NationStates Jolt Archive

I have come up with a newer draft to replace NSoT. Here it is.



UPDATED AS PER POST #8


Representation in Taxation
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the diversity of individual nations’ peoples, cultures, political leanings, governmental systems, and economic situations, and the fundamental need for each person or group of people being able to express those unique characteristics,

SUPPORTING the view of many that democracy and its precepts (fair representation, and political license among them) can both address and categorize these disparate situations, attitudes, and lives more justly than any other system of government,

ASSERTING that substantially fairer representation and greater political license (prerequisites to democracy) accompanies ‘local governance’ (that those most closely involved with and knowledgeable of an issue address it), except on issues in which overarching, external intervention is necessary,

BELIEVING as impossible for an individual citizen in a member nation to receive a fair form of representation in taxation legislation made on a UN level,

DETERMINING, in the interest of fair representation and greater democratic freedoms, that taxation of national, domestic activities and products is best dealt with, at highest, by national government:

1.FIRMLY ENCOURAGES member nations to allow citizens the highest degrees of representation regarding the taxes incurred upon them, SUGGESTING nations and citizens regularly and soberly scrutinize their respective taxation systems for their effects on economic liberty, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations:
(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, and
(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to:
(a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders,
(b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation, and
(c) taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) government workers;

4.ALLOWS 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) if a member nation so decides;

5.URGES that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxed, NOTING that unjust governments are often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.

The basis of this attempt is the belief that in local issues UN decisions is not only bad goernment, but undemocratic. I am trying to increase democracy by leaving local, national tax issues to nations, an arena in which citizens have a chance of being represented, compared to the UN arena, in which they have no chance of representation.

I'm undecided about my support currently, but regardless, I think NOTING should be BELIEVING. That isn't a fact, it hasn't been proven - though it is a logical conclusion. However, this conclusion is still a belief, and no matter how you attempt to look at it, it is still a belief (especially since the idea of fair is also disputable). While I would agree with the belief, I think it should be written down as a belief.

You have my full support. If you need help in contacting Delegates I may have sufficient time to help you with that.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations, (a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries and (b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to (a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders; (b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a nation; and (c) tax credits given to farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and tax credits given to government workers;


I suggest splitting these two clauses into a list. For example, #2 would look like:

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations,
(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries
(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

It just makes it a bit neater and more visually appealing, especially #3, which is particularly long.

Great Job! You have my support as a Low tax, small government, Evil conservative member of the UN. I look forward to seeing this come to vote. You're well on your way to winning the prestegious Order of the Sphinxian Treecat from my government, good sir.(quite ironic,since chipmunks are the favorite prey of sphinxian treecats :p )

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
The Palentine

I approve of this. Limits placed upon the UN are entirely necessary and the chance to shoot down an attempt to repeal this legislation before they could even start to infringe upon our sovereignty is an excellent safeguard.

I must agree with this. When it comes to vote, I will mark myself in favor of it. I hope my regional delegate votes that way as well.

Some excellent suggestions!

Let's toy around with this version then (I'll update the first post momentarily).


Representation in Taxation
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: The General Assembly of The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the diversity of individual nations’ peoples, cultures, political leanings, governmental systems, and economic situations, and the fundamental need for each person or group of people being able to express those unique characteristics,

SUPPORTING the view of many that democracy and its precepts (fair representation, and political license among them) can both address and categorize these disparate situations, attitudes, and lives more justly than any other system of government,

ASSERTING that substantially fairer representation and greater political license (prerequisites to democracy) accompanies ‘local governance’ (that those most closely involved with and knowledgeable of an issue address it), except on issues in which overarching, external intervention is necessary,

BELIEVING as impossible for an individual citizen in a member nation to receive a fair form of representation in taxation legislation made on a UN level,

DETERMINING, in the interest of fair representation and greater democratic freedoms, that taxation of national, domestic activities and products is best dealt with, at highest, by national government:

1.FIRMLY ENCOURAGES member nations to allow citizens the highest degrees of representation regarding the taxes incurred upon them, SUGGESTING nations and citizens regularly and soberly scrutinize their respective taxation systems for their effects on economic liberty, social equality, and general service to nations’ peoples;

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations:
(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, and
(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

3.DEFINES “taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses” as including, but not limited to:
(a) fees for national postal service, copy fees for national documents, and admissions for national parks or natural recreation activities, as well as tolls for roads within a member nations borders,
(b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation, and
(c) taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) farmers which sell their crops strictly within the nation and taxes placed upon (or tax credits awarded) government workers;

4.ALLOWS 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) if a member nation so decides;

5.URGES that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxed, NOTING that unjust governments are often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel will fully approve this proposition.
We think it can help us to avoid some events in the future, as the one last week.

