NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a discussion thread for my current draft for the replacement of Nationals Systems of Tax (NSoT), which I repealed with the promise of replacing it with another proposal that protected nations' rights to tax in the manner they wish.

Anyway, here's the basic framework of what I want the proposal to do (not preambulary clauses): Guarantee nations the right to set taxes for or decline to set taxes for domestic transactions, activities and items.
Define certain items, activities, transactions as domestic, though leaving room for other items, activities, transactions to be defined as domestic.
Encourage nations to examine their tax systems with both citizen cost and citizen reward in mind and with both social program and individual economic liberty in mind.

Here's the text I put forward as a rough idea when repealing NSoT: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.
Current changes I want to make: I want to take effect #1 and replace it with some of the wording I listed earlier
I want to add a first off listing of what taxes are allowed to be set and decided by individual nations (it would be #3.).
I probably will need to overhaul the preambulary clauses, as there are likely more convincing and clear ways of encompassing the situation.

I am committed to this proposal idea. I feel that nations have the right to decide their own taxation systems and tax rates. I also feel that the UN is wholly inadequate to decide for tens of thousands of individual nations how they are best served in taxation systems. In other words, one taxation system will never fit all.

Anyway, Comments? Questions? Advice? Vehement denunciations of my manhood?

I want to add a first off listing of what taxes are allowed to be set and decided by individual nations (it would be #3.).



The only thing with a list of taxes is how many do you list and what will they be. As you will find some that like them or hate them but feel you forgot this one or that one. So how many and what taxes do you list here.

Example I would appose anything on taxes on food another might want it on food but not books, me I want it on books, and a third is more concerned about medicines or not but cares little about the others. Then if you forget these three we all want them added. So where do you go with this list.

The only thing with a list of taxes is how many do you list and what will they be. As you will find some that like them or hate them but feel you forgot this one or that one. So how many and what taxes do you list here.

Example I would appose anything on taxes on food another might want it on food but not books, me I want it on books, and a third is more concerned about medicines or not but cares little about the others. Then if you forget these three we all want them added. So where do you go with this list.
Well, I'm not talking about making nations have these taxes. I'm talking about identifying certain taxes as included under the definition of "domestic" (which would mean they're decided by individual nations). If I'm reading what you've written correctly, you seem to think this will put taxes on certain items. In fact, that's the opposite of what I want this proposal to do. I want this proposal to stop the UN from making nations pout taxes on domestic items--items which I feel the individual nation has the best chance of assigning (or declining to assign entirely) the right tax amount to.

I want ensure that your nation will decide if it taxes food, or books, or medicine. I want it to be your choice.

Define economic liberty. You mention it as one of the reasons behind this proposal.

Define economic liberty. You mention it as one of the reasons behind this proposal.
I mentioned it here:Anyway, here's the basic framework of what I want the proposal to do (not preambulary clauses):
Guarantee nations the right to set taxes for or decline to set taxes for domestic transactions, activities and items.
Define certain items, activities, transactions as domestic, though leaving room for other items, activities, transactions to be defined as domestic.
Encourage nations to examine their tax systems with both citizen cost and citizen reward in mind and with both social program and individual economic liberty in mind.
What I mean by “individual economic liberty” is the right of an individual to do what he or she wants with his or her money, liberty in financial dealings. What this translates to is fewer taxes. If a nation has a 70% tax rate, there is little individual economic liberty according to my definition, because I can only spend 30% of my gross earnings. The rest of my expenditures have already been decided.

But, regardless, I don't think what I mean by that is really critical. First, it's not a "reason behind my proposal", just one of the phrases I use to describe an effect I want in the proposal. It goes along with this line: "1.ENCOURAGES member nations to soberly scrutinize their respective taxation systems for their effects on trade, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;"

Basically, my desire is for the UN encourage member nations to look at how they aren't arranging their tax system and ask "why not"? I want them to soberly look at their tax system and consider both the values of social establishment and the values of allowing people freedom with their money.

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.
This doesn't actually do anything. We already have control over our tax policies.

We already have control over our tax policies.
Only by default. I feel that this control needs to be protected.

Vastiva used to complain that game mechanics stops UN proposals from effecting income tax rates (since income taxes are a game function and trying to change them by proposal is a sort of metagame conundrum), but I'm not just talking about income taxes. There are many taxes which are not game mechanics violations and are now only under national control because no one has had the ambition to take them away from nations' control. Those I wish to protect.

Plus, I really don't see a problem with adding a resolution/RP base for the game mechanics "untouchable" status of income taxes. That is to say, "so what if income taxes can't be changed by UN proposal because of game mechanics? 'Rights and Duties' certainly protects things already guaranteed by game mechanics."

Only by default. I feel that this control needs to be protected.
So it's a sort of "pre-emptive strike".

There are many taxes which are not game mechanics violations and are now only under national control because no one has had the ambition to take them away from nations' control.
Then we should oppose those on a case by case basis.
We have voted in favor of your Microcredit Bazaar resolution, but no support for this.

So it's a sort of "pre-emptive strike".
In a way. Just like "Right to Self-Protection", NSoT, UNSA, and "Nuclear Armaments".

Then we should oppose those on a case by case basis.
I find that impractical, for one. DLE vehemently opposed countless proposals, most often with little effect. I simply don't have the energy to engage in likely countless, counter-telegram campaigns, just to protect a right which I believe nations intrinsically have.

