NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello UN Member Nations,

I am sure that most of you are aware of the recent enaction of UN Resolution 105, "National Systems of Tax," as well as the extremely close margin of votes it took to pass. Many of you, myself included, were appalled at the general design of the resolution and its apparent effects on the member nations.

For example, Western Saxonia was a nation that had no income tax prior to this resolution. We feel that government funds should be raised through other means such as tariffs and usage/sales taxes, and our policies reflected that. Since the enaction of Resolution 105, we are now bound to collect at least a 4% income tax from our citizens. This sudden change has created much strife in our nation, with multiple petitions being circulated to repeal the resolution. More distressing was a recent violent demonstration in our capital Zidar. Police had to tear gas and arrest many protestors for throwing rocks and bottles at members of the Saxonian Congress.

To many of you, this increase may seem small, but it goes back to our previous comments on the problems with the resolution. The UN has NO right to dictate the taxation policies of the member nations, even if said policies would help a claimed "higher purpose". Imposing taxation for the express purpose of helping the needy violates this resolution's own wording.

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

This expressly states that the individual nations shall set their own tax INDEPENDENT of any UN resolution, however, this is not the case since:

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;

this part has not "encouraged" the adoption of progressive tax schemes. Instead it has FORCED these tax systems upon member nations, violating section 4.

For these reasons, we feel that it is imperative that a repeal proposal be written and submitted to the delegates before week's end. As Western Saxonia has not been endorsed by 2 or more nations, we are unable to draft this proposal. Should any other member agree with our stance, we encourage them to either assist in the drafting and submission of the proposal, or endorse Western Saxonia.

Thank you,
Erik Andersen
Saxonian Ambassador to the UN

I'll support it, but more because it doesn't do anything than because it does something bad. I don't really care which of the limitless excuses is used to repeal this resolution, so long as the resolution is eventually repealed.

The resolutions does absolutely nothing that didn't already exist in the game.
If you read the resolution, it doesn't actually force you to do anything.

The reason your taxes went up is because it is a "social justice" resolution; that's the part that actually effects your country in the games mechanics.

Repealing it because of that is nothing more than statwanking.

The resolutions does absolutely nothing that didn't already exist in the game.
If you read the resolution, it doesn't actually force you to do anything.

The reason your taxes went up is because it is a "social justice" resolution; that's the part that actually effects your country in the games mechanics.

Repealing it because of that is nothing more than statwanking.

OOC: I take extreme exception to that characterization. I am providing my country's issues as an EXAMPLE, and not the sole reason for the repeal. Moreover, you calling me a "statwanker" is rude and baseless. I suggest that you tone it down.

Besides, the fact that it takes no real stance on anything, but produced such a change is even MORE grounds for it to be repealed. Why should an pointless resolution have such an effect on game mechanics?

Kindly avoid responding to this with another ad hominem attack.

EDIT: Note also that I labled this as a discussion thread. I am not going to be writing this proposal, because I cannot submit it to the UN. If anyone wants to write up a repeal proposal and make a thread for edits, that's their perogative.

You have presented no reason other than a reason that is most definately statwanking; I will not apologise for that term as it the term used on these boards for basing anything on nothing more than how it will effect your stats. If you complain about that, you might equally object to terms such as n00b or IC or OoC.
The actual wording of the proposal does nothing more than allow individual nations the right to set there own taxation systems; basically nothing that didn't exist already...

That being the case, what possible need is there for this resolution to exist? It does nothing to affect the status quo and merely creates more potential for confusion.

The resolutions does absolutely nothing that didn't already exist in the game.
If you read the resolution, it doesn't actually force you to do anything.

The reason your taxes went up is because it is a "social justice" resolution; that's the part that actually effects your country in the games mechanics.

Repealing it because of that is nothing more than statwanking.

I do not necessarily support an repeal, but these comments are unfair.

A significant argument made in and for the resolution was that it protected national sovereignty alone.

That the resolution would have no effect on your nation's policies, but merely suggest progressive taxation was touted as a major virtue of the resolution.

Although a couple of people pointed out the resolution was disingenuous, in that it would, in fact, impact people nations in unknown ways. Such concerns were dismissed.

If it it correct that the resolution in and of itself forced changes like at 4% increase in a nation's taxrate, then that is evidence that the resolution was argued for and adopted under false pretenses.

As the resolution claimed that national sovereignty was a major concern and it was said it would have no effect on nations, criticizing those who object that the resolution did, in fact, change their taxes is unfair and hypocritical.

I do not necessarily support an repeal, but these comments are unfair.

A significant argument made in and for the resolution was that it protected national sovereignty alone.

That the resolution would have no effect on your nation's policies, but merely suggest progressive taxation was touted as a major virtue of the resolution.

Although a couple of people pointed out the resolution was disingenuous, in that it would, in fact, impact people nations in unknown ways. Such concerns were dismissed.

If it it correct that the resolution in and of itself forced changes like at 4% increase in a nation's taxrate, then that is evidence that the resolution was argued for and adopted under false pretenses.

As the resolution claimed that national sovereignty was a major concern and it was said it would have no effect on nations, criticizing those who object that the resolution did, in fact, change their taxes is unfair and hypocritical.

This is my primary objection to the resolution. It claimed it would do nothing to directly effect nat. sov. or anything regarding taxation. The end result disputes that claim on all counts. I am sure that I am not the only nation that found a sudden increase in income tax as a result of this, but I might be more vocal about it.

There are some good "common sense" points in the resolution, but not enough to warrant such a vague imposition on the member nations. If the original author or another supporter would like to make a more concise and direct proposal, then I'd be more in favor. Even so, changing the wording of a resolution requires a repeal, even if the new resolution is largely identical. As the resolution stands, it's mostly a bunch of happy talk that the game mechanics interpreted as a tax hike.

Just a bit of additional information, my tax rate of 37% remained entirely unaffected.

This won't pass for a very simple reason: It's too soon. No resolution in UN history has ever been repealed just after it was passed. Give it a month or two before even attempting the draft of a repeal.

Just a bit of additional information, my tax rate of 37% remained entirely unaffected.
As did My tax rate of 100% :D

Actually, we like the resolution, because it kiboshes any attempt to fund the UN via tax. Or any new UN program. It has effectively brought the UN to a complete standstill.

I agree with Western Saxonia, it does seem a tad contradictory and vague. It does seem like a "feel good" piece of legeslation that doesn't really do much of anything.

The resolution National Systems of Tax was passed 7,511 votes to 6,811
Close? You call 700 votes close? Why, in my day...

Seriously, the amount of votes isn't the important thing. Otherwise things like the Euthansia resolution would be long gone. 40 Hour work-week was closer than this, but not only survived a repeal, it survived with an increased majority.

Close? You call 700 votes close? Why, in my day...

Seriously, the amount of votes isn't the important thing. Otherwise things like the Euthansia resolution would be long gone. 40 Hour work-week was closer than this, but not only survived a repeal, it survived with an increased majority.
As was noted elsewhere, many regional delegates were unable to vote, most of whom had significant voting power and were prepared to vote against the proposal. I do consider 700 close if the feeder delegates did not vote.

This won't pass for a very simple reason: It's too soon. No resolution in UN history has ever been repealed just after it was passed. Give it a month or two before even attempting the draft of a repeal.
I realize this, but that is why I marked this thread as a Discussion, rather than a Proposal. I do not plan on writing a repeal proposal for reasons previously stated, so I intended for this to be a brainstorming session on whether or not such a Repeal was viable. I probably came off too strong in starting this, and I apologize for that. It seems to me that there is a significant opposition to this resolution, and I thought it was only right to bring up the possibility of repeal while the resolution was still relatively fresh in our minds.

I probably will sit on this for a bit, to gather my thoughts and endorsements so I can submit this.

Repealing it because of that is nothing more than statwanking.

As the resolution does nothing but affect your stats, "statwanking" is very much relevant here.

OOC: Fass' economy was "Powerhouse" when I last logged in a few days ago. Logging in today, I see that it is "Thriving" and that's all due to this resolution. If we had at least gotten something for this costly adjustment, then it might have been easier to swallow, but as we have nothing we didn't already have, it feels like we've been made to trade our cow for a couple of worthless beans. We want magical beans, goddammit!

But basing a repeal on what happens to your stats is patently ridiculous. The UN resolution should be about the text of the resolution and how it theoretically, and not actually, how it would effect you (e.g. a repeal for Abortion Rights should be due to vagueness or due to the fact that you don't think it is an international matter or because you are against abortion), not how it affects your stats.
What is, then, to stop me from writing a "Free Trade: Strong" proposal with a body text of "Vote for this and your economy will improve", etc.
What, indeed, is the point of the arguments section?