We really appreciate: "domestic activities" in [2] and paragraph [4].

paragraph [5] is also great, as i understand now, that it's impossible in this game to ban nation to have tax higher than let say: 60%
Is it possible to "urges" nation about it? but maybe that will not be very popular

paragraph [5] is also great, as i understand now, that it's impossible in this game to ban nation to have tax higher than let say: 60%
Is it possible to "urges" nation about it? but maybe that will not be very popular
It is possible. NSoT similarly "encouraged" member nations to adopt progressive tax systems and bankruptcy protection mechanisms.

And, yes, such urgings are very unpopular. I feel it to be among the largest contributing factor to the slimmness of NSoT's margin of victory, those who would have liked the proposal's protection of national rights were hurt if they didn't agree with progressive taxes or bankruptcy. I just reached too far with those "encourages" lines.

Granted, this proposal has a similar clause (5, which you mention), encouraging nations to push for more representation for their citizens. I could see it losing votes of some dictatorial regimes from that.

Thanks for your explanation
We wish good luck for your campaign

just another question, but it's not so important and we will support this proposition anyway:

Will it be possible if this proposition pass, for a UN member to submit in the future a proposition urging nations not to tax their people more than 60%?

I would guess no.

2.DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations:
(a) imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, and
(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

That doesn't leave much room for the UN to poke its nose into national sovereignty as far as taxation goes. Happily.

Powerhungry Chipmunks, may i please encourage you to modify 2.(b) with something similar to the following:

(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed) - it shall be noted that this determination doesn't include a reasonable maximum % of taxation

BELIEVING as impossible for an individual citizen in a member nation to receive a fair form of representation in taxation legislation made on a UN level,

DETERMINING, in the interest of fair representation and greater democratic freedoms, that taxation of national, domestic activities and products is best dealt with, at highest, by national government:

You can't include an "except when the UN decides to tell member nations otherwise". That would decapitate this resolution.

On top of that, any limit set upon taxation by the UN would be ridiculous. A state with nationalised health care will need a far higher rate of taxation than a state without. A state with subsidised national industries or a state which is heavily funding research into alternative fuels - or a state whose population is heavily dependant upon a high tax product - will have to alter their entire economic outlook just because someone in the UN decided to have a mandatory blanket cap on tax.

It is for that very reason that I support this resolution.

You can't include an "except when the UN decides to tell member nations otherwise". That would decapitate this resolution.

On top of that, any limit set upon taxation by the UN would be ridiculous. A state with nationalised health care will need a far higher rate of taxation than a state without. A state with subsidised national industries or a state which is heavily funding research into alternative fuels - or a state whose population is heavily dependant upon a high tax product - will have to alter their entire economic outlook just because someone in the UN decided to have a mandatory blanket cap on tax.

It is for that very reason that I support this resolution.

We understand your point of view, this is why we think 60% is large enough for the special scenarios you mentionned.

But we think it's a "right" not to be too much heavily taxed.

We are very suprised that many Nations in NS, even UN members, tax their citizen at 100%, we think these nation violate the fondamental right of their citizens

After careful consideration, we decided that we will oppose this proposition if it keep this text.

We like the following paragraph very much, but

5.URGES that nations use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility, and, most importantly, with consent and approval from the people who are taxed, NOTING that unjust governments are often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.

As many UN members have taxation = 100% and even more > 80 %, it seems to us that:
- These nations don't uses their right to tax their peoples with responsibilities or with consent and approval from the people who are taxed; and that

- These governments are almost never punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.