I do have the energy for one telegram campaign, though. One which will save me time, and ensure nations have a right I feel they deserve.

Effect number says "Encourages" so that does means it is not required, right?

Since there is no currency in communism, and the UN makes it very difficult to run a communist country. I will support this proposal.

Effect number says "Encourages" so that does means it is not required, right?

Yup. But, since it's just looking at the system with soberness, I don't really see that there'd be any nation that would have a proactive reason not to do it.

I think I'll ring up a more compete text later today.

Okay, I've rustled up an extended draft, here. This is likely it. I mean, minus suggestions from other players this is likely the submission draft.

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 address it,

IDENTIFYING taxation on domestic activities and products 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 economic liberty, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;

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

3.DEFINES, “domestic activities, items and businesses” as including, but not limited to, national mail service, national public documents, national parks or natural recreation activities, businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and items which are made and sold within the same nation;

4.EMPHASIZES that future United Nations legislation can further extend or restrict the definition of “domestic activities, items and businesses”, excluding the basic exceptions listed above, and ACKNOWLEDGES that until such a time as international law further defines “domestic activities, items and businesses” its definition is in the hands of individual nations.

Comments? Questions? Etc.?

I'll get to your extended draft later - but I'd like to know how right to self protection falls under the same category as the other 3 (certainly, the other 3 act as a preemptive strike)

What effect would this have on monetary unions?
If the EU demands certain restrictions on taxation measures in order to secure the economy from fluctuation, a very necessary measure, your proposal would allow these nations to seek recourse by stating that it is their right as a UN member to tax as they wish, even though the effects of their taxation has effects far beyond that of their own borders. (In the special case of monetary unions or trade agreements)
I'd suggest a clause which would say that this proposal would apply unless the nation has already entered into an alternative agreement of its own choosing. Just for safeties sake.

4.EMPHASIZES that future United Nations legislation can further extend or restrict the definition of “domestic activities, items and businesses”, excluding the basic exceptions listed above, and ACKNOWLEDGES that until such a time as international law further defines “domestic activities, items and businesses” its definition is in the hands of individual nations.This opens the door for amendment, does it not? Sounds kinda illegal. But it's not a dealbreaker for me. I will support this legislation. Has it been submitted yet, or is this strictly the draft phase?

This opens the door for amendment, does it not? Sounds kinda illegal. But it's not a dealbreaker for me. I will support this legislation. Has it been submitted yet, or is this strictly the draft phase?
This is strictly drafting. I'm not submitting it until I've cleared enough time for a proper telegram campaign.

The reason I wrote that clause was to reinforce what the mods have said in response to the UNSA: a resolution can ban a weapon if it is declared by the UN not to be "necessary for defense". I didn't mean it to do anything but reinforce that. Looking back over it, though, you're absolutely right, it only creates confusion about enforcement and might give some the impression that the resolution can be amended. I'll either re-structure it or cut it entirely.

I'll get to your extended draft later - but I'd like to know how right to self protection falls under the same category as the other 3 (certainly, the other 3 act as a preemptive strike)Because it has some of the same characteristics: intentionally vague language, national or personal jurisdiction over what is justified in protecting one's self. I listed it as part of the evolution of increasingly good-government friendly resolutions. I think it's very similar to the others, even though it doesn't exactly function as them.

What effect would this have on monetary unions?
If the EU demands certain restrictions on taxation measures in order to secure the economy from fluctuation, a very necessary measure, your proposal would allow these nations to seek recourse by stating that it is their right as a UN member to tax as they wish, even though the effects of their taxation has effects far beyond that of their own borders. (In the special case of monetary unions or trade agreements)
I'd suggest a clause which would say that this proposal would apply unless the nation has already entered into an alternative agreement of its own choosing. Just for safeties sake.I think that is very good question, explanation and suggestion. Thank you! :)

You're right, if a nation wants to give away its right to determine taxation, be it to join a regional group or non-UN group or whatever, that also should be their prerogative. I'll certainly insert a clause explicitly stating that. Again, thanks.

The big change in this draft is clause #4. I got rid of the old one, and put in a new economic union clause (thanks so much for that forethought, Nataljans!).

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 address it,

IDENTIFYING taxation on domestic activities and products 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 economic liberty, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;

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

3.DEFINES, “domestic activities, items and businesses” as including, but not limited to, national mail service, national public documents, national parks or natural recreation activities, businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and items which are made and sold within the same nation;

4.ACKNOWLEDGES that member nations may voluntarily relinquish all or part of their rights to determining their taxation systems to local, region, and international groups (such as an international economic alliance) as those individual governments decide to do so.

No qualms, just a minor suggestion: section 4 - perhaps make it "all or part of their right"

Because it has some of the same characteristics: intentionally vague language, national or personal jurisdiction over what is justified in protecting one's self. I listed it as part of the evolution of increasingly good-government friendly resolutions. I think it's very similar to the others, even though it doesn't exactly function as them.

Actually, a small but important part of my motivation for doing Right to Self-Protection was to prevent that right from being taken away by the UN (whether intentionally or accidentally). It was indeed pre-emptive in that sense.

No qualms, just a minor suggestion: section 4 - perhaps make it "all or part of their right"
Good catch :). I'll edit that up in a sec or two.