NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the thread to discuss the repeal of NSoT, which (I hope) will reach quorum today. Here's the repeal text.The United Nations,

APPLAUDING “National Systems of Tax” for upholding nations’ rights to self-determination in the area of tax systems,

RECOGNIZING the short treatment, however, which “National Systems of Tax” gives some very important, international issues concerning tax systems (such as tariffs and international tax incentives),

NOTING, ESPECIALLY, the resolution author’s willingness and desire to address such issues,

ACKNOWLEDGING, with reluctance, the mechanical need to repeal “National Systems of Tax” in order to re-address those important international issues and to more adequately secure national rights,

ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues:

REPEALS “National Systems of Tax”.


Here is the original NSoT text: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.


Votes For: 7,511
Votes Against: 6,811

Implemented: Tue May 31 2005


I will post later (probably later today) my ideas for the replacement.

I very much support this repeal by the author. Good work. :)

I very much support this repeal by the author. Good work.
Thanks :)



Just 8 more approvals to go! Please approve this before it expires tonight and we have to do the whole shebang again...

Thanks :)



Just 8 more approvals to go! Please approve this before it expires tonight and we have to do the whole shebang again...

8 votes, 8 hrs....

8 votes, 8 hrs....

Sorry - that's wrong

14 (now 13) hrs....

Just 2 more!




In case anyone's wondering, I still plan on posting my ideas for the replacement. I'm in the process of cleaning up the rough ideas to proposal-language. I just don't feel in a rush to do it *that* fast, since not even the repeal will come to vote until, at earliest, a week from today.

Approvals: 152 (Iznogoud, Domzalski, Dystopian Earth, Jaghur, The Philosophes, New Thyme, The Sthans, Darth Mall, Jedi Death, Mythila, Brainy100111, Carestithon, Cockeysville, Finbergia, Rikodovia, Starps, Barba001, Naval Revolutionaries, Male Love, Shester, Tbohner, Monadnock, Joeynova, Venerable libertarians, Kaushland, Antrium, Theahens, Greater Tiki, Askalaria, Assington, NewTexas, Jacobins IV, Krobaria, Kluane, Pturbu, Kleinekatzen, Agsaricum, North Koster, Ness Snorlaxia, Darkreigner, Alpha Prime 0x00000000, Phlogisten, Haradin, Wegason, Euphavias, The Necromangers, Jiangland, Jonathalia, Zealotos, Spaz Land, Zouloukistan, The snakepit, North Switzerland, Novaya Zemlaya, Zuidland, Tombaka, Funkdunk, Noctaurus, Ficticious Proportions, Serinistad, Grays Harbor, Wojcikiville, Meghan Leigh, Chiw, NeoAsiaEuropa, Flibberty Gibbert, Prox9, Goregia, Horrible Shenanigans, Albertopolis, Lost Angelas, Tibrekis, Dark Weaponry, RogueAlly, Assegai Ranew, Emiliania, Bakaraka, Jesus wept, Seattletonia, Tatuk, WitchOne, Iustinia, Caradune, Sinsvyka, The Proteus Guard, Windsor-Bainbridge, Tambien, Vastiva, MoralMajority, Yelda, Cybernetic Ascendancy, Hauraro, Magna_Cartman, Cav, Sartson, Cemendur, Camerina, Athalazan, CTerryland, Unknown Peoples, Jello Biafra, Theorb, Apage, Kahadrin, Brunelian BG advocates, Purpleation, Pompous world, Nevermoore, Meshuggeners, Dorig, Die Faust, Sithis, The All Powerful Scuka, Black Luster Dragon, United Southern Lands, The Shadow-Kai, Tannu Tuval, Rexdale, Benneria, Metasequoia, Sel Appa, Lunaria Mirandia, Wolfish, Czechnom, Chembuddha, Istarii, Joannaville, World Utopia, Penton Rise, Atlantinas, Yiplonia, Suuropolis, Palzac, Windleheim, The Almighty Goat, Lautsburgia, Jugaria, FairyTInkArisen, Voltairea, FWEDD, White power world wide, Krostovia, Dizziness, Ophainia, Crankton, The Bruce, Crasher Basher mk2, Hanaukyo, FC Dallas, Mataichi, Fat People from Philly, Aptenos)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congratulations you made it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, it's made quorum. Now let's see if PC goes down as the first person to successfully repeal their own resolution.

ooc: Four in queue now. Think I'll have to delay submitting my proposal AGAIN.

Grumble.

EDIT: ahem... congrats, PC!

ooc: Four in queue now. Think I'll have to delay submitting my proposal AGAIN.

