countries, scold regressive ones, and remind everyone that they're free to ruin their own lives as they see fit."

PC -- How about taking individual pieces of this bill and making proposals out of them? For example, I'd probably vote in favour of a law requiring nations to grant some sort of protection of individuals from their creditors.

After reading it and thinking, I must say how disappointed this waste of the UN's time is. Why? This sounds more like it belongs as the start of a topic, not as a UN resolution. As a UN resolution, it is quite possibly the closest thing to spam I have seen that isn't multiple postings of the same proposal.

Want all of the reasons? Read Krioval's post. I don't feel like restating them.

It seems to me that arguing that this bill doesn't have any power is pointless, as none of the UN resolutions technically have any power. So far as I'm aware, people can't actually be punished for not following these rules.

The purpose of this rule seems to be a declaration that "the UN is in favour of progressive tax laws", and it's a bit open to interpretation. It adds something to the game because players can then go to friends in telegrams "I disagree with your 'tax the poor' policy, and look at this UN resolution..." And it can probably also be used to argue in favour of national sovreignty on this issue also, though I don't see why that's a problem at all as you can always decide your own taxes, it's not changeable.

How about "because we have enough wastes of space cluttering up UN laws?"

While we do not generally object to resolutions that only educate rather than legislate (it is how our resolution passed by the largest majority in history), we will be arguing against this resolution. Nations generally fit into one of two groups - those that take advice when they have not obligation to do so, which tend to be democracies, and those which do not, which tend to be dictatorships.

Almost all democracies will already have a graduated system of tax, as replacing a fixed rate tax with a graduated tax benefits the majority, and hence is a policy likely to help a party win an election. Dictatorships will not necessarily have a graduated tax, as they benefit little from policies that benefit the majority (unrest can usually be contained).

To summarise, those likely to take advice are likely to already have a graduated tax, and most of those without a graduated tax are unlikely to take the advice. Thus we believe the resolution will have minimal impact.

[edit: apologies for not realising that Jolt supports signatures in a different way from the old NS forums...]

Yes, you're wrong.

You're correct in that the resolution does not mandate nations do any certain thing with their individual tax systems. However, you are not "paying a mild sum of money for nothing". First off, the declaration of the national right to jurisdiction over systems of taxation is pretty important--not "nothing". Also, mild verbs (encourage, request, exhort) do have effect. If this were not the case, there'd likely be no change in member nations' stats should this resolution pass--which there would be.


Okay, first problem: encourage, request, exhort do not have effect, by definition. Second problem: the stat change of member nations has nothing to do with the contents of the bill, but with it's category and rating (social justice, mild) So the encourage, request, and exhort part do not do anything. Also, if the "encourage" part did do something, it would be illegal, because it would demand that nations cannot have flat taxes, which is what many nations do, in fact, have, due to how that answer issues as their nations grow. I am pretty sure that clashing with issues and descriptions falls under "Game Mechanics." Now, let's consider, for a moment, the think that this bill does mandate, that all member nations can decide their own system of taxes and no one has authority over them. First of all, this nullifies anything that the first three statements may have mandated, even using the strange assumption that those words do actually do something. Second of all, this is already our right, due to how the game works, so restating it in a bill is like throwing sticks into a fire to get it to burn - it's already burning.

[OOC] I apologise if this has been said already, I'm at work and don't have time to read the entire thread but...

[IC] Given that the social justice issues such as progressive tax policies are only recommended, and that the only clause which is mandatory is that every nation has the right to determine its own tax system (which I highly approve of), should this then be in the social justice category?

I would not support this proposal if it tried to mandate progressive tax policies.

I am considering supporting it because it doesn't, and because it protects the rights to determine one's own tax system.

If it were then just a proposal to protect that right, it would come under national sovereignty.

I'm probably still going to support this, it's just that Gwenstefani is extremely pro-free trade and social justice is the opposite of that (in the NSUN context).

[Edit:] Having now reviewed the rest of the thread, I am inclined to withdraw my support on the basis that it does prevent any future resolutions on *any* form of tax, not just income taxes

I don't like this, because it actually goes further than the game rules. We can't dictate income tax rates, because that would mean changing nation descriptions. But nation descriptions don't talk about corporate taxes, sales taxes, or the like, so without this resolution we are still free to do things like propose that businesses be taxed according to their greenhouse gas emissions, or that sales taxes be raised on a certain good to discourage its purchase.

However, this resolution talks about taxation in general, not specifying income tax, thus prohibiting such proposals in future.

This is the kind of resoultions only a politic can came up with, because of its lack of economic point of view. First of all, the tax in order to have equality has to have 1 unique percenteje for all, that as u guess, the one that more has, will pay more (thats what u wanted rite?). Anyway, with a progressive income you are choosing to take away the "rents" of the most productive people in your nation, creating a disinterest in future productiones and because of the new high cost, reducing the actual production, which wil lead to a lowe PIB per capita which means the population will have less "wealth" per person. This will not only create differences in your society, creating social status problems, but the progressive income tax will even have worst effects, because now, the ones with lower income can produce more, but they really cant do so cause they dont own the companies, and the ones with the higher taxes that own the companies, will have to produce less and fire people to do so and in order to get to the "utilites balance" to keep happy their stock holders. There are many other economic effects, but this will have to be enough. DONT APPROVE THIS LAW. (my opinion)
If u think only rich people that dont work have all the money, think twice, the money is in your COMPANIES and INVESTMENTS.

The economists of Ahih

Okay, first problem: encourage, request, exhort do not have effect, by definition.

Not so. Mandate is not the only form of effect.

Lesser Biglandia votes AGAINST this resolution, as the ambassador does not understand the rationale for the resolution coming to the floor. All it would seem to do is promote the status quo, with some sanctimonious preaching about social equality thrown in. Additionally, the final clause of the resolution would seem to undermine the powers of the UN.

*ooc* I don't like the "hands-off" clause in there either. *ooc end*

[Signed]
Amelia wil Tesla Sailune
Foreign Minstry of the Republic of Lesser Biglandia

>^..^<
This message bears the official Lesser Biglandia Cat of Approval
*meow!*

please tell me what biz it is of the un how i tax the people of Lopij...we are doing just fine in that area thank you.

please tell me what biz it is of the un how i tax the people of Lopij...we are doing just fine in that area thank you.
Actually the resolution states that the UN can't interfere with how you tax your people.

The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia will not be supporting this. We like the protection that each nation may determine it's own tax system, but do not want to be forced into allowing anyone to declare bankrupcy. The idea that people pay what they promise (even if it's very slowly) is held very high. People who are allowed to whipe their slate clean with bankrupcy usually do it repeatedly.

It is our intention to vote no.

The People of the Free Lands of Draconomia will not be supporting this. We like the protection that each nation may determine it's own tax system, but do not want to be forced into allowing anyone to declare bankrupcy. The idea that people pay what they promise (even if it's very slowly) is held very high. People who are allowed to whipe their slate clean with bankrupcy usually do it repeatedly.

It is our intention to vote no.

But the resolution wouldn´t force you nation to allow for bankruptcy laws. It only "request" them, meaning you can decide to deny the request (even if you vote yes and the proposal passes into repeal).

Draconomia, I have a way around that: I define "bankrupt" as "having willingly given up their rights to be considered sentient, and as such are under the laws of animals instead of living people."

Draconomia, I have a way around that: I define "bankrupt" as "having willingly given up their rights to be considered sentient, and as such are under the laws of animals instead of living people."

Greetings.

We of Roathin note that we have used a similar argument in debating the merits of the earlier extradition proposal. We define 'criminal' as 'having deliberately given up one's rights to coexist in a society as a person, and as such coming under laws governing disposal of chattels, rather than of persons.'

Not so. Mandate is not the only form of effect.

OOC Okay, first of all, UN resolutions require mandate in one form or another, because they are automatically applied to all member nations whether or not the choice is theirs when in character. Second of all, IC I like how you completely ignored everything else that I said. I assume this is because they are both completely true, in which case your bill is completely pointless and does nothing. If I'm wrong, please read what I had to say and try to come up with an excuse for why what I said is not so. Don't just skip it.

OOC Okay, first of all, UN resolutions require mandate in one form or another, because they are automatically applied to all member nations whether or not the choice is theirs when in character. Second of all, IC I like how you completely ignored everything else that I said. I assume this is because they are both completely true, in which case your bill is completely pointless and does nothing. If I'm wrong, please read what I had to say and try to come up with an excuse for why what I said is not so. Don't just skip it.

No, resolutions don´t /need/ a mandate. And the fact that UN nations have no choice in complying to UN resolutions is irrelevant to whether or not UN resolutions "need" a mandate. Look through past resolutions (especially the more recent ones). There are less than pressing clauses in just about all of them, be it a RECOMMEND or a SUGGESTS. or whatever. Which indicates the UN /does/ have a function of mild compliance, or pressured compliance, or what not. Since the UN /can/ only mildly enforce something, what is there saying proposals /have/ to be heavy-handed?

I didn´t respond to the entirity of your post becuase a) the parts I skipped were predicated upon your point I addressed and b) they were a tad more inflammatory/opinionated than your first point. I, along with most posters who like to avoid forum flame wars, often ignore perceived-as-inflammatory remarks. So, I interpretted your other remarks (which I didn´t address) as not needing to be addressed, and I wasn´t sure I could address them without setting you off in some way.

And, even if I didn´t have good reason to ignore them, it´s my call what I respond to--and non-response is not default agreement.

When I look at a UN resolution, I ask myself one thing: am I getting what I'm going to be paying for? I'm inclined to say "no", and I don't see a lot of reasons to vote for it in the first place. Of course, this resolution could be construed as a broadside against:

Communism - 100% tax rates can't be progressive, after all. Plus, bankruptcy laws are fairly unnecessary when the state controls the economy. I daresay that examining "their respective taxation systems, detached from political motivation" would be counter to the philosophy of communal ownership.

