NationStates Jolt Archive

I apologize, i'm new to the boards, so I really don't know what happened before last week. Has there been any attempt recently to pass some variation on the tobin tax, or some tax like it, to restrict currency speculation amongst UN nations? If so, how did it do? If not, who'd be behind it, because I might write it up and submit it.

To do such would be technically illegal, due to the National Tax Systems resolution. However, as that resolution is a piece of utter crap, I don't view the technical illegality as enough to be a problem. Go for it.

To do such would be technically illegal, due to the National Tax Systems resolution. However, as that resolution is a piece of utter crap, I don't view the technical illegality as enough to be a problem. Go for it.

Luckily for me, my UN representative has just bought a shiny new 'DLE-babblefish'. Through which, this post comes out as: "pretty flowers! let's frolick and play! The world's a fun, fun place ---National Tax Systems resolution--- La la la la..." It's really quite handy in decihpering DLE's somewhat candor-ful posts ;)

But, anyway, under the current National Systems of Tax resolution, Tobin taxes and such are pretty much illegal in proposals (there is one possibility though...) because, in NSoT, any tax that a nation assigns and controls (including tariffs and the like) are entirely up to the nation. But, due to solid, tactful objections by the representative from Myopia, I'm interested in replacing the resolution so that tariffs and possibly other tax decisions the UN might realistically advise upon are open for such advisement.

So, for now it's illegal. But, the future of it is looking bright. My advice is to draft the proposal, consider it for several months and hopefully the replacement would be in place then and the legality of tariffs and such will be less muddy (ie. that they'll be legal).

We will now ask the representatives of Powerhungry Chipmunks to kindly keep their worthless tripe to themselves, as they have repeatedly shown in the past that they cannot be bothered with decent conversations without extreme sniping and I'm sure they would hate to be reminded of the sewage they spewed when they left the UN for reasons everyone can see are related to our nation, regardless of what lies they may choose to spread. We would also ask said delegates to quit stalking our own. Continuing to do so will be replied to with a full salvo of missiles in something that will definitely get us on the wrong side of the TPP.

OOC: PC, I'm not in the mood to put up with your antics today. I stated my opinions of the resolution, not you, and just because I did that doesn't mean I am speaking out against you every time. If I was, I'd use the same accusation Hack has. The IC post was merely a roleplayed case of how the delegates would respond to a nation that they find to be particularly loathsome after past interactions with its delegates.

Back on topic:

Outer Munronia- We note the National Systems of Tax resolution does not in any way ban UN taxes on nations or UN attempts to control currency conversion between nations. In fact, on second thought, this is perfectly legal for you to attempt.

-snip-

IC: Johan Arnaen listened closely for the insults (as he could clearly see the face of the DLE delegate exuding anger), but his babblefish just repeated "Goo Goo G'joob". Oh well, Johan thought, it's a pretty catchy tune anyway.

Outer Munronia- We note the National Systems of Tax resolution does not in any way ban UN taxes on nations or UN attempts to control currency conversion between nations. In fact, on second thought, this is perfectly legal for you to attempt.
It depends, in my opinion, on how you write the proposal. Like I've said in the past, if the proposal were to define all materials in transit between UN nations as under UN jurisditction and not national jurisdiction and not nation control, then maybe it would be allowed.

Also if it were a UN administered tax, it might be admissible. So long as the UN doesn't make its national governments tax in some way, the NSoT doesn't cover it (If I'm remembering correctly). Perhaps a combination of these two arguments would be needed.

It depends, in my opinion, on how you write the proposal. Like I've said in the past, if the proposal were to define all materials in transit between UN nations as under UN jurisditction and not national jurisdiction and not nation control, then maybe it would be allowed.

Also if it were a UN administered tax, it might be admissible. So long as the UN doesn't make its national governments tax in some way, the NSoT doesn't cover it (If I'm remembering correctly). Perhaps a combination of these two arguments would be needed.

