NationStates Jolt Archive

I, Alfonso I and on behalf of the Franciscan Imperial Senate propose that the UN taxation ban, be repealed.

UNDERSTANDING that taxation on every UN nation may cost citizens and goverments money,

HOWEVER, I wish to repeal this resolution because a UN taxation may, in the long run save a UN nation money and benefit the nations and UN as a whole. A UN taxation, which would be put on tariffs at 1%, and a tax national goverment revunues by .5% could potentially pay for the following:

- A UN hunger program
- A incentive to give to companies wanting to move to an UN nation.
- pay for a educational programs for all UN nations.
- Revenues could go to a possible UN security force.
- Enviromental Programs.
- Economical grants and loans
- large UN projects, wihich would normally take a large ammount of time because of lack of funds.
- International prisons and jails.
-International housing projects.

ALSO, it could let national goverments cut back and actually save money because of programs and services(some listed above) already being offered by the UN because of avalaible funds. This will, I promise you boost all UN economies .

I IMPLORE you to repeal this resolution and put a fixed tax on all nations to fund UN programs, personnel projects, and buildings.

IF NOT the UN nations will lose money and will not get programs it and a great number of other nations despreately need.

REMEMBER I have provided and told you a fixed tax that will not rise, which many fear.

REAPEAL this resolution and finance the UN , boost your economies, and save your nation money.


Emperor Alfonso I, of Santa Francisca

_________________________________________________________________
Because I am new and have no endorsements I ask that a UN members offer/let me me to move to your region for a short time so that I can get 2 endorsements and propose this resolution to reapeal a taxation ban. If not lease someone else propse a the same or a similar proposal .

Emperor Alfonso I

Great now that I have the proper number of endorsements and I have a proposal in the UN, does anyone have any questions,concerns, objections to my proposal ? Does anyone in support or is agianst it ?

Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

Note that a repeal to a ban on taxation does not mean an automatic tax. That must be done via another propasal. If this repeal passes, then all it says is that the UN can tax. Will it? And a propasl to put a tax needs to also say where the money shall go. Hopefully this will pass, though you must do work to make sure a tax does get passed.

Other than that, I'm in support of this propasal. The UN needs money to fund its program. And it will help stop the Axis of Idiots. Now that you must PAY for membership, the idiots may stop and reconsider.

OOC: The UN, btw, cannot have a military. Against the rules. Though maybe you can suggest a general slush fund that the UN can use "for security", like helping to catch terrorists.

I'm actually a bit confused why you want to repeal the taxation ban resolution. All it does is prevent the UN taxing a nations citizens directly, for example mandating that every citizen in a UN nation after paying their normal tax to that nation must then pay a 2% UN tax directly to the UN. It in no way stops the UN taxing nations as a whole/governments.

The orginal resolution says....
UN taxation ban


A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

I can't see many nations being happy with the idea of the UN being allowed to collect taxes directly from their citizens effectivly bypassing the government. I know I certainly wouldn't.

But the UN DOES not tax. It doesn't even tax its nations. Without money, how can it help other nations? It can't.

Maybe the repeal should be devouted instead to passing a propsal to tax the nations...

Seeing as in the actual game there is no money, to "charge" people to be in the UN would be a game-mechanics issue.

OOC: I was thinking, however, that it would just be like a 'hit' on the ecomony. Since taxes basically take money out of the ecomony into the government (which may seek to spend it, injecting it back into the ecomoncy), I was just thinking that the propsal will decrease the ecomony of a nation. By how much? How sereve the taxation is.

Yes, one problem is ecomonics that are already low goes lower, but that can be addressed in another UN resolution...

Note that a repeal to a ban on taxation does not mean an automatic tax. That must be done via another propasal. If this repeal passes, then all it says is that the UN can tax. Will it? And a propasl to put a tax needs to also say where the money shall go. Hopefully this will pass, though you must do work to make sure a tax does get passed.

Other than that, I'm in support of this propasal. The UN needs money to fund its program. And it will help stop the Axis of Idiots. Now that you must PAY for membership, the idiots may stop and reconsider.

OOC: The UN, btw, cannot have a military. Against the rules. Though maybe you can suggest a general slush fund that the UN can use "for security", like helping to catch terrorists.


Well if this passes I will propose a tax and what I want to tax , thanks for your support.

But the UN DOES not tax. It doesn't even tax its nations. Without money, how can it help other nations? It can't.

Maybe the repeal should be devouted instead to passing a propsal to tax the nations...

How do you think the UN funds its resolutions? There is no such thing as the UN money fairy :D.

I had a quick look and found at least two resolution that are UN funded in the first half of the list. The only way to get those funds is to "tax" member nations. Another name or term may be used (tax is usually seen as a dirty word and a proposal killer) but the end result is the same.

Global AIDS Initiative (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029660&postcount=33)
UN Educational Committee (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030130&postcount=55)

Well there could be private donations and national budgets which send money to the UN.

No, but each nation must pay dues.

Well there could be private donations and national budgets which send money to the UN.

3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries
(bolding me)

This is from the Global AIDS Initiative resolution. It doesn't sound very much like donations to me, but a lot like a tax ;):).