We cannot approve a proposition which will:
- give full right to many government to oppress their people, and
- ban further UN actions to give people their right not to be too much heavily taxed

Many of those governments already give their citizens the ability to remove them from office if they disagree with taxation policies, via democracy of one form or another. Sovereign states already have the 'right' to set their own tax levels - this resolution would protect that right.

OOC: I'm not sure how 'IC' a 100% tax rate it. It's been reported as a bug elsewhere on the boards, as it's a fairly ridiculous state of affairs to have - especially since many of the 100% tax rate nations are economically successful.

While I note that a nation will be granted the ability to "oppress" their people with the burden of taxes, I do not believe there is an issue with being too heavily taxed. Much more likely is the possibility of undue burden of tax - that is to say that one class ends up paying a disproportionately high tax.

For example, if you tax the upper class at 99% and the middle and lower classes at 0%, I would consider this undue burden. On the other hand, if you taxed upper class at 10% and lower class at 15-20%, I would consider it undue burden for the lower classes. This is not to say that I consider progressive tax systems to be bad, I just consider extreme forms of progressive tax systems or reverse progressive tax systems to be bad. That said, both aren't really going to be an extreme issue. Many governments who have had, historically, reverse progressive tax systems have collapsed economically - especially when pitted against the strain of war. Governments that have extreme progressive tax systems will....find that they have no one funding their government.

On the other hand, if everyone is taxed 100% equally, I fully support the government that implemented that system. It is their right to do so, and I don't think the UN has any business telling them otherwise

OOC: I'm not sure how 'IC' a 100% tax rate it. It's been reported as a bug elsewhere on the boards, as it's a fairly ridiculous state of affairs to have - especially since many of the 100% tax rate nations are economically successful.

i agree with you

i don't intend the author to urge nations not to tax their citizens more than 60%

i just ask him, please, to let the possibility to a UN member to try to urge nations not to tax their citizens more than 60% in a future proposition

sorry in my previous post i was maybe not very explicit
when i was mentionning 60%, i mean 60% as the "national average income tax", as many UN nations' "national average income tax" is 80% or even 100%

and the paragraph i would like to me modified would be better as follow:

2.(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed) - it shall be noted that this determination doesn't include a reasonable maximum % of average income tax rate

The government of Telidia concur with the esteemed member from Forgottenlands' comments. We can see little need for this legislation. In our humble opinion it won’t actually perform any function other than to affirm that nations can tax the citizens if they wish, which is already the case. In democracies taxation concerns are handled in any event, in dictatorships or other forms of more extreme government’s excessive taxation has one of two effects, both interchangeable from each other. Revolt and economic collapse, whichever comes first the other will naturally follow.

I understand what the honourable member from Powerhungry Chipmunks is trying to achieve, however in our humble opinion these processes are already in place as a matter of life.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

As many UN members have taxation = 100% and even more > 80 %, it seems to us that:
- These nations don't uses their right to tax their peoples with responsibilities or with consent and approval from the people who are taxed; and that

- These governments are almost never punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those whom they oppress.

We cannot approve a proposition which will:
- give full right to many government to oppress their people, and
- ban further UN actions to give people their right not to be too much heavily taxed
Well, there's the thing. You say you want a people "not to be too much hevily taxed", and I'm saying that people should have a right to determine their domestic taxes themselves. What I, in my country, think is too much tax has no bearing on what someone in "Mynation" says is or isn't too much. I really have no right to tell another nation, through the UN, what to do with its domestic taxes.

In other words, I find it impossible for there to be democratic determination of this process if it takes place on a UN level. Yes, there's a chance that on the national level citizens still might not receive fair representation in taxation decisions. But when compared to the nonexistent chance of them having a say in their taxation decisions if they were decided on a UN level, I find that the better alternative.

We can see little need for this legislation. In our humble opinion it won’t actually perform any function other than to affirm that nations can tax the citizens if they wish, which is already the case.
Well, before "Nuclear Armamants" we were fully able to use and maintain nuclear weapons, just as after. Before "United Nations Security Act" nations had full right to do the same things they had a right to do after it. I'm not writing this proposal because I don't think we have the right to determine domestic taxes adequately. I'm writing it because of what I feel to be the very plausible threat that an idealistically charged fellow UN member could, in the future, dictate to my nation what it does with domestic taxes.