Okay, let's see if any of that was left uncovered by my wording.

We note the National Systems of Tax resolution does not in any way ban UN taxes on nations or UN attempts to control currency conversion between nations. In fact, on second thought, this is perfectly legal for you to attempt.

Nope. All covered, in the mimimal necessary words to get across the basics. And, I made it a point to check the NSoT before posting, which is why I retracted my earlier statement of illegality.

Oh, helpful information on this topic: http://ceedweb.org/iirp/

Gives you everything you really need to know. The UN can easily do a version of that which is controlled entirely by the UN and administered on nations. In fact, it's pretty much the only way it can be effectively done. This forum can take the raw data there and refine it into a workable resolution with only a week's work of efforts, if you count in tightening the obvious loopholes as well as the time drafting it. Unfortunately, this requires a committee to oversee it.

Oh, helpful information on this topic: http://ceedweb.org/iirp/

-snip-

Unfortunately, this requires a committee to oversee it.
The UN floor collectively shuddered. Few dare spoke the dreaded "C-word" nowadays...

(actually, that link is pretty helpful. I had a basic idea of what a Tobin Tax was based on the last proposer's description. But this site is a much richer feast for the brain's tooth :D)

Ah, yes. My infamous hatred of committees.

To be honest, I'm going to spend the next couple of hours making notes from that site. Those notes will help later when facing an actual draft, as I'll have an idea of what areas I see potential problems with that I want tightened before we even go into it. I'll also make notes of how to do so and come in under the limit. This could be interesting to see, simply because it's an old idea we've never actually attempted.

To be honest, I'm going to spend the next couple of hours making notes from that site. Those notes will help later when facing an actual draft, as I'll have an idea of what areas I see potential problems with that I want tightened before we even go into it. I'll also make notes of how to do so and come in under the limit. This could be interesting to see, simply because it's an old idea we've never actually attempted.
That should be helpful. If not for this proposer (I'm not sure how diligent this attempt will be), perhaps the proposer who brought up the idea of the Tobin Tax previously could use it (was it "Republic of Freedonia"?).

I'm not remembering well if I told the previous proposer that it would be illegal under NSoT or not. If, as you say, this could be handled entirely by a UN committee (or "commission" maybe?), then I was wrong and the NSoT has no bearing on it, and neither would any replacement. Perhaps, if all this is the case (that I drove the previous proposer away under a misconception), the previous proposer could be brought back into the discussion if this new proposer isn't committed to it (because it sounds like it'd be interesting to see in draft form--whether it becomes a resolution or not).

Don't forget that I also made the same mistake in thinking it banned, so I am also wrong in some aspect no matter which way it goes.

Part of the reason we have never really tried this before is because I have made a concerted effort to discourage it and partly because I've hated all of the previous attempts. However, this revisits the issue with an angle that, even with my hatred of committees, I find completely acceptable. I do agree with your ideas about the proposer.

cool, thanks for the input, everybody, this is really helpful (especially that link). i'll see what i can throw together in the next couple of days.

cool, thanks for the input, everybody, this is really helpful (especially that link). i'll see what i can throw together in the next couple of days.

Just for the record, we'll be voting against this, as it is - simply put - a really bad idea.

Just for the record, we'll be voting against this, as it is - simply put - a really bad idea.

...what makes you say that?

Let's see... all it does is increase prices for UN nations. It smears small currency trading. Depending on how it's written, it's yet another "feed the UN" tax - which we're opposed to - or a "add money to your own coffers at the expense of industry and trade" tax, which we're also opposed to.

In short, we don't want to kill currency speculation. It's a method of raising additional funds. All this bill will do is cut off a hand of those in the UN, and those outside will continue to use it for their betterment.

We see nothing positive here to vote for - we see much to vote against.