Grumble.Don't worry, IIRC, there'll be only three in queue tomorrow, and that's not inluding possible removals from the list (I think the bioweapons ban's and the third world water proposal's legality and category are being debated still). Hopefully, it's time will come soon :)





Here's the rough text for the replacement:

National Rights to Taxation
Free Trade-mild

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the uniqueness of individual nations’ peoples, governmental systems, and economic situations,

OBSERVING the fairer representation that occurs when those most closely involved with a national issue decide in that regard,

IDENTIFYING domestic taxation as an issue which is much more justly dealt with on a national level,

1.ENCOURAGES member nations to soberly scrutinize their respective taxation systems for their effects on trade, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;

2.RESERVES the right for nations to incur or not incur, and determine the rate and type (progressive, flat, etc.) of taxes on domestic activities, items and businesses, as well as income taxes, with the exception of decisions made by previous international legislation regarding taxation.

Don't worry, IIRC, there'll be only three in queue tomorrow, and that's not inluding possible removals from the list (I think the bioweapons ban's and the third world water proposal's legality and category are being debated still). Hopefully, it's time will come soon :)

Here's the rough text for the replacement:

The replacement looks very good. I imagine it will get more votes than the last one.

The replacement looks very good. I imagine it will get more votes than the last one.
That may depend on how many nations voted for the redistributive nature of the original.

That may depend on how many nations voted for the redistributive nature of the original.

Good point.

Bump.

The proposal will be up for vote soon. I wish to keep this thread up in the rankings as that time draws closer.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to say that my speculation is that more people would vote for the new version, as I think more people voted against it because of the suggestions than voted for it because of them. I have little to no data to back that up with though...Oh well :)

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Poddar House

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

Argument: The United Nations,

APPLAUDING “National Systems of Tax” for upholding nations’ rights to self-determination in the area of tax systems,

RECOGNIZING the short treatment, however, which “National Systems of Tax” gives some very important, international issues concerning tax systems (such as tariffs and international tax incentives),

NOTING, ESPECIALLY, the resolution author’s willingness and desire to address such issues,

ACKNOWLEDGING, with reluctance, the mechanical need to repeal “National Systems of Tax” in order to re-address those important international issues and to more adequately secure national rights,

ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues:

REPEALS “National Systems of Tax”.


Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 142 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jul 14 2005
Poddar House, thats not nice.

Poddar House, thats not nice.
Also not legal. Note the category.


of course, it's gone now.

Yay, we (the thread) get all te spiffy trimmings!

Let's get this party started!

Well, maybe in a few days...

Have we not yet learned that it is not wise to repeal a resolution based on the idea that a new one MIGHT be proposed to the UN? I urge all member nations to REJECT this proposal.

Have we not yet learned that it is not wise to repeal a resolution based on the idea that a new one MIGHT be proposed to the UN? I urge all member nations to REJECT this proposal.

Sorry but if the author of the orignial resolution wants it repealed, who am I to disagree. I have already voted for.

I would like to know why you wish the original resolution repealed?

I removed my second and third question as they were answered in another thread.

Regards,
JMayo

Why is Powerhungry Chipmunks trying to repeal his own resolution??????

Have we not yet learned that it is not wise to repeal a resolution based on the idea that a new one MIGHT be proposed to the UN? I urge all member nations to REJECT this proposal.

You mean like when some of the nations that were in favour of repealing the legalization of prostitution promised a better written version and then managed to get that version approved or when nations wanted to repeal the Global Library again promising a better version and then managed to get the improved version passed or even better like the time very recently when Reformentia promised in their repeal that they'd submit a new Bio-Weapons resolution (which now is in the queue).

History has shown us *3* times since repeals were first allowed in Oct. 2004, that it is a valid reason to repeal a resolution in order to bring a new resolution to the UN floor.

Given that the author of the repeal is also the author of the resolution being repealed *and* considering that this nation has proven many times that it will follow through with its international political promises, my government is more than happy to vote in favour of this repeal.

The Powerhungry Chipmunks stated somewhere in the past few weeks that the point behind this repeal was they weren't happy with the resolution.

The question I think should really be to ask them why (although they answered that in the text of the repeal) and to focus on that debate. Talking about the wisdom of repeals in general really is a tangent, and one that I feel is not supported by the history of the UN.

This repeal has my full support. It's a no-brainer.

The question I think should really be to ask them why (although they answered that in the text of the repeal) and to focus on that debate.

ok fine... but I didn't really feel like that question was answered for me.
I still don't understand why he wants so badly for his own resolution to be repealled.