Well, before "Nuclear Armamants" we were fully able to use and maintain nuclear weapons, just as after. Before "United Nations Security Act" nations had full right to do the same things they had a right to do after it. I'm not writing this proposal because I don't think we have the right to determine domestic taxes adequately. I'm writing it because of what I feel to be the very plausible threat that an idealistically charged fellow UN member could, in the future, dictate to my nation what it does with domestic taxes.

I opposed UNSA heavily, and Nuclear Armaments I initially supported, but I have since decided to abstain on at a personal level. I currently hold a similar position on this resolution, though I'm actually more in favor than I am opposed and I'll explain why in a bit (sorry Telidia). The reason, however, that I bring this up is you put up a defense of why you did it and how previous resolutions have done a similar thing. I can assure you that both Telidia and myself are well aware of this (as can be noted by Telidia's comment "I understand what the honourable member from Powerhungry Chipmunks is trying to achieve".

Above all, and I know that I contradict just about every UN regular when I state this, I am fully an International Governmentalist. While I think this International Government has done some pretty sickening things at times, I still support it as a government, not as an organization. This is not a position held by my region, but it is not contradicted by them.

Now, why do I lean towards supporting this resolution? Simply because all governments build their own budget, no matter what level they are, and determine how to collect money from their citizens. Below the national, you have state/province/territory governments that determine their own budgets and how to fund them. Below that you have civil, district, county, etc jurisdictions that calculate their budgets and funding. Why should, as another layer of government, the UN be any different in its treatment of national levels?

Well, there's the thing. You say you want a people "not to be too much hevily taxed", and I'm saying that people should have a right to determine their domestic taxes themselves. What I, in my country, think is too much tax has no bearing on what someone in "Mynation" says is or isn't too much. I really have no right to tell another nation, through the UN, what to do with its domestic taxes.

In other words, I find it impossible for there to be democratic determination of this process if it takes place on a UN level. Yes, there's a chance that on the national level citizens still might not receive fair representation in taxation decisions. But when compared to the nonexistent chance of them having a say in their taxation decisions if they were decided on a UN level, I find that the better alternative.

i understand your point of view, and maybe the reason of my thought on this topic are:
-i tend to consider (maybe too much) NS as real life; and also
-i come from Western Europe in real life.

Eastern Europe didn’t have our chance from 50s to the end of 80s. We cannot forget what happens in these Nations. We also cannot forget the dramatic Mao’s chinese cultural revolution between 1966 and 1969 in China or the dramatic Pol Pot’s khmer rouges between 1975 and 1979 in Cambodia. We must remember that, it’s our duty.

i like very much NS, but I really think there is a big error, a big mistake in this game; and because of this mistake it cannot be seen seriously taken from the real life point of view and this is really sad for me.

Regulated economic freedom is a fundamental component of human evolution. If a nation’s taxes are too strong it’s impossible to have a thriving economy, this is a negation of human history and of elementary human psychology. Sadly, a human brain is not 100% ruled by love and compassion, it’s also ruled by greed, and you cannot say you don’t agree, as this is pure reality. So maybe one day in our future we will be able to get rid of economic freedom, but this is hard science fiction.

So, Nations with average income tax = 100% or even > 80% are pure utopia, exactly in the same manner as UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #122 Promotion of Solar Panels is.

But at least about “Promotion of Solar Panels”:
-some nations lead by Telidia sent a TG campaign again the proposition
-many nation (as your) voiced their opposition in the forum
-Ficticious Proportions and i proposed a repeal
-many nations approved and are voting right now for the repeal

We always made mistake, what is important is to try to avoid and correct them; it’s what we all did together with “Promotion of Solar Panels”.

There is a big error in this game about taxes; we must correct it by passing a resolution trying to stop this nonsense and absolutely not by submitting a proposition which will give even more endorsement to bad government to oppress even more their people.

But you see, ideological bans are illegal. You may not agree with the methods that are used by some nations, but that does not make them illegitamite. Stalin did an absolutely extraordinary job at bolstering the economy of the Soviet Union and turning it from the backwards Czarist country he had been handed to the second most power nation on the planet - all the time doing it with his 100% tax rate, and exchanging that for life. You may not agree with the belief, but that does not make it invalid whatsoever. In fact, Stalin would think the same thing about you. From what I've heard, he knew the world would think of him as a monster, but he could not, for the life of him, understand why.