Capitalism - Flat taxes (or none at all) are also not progressive. Bankruptcy, if common enough, can wreak havoc on an economy, especially when a corporation tries it.

Democracy - Who exactly gets to "investigate, critically, their respective taxation systems", anyway? If there are regular free elections, shouldn't the people get to decide? If anything, the idea that some noble-minded individual or group of individuals should divorce themselves from the political and economic realities of a nation "to uncover what values of human liberty and social justice their taxation system upholds and in what ways it may fail to address one or the other" runs counter to the democratic principle that people are self-governing, and it contradicts other parts of the same resolution that dictate that it is "the right of the individual member nation, ultimately, to determine its individual system of tax without interference by the United Nations".

Good. Let's stop the economic interference here and now. Vote "no" on this resolution.

Good. Let's stop the economic interference here and now. Vote "no" on this resolution.
Yes, this proposal would interfere with nation´s economies IF it mandated those things.

At this point, it says that it´s the UN´s position that they should be given a fair shake. Not that those things must be enacted.

Yes, this proposal would interfere with nation´s economies IF it mandated those things.

At this point, it says that it´s the UN´s position that they should be given a fair shake. Not that those things must be enacted.

So I get to pay good Kriovalian kTr for a nice-sounding proclamation that doesn't do anything? Considering how your nation has been instrumental in repealing "useless" resolutions, I'm actually quite surprised to see your name at the top of the resolution under vote, as I see no real use for it whatsoever.

So I get to pay good Kriovalian kTr for a nice-sounding proclamation that doesn't do anything? Considering how your nation has been instrumental in repealing "useless" resolutions, I'm actually quite surprised to see your name at the top of the resolution under vote, as I see no real use for it whatsoever.

Would you rather I had forced progressive taxes upon every member nation? Judging by your last post, I think not.

You´re entitled to your opinion about its use, but I, obviously, feel it important enough to have been brought it to vote. And I feel it important enough to pass, too.

PC, free piece of advice: Shut up. If you can't be bothered to at least have a good reason for posting, then do us all a favor and stop spamming the thread with your rediculous accusations. And, considering my own history with you and watching how you act, if Vastiva were to drive to your house and set you on fire, he could probably get off with only having to see a therapist twice a week. And he'd certainly be justified to try.
DLE, free piece of advice: Back off. NOW. As the proposal author, he has every right to be in the thread, even though he's not the topic creator. It's not your job to shut down debate on this forum by making personal attacks against the player, so please don't start.Again, I don’t see where this is coming from. I’m not “heated” so I don’t think I need to “chill”. I think you’re reading agitation into my posts which simply isn’t there.
Powerhungry Chipmunks, you HAVE given the impression of being shrill in wanting to micromanage the thread. You managed to get this proposal up without bringing it to the UN forums, so the thread originator is actually Vastiva. Typically, these "Official Discussion Topics" belong to the author, but not so in this case. You're getting slammed because you're making unreasonable requests in a thread you didn't start. Vastiva is actually being very accomodating, despite the fact that he's under no obligation to do so.

Everybody now seems to be sticking to the topic at hand. Let's keep it that way.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

The UN is overly intrusive as it is. I have recently voted to repeal almost every resolution that has come up for repeal. I even tried to get one repealed myself, but didn't get enough support.

Each nation has different taxation needs, and each government is ultimately the best decision-maker for its own population.

I certainly don't want the UN being the one deciding on my tax plan at least.

The bill has our support.

Does this resolution actually do anything? I can't see as that it does.

Cwruland supports the ideals, and will thus vote for it, but it truly is too anemic to accomplish anything.

I concur with the previously stated position of the delegate from Krioval. Given that the resolution at vote has essentially no effect other than the clause 4 limitation on the power of the United Nations (which I would be inclined to register a point of order against if such point would be timely), I can see no reason to support this resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Mr. EVIF. Mr. Secretary-General, point of information. What is the status of the resolution at vote?

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The Clerk will report the status of the resolution.

The TALLY CLERK. Goobergunchia III's vote against National Systems of Tax has been noted. There are currently 1,967 votes for the resolution and 1,446 votes against the resolution.

Mr. EVIF. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

It seems good to me. All it does is encourage, not force. If you read it, the only things it even remotly forces someone to do are allow someone to declare bankrupcy (the resolution only REQUESTS, it does not FORCE). It also DECLARES that everybody can detirmine their system of tax without interference from the U.N. It has good advice, but forces nothing. I'm for it.

It seems good to me. All it does is encourage, not force. If you read it, the only things it even remotly forces someone to do are allow someone to declare bankrupcy (the resolution only REQUESTS, it does not FORCE). It also DECLARES that everybody can detirmine their system of tax without interference from the U.N. It has good advice, but forces nothing. I'm for it.

Except for the "minor" detail that each passed NSUN resolution requires some level of economic impact on UN members. This is a modestly important point to raise at this stage after watching the recent swift passage of what I consider either unnecessary or toothless resolutions that hint at, suggest, or imply something without actually coming out and *saying* it. While Krioval will concede that micromanaging UN members is undesirable (and potentially illegal), we contend that if the only thing left for the UN to do is to suggest micromanagement without actually doing anything, perhaps a bit of time is needed to reassess our mission here. We certainly don't need a flurry of resolutions that don't do a single useful thing, but do work to increase the bureaucracy associated with this international agency.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Hey Powerhouse chipmunk.. I like your name and your sneakiness about that tax bill. Basically it says that do this, but it ultimately doesn't matter anyway.. so Cool!

Although it does not FORCE a nation to comply, it IMPLIES that those nations who do not are committing moral crimes against their citizens. While I applaud its efforts to promote social justice, I consider Article 1 to be an economic attack on those producers who benefit their nation by creating more jobs and making money, and I hardly think they should be punished for this. Better for the UN to stay out of each Country's economic affairs, and legislate only when ABSOLUTELY necessary.

I really don't get this Issue. What is it trying to do? :confused:

Okay, what it mandates is that a nation has the express privelege to decide its own tax laws. Go national sovereignty. The thing is, this is already our ability, and it cannot be taken away from us, no matter what, because it is tied to game mechanics. So it's basically a pointless resolution. Unfortunately we will have to pay a mild sum of money to fund this pointless resolution.

This resolution also assumes that all nations are funded with an income tax. There are many other systems of taxation to which the wealth of those taxed is completely irrelevant. For example, a nation could be funded entirely by excise taxes, property taxes or sales taxes. The rich would pay more taxes than the poor not because they are taxed differently, but because they buy more goods and own more land. The resolution does not address such forms of taxation in any way.

And, in handing out its reinforcement of the status quo, the resolution gives an overly egotistical essay and a set of rules that amount to meaningless gibberish to hide the fact it is doing nothing. Top it all off, the resolution itself tries, in wording, to make some nations feel bad about how they govern their citizens and others feel superior, which can be interpretted to be a form of trolling. Considering this resolution is nothing but opinions, it is really one of the lowest things a person can do just to make themselves feel superior.

Wait a minute!!! Taxation is my own damn buisness! I have many other problems with tax, than some stupid inequality, or what was it.... I can`t handle and controle as I should, the taxation as whole, but now i will be disturbed becouse someone want to pay less tax or.... damn, I have no time for this. I think it is no damn UN buisness.
These are only taxes - I am not robbing people!

And why my efforts to rise economic progress must now be ruined by implying something like this and some kind of forcing me to tax harder buisness which I am subsidizing or suporting. ??????

The United States of Myotoa respectfully vote against this resolution. As stated by many before me, this resolution does nothing practical. What is the point of making a resolution to prevent the UN from determining the particular method of taxation that a nation employs when it is very likely that few nations would support a resolution that would regulate such things?

Now, this would get my support if it did something like REQUIRE nations to allow for bankruptcy instead of just REQUESTING it.

Bah, I wouldn't even if it did that. Although my nation allows for it, I don't think it's worthy of international attention.

Okay, what it mandates is that a nation has the express privelege to decide its own tax laws. Go national sovereignty. The thing is, this is already our ability, and it cannot be taken away from us, no matter what, because it is tied to game mechanics. So it's basically a pointless resolution. Unfortunately we will have to pay a mild sum of money to fund this pointless resolution.

Actually, it appears to extend nat. sov. past the game mechanics limits (which, to the best of my knowledge, apply only to income tax) to protect the entirety of nations' taxation systems. It stops us proposing alterations to import/export tariffs, to corporation taxes, to sales taxes, where currently we are, I believe, allowed to deal with any of those things in UN proposals.

EDIT: The operative part - clause 4 and the end bit - do not reference earnings or income tax at all. They simply refer to a nation's "system of tax", which I would interpret as covering all forms of tax.

I don't understand a reason for the bill, because the final line says any nation can choose whichever taxation system he or she desires. Yet, the bill also proposes to lessen the rich poor gap, among others. If we can choose whatever system we want, what if that is against lessening the rich poor gap? Would that be against the bill?

Tax is my buisness!!!!! If I want to tax my people 100% that's my buisness!!!!!What would be better is if there was a proposal that said if you tax so much then you have to provide this, this ,& this.& don't make too long either.

Actually, it appears to extend nat. sov. past the game mechanics limits (which, to the best of my knowledge, apply only to income tax) to protect the entirety of nations' taxation systems. It stops us proposing alterations to import/export tariffs, to corporation taxes, to sales taxes, where currently we are, I believe, allowed to deal with any of those things in UN proposals.

EDIT: The operative part - clause 4 and the end bit - do not reference earnings or income tax at all. They simply refer to a nation's "system of tax", which I would interpret as covering all forms of tax.

Good point. I did not consider that. However, I think that the support this bill is receiving would indicate that if any resolution that this bill would seek to prohibit were to come into being, it would be shot down. So either way, the bill is not worth our time and money.