Ausserland has cast its vote in favor of this resolution and will urge our regional delegate to do likewise. We thank the proposer of the resolution for his efforts.

ok fine... but I didn't really feel like that question was answered for me.
I still don't understand why he wants so badly for his own resolution to be repealled.

I'll quote and paraphrase what my government felt is the reason:


RECOGNIZING the short treatment, however, which “National Systems of Tax” gives some very important, international issues concerning tax systems (such as tariffs and international tax incentives),

ACKNOWLEDGING, with reluctance, the mechanical need to repeal “National Systems of Tax” in order to re-address those important international issues and to more adequately secure national rights,

ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues:


In short, the Chipmunks felt that the original resolution was so short that it provided loopholes that did *not* protect our national rights about taxation, and their government felt it easier to draft a new resolution.


Maybe we should look at the debate from the original resolution and cite some examples? :) Would that help justify the repeal for your government?

My government is seriously concerned about the prospect that, once the existing resolution is repealed, the one proposed to replace it seems to (at present) carry none of the progressive reccomendations of the original, except perhaps in extraordinarily vague forms. From our reading of the original text, we do not see a significant opportunity for abuse, and are most alarmed at the prospect that it will be replaced with a resolution without the admirable social recomendations of the original. However we are open to embracing this proposal if a viable scenario can be determined wherein the original statute would not suffice, and if language similar to the original concerning progressive taxation and bankruptcy are included in the new draft proposal.

:mad:

How dare you want to interfere with the taxation laws of any nation in the first place!!

PC originally wanted everyone to have a progressive tax system and let those that bought too many things be able to go into bankruptcy to avoid paying for what they bought.

Now PC sees that the law is to vague and that nations can still have a flat tax, so PC wants to erase that law and put in a stricter law.

What I would like to know is how many idiots there are out there who are members of the UN that just browse through each proposal and without thinking of the consequences or reading through the debates cast their votes.

:upyours: I am so sickened of this that I will probably abstain--or vote with the minority.

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

So long as I am not forced into a specific taxation system, I will support this resolution. I'll ignore it, but whatever.

i think every nation should get the money they work for, sure some will be poorer but they should work harder.

“Hi my name is Thomas Jefferson and I have a change of mind regarding the Declaration of Independence...”

It has been suggested that the UN Resolution ~ National Systems of Tax be repealed mostly due to the author's reconsideration of his initial work and prestige as a contributor to UN Legislation.

Again, whilst altruistic in flavor, this reasoning has no basis in logic. The Resolution must be considered solely upon its merits. And I find these merits lacking substance.

Should the original author deem it necessary to propose improvements to the initial legislation, the author has an obligation to propose said improvements with a clause negating the initial referendum.

Instead the author says, "Trust me, more legislation is forth-coming." The reality is that this Repeal is out of order and should not have been allowed based upon its faulty argument of future promises.

Until this faulty logic and substance-less promises are fulfilled, I find no reason to support this Repeal.

Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

I'll quote and paraphrase what my government felt is the reason:



In short, the Chipmunks felt that the original resolution was so short that it provided loopholes that did *not* protect our national rights about taxation, and their government felt it easier to draft a new resolution.


Maybe we should look at the debate from the original resolution and cite some examples? :) Would that help justify the repeal for your government?


Thank you for pointing out what I should have read. :)

Regards,

JMayo

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;


This clauses say encourage and request, are they reccommended or mandatory?
I am wondering because they contradict the purpose of the resolution.

Hmmm...
He has a point.

i approved.

Again, whilst altruistic in flavor, this reasoning has no basis in logic. The Resolution must be considered solely upon its merits. And I find these merits lacking substance.Let us give you tangible examples of where this Resolution poses problems.

Allemande has proposed a United Nations Common Market (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430323). Because this would require that United Nations members forego erecting tariff barriers to trade among the members of this community, and because tariffs are taxes, a Common Market is illegal under the terms of the NST.

Many nations have proposed Tobin Taxes (i.e., taxes on currency transactions) as a mechanism for reducing currency speculation. While Allemande does not support such efforts, we note that the United Nations can not create a currency exchange tax framework as long as NST remains in place.

There have also been cries for Fair Trade legislation within these halls. Allemande is currently reserving judgement on such matters pending a good example to look at, but be that as it may, it would be next to impossible to put a Fair Trade framework into place with the NST in place.
Should the original author deem it necessary to propose improvements to the initial legislation, the author has an obligation to propose said improvements with a clause negating the initial referendum.Bluntly put, that is illegal.
Instead the author says, "Trust me, more legislation is forth-coming." The reality is that this Repeal is out of order and should not have been allowed based upon its faulty argument of future promises.All repeals must work this way due to U.N. rules.
Let's review those rules just so that everyone can understand the problem: No proposed Resolution may contradict or supersede a Resolution currently in force in any way.
No Resolution may amend or alter any Resolution currently in force in any way.
Repeals may not contain legislation of any kind, nor are promises, intentions, declarations, or anything else or a declaratory nature permitted in repeals.Those are the rules, and it you don't like them, well, hard cheese. Go complain to Hack, for all the good it will do you. They aren't going to change.