I sincerely doubt that anything but a brutal dictatorship could have incited the economic growth that was miraculously performed by both Hitler and Stalin in the past century. This is why ideological bans are illegal, and this is why your statements are not entirely correct.

Regulated economic freedom is a fundamental component of human evolution. If a nation’s taxes are too strong it’s impossible to have a thriving economy, this is a negation of human history and of elementary human psychology. Sadly, a human brain is not 100% ruled by love and compassion, it’s also ruled by greed, and you cannot say you don’t agree, as this is pure reality. So maybe one day in our future we will be able to get rid of economic freedom, but this is hard science fiction.

So, Nations with average income tax = 100% or even > 80% are pure utopia, exactly in the same manner as UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #122 Promotion of Solar Panels is.

But at least about “Promotion of Solar Panels”:
-some nations lead by Telidia sent a TG campaign again the proposition
-many nation (as your) voiced their opposition in the forum
-Ficticious Proportions and i proposed a repeal
-many nations approved and are voting right now for the repeal

We always made mistake, what is important is to try to avoid and correct them; it’s what we all did together with “Promotion of Solar Panels”.

There is a big error in this game about taxes; we must correct it by passing a resolution trying to stop this nonsense and absolutely not by submitting a proposition which will give even more endorsement to bad government to oppress even more their people.
Actually, I feel this resolution will have little effect on whether nations are allowed to "oppress" their members. The UN is already unable to change the income tax rate by resolution, and as Forgottenlands has astutely observed, ideological bans are illegal. I'm convinced that nations should have the right to determine domestic taxation, whatever that might include or not include (which, much like the UNSA, might be partially determined by future UN resolutions). What you can do is require that nations determine this taxation with a certain degree of representation. I have not required that in this resolution, but I have not procluded it either (to the best of my knowledge).

Yes, even with the passing of this proposal into resolution there'd still be about every opportunity for another resolution to be passed later which requires nations to have a threshold of representation in determining taxation decisions. In fact that would be the logical extension of clause #5. I do not like the idea of including such a requirement in this proposal text, mainly because I feel it over-reaching, or including too much in one resolution. I believe that is a large part of why NSoT passed by only the slimmest of margins.

I think you should go ahead and draft a proposal doing what you say you think needs to be done, as you obviously feel very strongly about it. However, I don't think that precludes this proposal from coming to quorum and being voted upon. If you think your dislike of near-100% taxation does preclude this proposal, please explain why you think so--so I can better understand your point of view.

Actually, I feel this resolution will have little effect on whether nations are allowed to "oppress" their members. The UN is already unable to change the income tax rate by resolution, and as Forgottenlands has astutely observed, ideological bans are illegal. I'm convinced that nations should have the right to determine domestic taxation, whatever that might include or not include (which, much like the UNSA, might be partially determined by future UN resolutions). What you can do is require that nations determine this taxation with a certain degree of representation. I have not required that in this resolution, but I have not procluded it either (to the best of my knowledge).

Yes, even with the passing of this proposal into resolution there'd still be about every opportunity for another resolution to be passed later which requires nations to have a threshold of representation in determining taxation decisions. In fact that would be the logical extension of clause #5. I do not like the idea of including such a requirement in this proposal text, mainly because I feel it over-reaching, or including too much in one resolution. I believe that is a large part of why NSoT passed by only the slimmest of margins.

I think you should go ahead and draft a proposal doing what you say you think needs to be done, as you obviously feel very strongly about it. However, I don't think that precludes this proposal from coming to quorum and being voted upon. If you think your dislike of near-100% taxation does preclude this proposal, please explain why you think so--so I can better understand your point of view.



Thanks for your answer, i'm sorry to argue once again in one of your thread.
We agree with and like most of your proposition.


The only problem is that it seems to me (please correct me if i'm wrong) no NSUN resolution deal with economic freedom to create a business. And as there is a major error in this game regarding taxes and economic development => this is the main reason why this game is sadly very unrealistic from a real world point of view.

i'm thinking more and more the UN need a "Economic Freedom Rights" resolution, proposed by by whoever nation.