Well it can't be, there is a taxation ban.

That only stops the UN taxing citizens directly, it doesn't stop the UN taxing or collecting funds from nations/governments. Take a look at my first post if you haven't already read it :).

Can you also put a tax on tariffs ?

I'm not against you here.

If you put forth a good proposal for membership dues to be paid to the UN by all member nations on an equal basis, then I would support it. As I've said in another thread on a draft for such a thing, this would be the fairest way of ensuring all future resolutions could be funded properly and proposal authors wouldn't have to waste precious characters from their limit explaining how their idea is going to be paid for.

United Nations Resolution # 4
UN taxation ban


A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003
It prohibits the UN from taxing directly the citizens of member nations. Repealing it is a bad idea. I advise you to drop it.

Can you also put a tax on tariffs ?

This makes my brain hurt.

I'm not against you here.

If you put forth a good proposal for membership dues to be paid to the UN by all member nations on an equal basis, then I would support it. As I've said in another thread on a draft for such a thing, this would be the fairest way of ensuring all future resolutions could be funded properly and proposal authors wouldn't have to waste precious characters from their limit explaining how their idea is going to be paid for.

Well first I must repeal the ban on taxation. Do you have any question about my proposal or do you need any interpetations ?

@Yelda

I will not drop, but you don't have to support it.

I think you should drop this resoultion, if only not to agnotize your supporters. Plus, individuals may hate the UN...they may not want to pay the tax.

Instead, we should start debating on a propasal for a general tax on all member nations, to help the UN out in day-to-day affairs.

The only question is: How much tax?

Well first I must repeal the ban on taxation. Do you have any question about my proposal or do you need any interpetations ?

@Yelda

I will not drop, but you don't have to support it.

Do you not understand what the resolution does? It prohibits the UN from circumventing national law, and arbitrarily imposing direct taxation on citizens. It does NOT prevent the UN from drawing funds - and indeed from outright requiring them - from member nations. All of the schemes you outlined can be implemented, with perfectly adequate funding arrangements, without the repeal of this necessary legislation.

You really, really, really should drop it.

You don't need to repeal it. It wouldn't in any way prevent you from proposing something that affects/taxes/collects dues from nations as a whole and/or their governments.

The only thing that resolution would stop you doing is saying something like "all citizens from UN member nations must pay a 2% UN tax to fund.....whatever".

For the sake of all our citizens, I am asking you to leave this resolution alone as it protects them from effectivly paying an international tax directly to an international body. Wateranans are already paying %100 national tax now, they simply don't have any money to pay an international UN tax as well.

I don't have any questions ect yet. Will wait and see what you decide to do. If you do decide to turn this from a repeal to a proposal for something along the lines of proper UN funding/membership dues, I will support and help you all I can :).

Look here is my theory once this resolution is repealed. Let's say there is a 1% tax on every UN nation citizen . Your nation Waterana pays this tax, but lets say a much larger nation pays the same tax too and it's goes to, lets say a prison and low income housing. Your nation already has a program for it, but now the UN runs a couple of prisons and provides housing, but nations of all sizes pay for these programs now through the UN, which means not every nation pays the same amount of money because of more weaker or stronger economies. Now you can either lower your taxes because the UN offers it or you can send that prison or housing money somewhere else, maybe a tax incentive, which would boost your economy save your goverment and people money. Take into mind you actally would pay less because there is alway going to be a larher nation which would provide a larger tax basee to support these programs, I promise this will boost your economy, if you don't understand my theory everyone please ask me to explain, I'll be happy to, this proposal needs to get passed.

Emperor Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

Let's try bigger words.

Look here is my theory once this resolution is repealed. Let's say there is a 1% tax on every UN nation.

The ban prevents the UN from taxing INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

The UN can still, and does, tax NATIONS.

Nations are NOT citizens.

Look at it this way: The real world UN takes money from your nation's government. It doesn't come to your door and hit you up personally for money. All the existing rule does is prevent the taxation of individual citizens. It doesn't prohibit taxing nations to fund its projects.

I'm really not sure how much clearer this point can be made.

You are arguing from the false premise that the UN can't levy any taxes at all. This is like arguing from the view that 2+2=897. You have a terminal factual error in your basic premise. How can you possibly procede from such a position?

on tariffs at 1%, and a tax national goverment revunues by .5% could potentially pay for the following:

- A UN hunger program
- A incentive to give to companies wanting to move to an UN nation.
- pay for a educational programs for all UN nations.
- Revenues could go to a possible UN security force.
- Enviromental Programs.
- Economical grants and loans
- large UN projects, wihich would normally take a large ammount of time because of lack of funds.
- International prisons and jails.
-International housing projects.

1. Do you realize just how ridiculous 1% and 0.5% are respectfully? When dealing with the number of nations, you're exceeding the trillions.

2. We do not provide corporations with incentives to move, we tax the hell out of them if they try to leave...

3. No one screws with Tekanian education who is not Tekanian...

4. The UN does not (and can not) have a Security Force.

Let's try bigger words.