Thus, repeal is always a perilous journey: you must destroy the extant legislation and then, in a separate and subsequent resolution or set of resolutions, reconstruct it; further, since the new law can't even (legally) be proposed (i.e., submitted for delegate endorsement) until the old one is gone, there is a minimum interval of at least a week during which there can be no effective legislation. There is no other way to do it, Snoogit's protestations to the contrary.

We know that people have been horribly scarred by the battle over replacing the former (and thoroughly inadequate) bio-weapons protocol, and that this could be worsened if the proposed replacement is defeated (which we hope it will be, due to flaws of its own). It may well be that the United Nations becomes so terrified of repeals that it shies away from them in the future. But that does not change the fact that, given the faulty nature of much of our earlier legislation, we're going to have to take some risks if we want to make things better.

The NST has serious flaws. It can and should be replaced with something better.

On behalf of the Fiefdom of Galdhøpiggen, I request from Powerhungry Chipmunks, the Repealer, to submit to the body of the UN a clear and complete draft of the intended replacement Resolution for the NST to your peers, thus allowing for a vote on the Repeal to be based less on speculation.

Repeals may not contain legislation of any kind, nor are promises, intentions, declarations, or anything else or a declaratory nature permitted in repeals

Was that a direct quote from somewhere? Because that's expanded a bit on what is contained in the "Rules For UN Proposals" sticky regarding repeals which just says no new provisions or laws... which means no attaching conditions or requirements to the repeal and no enacting new legislation with the repeal.

We've never seen a rule against expressing an intent with a repeal.

Was that a direct quote from somewhere? Because that's expanded a bit on what is contained in the "Rules For UN Proposals" sticky regarding repeals which just says no new provisions or laws... which means no attaching conditions or requirements to the repeal and no enacting new legislation with the repeal.

We've never seen a rule against expressing an intent with a repeal.Our apologies: binding intentions...

Although we disagree with every clause in this resolution except for the operative one, I am casting my vote in favor of this resolution. I will be opposing further resolutions to limit the power of the United Nations to regulate taxation, whether national or international; we note the experience with "United Nations Common Market" as an example of why limitations of United Nations powers can have harmful effects.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

Does it seem that every resolution passes?
People are sheep !!

It seems like this is being repealed because it is thought cool or cute in some of the upper NSUN echelons to be the first to have your own proposal passed and repealed. One poster (not the author) said as much in another post.

I'm voting no simply because we have better things to do than this.

Seems to me like the original legislation, that which is trying to be repealed, gives nations free reign in deciding how to tax within their own borders, but does not address much else. Am I incorrect in this analysis?

It seems like this is being repealed because it is thought cool or cute in some of the upper NSUN echelons to be the first to have your own proposal passed and repealed. One poster (not the author) said as much in another post.

And a poster could claim the moon is made of cheese ... but would you believe it?

I honestly believe this is another case where a resolution author wanted to improve upon his / her original idea.

This clauses say encourage and request, are they reccommended or mandatory?
I am wondering because they contradict the purpose of the resolution.

Let's say they are a very strong suggestion / recommendation. Sort of like when a police officer says, "I don't think you should cross the street." You can still cross the street ... but often you'll pause and wonder why he or she said that, assuming you just don't decide to find another path. :)

And a poster could claim the moon is made of cheese ... but would you believe it?

Moreover, just because one poster thinks a certain way about being the first to repeal one's own resolution we should suppose that the author or his supporters think that way? Seems like a bit of a stretch, and I agree with Mik on his point.

Should the original author deem it necessary to propose improvements to the initial legislation, the author has an obligation to propose said improvements with a clause negating the initial referendum.

Instead the author says, "Trust me, more legislation is forth-coming." The reality is that this Repeal is out of order and should not have been allowed based upon its faulty argument of future promises.

Until this faulty logic and substance-less promises are fulfilled, I find no reason to support this Repeal.

It isn't a case of faulty logic. It happens to be the established rules of what can go in a repeal and what can't.

The moderators LONG ago ruled that repeals can *ONLY* explain why a resolution needs to be repealed, but that the actual replacement text can not be included. Furthermore, it has been an even older NationStates rule that resolutions (and repeals) can not mandate future forum activites or game mechanics changes. To say that the repeal is being made only on the provision that a replacement resolution is given its change on the UN floor is a significant NationStates violation.

is a significant NationStates violation.