One essential point about economic freedom is the right to create a company (not only in the limonade sector) and if it works to win decent money for a living from it and hire people and paid them with a salary (respecting nation's standard, NS UN40 hours week....) . If a nation average income taxes is > 80% or =100 (furthermore i bet in 99% of nation there are also others taxes) => economic freedom doesn't exist anymore.

i don't have anything against taxes; taxes are really important for many areas as education, defense, justice and many more. Furthermore, this is really important to regulate any economic freedom, but this is essential for our economy and for the freedom of our people to allow some economic freedom.

=> i cannot support your resolution, if it bans the UN to allow economic freedom in future proposition, by urging nation to have a reasonable % of total national taxes reporting to GDP (but as this ration doesn't exist in NS, we need to urge average income national taxes to be let say < 60-70%), it's the only point i don't agree with you, and i don't think it's essential to your proposition.

Even if i would like very much you proposition include this, i don't ask you, i just ask you to let it be possible in a future proposition.

PS: maybe i misunderstood you proposition, and it doesn't prevent this in the future, but i don't think so:

2.(b) the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

PS2: maybe i misunderstood a little bit your proposition, does it deal with income tax? it's not very clear for me

Thanks for your answer, i'm sorry to argue once again in one of your thread.
We agree with and like most of your proposition.

Thanks, and I'm not ever going to hold anything against you for trying to understand my proposal, for misunderstanding it, for looking at it a different way from myself, or for opposing it. In my eyes, there's no need for apologies.


The only problem is that it seems to me (please correct me if i'm wrong) no NSUN resolution deal with economic freedom to create a business. And as there is a major error in this game regarding taxes and economic development => this is the main reason why this game is sadly very unrealistic from a real world point of view.
I believe this is true, both in that there is little or no UN legislation promoting economic freedom, and that the game's nation descriptions are very unrealistically exaggerated.

=> i cannot support your resolution, if it bans the UN to allow economic freedom in future proposition, by urging nation to have a reasonable % of total national taxes reporting to GDP (but as this ration doesn't exist in NS, we need to urge average income national taxes to be let say < 60-70%), it's the only point i don't agree with you, and i don't think it's essential to your proposition.I don't think my proposal does stop such a proposal from being legislated. It says that it's an inviolable right of nations to determine their domestic taxes, but that doesn't stop you from "urging" nations to do use that right one way or another. Since, in the case of income taxes, this is all you can do anyway (it'd be a game mechanics violation to "force" nations to have lower or higher income tax rates), I don't think my proposal has any noticeable impact on "urging nations to have a lower/higher income tax rate".

I mean, think about NSoT. In a single resolution I did the same thing. The resolution reserved the rights of nations to determine taxes, but in the same breath it urged nations to use that right to determine taxes a certain way. In my eyes, there's not really a conflict between urging a nation to do something and saying that they have a right to decide whether or not to do it.

Also, and this is in response to your PPS, I don't believe my proposal specifically deals with income taxes. I mean the only areas of taxations it *must* cover are those areas covered in Clause #3 (I wrote Clauses #2 and #3 so as to leave areas of taxation not in #3 up to future decision by the UN). As I haven't included income taxes as a part of the initial definition of domestic taxes (unless I'm just totally missing where I wrote about income taxes), I don't think it's covered. I mean, there's still the game mechanics violation from forcing nations to have certain income tax systems or rates, but I don't think my proposal affects your ability to urge one way or the other with them. Since it doesn't deal with them. :)

Also, and this is in response to your PPS, I don't believe my proposal specifically deals with income taxes. I mean the only areas of taxations it *must* cover are those areas covered in Clause #3 (I wrote Clauses #2 and #3 so as to leave areas of taxation not in #3 up to future decision by the UN). As I haven't included income taxes as a part of the initial definition of domestic taxes (unless I'm just totally missing where I wrote about income taxes), I don't think it's covered. I mean, there's still the game mechanics violation from forcing nations to have certain income tax systems or rates, but I don't think my proposal affects your ability to urge one way or the other with them. Since it doesn't deal with them. :)

ok thanks a lot for your explanations
so, now obviously, i don't have any disgragreement with your proposition and i will support it.