Oh, I'm not advocating voting for - that, in my opinion, is a good reason to vote it down.

I think some people voting for might be missing that it's closing off options like proposals reducing tariff barriers to trade, taxing companies to discourage greenhouse gas emission, or raising sales taxes on certain items to discourage their use (e.g. air travel to reduce emissions, or various drugs where they're legal). A lot of these possibilities are even international in scope.

Good point. I did not consider that. However, I think that the support this bill is receiving would indicate that if any resolution that this bill would seek to prohibit were to come into being, it would be shot down. So either way, the bill is not worth our time and money.

Oh, I'm not advocating voting for - that, in my opinion, is a good reason to vote it down.

Exactly why I voted against this proposal. It just seems to be entirely without purpose.

Oh, I'm not advocating voting for - that, in my opinion, is a good reason to vote it down.

I think some people voting for might be missing that it's closing off options like proposals reducing tariff barriers to trade, taxing companies to discourage greenhouse gas emission, or raising sales taxes on certain items to discourage their use (e.g. air travel to reduce emissions, or various drugs where they're legal). A lot of these possibilities are even international in scope.

Like I said, it's anti-capitalist, anti-communist, and anti-democratic all in the same resolution. There's plenty here to piss off just about anyone.

This proposal does nothing and says nothing while forcing nations to spend needless time and efforts into investigating their own tax models. The imperative to apply a tax structure of a nation's choice is never in question so why is this even been put to question? As a proposal of a non-issue that may affect how our sovereign states will be governed, it should be struck down. I vote Nay.

*steps slowly to the podium, new member*
Ours is but a small nation of 11 million, much of our indistry is wood chipping, and furnature repair. Unfortunatly keeping our freedom's free, takes much of the national product.

We've not the funds to examine ourselves at length, nor the time. I ask you all, please, most senior members, 'How did a bill that does nothing, get such suport'?

Thank you Sirs.

Because 96% of the voters hastily read titles and loosely scan mandates, and very few people take the time to consider the possible repercussions of a resolution that they support.

Did anyone else notice that the proposal "encourages" a graduated income tax (higher income, higher tax rate), but than says its the right of the nation to choose a tax system...what if we just abandoned the income tax? bit of a loophole, but still a stupid resolution

Having experience in debate, I really get annoyed when people argue about the details of a resolution rather than general philosophy. NationStates is NOT the real world. Passage of this resolution will have GENERAL effects on nations, essentially the effects of supporting a more progressive and just taxation system. I believe the political gerrymandering of the resolution was an attempt to avoid exactly the kind of debate that it's getting. In the name of sanity and good, effective debate, I suggest that we discuss the merits of a progressive tax system and effectiveness of suggested programs rather than argue about the legislative details.

Actually, it appears to extend nat. sov. past the game mechanics limits (which, to the best of my knowledge, apply only to income tax) to protect the entirety of nations' taxation systems. It stops us proposing alterations to import/export tariffs, to corporation taxes, to sales taxes, where currently we are, I believe, allowed to deal with any of those things in UN proposals.

EDIT: The operative part - clause 4 and the end bit - do not reference earnings or income tax at all. They simply refer to a nation's "system of tax", which I would interpret as covering all forms of tax.

I was hoping no one would notice that.

I will point out, though, that the UN can still perform (and has in the past) an alteration of a nation's system of tax by requiring that nation's governments to implement programs which cost money. Given the number of resolutions that require member nations to fund something, I think it's fair to say that the UN has probably forced some of the poorer nations to move to a more progressive tax system by requiring them to have more funding than a non-progressive tax system would allow, given their economy.

There is also the possibility of some legal maneuvering to enable the UN to legislate on certain taxes such as, corporate taxes, sales taxes, and tariffs. In the case of each of those items, it would be relatively simple to define them as non-tax items, thereby eliminating the problem.

No, the proposal has little to do with the UN Taxation Ban. It's not about whose right it is, or who's allowed, to tax a nation's citizens; it's about whose right it is to decide how a nation taxes its citizens (its 'system of tax'): the nation's. And no it isn't illegal. All it says is that it's the nation's right to decide this. It doesn't game-mechanics-dictate that future proposals can't be written about UN control of tax systems any more than Sex Industry Worker Act game-mechanics-dictates that future proposal's can't be written about outlawing prostitution. It's neither illegal nor redundant.

If it were illegal, in the four long days during which it's been in the list I imagine a mod would have deleted it (especially with proposals directly before and after it getting the deat).

Let me try to decipher your tap-dancing.

1. This resolution is not about who has a right to tax a nation's citizens.
2. This resolution does not effect future UN control of tax systems.
3. But it is about a nation's right to decide how to tax its citizens.
4. But it nonetheless tells a nation how it ought to do that.

Cute.

We should either pass resolutions that actual say and do something or we should not pass them at all.

Long lecturing resolutions on the razor's edge of self-contradiction are unworthy.

Having experience in debate, I really get annoyed when people argue about the details of a resolution rather than general philosophy. NationStates is NOT the real world. Passage of this resolution will have GENERAL effects on nations, essentially the effects of supporting a more progressive and just taxation system. I believe the political gerrymandering of the resolution was an attempt to avoid exactly the kind of debate that it's getting. In the name of sanity and good, effective debate, I suggest that we discuss the merits of a progressive tax system and effectiveness of suggested programs rather than argue about the legislative details.

Unfortunately, the political gerrymandering of the resolution was an attempt to pontificate in a way that raised as little objection to the merits as possible.

A straighforward resolution on progressive taxation would deserve the debate you mention.

The "merits" of this resolution, however, are all in its details. Details designed to mask its effects.

1. This resolution is not about who has a right to tax a nation's citizens.
2. This resolution does not effect future UN control of tax systems.
3. But it is about a nation's right to decide how to tax its citizens.
4. But it nonetheless tells a nation how it ought to do that.


1. Basically, I think that's accurate.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. It perscribes some guidelines, yes.

Because 96% of the voters hastily read titles and loosely scan mandates, and very few people take the time to consider the possible repercussions of a resolution that they support.

Yes, most people will not investigate the resolution. But that doesn't mean that your understanding or interpretation is (ta-da) "the truth" that they miss by not investigating. You need to get over that fact that not everyone is going to see things the same way as you, and that those who do disagree aren't necessarily inferior.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have had eight thousand years of debate behind us. We note that there are those who equate progressive taxation with just taxation, and those who equate progressive taxation with progressive economics or even a progressive tax.

As we are essentially a feudal state, we understand that the main issue should be whether the tax a government sets upon a people gives said people value for their money. However, as we are not a democracy, we decide how that tax is spent and how much it should be. As we levy a 'tax' in the provision of security - knights, ballistae, watchtowers, &c &c - upon the wealthiest, and provide technical education to the most impoverished, we believe ourselves to be relatively humane.

We do not see ourselves as espousing the modernist (i.e. convoluted philosophical position attempting to unite fundamentally divided relativist, voluntarist, instrumentalist and existentialist) worldview. We are pragmatist. We hold knowledge and the power of life and death over millions and we will use it as we wish in accordance with our goals.

We will not vote for this resolution. If it comes to pass, we shall continue being progressive - toward our goals.

Like I said, it's anti-capitalist, anti-communist, and anti-democratic all in the same resolution. There's plenty here to piss off just about anyone.
No, it's anti-"member nations which attempt to pass legislation as a cudgel to force those of dissenting economic and moral opinions on taxation into their collective, arbitrary molds of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ in taxation systems" who happen to be both capitalist and communist, democratic and non-democratic. It's a compromise. I'm sorry if that angers some people who would otherwise like near-absolute control over other nations.

I was hoping no one would notice that.

PC, I'm interested to know - when you wrote the operative section, did you mean it to affect only proposals on income tax, so that it didn't restrict the UN's power further than the game mechanics? Or did you intentionally write it to ban resolutions altering taxes that we currently can deal with - hoping, like Texan Hotrodders, that nobody would notice?

I think it's actually illegal for the UN to pass a resolution restricting its own powers:

Types Of Violations

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the UN works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal UN currency, and forming a "secondary UN" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

Once again, I'll remind everyone that this resolution would prevent any and all proposals to encourage free trade by reducing tariffs, to encourage fair trade by altering poor and rich nations' tariffs, or to encourage/discourage anything by tax incentives/disincentives. It is not simply a harmless resolution that reinforces game mechanics, it takes some very useful tools away from the UN's legislators.

I think it's actually illegal for the UN to pass a resolution restricting its own powers:

Actually, it's not. Let's use the "Abortion Rights" resolution as an example. When that resolution was passed, it became illegal to submit "Illegalize Abortions" proposals, and the Mods deleted those illegal proposals. The "Abortion Right" resolution in effect prohibited certain legislation from being proposed.

What is truly illegal is the explicit prohibition of future legislation. The "National Systems of Tax" resolution does so implicitly by declaring that nation's have the right to determine their own system of taxation, just as the "Abortion Rights" resolution did by declaring that "all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not".

Once again, I'll remind everyone that this resolution would prevent any and all proposals to encourage free trade by reducing tariffs, to encourage fair trade by altering poor and rich nations' tariffs, or to encourage/discourage anything by tax incentives/disincentives. It is not simply a harmless resolution that reinforces game mechanics, it takes some very useful tools away from the UN's legislators.

You'll forgive me for not being upset that the UN might not be able to screw more nations over with ill-devised one-size-fits-all taxation policies. :)

Or did you intentionally write it to ban resolutions altering taxes that we currently can deal with - hoping, like Texan Hotrodders, that nobody would notice?
I'm hardly hoping anyone will "notice" anything about it one way or another. The text is all public information, and, as usual, people have differing opinions about what it means--regardless of what I or anyone else will say. I've never been interested in anticipating what people will and will not think about my resolution texts, and this'n is no exception. It was my intent to do exactly what is says in the resolution: “reserve” tax system determination rights for member nations.