FYI:

Stability Tax
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Republic of Freedonia

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations

RECOGNIZING that short-term inter-currency transactions are a threat for a coherent national economic policy, because short-term movements of ingent capitals make national currencies too fluctuant,

FOLLOWING the Tobinistic economic theory, which said that an international uniformed tax can reduce the speculation profits and in this way contain the short-term inter-currency transaction practice; in order to redirect this capitals to the creation of real economic processes in each nation, instead to be only a mean to make non-economically useful profits,

DECIDE to create an international uniformed tax, called "Stability Tax".

The tax will be:

1) administrated by each UN Member over its own jurisdiction, even if the transaction is made with foreing currency;

2) applied to all purchases of financial instruments denominated in another currency-from currency and coin to equity securities;

3) fixed in the percentage of 1% of the capital moved by the transaction.

Countries could form currency areas within the Stability tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency: in this way commercial unions will be preserved by this resolution.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jul 3 2005
"Countries could form currency areas within the Stability tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency"

Is it me, or does this not make any sense?

FYI:


"Countries could form currency areas within the Stability tax would not apply, when the different currencies are tied to a key currency"

Is it me, or does this not make any sense?


This nulls any such tax as what is to stop a nation or even region for example 'ties it to a key currency' their own.. Thus making the entire nation and region free of these taxes... especialy the larger nation or regional super powers.. then only the smaller nations and regions would pay into it.. adding to their already high taxes..

Also think you meant to say 'within -which- the ST'..

Also see this as just more red tape in establishing trade rather than promoting it.. as we already have people working in trade with other nations and regions that don't need another task or tax to deal with.. Tarriffs and such require us to devore full attention to collecting them and any taxes already in place.. What would be the cost of implimenting this in any nation or region.. and who shall pay that cost.... no more work nor taxes...

Also I'd like to see exactly where these new Stability Taxes might be used... If they are to buy soft and scented TP for UN outhouses then in no way would I support this issue. Also if it is to go to a cause I can support then fine.. let it go.. but there is nothing here to say where it's going.. You refer to past proposals.. or irdeals.. lets leave them their and think of the future... what will we do with this Tax.. if it is to be collected... as too many taxes are collected and we see nothing come from them as promised so one can only wonder where the taxes go..

Let's see... all it does is increase prices for UN nations. It smears small currency trading. Depending on how it's written, it's yet another "feed the UN" tax - which we're opposed to - or a "add money to your own coffers at the expense of industry and trade" tax, which we're also opposed to.

In short, we don't want to kill currency speculation. It's a method of raising additional funds. All this bill will do is cut off a hand of those in the UN, and those outside will continue to use it for their betterment.

We see nothing positive here to vote for - we see much to vote against.

...i don't agree with the idea that speculation feeds the productive economy in the same way that industry/services/development does. the tobin tax would, hopefully, discourage day trading and encourage long-term investment in legitimate industry. in fact, the money raised by the tax could then be spent encouraging real growth in the productive economies of the countries involved. it also has been shown to lessen the severity of resessions by discouraging cash flight during hard times. i think there'd be a lot of benefits to it...

...i don't agree with the idea that speculation feeds the productive economy in the same way that industry/services/development does. the tobin tax would, hopefully, discourage day trading and encourage long-term investment in legitimate industry. in fact, the money raised by the tax could then be spent encouraging real growth in the productive economies of the countries involved. it also has been shown to lessen the severity of resessions by discouraging cash flight during hard times. i think there'd be a lot of benefits to it...

We see NO benefits.

We LIKE day trading. We see it as a legitimate industry. So is currency arbitrage.

As far as your empty rhetoric of "real growth in the productive economies" - feh!

Recessions and Depressions are caused by morons in charge of the money, period. We do not believe in "discouraging cash flight" in hard times or easy times or any other time.

We see NO reason to support this - it tells nothing of where the funds raised go, how they are watched, nothing.

Finally, should by some act of perdition this pass, we declare everything to be a currency area in which it does not apply. Heck, even if we agreed with it, a loophole that big has to be exploited, on general principle.