All this talk of repeals made me look at resolution 4, "UN Taxation Ban". Doesn't a resolution banning direct tax systems completely contradict this resolution? Or is there a rule that I've completely ignored?

I would put through a proposal to repeal this myself but I don't have any endorsements.

All this talk of repeals made me look at resolution 4, "UN Taxation Ban". Doesn't a resolution banning direct tax systems completely contradict this resolution? Or is there a rule that I've completely ignored?

I would put through a proposal to repeal this myself but I don't have any endorsements.
All the UN Taxation Ban does is prohibit the UN from taxing a nation's citizens directly, national governments are still allowed to.

But basing a repeal on what happens to your stats is patently ridiculous.

As is a resolution that does nothing except affect our stats.

The UN resolution should be about the text of the resolution and how it theoretically, and not actually, how it would effect you (e.g. a repeal for Abortion Rights should be due to vagueness or due to the fact that you don't think it is an international matter or because you are against abortion), not how it affects your stats.

Why not? It is up to us to decide why we don't like a resolution - do not attempt to dictate to us what is a "valid" reason for repeal.

What is, then, to stop me from writing a "Free Trade: Strong" proposal with a body text of "Vote for this and your economy will improve", etc.
What, indeed, is the point of the arguments section?

Try it. We aren't here to stop you. The mods are. Now if you basically read what we wrote and realised the meaning of "the resolution does nothing," you'd see a wonderful "argument" for its repeal. Funny that, that you talk so much about "arguments," but seem to miss them nevertheless.

As is a resolution that does nothing except affect our stats.

I apologise Fass, I clearly misunderstood what you were saying. My point was that, really, you can't write a repeal with wording that is based on nothing more than effecting your stats, which is what the original poster was advocating. However, the problem is that I can, frankly, see no way you could repeal it without referring to this; and it does throw out an interesting possibility that any repeal word have to worded so as not to affect game mechanics. After all, this does (wording wise, not stats wise) nothing more than what already exists in the game mechanics, and a repeal, if poorly worded, could be construed as to be removing this aspect of game mechanics.
I hope you follow what I am saying; because for the life of me I can't work it out!
Anyway, just answer a couple more issues the correct way and your tax rate will go down; and even if a repeal were in place the effects are the reverse, but milder (so it still would have some effect on you). A better way would be to write a Significant Free Trade proposal that doesn't do anything...

Hang on, I've just thought of a way around this problem: As your stats are only affect by resolutions that pass while you are in the UN, you could, if you see a proposal that would affect your stats negatively, resign, then join up after it passes. Therefore, you would still (in an RP sense) be following the resolution, but you wouldn't be affected by it.

I apologise Fass, I clearly misunderstood what you were saying. My point was that, really, you can't write a repeal with wording that is based on nothing more than effecting your stats, which is what the original poster was advocating. However, the problem is that I can, frankly, see no way you could repeal it without referring to this; and it does throw out an interesting possibility that any repeal word have to worded so as not to affect game mechanics. After all, this does (wording wise, not stats wise) nothing more than what already exists in the game mechanics, and a repeal, if poorly worded, could be construed as to be removing this aspect of game mechanics.
I hope you follow what I am saying; because for the life of me I can't work it out!
Anyway, just answer a couple more issues the correct way and your tax rate will go down; and even if a repeal were in place the effects are the reverse, but milder (so it still would have some effect on you). A better way would be to write a Significant Free Trade proposal that doesn't do anything...

Actually, I was not saying the stat change was the only reason. I gave it as an example of how the resolution affected my nation in a way that violated the resolution itself. I thought that I implied the vagueness of the resolution effectively, but apparently I must be more explicit.

As for repealing this, you can't adopt the position of "Oh, it doesn't do anything major, so let's ignore it." Doing so only allows more proposals that are useless but have unintended consequences through. We need to nip this in the bud, and get rid of poorly worded and planned resolutions.

It's already in the game mechanics? Fine! Why have a resolution that just reaffirms what we already know?! It's a waste of time for all involved. Your solution of writing a useless proposal that idealogically counteracts this one has a few problems as well. One, you still need to repeal existing resolutions if you want to counteract them with new ones. Two, a useless resolution is a useless resolution, regardless of its position. Whether or not I support what the proposal is saying, if it ultimately will have no effect (or not the one proposed), then I will not vote for it.