I think it's actually illegal for the UN to pass a resolution restricting its own powers:

This no more restricts the UN' powers than the Sex Industry Worker Act restricts the UN' powers. It doesn't attempt to change the game mechanics rules ("such and such proposals are illegal"), instead it just defines international law ("such and such can and cannot make these determinations"). If a proposal contradicts this law, then the proposal is illegal, just like with any other resolution.


Once again, I'll remind everyone that this resolution would prevent any and all proposals to encourage free trade by reducing tariffs, to encourage fair trade by altering poor and rich nations' tariffs, or to encourage/discourage anything by tax incentives/disincentives. It is not simply a harmless resolution that reinforces game mechanics, it takes some very useful tools away from the UN's legislators.

On the contrary, this resolution introduces the precedent that resolutions on taxation systems (and, at the moment, I believe Free Trade) do "encourage" tax systems alterations, as this proposal itself does. It just secures the bottom line that nations have the right to decide if it's in their best interest to do so.

And I don't think it's really a "useful" tool in the UN to encourage/discourage anything by tax incentives/disincentives. To me, it is a worthless tool. I mean, there are over 35,000 UN members and you're telling me that it would be a useful tool for a UN resolution to mandate the same tax incentive/disincentive for all of them? I disagree with that argument, as well as with the argument that UN proposal authors have enough information about individual taxation in member nations to mandate certain activities within the tax system.

PC - clarification. Does your resolution mean a nation can decide for itself, if a UN Resolution requires a tax raise, the nation can ignore the raise in taxes?

You can't actually force 26,000 nations, of whom each have his or her own capitalist or socialist beliefs to all agree on the same tax system. It goes against all rights of political freedom at the regional level.

Excuse me,

But I will need another ballot because I took my axe to the first one.


What the hell are you guys thinking...Just an advisement on how to tax my already very strong economy.

It appears that the City by the Live Sea is doing just PERFECTLY without needing the UN to tell us how to thrive.

Kiss my as....Butt :gundge:

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

You need to get over that fact that not everyone is going to see things the same way as you, and that those who do disagree aren't necessarily inferior.

Kettle, meet pot ...

Kettle, meet pot ...

I wonder if either of them have met the frying pan. ;)

this proposal is senseless as it only includes requests.
so why do you bother us?

the un should handle things of more improtance!

hepe of gallilee

This proposal does nothing and says nothing while forcing nations to spend needless time and efforts into investigating their own tax models. The imperative to apply a tax structure of a nation's choice is never in question so why is this even been put to question? As a proposal of a non-issue that may affect how our sovereign states will be governed, it should be struck down. I vote Nay.

I agree, i initially supported this resolution, i helped get it to quorum (not that i needed to) but having read it carefully i come to the same conclusion as the flipflop bandanas, i will be trying to get my region to vote against.

This no more restricts the UN' powers than the Sex Industry Worker Act restricts the UN' powers. It doesn't attempt to change the game mechanics rules ("such and such proposals are illegal"), instead it just defines international law ("such and such can and cannot make these determinations"). If a proposal contradicts this law, then the proposal is illegal, just like with any other resolution.

I was always under the impression that the UN could only restrict it legislation abilities by taking positive action. You can't simply say that the UN doesn't get to mandate something - the only way to prevent certain legislation is to mandate the opposite, to the best of my knowledge. I seem to remember proposals being deemed illegal for saying that nations have the right to decide for themselves on the death penalty and similar issues.

Apologies if I'm wrong.

On the contrary, this resolution introduces the precedent that resolutions on taxation systems (and, at the moment, I believe Free Trade) do "encourage" tax systems alterations, as this proposal itself does. It just secures the bottom line that nations have the right to decide if it's in their best interest to do so.

Exactly. Which means that once this passes, we can only encourage alterations, not mandate them. We cannot mandate that nations reduce tariffs on certain goods, for instance, only encourage them.

And I don't think it's really a "useful" tool in the UN to encourage/discourage anything by tax incentives/disincentives. To me, it is a worthless tool. I mean, there are over 35,000 UN members and you're telling me that it would be a useful tool for a UN resolution to mandate the same tax incentive/disincentive for all of them? I disagree with that argument, as well as with the argument that UN proposal authors have enough information about individual taxation in member nations to mandate certain activities within the tax system.

You wouldn't necessarily have to mandate specific rates or anything, but sometimes it is useful to say something like "Governments must encourage businesses to reduce their carbon emissions through tax incentives". Or to say "The overuse of polluting international air travel will be discouraged by the imposition of a tax on the sale of air tickets" - that's definitely an international issue.

Why SHOULDN'T the rich get (and stay) rich? It's their money, not the goverments.

My reasoning for voting against this measure is simple: the ability to enjoy whatever quality of life you can achieve should not be revoked.

It is an essentially communist proposal and we cannot force communist economics on other societies. That's as bad as forcing a monarchy on a democratic nation or democracy on a dictatorship; it's simply irresponsible of the UN to propose this.

Please. Vote nay.

We don't have a specific stance on this resolution, but on behalf of the UN majority in Wizards of the Coast, the Delegate Diamond Realms has voted against it.

This is a pointless resolution. It has very little effect. Please vote against it.

will this proposal affect the richer and more powerful countries by pulling them down by strenght.

The Government of The Principality of Aurora Island demand that the UN stop this resolution and removed from the agenda!

As PC has stated he's no longer posting in the UN Forum, I have no difficulty in doing this:


Votes For: 4,311

Votes Against: 2,692


Which is running about equal to prediction. Out of curiosity, I've been looking at the delegates going For and Against, and notes several registered class districts voting FOR - as in, people who are students and using NS as a learning tool. Very interesting! Knew they existed, never had seen one. :)

I'd be curious to know why they're voting FOR (or AGAINST, as the case may be), but wonder how appropriate it is to ask...

I'm also still wondering on the following - if I can get a general answer from anyone as they see it?


PC - clarification. Does your resolution mean a nation can decide for itself, if a UN Resolution requires a tax raise, the nation can ignore the raise in taxes?

I'm confused... this piece of legislation seems to be another layer of useless bureaucratic red tape. It simply must not be passed!

Why not just be open and honest and dub this resolution the "Re-Distribution Act"? You envision a world that cannot and will not exist. A classless society while great in theory is utopian, irrational, and naive. This is a waste of everyone's time and money. Charity and UN support of international aid is one thing. Attempting to punish the wealthy however will not lift up the impoverished it will simply drag down the wealthy to their level. In essence the only way to have a classless society is to have everyone in poverty.

I'm also still wondering on the following - if I can get a general answer from anyone as they see it?

PC - clarification. Does your resolution mean a nation can decide for itself, if a UN Resolution requires a tax raise, the nation can ignore the raise in taxes?

As I see it, this resolution makes it illegal to mandate any change to tax policy whatsoever without first repealing this. We can only suggest.

This is just redundant, and frankly, kind of useless. We need either stronger piece of legislation or just no taxation requirements at all.

BRING IT DOWN

This proposed legislation over-steps the boundaries of the UN. Taxation is a domestic matter, the UN's responsibility is not to bankrupt member nations by forcing them to have certain tax rates.

No, it's anti-"member nations which attempt to pass legislation as a cudgel to force those of dissenting economic and moral opinions on taxation into their collective, arbitrary molds of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’ in taxation systems" who happen to be both capitalist and communist, democratic and non-democratic. It's a compromise. I'm sorry if that angers some people who would otherwise like near-absolute control over other nations.

So, basically, you'd rather impose your *own* views of "rightness" and "wrongness" onto other nations to combat their own views. How very typical of "tireless crusaders". Your apology notwithstanding (as I don't view it as sincere), this resolution is actually an attempt to restrict national sovereignty by degrees. "Near-absolute" control? Kriovalian citizens elect their government.

In short, you are saying that Powerhungry Chipmunks knows what is better for Krioval's budget than the people of Krioval.

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Are any other nations interested in telegramming Delegates about this resolution?

I agree that this appears mostly to be red tape/filler.

I assume that all states have complete tax freedom now, why do we need a bill to insure it?

I agree that the topic of tax, under common sense, should rest solely with nations as an individual domestic policy.

I do not like the idea that the UN can tell me how much I can tax my own citizens. I have one flat rate and business competition is high. I believe this is just another way for the UN to take over the world.

Assuming that every nation knows how to tax their people, and the UN keeping their involvement out, there is no need for us to pass a law saying that a nation should be able to tax how they want to tax. If there should be law for, is how the UN lables a country by them doing some sidesteps in their law.

Well said, Cat Tribe. I think PC is under the impression that his excreta is pleasantly fragrant. Note to PC: this is not your game. Get a life.
Stupendous Badassness, despite the fact that you choose non-four-letter words to express yourself, this post was still 100% flaming and personal attacks against the player. That is entirely unacceptable.

This topic is not to be used as a free-for-all attack on the proposal author. It ends NOW. Discuss the proposal, not the player, or Official Warnings and forumbans will be handed out. Have I made myself TRANSPARENTLY clear?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Well said, Cat Tribe. I think PC is under the impression that his excreta is pleasantly fragrant. Note to PC: this is not your game. Get a life.

"Excreta" is plural, hence it should be "...his excreta are..."

This was another linguistic pet-peeve brought to you by Fass. If you would like to know more, please subscribe to my newsletter or send me €5 for a transcript of today's annoyances.

No refunds. Warranty void in Tennessee. We do not deliver to the Holy See.

have you ever heard of Laffer's curve. The higher the tax the less you collect money... and the best way is progressive tax. And it kills Peoples Initiative... I practice it in RL :((((

Frisbeeteria, I'm going to TG something to you. These are comments not intended to reflect on your modship, but intended only as one player to another about a topic. As a mod, you're doing your job, and doing it quite well. I will say this aloud: You have, since last we met, grown into the position, and you're growing to have the same commanding presense that I sense in many other mods.

Just as I make public criticisms, I make public compliments. It is only fair.

As to the topic at hand: Other than more repeats of the same attacks against it, do we really have something to say?

have you ever heard of Laffer's curve. The higher the tax the less you collect money... and the best way is progressive tax. And it kills Peoples Initiative... I practice it in RL :((((

More information and links, please.

Okay, I'm a bit confused here, if I vote no, taxes can be decided by the UN, if I vote yes, each country has to make it's own decisions on taxation, capatalist or socialist and the UN can't interfere? :confused:

If you vote yes, you may decide your own tax system. If you vote no, you may do that anyway.

After reading the resolution through. Then reading this thread and taking note of arguements from both sides, I find I must abstain on this resolution and not vote either way.

The resolution itself is confusing and I simply can't understand exactly what it hopes to achieve, if anything, despite reading it through several times.

In response to the dude who last said something,

If you dont understand what it hopes to achieve, vote against it. There are enough "filler"/ "red tape" acts in the UN without this one on Taxation

Maybe everyone is taking things a little seriously. Read the resolution. Do you like what it says? Do you think it would be good for your nation/other nations in the UN? If so, vote for it, and if not, vote against. There's really no need to vote against it if you don't understand it. Abstaining is all fine and good, but then you really should step up and propose a resolution yourself.

On Tuesday, I'll look at the votes again. And if it looks as though this is going to be passed, I will resign from the UN and not look back.

I voted against it.

On Tuesday, I'll look at the votes again. And if it looks as though this is going to be passed, I will resign from the UN and not look back.

We'll make a point of not noticing.

In response to the dude who last said something,

If you dont understand what it hopes to achieve, vote against it. There are enough "filler"/ "red tape" acts in the UN without this one on Taxation

I'm not a dude, I'm a dudette ;).

I have no intention of voting against (or for). Its not fair to the resolution author for me to vote against just because I don't understand what he/she is trying to acheive. The fault is mine, not theirs :).

I'm not a dude, I'm a dudette ;).

I have no intention of voting against (or for). Its not fair to the resolution author for me to vote against just because I don't understand what he/she is trying to acheive. The fault is mine, not theirs :).

You should not have to guess what a resolution wants to do. If you have to, then it is a bad resolution. The fault is not yours.

The most disturbing fact of this resolution is the fact that the U.N. feels that they should have the right to interfere with any Nation's tax system. The U.N. does not and should never have the power to interfere with internal working sof any Nation, whether a U.N. member or not, regardless of reason.

The U.N.'s role is as a support system for a group of Governments to be able to resolve situations amongst themselves. To be a mamber of the U.N. was once considered an honor and a highly respected endorsement by most Governments throught the world.

Now, the U.N. has deemd themselves the Overall Supreme Organization with the right to self-impose their will upon any and everyone. I whole heartedly disagree with this attitude and feel that under certain circumstances, the U.N. could be considered a world-wide dictator in itself.

As a member on the U.N., I will do whatever I can to stop this tyranny and help put the U.N. back into the role it was meant to have in the world order.

I voted a most definate NO to the current resolution. If your nation desires to change your tax strutcture, that is within your rights. If you chose not to, that is also within your rights. My thoughts, wants, or desires should have no bearing in that discussion what-so-ever.

The SouthEast
U.N. Member
Region of C.E.N.A.

Haven't often seen a bill which says "the game functions are now law"...

I support this, who also supports this bill

The SouthEast, you are confusing this UN with the real one. They are two entirely separate, and opposing, entities. This one has never actually changed from what it was to begin with.

-snip-

You should really read the UN faq. Just a tip.

REQUESTS member nations allow for those who cannot pay their debts to declare bankruptcy: so they may not be pursued by lenders whom they have no means to pay;

I have a problem with the above amendment as it can create a cycle where by countries who a hugely inefficient and wasteful, can borrow money to fund a lifestyle beyond their means, declare bankruptcy, then continue back to their old habits.

I move to add the requirement for restructuring of the economy following the declaration of bankruptcy along with any bankruptcy request must go to a commitee where the issue can be looked into, and deemed to whether the country has met the requirements and deemed to need the protection.

You should not have to guess what a resolution wants to do. If you have to, then it is a bad resolution. The fault is not yours.
Fass, you have proven yourself wise and venerable many times over, but I respectfully disagree with you here. Sometimes, though I think not in this case, the fault can lie with the reader. Witness Cobdenia's defeated diplomatic immunity proposal and the n00b's screaming "dipl0matz gonna rape our puppiez". They screamed that because they didn't read the proposal thoroughly and think about it, not because Cob's proposal was poorly written. Please note, I am not making any jabs at Waterana here. I think she's fully capable of understanding any proposal.

Fass, you have proven yourself wise and venerable many times over, but I respectfully disagree with you here. Sometimes, though I think not in this case, the fault can lie with the reader. Witness Cobdenia's defeated diplomatic immunity proposal and the n00b's screaming "dipl0matz gonna rape our puppiez". They screamed that because they didn't read the proposal thoroughly and think about it, not because Cob's proposal was poorly written. Please note, I am not making any jabs at Waterana here. I think she's fully capable of understanding any proposal.

Of course there will always be people who haven't read the resolutions debated, but those are so quickly spotted that giving them any attention is a waste of time.

I suppose I should have phrased myself something like "If you're serious about wanting to understand a proposal, and have tried to do it, but cannot figure out what it wants to do or it just doesn't make any sense, then it is, considerably more often than not, a bad resolution."

Better? :)

Hello i'm new at all this but I like the way you handle things. Bravo on the taxation that was very well done!

A sliding-scale tax system, wherein the percentage taken increases with the total amount earned, will do absolutely nothing to get more revenue out of the incredibly rich people at the top of the scale. They will always be able to afford lawyers and accountants who can get them out of paying the high rate-- it's far cheaper to hire the experts than to pay the tax, at their income.

However, the system does do an excellent job of keeping anyone else from becoming rich. Taking more money from people when they manage to increase their earnings is nothing more than a system of steadily-harsher fines for trying to improve your life.

Fass, you have proven yourself wise and venerable many times over, but I respectfully disagree with you here. Sometimes, though I think not in this case, the fault can lie with the reader. Witness Cobdenia's defeated diplomatic immunity proposal and the n00b's screaming "dipl0matz gonna rape our puppiez". They screamed that because they didn't read the proposal thoroughly and think about it, not because Cob's proposal was poorly written. Please note, I am not making any jabs at Waterana here. I think she's fully capable of understanding any proposal.

I think you are both talking about two different things :).

Fass is right to a point though. The problem with me is that I'm a 41 year old woman who while not an idiot, didn't finish high school and I do have trouble understanding very formally written proposals/resolutions that use a lot of what I call "legalise". Usually I just watch the thread on the resolution concerned and the bits I don't get are explained sooner or later but the very different opinions being thrown around in this thread haven't really explained anything. It could be because no-one seems to be championing this resolution and presenting the "for" side. If there were others saying they were also having probs understanding what this resolution was trying to do then I'd agree the fault did lie with the writer, however its been only me so the fault is mine :).

Saint Uriel, I did read this one, several times. The difference between me and this resolution and Cobdenia's Diplomatic immunity (which I did vote for) is that I'd hazzard a guess that those who were screaming about puppy eating didn't read that one at all. Just skimmed it at best and jumped to conclusions. Some of the critics of that one did present good arguements that showed they'd read it, and some presented knee jerk reactions that showed they probably hadn't :).

If anyone is having trouble understanding what this proposal is trying to do, I would point them to an earlier comment by the author.

It was my intent to do exactly what is says in the resolution: “reserve” tax system determination rights for member nations.

Saint Uriel, I did read this one, several times. The difference between me and this resolution and Cobdenia's Diplomatic immunity (which I did vote for) is that I'd hazzard a guess that those who were screaming about puppy eating didn't read that one at all. Just skimmed it at best and jumped to conclusions. Some of the critics of that one did present good arguements that showed they'd read it, and some presented knee jerk reactions that showed they probably hadn't :).
Very true :)

I have to disagree with this resolution. I find it appaling that the UN would be stepping in and saying 'This is how much you are allowed to tax the people.' If we allow this to pass, what is next? The UN will be running our countries for us!

I think it is up to the government to determine how much their people are taxed, not the UN.

I have to disagree with this resolution. I find it appaling that the UN would be stepping in and saying 'This is how much you are allowed to tax the people.' If we allow this to pass, what is next? The UN will be running our countries for us!

I think it is up to the government to determine how much their people are taxed, not the UN.


That is to say, we RESERVE the right for individual nations to determine ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘how much’ to tax--exclusively and independently (including, but not limited to, a nation’s tax model, tax exemptions, those who are taxed,tax rates, targeted taxation and all other choices regarding a nation's system of tax), excluding, of course, cases in which the United Nations has already resolved upon international standards for certain aspects of a member nation's system of taxation at the time of the passing of this resolution.

I must assume people voting against this resolution fall into one of two seperate categories.

1. They want the UN to be able to make determinations over the taxation structure in thier state, in the near future.
2. If the above is not true, then they are illiterate.

The sad thing, I've noticed far more #2's in here, than #1's....

I don't think that voting against this resolution makes you illiterate. That's a harsh statement to make. The fact is...this resolution is giving the U.N. more power than it should have in determining the internal workings of my nation. What gives the U.N. the right to reserve anything in the day-to-day operations within my nation? I would rather reserve the right to disolve the U.N. for over-riding the established Governments policies and procedures.

This resolution does nothing more than allow the U.N. to pry into a Nation's income base and "urge" you to follow their guidelines instead of the Nation determining its own path.

No where does a "NO" vote mean that the U.N. would have the right to set your taxation rates in the near future.

AND a "NO" vote does not mean someone is illiterate. That is an insulting a very stupid remark to make.

I must assume people voting against this resolution fall into one of two seperate categories.

1. They want the UN to be able to make determinations over the taxation structure in thier state, in the near future.
2. If the above is not true, then they are illiterate.

The sad thing, I've noticed far more #2's in here, than #1's....

The sad thing is that people who support this resolution don't realize that we already have the ability to determine our own tax structure, so it's a waste of our time and energy. What's sadder, still, is that they are the majority. *sigh* More proof. By the way, the fact that you misspelled "their" and then called said people illiterate gave me a good laugh, and I thank you for that.

Brote, UN Delagate from West Virginia, will not support this Resolution.

We believe that systems of Taxaition should be left upto the individual nations to decided, not the United Nations--which is already the case. As such we refuse to support another useless Resolution.

Further more, we resent the notion that by not voting for a resolution we are illiterate. Such terms are offensive and not conducive to an environment where proper and needed legislation can be passed.

Brote, UN Delagate from West Virginia, will not support this Resolution.

We believe that systems of Taxaition should be left upto the individual nations to decided, not the United Nations--which is already the case. As such we refuse to support another useless Resolution.

Further more, we resent the notion that by not voting for a resolution we are illiterate. Such terms are offensive and not conducive to an environment where proper and needed legislation can be passed.

It is amazing how intolerant the liberal crusaders are when anyone dare disagree with their views. Any opponent is immediately viewed as a simpleton backwater fool.

The fact is that this resolution is either useless or opening pandora's box where the UN sets tax policy for all member states. Either way it doesn't deserve to be passed.

;)

Ok, lets get an interpretation from the RIGHT side of the street:

Hi, we are representing liberals all over the world, and we don't think that it is fair that Capitalists are getting rich. We couldn't figure it out in our own nations so heres a suggestion:

Make people who work hard for their money give it to lazy slackers.

If a lazy slacker gets into too much debt, once again lets make the hard workers pay for it and let the sliders off.

It is ok not to work, the UN will make sure you get to eat.


--There is an ancient text that contains the statement "If a man does not work, he should not eat." This was said by a very honorable man in whom the City by the Live Sea tries to live up to.

Please try to defeat liberalism and socialism,

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I'm sorry but what the [expletive deleted] does this have to do with the bill on the table?

This proposal is an absolutely wonderful idea, and at current it fills me with great joy to see it is ahead in the polls. Far too long have we over looked the struggle of the lower class, oppressed by the middle and upper class. We have formed a caste system which can be seen in all but the most Liberal of states. We, as a world, lack balance, we have created the uber rich and the unchangeably poor. The only way this can be reverted is with government intervention, for we all know the private sector will do anything to keep it's precious dollar out of the hands of those who actually need it. This bill will help to end this story of oppressor and oppressed, it has the potential to usher in a new era in which humankind can truly be equal. For those of you who say all it does it give money to the lazy I must cite one of your gods...G. W. Bush...the man made his living of taking his daddy's money, all he had to do was be born, from there on out, he was free to be as lazy as he wanted, and don't think he didn't take advantage of that fact.

I'm sorry but what the [expletive deleted] does this have to do with the bill on the table?

What I said is the liberal interpretation of what the legalize writing of the "bill" is saying.

In fact if you look down one more post, you will see conformation. There are nations out there that do not believe on working your way to prosperity.

I took (maybe a little to sarcastically--I'll give you that) what this resolution was saying and put it into everyday common tounge so that we will all understand.

And with the help of Dirty Maggie May--That nation just reiderated what I said.

So that is what the [expletive deleted] I was saying that has to do with this resolution.

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

My point is that the bill doesn't mandate anything with respect to social welfare; in fact, it only suggests it. So it really doesn't do what you think it does. It just says all nations can ultimately choose their own system of taxation, which is already our right, and the bill is therefore pointless.

This proposal is an absolutely wonderful idea, and at current it fills me with great joy to see it is ahead in the polls. Far too long have we over looked the struggle of the lower class, oppressed by the middle and upper class. We have formed a caste system which can be seen in all but the most Liberal of states. We, as a world, lack balance, we have created the uber rich and the unchangeably poor. The only way this can be reverted is with government intervention, for we all know the private sector will do anything to keep it's precious dollar out of the hands of those who actually need it. This bill will help to end this story of oppressor and oppressed, it has the potential to usher in a new era in which humankind can truly be equal. For those of you who say all it does it give money to the lazy I must cite one of your gods...G. W. Bush...the man made his living of taking his daddy's money, all he had to do was be born, from there on out, he was free to be as lazy as he wanted, and don't think he didn't take advantage of that fact.

Because we all know that lazy people generally become governor and then president. And we all know that poor people never get rich. And we all know that Bill Gates was just loaded when he was starting out. Seriously, why don't you think before you rant so ridiculously?

I must assume people voting against this resolution fall into one of two seperate categories.

1. They want the UN to be able to make determinations over the taxation structure in thier state, in the near future.
2. If the above is not true, then they are illiterate.

The sad thing, I've noticed far more #2's in here, than #1's....

Tekania, really. I expected better from you. After all, not bothering to read what people are actually saying and then accusing them of illiteracy. Really, really ironic.

The fact is that all this resolution does is take what already exists under game mechanics and lack of legislation and make it UN law. If the author of the resolution was actually trying to do some good, they wouldn't be wasting our time by having us pay to do what we can do already and instead would spend time trying to shoot down resolutions that force tax systems. Instead of doing the right thing, this resolution wastes our time and effort and is either a waste or illegal. Either way, it's not worth the electrons it is disturbing.

So now the U.N. tells other nations how they should tax their citizens? And to make matters worse, it should be a progressive tax? Total rubbish.

:cool:

It is just astonishing how this particular resolution became endorsed.

Amazing even more are those that say yeah, tax the rich

And even more amazing is those nations that can't figure out how to govern themselves that they have to turn to the UN for guidance.

Wow

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

PS and with a very strong economy and 2% FLAT tax to boot.

Western Saxonia recognizes two major problems with this resolution, both of which have been mentioned before. One, the resolution does not actually require anything be done in the realm of taxation. A toothless tiger, if you will. Second, and more importantly, it's a general restriction on nat. sov. Why should it be the UN's place to tell individual nations how to tax their citizenry? If W. Saxonia sees the need to impose tariffs to promote domestic industrial production or usage taxes on goods and services, why should the UN restrict our ability to do so?

We have voted against this resolution. If it passes (and it looks like it will), you can rest assured that a repeal resolution can be coming soon after.

I must assume people voting against this resolution fall into one of two seperate categories.

1. They want the UN to be able to make determinations over the taxation structure in thier state, in the near future.
2. If the above is not true, then they are illiterate.

The sad thing, I've noticed far more #2's in here, than #1's....

And thank you so very much for dismissing Krioval's concerns out of hand. Then again, oversimplification seems to be the strength of Tekania's politicking these days. If you had read my complaints a bit more thoroughly, you would have seen that we are concerned that the proposal does nothing tangible, preaches at the UN, and costs us money.

Why would I want to pay for something whose sole purpose is to say a few pretty-sounding things that don't necessarily even line up with my government's ideology?

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

Hear, Hear!! <Clapping for Western Saxonia>

And thank you so very much for dismissing Krioval's concerns out of hand. Then again, oversimplification seems to be the strength of Tekania's politicking these days. If you had read my complaints a bit more thoroughly, you would have seen that we are concerned that the proposal does nothing tangible, preaches at the UN, and costs us money.

Why would I want to pay for something whose sole purpose is to say a few pretty-sounding things that don't necessarily even line up with my government's ideology?

Ambassador Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval
Regional Delegate for Chaotica

I dismiss the concerns, because they are of no concern. It is a protective legislation, and as such, has little "direct impact" but massive effective impact (upon UN powers).

It does do something tangible. It dictates to the UN (much like the R&D), a limiting scope of UN authority. And adds a layer of protection to UN member states self-governance.

The claim that it costs you money, can only be due to ingorance, since the proposal is a limitation upon power, it does ot "use" money one way or another.... Short of that, you're either lying to make a point (I'll assume ignorance as opposed to deciet).

Unless you can tell me how exactly as proposal which dictates that only your state has power over tax determination of your state, in any way "costs" you money.

Tekania,

Your nation has a tax rate of 100%. I don't know if you are really qualified to argue this point in the UN forums.

You do realise that you have built in control of your tax rate in the game don't you? I mean, it's a damn shame to say you can't control your nation's tax rate and need outside influence to direct your government in tax control due to incompetence. It is incompetence isn't it or do you chose to have a 100% tax rate for your nation?

Very interesting information to be found reading your nation's profile.

Tekania,

Your nation has a tax rate of 100%. I don't know if you are really qualified to argue this point in the UN forums.

You do realise that you have built in control of your tax rate in the game don't you? I mean, it's a damn shame to say you can't control your nation's tax rate and need outside influence to direct your government in tax control due to incompetence. It is incompetence isn't it or do you chose to have a 100% tax rate for your nation?

Very interesting information to be found reading your nation's profile.

I'm at least compitent enough to read the proposal. You, appearantly, are not.

This proposal sets a block whereby member-states themselves become the ultimate and only determiner of taxation within their borders.

Is it really all that hard to understand, or have the lot of you become nothing more than illiterate plithekos.

I dismiss the concerns, because they are of no concern. It is a protective legislation, and as such, has little "direct impact" but massive effective impact (upon UN powers).

It does do something tangible. It dictates to the UN (much like the R&D), a limiting scope of UN authority. And adds a layer of protection to UN member states self-governance.

The claim that it costs you money, can only be due to ingorance, since the proposal is a limitation upon power, it does ot "use" money one way or another.... Short of that, you're either lying to make a point (I'll assume ignorance as opposed to deciet).

Unless you can tell me how exactly as proposal which dictates that only your state has power over tax determination of your state, in any way "costs" you money.