Well, it doesn't violate NationStates, but it does violate the UN Proposal Rules. :cool:

ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues-

i would like to see more in-depth ideas on what the future legislation is which is being proposed here.

ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues-

i would like to see more in-depth ideas on what the future legislation is which is being proposed here.
PC has posted a rough draft: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9213793&postcount=10

I support this repeal. The earlier law encouraged a 'progressive tax system', which lowers the tax PERCENT for the poor, and increases it for the rich. This can be detrimental to a economy, as companies will find it harder and harder to keep up with consumers demands as it grows. I, instead, support a flat tax rate, with taxes being a percentage of your income.

Taxation without Representation is a human rights violation.


And yes, I got a vote, but one out of 30,000. I'm not Represented.


Kill this resolution.


My nation and my nation alone decides taxation.

“Hi my name is Thomas Jefferson and I have a change of mind regarding the Declaration of Independence...”

More like "Representative Yoeman and Arnaen have redrafted Bill 1098-A6 regarding bus safety and request a vote upon it after the retraction of the old version." :D


It has been suggested that the UN Resolution ~ National Systems of Tax be repealed mostly due to the author's reconsideration of his initial work and prestige as a contributor to UN Legislation.

Again, whilst altruistic in flavor, this reasoning has no basis in logic. The Resolution must be considered solely upon its merits. And I find these merits lacking substance.
This doesn't really hold true. Repeals and resolutions are attached to one another, and there aren't rules about how a resolution "must be considered".


Should the original author deem it necessary to propose improvements to the initial legislation, the author has an obligation to propose said improvements with a clause negating the initial referendum.

Instead the author says, "Trust me, more legislation is forth-coming." The reality is that this Repeal is out of order and should not have been allowed based upon its faulty argument of future promises.

Huh? That's the way the NSUN works. You must repeal first, replace later. It's just written in the rules. Forgive me that I didn't waste space in my repeal text by quoting my ideas (not fully developed, by the way) for the future replacement.

[COLOR=DarkRed]How dare you want to interfere with the taxation laws of any nation in the first place!!

I don't want to interefere in anyone's tax laws. If you read carefully, NSoT says just that: the UN cannot interfere in national tax policy.

PC originally wanted everyone to have a progressive tax system and let those that bought too many things be able to go into bankruptcy to avoid paying for what they bought.

No, I suggested that all nations be encouraged to enact those measure. Encourage, not Force. NSoT is designed not to force you to do anyhting with your tax system, and to block any future attempts to do anything with your tax system.

Now PC sees that the law is to vague and that nations can still have a flat tax, so PC wants to erase that law and put in a stricter law.
Ha! So you're a mind reader, are you? Well, how about you put down the crystal ball and read my proposed replacement before suggesting my super-subversive ulterior motives for repealing this resolution...:rolleyes:

My nation and my nation alone decides taxation.
Great! This must mean you support NSoT, its repeal, and its replacement, as all are in the interest of supporting that viewpoint.

Seems to me like the original legislation, that which is trying to be repealed, gives nations free reign in deciding how to tax within their own borders, but does not address much else. Am I incorrect in this analysis?
Not really. It suggest and recommends a few actions with tax systems, but leaves the ultimate decision up to individual nations.

Can i be honest? I think this is badly written, so i did not vote. It is a resolution which does not make sense. He uses commas to often and he also uses the wrong/incorrect words in his argument.

Can i be honest? I think this is badly written, so i did not vote. It is a resolution which does not make sense. He uses commas to often and he also uses the wrong/incorrect words in his argument.

Be careful when focusing on grammatical mistakes!

Examples:
i --> I
badly --> poorly
to --> too

OOC: Has the UN forum hosted a duller debate for a resolution/repeal at vote? I doubt it. Come on, three pages and that's it? Where are the ranters, the apopleptics, the fuming fulminators? Poor show indeed.

OOC: Has the UN forum hosted a duller debate for a resolution/repeal at vote? I doubt it. Come on, three pages and that's it? Where are the ranters, the apopleptics, the fuming fulminators? Poor show indeed.

Don't worry, we should be in for a show with the current proposal.

Hmmmmmm...... i though Bio-weapons were already banned under UN law

There are no weapon bans of any kind currently in effect in UN resolutions.

There are no weapon bans of any kind currently in effect in UN resolutions.
Ahem. #40 Banning the use of Landmines and #107 Ban Chemical Weapons are still in effect.

oops... i left out biological ... weapons ban of any kind. :eek: