NationStates Jolt Archive

A call to all UN delegates to support the proposal to REPEAL the "NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF TAX" legislation (#105).

The case for so doing is that this is confused and unnecessary legislation. The United Nations should not presume that progressive taxation is an effective and fair remedy to correct what it may suppose to be an acceptable distribution of "monetary wealth". This legislation obfuscates the bigger issues (e.g. the imbalance GDP per Capita between developed economies and those of the less developed world).

In any case it is not the business of the United Nations to set an itself an objective of re-distributing "monetary wealth". If the UN starts to interfere with the sovereign right of nations to govern it will lose all its ability to influence matters that really matter - unjust wars, human rights and so on. We need to repeal the law to restore the UN's integrity.

PLEASE add your support for the proposal and REPEAL this legislation.

Thank you

Actually, I think you'll find that National Systems of Tax doesn't do much of what you think it does. Effectively, it says that "the games mechanics are now UN law as well".

Actually, it says "The game mechanics are now law! That's nice and non-controversial, let's concentrate on that and not mention the fact that we're also banning ourselves from even considering a whole bunch of other things that are perfectly acceptable from a game mechanics point of view."

Calling all UN delegates
You'd best make sure to adjust for time-zones, as they might be a tad on the grumpy side if you call them in the middle of the night.

I assume that the delegate from Blessed Isles is referring to the proposal on page 1, which I request be entered into the record at this time.

Repeal "National Systems of Tax"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #105
Proposed by: Blessed Isles

Description: UN Resolution #105: National Systems of Tax (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This is confused and unnecessary legislation that endeavours to extend the mission of the United Nations beyond that for which it was designed and created to perform.

- It is wrong that the United Nations should presume that progressive taxation is an effective and fair remedy to correct what it may suppose to be an acceptable distribution of "monetary wealth"

- In any case it is not the business of the United Nations to set an itself an objective of re-distributing "monetary wealth"

- No definition is given of what constitutes "monetary wealth"

- No debate has been had about the efficacy of "monetary wealth" as a measure of social justice when compared to numerous other potential measures such as "equality of opportunity"

- Why would the United Nations suppose that urging nations to re-distribute "monetary wealth" within their boundaries would have any measurable effect on an increasingly globalised economy? The greater issue is the imbalance of real GDP and GDP per Capita between developed economies and those of the less developed world

This law must be repealed and the United Nations mission protected from being hi-jacked by confused and/or insidious dogmatists

Approvals: 41 (Blessed Isles, Tannu Tuval, Faerin II, Yelda, Shatford Valley, The Hunter Isles, Darth Mall, Borograd, Grays Harbor, NewTexas, Ness Snorlaxia, Omigodtheykilledkenny, Kleinekatzen, Vastiva, Domzalski, Jiangland, Thorncraftland, Darkumbria, Iznogoud, Naval Revolutionaries, Caer Rialis, The Imperials, Ghaard Allamia, Nevscrow, Shikyrie, Brians Room, Zealotos, Declavia, Samorr, NeoAsiaEuropa, The Fro Royal Family, Wojcikiville, Domino Muthaf- -ka, Gilabad, Gadsby-Rose, Gabrones, Lorcadaka, Wegason, DSM-IV, Arendstan, FairyTInkArisen)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jun 26 2005
I support repeal of "National Systems of Tax", but it does not do what this repeal claims that it does; "National Systems of Tax" decreases UN power, it does not increase it. Ergo, I cannot support the repeal.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Actually Resolution 105 is little more then filler paper in my ever increasing book of UN resolutions.

Our nation couldn't care either way.

Actually, it says "The game mechanics are now law! That's nice and non-controversial, let's concentrate on that and not mention the fact that we're also banning ourselves from even considering a whole bunch of other things that are perfectly acceptable from a game mechanics point of view."

I have been reviewing your objections to the resolution, Myopia, and have investigated a lot of the taxation items the UN is now unable to attach to resolutions. I am willing to open a discussion about, and a replacement attempt of the resolution. I firmly, firmly, believe that taxes on domestic items and activities within a nation and the systems of how those taxes are carried out are member nations' respective perogatives.

However, I do not necessarily object to the UN having input on international trading, tariffs, and reward or punitive taxes. I do think these international taxes (whatever these proposals are in the future which contain them) must be designed to allow for the individuality of the nations involved. But, again, I'm not necessarily against prudent oversight or negotiation.

So, I hear ya, Myopia. I think your objections are well-thought out and pretty justified and I would be more than happy (very, very happy :D) to have you involved in the discussion of replacing NSoT.

That's great. :)

Unfortunately I don't think I can usefully contribute to a discussion on a replacement, because I don't want to see one. I simply don't like the idea of the UN deciding to reject any and all proposals dealing in a particular area, even if that area is smaller than what is currently covered. I think we ought to give proposal writers the chance to produce their ideas before we rule them out. We can't possibly conceive of every possible reason and way of interfering with a nation's domestic tax system, so I'd rather we rejected proposals one by one, rather than risk blocking ideas which might, when in future suggested, turn out to be quite acceptable, because we didn't think of them now.

The only way I'd really be able to accept legislation restricting the scope of the UN is if the game mechanics were changed. A category could be created for restriction of legislative ability, and proposals in this category would need a larger majority to pass. This would reflect the more fundamental nature of this kind of resolution - to me, the best analogy is the way that the founding document of an organisation (like the UN charter, or a constitution) delineates what the scope of the organisation's actions should be, and these fundamental principles governing the body's actions shouldn't be changed on the whim of 50.1% of the members.

But that's not going to happen, so at most you might just see me support a proposal in the vein of Flibbleites' (dealing with a very specific issue), but most likely not anything banning legislation on entire topics.