Welcome to the wonderful world of false dichotomies. Last time I checked, most, if not all UN resolutions require a certain level of bureaucracy to maintain, even if they're "protective". So I am neither ignorant nor deceptive. Which particular *agenda* Tekania is pushing, however, may be a fruitful topic of discussion. Are you worried that a resolution that encourages a tax rate below communist might be passed? Because ultimately, the chair has already ruled that tax rates are not something that can be legislated by the UN.

OOC: It's a Social Justice resolution, which has effects on those of us with measurable economies. I think of the expense as going to pencil pushers who make sure that no opposing resolutions are allowed to see the light of day. RP it however you want, but game mechanics are what they are.

OOC2: UN proposals that directly reference national tax rates are already deleted. We don't need a resolution that dictates that they can't be proposed.

I think it's a good idea, so i support this proposal! :)

Tekania,

Practice what you preach before you start making hardline statements about protecting the people from rediculous taxation. For your information, your 100% tax rate would be exactly what a systematic tax rate would stop. So, in essence, you are supporting a proposal that is against what you stand for. Talk about double-speak. Next you are going to tell me a "No" vote is really a "Yes" vote and that pigs fly....sorry....I can see completely through that.

By the way.....learn how to spell...it's incompetent not incompitent. Talk about illiterate. You know, I should really just keep you typing. Your brilliance is beginning to show itself :-)

The SouthEast
"There is always a dic in dictator"

Practice what you preach before you start making hardline statements about protecting the people from rediculous taxation.

*snip*

By the way.....learn how to spell...it's incompetent not incompitent. Talk about illiterate. You know, I should really just keep you typing. Your brilliance is beginning to show itself :-)

Greetings.

We note that these quibbles over 'i' and 'e' are verging (not 'virgin') on insanity of the self-referential kind. We further note that it is 'incompetent', not 'incompitent' indeed, just as it is 'ridiculous' and not 'rediculous'.

We wonder if this proposal might actually be about 'texation' - the management of large states by small legislation.

Greetings.

We note that these quibbles over 'i' and 'e' are verging (not 'virgin') on insanity of the self-referential kind. We further note that it is 'incompetent', not 'incompitent' indeed, just as it is 'ridiculous' and not 'rediculous'.

We wonder if this proposal might actually be about 'texation' - the management of large states by small legislation.

I would like to thank my colleague from Roathin for making me laugh and pointing out something very important at the same time.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

do these UN resolutions have anything to do with how your country works, or are they just a way for morons to think they're smart?

OOC: In answer to the first part of your question, I would direct you to read the FAQ, the Rules, and all of the Stickies at the top of this forum so that you might understand the UN as you wish to do so.

In answer to the second part of your question, I would suggest that you not go around insulting people, even indirectly. It's not very nice, and only decreases your chance of getting anything accomplished by your statements.

Just some helpful advice.

LOL that is funny!

I tried to make sure I spelled everything correctly before I made that post. Reckon I was wrong LOL

Taxes.....ugh

This proposal sets a block whereby member-states themselves become the ultimate and only determiner of taxation within their borders.

Is it really all that hard to understand, or have the lot of you become nothing more than illiterate plithekos.

Tekania, the irony of you accusing people of illiteracy at this point is so huge that I could build full-sized model of the Great Wall of China with it. You are not bothering to read our replies and then post that the resolution does exactly what we are complaining about it doing. And, considering your tactics, I must consider it either purposeful flamebait, which is bad, or ignorance of the arguements actually used against the proposal, which makes you posting on here to be a waste of time for everyone.

The claim that it costs you money, can only be due to ingorance, since the proposal is a limitation upon power, it does ot "use" money one way or another.... Short of that, you're either lying to make a point (I'll assume ignorance as opposed to deciet).

This is actually a Social Justice issue. Going by game mechanics, it costs money. In your case, you won't notice a difference. This is a case of paying to do in the future what we can do for free right now. It's like charging money for breathing the air while on Earth.

I don't like this resolution very much. Yes to the first time I had voted FOR but now... Acording to me it breaks the rights of the single nation. It also have a good points but I thing it must be throw out

I'm shocked anyone would approve of such a bill. My problem isn't with the actual bill and what is will do to taxes; though I currently have a flat tax rate. My problem is that this bill is a total invasion of my nation's sovereignty. Basic human liberties bills are one thing but to go so far as to try to say how I tax my citizens is going to far.

(OOC: Haven't had the time to read the whole thing...I entered late)

IC: We stand with Krioval. From what we understand, all this proposal does is legalize bankruptcy and does nothing else, to which we say- just propose a Resolution legalizing bankruptcy and don't throw it in as an aside to a Resolution. We also think Articles 3 & 4 are contradictory and render the whole project pointless.

NO

Brote continues to stand in strong opposition to this bill, for the reasons we mentioned earlier on.

The bill is yet another pointless and toothless resolution. That however is only the beginning of our...exceptions...to this bill.

While Brote is considered a Progressivly liberal country where the rich are taxed at much higher level, we reserve the right to tax our citzens as we see fit, with out UN interference. The very notion that the UN would impose upon such a right is inherently against the very principals we stand for.

Their are certain unalieble rights that individual governments have that the UN should not become involved with. Thus, if we allow such a resolution to pass we are setting the stage for even more drastic attempts upon our national soverignty.

While Brote does feel that the UN serves a purpose in securing certain rights, that we believe shoud be accorded to all the peoples of the world, we do not believe, nor endorse any such attempt by the body to enfringe upon the governemnt of our citizens as to the point of the function of our governemnt.

Citizen's of our government chose us to lead them, not the the UN to lead them. The UN is not a Global Republic.

There is no difference between this resolution and the R&D. They both serve similar functions protecting the rights of member-states towards their own internal operative goals in specific realms (this one being far more specific than the R&D).

My own internal tax structure (which is composed of income, to a limit extent, and heavily in tarif and fee policies conjoined with the populous determining the placement of their own tax monies in refference to income) is of no bearing on this resolution, if anything it is supportive of a resolution which ensures that member-states own rights of internal operation without undue external interference.

It is also similar to the Universal Freedom of Choice, and the RBH Replacement, making more "suggestions" than actual hard coding principles applicable to all member-states.

And it is in no way, as The SouthEast would like to portray, inconsistent. Just because you are totally ignorant of the principles upon which the Constitutional Republic of Tekania is founded upon, and make judgements upon this Republic, in ignorance, based upon your own lack of understanding in regards to a Free Republic.... We are consistent because we believe the people themselves are the ultimate wielder of power and authority... And support anything which acts to ensure that principle.

Different nations impliment tax structures in different ways upon different principles, towards different goals. This resolution supports this principle.

Letter to the UN Diplomatic communications office of Powerhungry Chipmunks

Sir/Madam,

In the past I have supported your repeal resolutions for useless resolutions and have been in agreement with your arguments and policies, however we feel that your latest proposal goes against everything that you have stood for in the past. We see this proposal as ineffective and that it only creates another stack of forms to fill in.

We admire your intentions however we feel that you have lost them somewhere in the bureaucracy Taking into account the governments feeling on the matter I must inform you that we stand against this resolution and will encourage the region to vote similarly. We are sorry that on this issue we cannot come to a compromise.

Yours faithfully,

Mr J. Smith

Engineering Chaos UN Diplomatic relations office

Against.
Too vague, deliberately confusing and with no obligations.

Tekania,

This will be my last response to you on this post.
This has become a pissing contest between you and me, and that is not what this should be. You call me illiterate, I call you incompetent. We both have gotten off the topic of this thread and nobody wants to read about that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this proposal. If you can handle that, good. If not, too bad. I can live with the fact that you support it. But don't call me names and make derogatory statements about others that don't agree with you. It is unflattering and in bad taste.

I think my position is well documented..

"Abosulte power corrupts absolutely"

The SouthEast

This prop sucks! Let everyone be free to do what they want to do with their taxes. I think I'm going to get out of the UN if this prop is accepted, so :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: it

But if the UN has any semblance of authority over the tax policies of our respective states, who is to deliver us pancakes in bed? I think it is unfortunate that the world has come to this, and I believe that anyone who supports such a resolution is irresolute.

Tekania,

This will be my last response to you on this post.
This has become a pissing contest between you and me, and that is not what this should be. You call me illiterate, I call you incompetent. We both have gotten off the topic of this thread and nobody wants to read about that.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this proposal. If you can handle that, good. If not, too bad. I can live with the fact that you support it. But don't call me names and make derogatory statements about others that don't agree with you. It is unflattering and in bad taste.

I think my position is well documented..

"Abosulte power corrupts absolutely"

The SouthEast


That is true, and you should not start pissing contests in the future.

I'm on both sides of the National Sovereignty fence. And see national sovereignty as something, that in certain aspects, needs to be protected. I support this resolution because it places a limitation upon UN power in a specific area of concern. (Namely taxation). Much like the R&D placed limitations on UN power elsewhere in regards to governmental mode and form.

If you find it odd that I would support legislation limiting the power of the UN, so be it. If I find it odd that you would oppose legislation that places a limit on UN power, so be it.

The paticular mode of internal operation of this Republic has no bearing of consistency with the freedoms and liberties that are supported in general. We of the Republic also place great respect on our people's power to make self-determination over the direction and goal of their own tax dollars through income tax. Most of our tax is due to high-tarrif policies in place to protect our localized private industries (against out-sourcing). None of this has any direct contradiction or bearing upon out position to impose, and mandate that NSUN member-states have total and complete pervue, present and future, over their own internal fiscal operations.

There is nothing wrong with re-enforcement of the principles of national sovereignty, as a check upon the powers of the UN meddling with internal national affairs.

I believe there are enough others who agree with this sentiment as well.

This resolution is absolutely absurd... If people want better lives than they can make more money.

This resolution is absolutely absurd... If people want better lives than they can make more money.
Because, after all, the only reason that we're all not billionaires is because we're lazy. Glad we have you around to clarify these things.

OOC: Question. How is this resolution passing so easily if most of us are against it? Something is seriously wrong here.

I support this resolution because it places a limitation upon UN power in a specific area of concern. (Namely taxation). Much like the R&D placed limitations on UN power elsewhere in regards to governmental mode and form.

The difference is that R&D didn't add limitations that weren't already present because of game mechanics. This adds new restrictions, limiting the power of the UN in ways not already dealt with by the mods' protocols.

If you don't like a proposal's ideas to alter domestic taxation, reject it on its own merits. Don't enforce a blanket ban on all such proposals.

Tekania,

I believe you threw the first stone by making the blanket statement that anyone not agreeing with you on this proposal was illiterate. I and others found it abusive and unwarranted and I find you nothing more than a nuisance.

Regardless of the outcome of this resolution, you have made a lasting unimpressive impression on me.

The SouthEast

Message from an Average Citizen;
Just what the Hell is this resolution about? First it talks about progressive taxation, which is a global federalist idea. Then it talks about limitation to UN power, which is a global states rights idea.

Then we have this "help the bankrupt" clause which is a socialist idea, which is countered with individual taxation clause which is a capitalist idea.

So I conclued that this resoluation is just like this:

We want to make sure that the pro-socialistic nations are happy so that the pro-capitalistic nations will be angery. However, what we really want is so that the capitalistic nations will gain taxation freedom, but then again since we don't want to sound like the bad multi-million dollar corporations we will add in this nice clause of "We Reserve the Right to..." So then no one will be too happy or too sad and all this will be a waste of paper, ink, and time because all we are doing is circular reasoning so that everyone is okay with it and we get nothing done.

Believe me, if you think this is the first resolution that sounds like nothing but politicans trying to get away with something, then may what ever you have faith in you help you.

As for those nations who agreed to this resolution, I bet half of them didn't know what this piece of political trash means.

Sum it up: What this resolution want to do:
1. Limit UN power
2. Prevent repeals of this resolution with "We Reserve the Right" clause
3. Ensure votes by sounding progressive
4. Serve as model for further resolutions similar to this one

I don't care who is going to call me names, or what they call me. I have my freedom of speech in the UN and I'll be damned if they take that away from me too.

Sincerely, a man who would have died long ago in Stalin's Regime

When did the U.N. gain the power to enforce taxes or systems of tax? The U.N. doesn't have the power to tax any nation. The control over how a nation taxes its citizen belongs uniquely to that nation, it's no one elses business. All the U.N. can do is assess member nations contributions, it is not the same as taxing. I find this resolution to be abusrd, it looks like nothing more than blatantly trying to push certain political views to me.

When did the U.N. gain the power to enforce taxes or systems of tax? The U.N. doesn't have the power to tax any nation. The control over how a nation taxes its citizen belongs uniquely to that nation, it's no one elses business. All the U.N. can do is assess member nations contributions, it is not the same as taxing. I find this resolution to be abusrd, it looks like nothing more than blatantly trying to push certain political views to me.

*first card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9943/readthestickies5la.jpg')
*second card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)
*third card* (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/3207/theapathycard8hl.jpg)
*fourth card* (http://img137.echo.cx/img137/408/thenotthesamecard5gk.jpg)

Read 'em and weep. :D

I can agree with guhreg in that I surely don't want the UN interfering in my personal taxation. What our god asks our Father to tax of the people is what is true and right. The United Nations surely cannot change this.

The Holy Republic of the Moravian Counties

I can agree with guhreg in that I surely don't want the UN interfering in my personal taxation. What our god asks our Father to tax of the people is what is true and right. The United Nations surely cannot change this.

The Holy Republic of the Moravian Counties

*first card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9943/readthestickies5la.jpg)
*second card* (http://img112.echo.cx/img112/2601/readthefaq5yd.jpg)
*third card* (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/3207/theapathycard8hl.jpg)
*fourth card* (http://img137.echo.cx/img137/408/thenotthesamecard5gk.jpg)

Read 'em and weep. :D

I need to do some research here, but can any member nation tell me when the last resolution up for ratification by the membership actually meant something? Enegue appreciates a good intention as much as the next nation, but to actually draft it as a resolution and to 'enact' these intentions (which every member nation must comply to by the way) is pointless.

This bill says nothing. If we as members wish to post intentions in some form, fine. But to legislate and monitor compliance with these kinds of issues? Count me out. Our nation volunteered to take part in the UN, discuss, vote, and comply with the resolutions and sacrifices to a greater common good. But thus far any benefits (for we have yet to see any) to our nation are woefully underwhelming.

A grassroots publicity campaign has recently made itself known where certain citizens have been capturing and releasing our national animal (the greentoed ground sloth) with the slogan "Free Enegue from the UN!" shaved into their coats. After the national news covered a story involving a pair of these animals from the zoo in the nation's capital, it's been gaining momentum politically.

Vote this down.

I vote Nay. I don't like taxes.

There is no difference between this resolution and the R&D. They both serve similar functions protecting the rights of member-states towards their own internal operative goals in specific realms (this one being far more specific than the R&D).

Point out where the R&D specifically disallows items not already disallowed by the rules.

My own internal tax structure (which is composed of income, to a limit extent, and heavily in tarif and fee policies conjoined with the populous determining the placement of their own tax monies in refference to income) is of no bearing on this resolution, if anything it is supportive of a resolution which ensures that member-states own rights of internal operation without undue external interference.

Your internal tax system speaks to motive and to reasoning behind your posts. Some people find it important, others don't.

It is also similar to the Universal Freedom of Choice, and the RBH Replacement, making more "suggestions" than actual hard coding principles applicable to all member-states.

RBH is a weak resolution that does little. Universal Freedom of Choice actually does something, though it doesn't do so until numbers 5 and 6. The phrase "enshrines in law" effectively means "this is made legal by this resolution."

And it is in no way, as The SouthEast would like to portray, inconsistent. Just because you are totally ignorant of the principles upon which the Constitutional Republic of Tekania is founded upon, and make judgements upon this Republic, in ignorance, based upon your own lack of understanding in regards to a Free Republic.... We are consistent because we believe the people themselves are the ultimate wielder of power and authority... And support anything which acts to ensure that principle.

Then why are you supporting a resolution that, under the only interpretation that makes it legal by game rules, does nothing?

Different nations impliment tax structures in different ways upon different principles, towards different goals. This resolution supports this principle.

A better method of supporting the ideal is opposing proposals that would attempt to do so, not make a resolution that cannot legally enforce its own wording without breaking game rules in the process.

That is true, and you should not start pissing contests in the future.

Kettle, stop insulting the pot.

I'm on both sides of the National Sovereignty fence. And see national sovereignty as something, that in certain aspects, needs to be protected. I support this resolution because it places a limitation upon UN power in a specific area of concern. (Namely taxation). Much like the R&D placed limitations on UN power elsewhere in regards to governmental mode and form.

If you find it odd that I would support legislation limiting the power of the UN, so be it. If I find it odd that you would oppose legislation that places a limit on UN power, so be it.

You're supporting a resolution that, in that being all it does, is illegal by game rules. This means that, at some time in the future, it will be removed from the list of resolutions, either through repeal or through admins cleaning up the resolutions list. As it stands, this resolution has no legal ground to stand on and, as such, cannot be enforced.

The paticular mode of internal operation of this Republic has no bearing of consistency with the freedoms and liberties that are supported in general. We of the Republic also place great respect on our people's power to make self-determination over the direction and goal of their own tax dollars through income tax. Most of our tax is due to high-tarrif policies in place to protect our localized private industries (against out-sourcing). None of this has any direct contradiction or bearing upon out position to impose, and mandate that NSUN member-states have total and complete pervue, present and future, over their own internal fiscal operations.

Then why support a worthless resolution instead of putting in the work to oppose resolutions that do the things you oppose?

There is nothing wrong with re-enforcement of the principles of national sovereignty, as a check upon the powers of the UN meddling with internal national affairs.

There is something wrong when it doesn't actually do anything. That's what we call "wasted space."

I believe there are enough others who agree with this sentiment as well.

And I believe that there are plenty of people unfamiliar with the UN's rules. That belief is backed up daily by the proposals section.

Passed 7511 to 6811. Yow. Add this to the list of "most wanted repeals". And I guess we can level a forest or two to pay for the needless bureaucracy.

Well, I was wrong on the numbers... massive apathy out there these days...

I would not be surprised if many people, including Delegates from Feeder Regions, planned to vote on this the last day of consideration and did not get a chance to. The statement of Krioval noting the passage of the resolution is timed at 2:13 GMT-4. Usually, voting on a resolution would not end until close to 14:00 GMT-4, almost twelve hours later.

Due to the early closing of this vote, I think a repeal would have a significant chance of passage. I would support any attempt to repeal this poorly designed resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Well, I was wrong on the numbers... massive apathy out there these days...

I don't think it was apathy. Roughly the same number of people voted (over 15000). It was just not a wildly popular proposal. I think this also shows that alot (more than expected) of people *do* read the text of a proposal before voting, despite allegations to the contrary.

I would not be surprised if many people, including Delegates from Feeder Regions, planned to vote on this the last day of consideration and did not get a chance to. The statement of Krioval noting the passage of the resolution is timed at 2:13 GMT-4. Usually, voting on a resolution would not end until close to 14:00 GMT-4, almost twelve hours later.

Due to the early closing of this vote, I think a repeal would have a significant chance of passage. I would support any attempt to repeal this poorly designed resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador


I agree about the repeal.I will support it for sure.
The problem is that many of the nation's representatives don't even give a meaning to the resolutions.The think "The proposal has passed,so it is good,so I support it." Look in the forum.Here are written no more than 100 posts about the resolution,but in the same time there are more than 10 000 votes about.That's why so dump,useless and harmful resolutions pass.Nobody cares and nobody goes deep in the problem.