The ban prevents the UN from taxing INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

The UN can still, and does, tax NATIONS.

Nations are NOT citizens.

Look at it this way: The real world UN takes money from your nation's government. It doesn't come to your door and hit you up personally for money. All the existing rule does is prevent the taxation of individual citizens. It doesn't prohibit taxing nations to fund its projects.

I'm really not sure how much clearer this point can be made.

You are arguing from the false premise that the UN can't levy any taxes at all. This is like arguing from the view that 2+2=897. You have a terminal factual error in your basic premise. How can you possibly procede from such a position?


That was a mistake I ment to say indivisual citizen, I'll edit it right now.

Can you also put a tax on tariffs ?
Taxing a tax?

Tariff == Tax (applied to imported and exported goods).

Look here is my theory once this resolution is repealed. Let's say there is a 1% tax on every UN nation citizen . Your nation Waterana pays this tax, but lets say a much larger nation pays the same tax too and it's goes to, lets say a prison and low income housing. Your nation already has a program for it, but now the UN runs a couple of prisons and provides housing, but nations of all sizes pay for these programs now through the UN, which means not every nation pays the same amount of money because of more weaker or stronger economies. Now you can either lower your taxes because the UN offers it or you can send that prison or housing money somewhere else, maybe a tax incentive, which would boost your economy save your goverment and people money. Take into mind you actally would pay less because there is alway going to be a larher nation which would provide a larger tax basee to support these programs, I promise this will boost your economy, if you don't understand my theory everyone please ask me to explain, I'll be happy to, this proposal needs to get passed.

Emperor Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

______________________________________________________________________________________
@Tekania
No,but you can put on one on imports and exports.

I think the main arguement against that would be this -

My country has almost no crime (according to latest statistics anyway), and most of that is down to the way it is governed. As a consequence we spend our citizens money on other things, like schools and healthcare and so forth.

If the UN is now permitted to tax citizens, as opposed to the government, and take that money elsewhere it means I am paying for the support of prisons and so forth in another country - one that might not have an attitude towards criminals I approve of. And while I am happy for other countries to be executing prisoners, I have no desire to pay my taxes so they can do it.

I have no issue with the UN taxing the government - it is the only way the resolutions will work - but they should not be taxing the citizens to pay for the policies of other governments.

Look here is my theory once this resolution is repealed. Let's say there is a 1% tax on every UN nation citizen . Your nation Waterana pays this tax, but lets say a much larger nation pays the same tax too and it's goes to, lets say a prison and low income housing. Your nation already has a program for it, but now the UN runs a couple of prisons and provides housing, but nations of all sizes pay for these programs now through the UN, which means not every nation pays the same amount of money because of more weaker or stronger economies. Now you can either lower your taxes because the UN offers it or you can send that prison or housing money somewhere else, maybe a tax incentive, which would boost your economy save your goverment and people money. Take into mind you actally would pay less because there is alway going to be a larher nation which would provide a larger tax basee to support these programs, I promise this will boost your economy, if you don't understand my theory everyone please ask me to explain, I'll be happy to, this proposal needs to get passed.

Emperor Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

______________________________________________________________________________________
@Tekania
No,but you can put on one on imports and exports.

1. The representatives of the Planetary Dominions of the Consitutional Republic of Tekania, will oppose any measure to place direct taxation upon the citizens of any member-state by a foreign power (including the United Nations)..

2. Tariff == Tax upon imported and exported goods.... Thus putting a "Tax" upon a "Tariff" is taxing the tax which is placed upon such goods. We also will not tollerate double-taxation (applying taxation twice upon a single source).

Let's try bigger words.



The ban prevents the UN from taxing INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

The UN can still, and does, tax NATIONS.

Nations are NOT citizens.

It would appear that even using bigger words isn't helping here. :(

That was a mistake I ment to say indivisual citizen, I'll edit it right now.

Ah, now this all makes sense and I think I understand what you are trying to do.

You do want to repeal this resolution so you can directly tax citizens of UN nations?

If thats right, then I'm sorry but I can't support this in any way. I don't mind our government paying a tax or membership dues to the UN, but will oppose any direct tax on our people.

It would appear that even using bigger words isn't helping here. :(


If you read my posts, I made a post that I made a mistake and edited my post the I post it again, maybe if you toke the time to read it could help you.

the Empire of Kirisubo says no to any repeal proposal.

once the UN taxes individuals it effectly becomes the government of that nation.

only a government can raise (or cut) taxes and the UN is not a goverment yet!

Fellow head of states, I feel your concerns, but this will pay for itself. think about it, if there is a flat tax rate on all nations, many will end up lowering taxes because the UN offers the program, then the taxpayers, with the extra money can buy more product, boosting your economy even more, this will help you, I promise.

But the "programs" that you seem to suggest that the UN should provide are mostly services that the UN should be deferring to member states anyway. We have not seen a single arguement in this thread that convinces us that the UN must levy direct taxes in order to provide any function that the UN should be providing.

You have ignored a mod now, so I assume nothing more is going to get through to you...but let's try:

1. YOUR REPEAL IS ILLEGAL You propose new policy: a tax. Your repeal cannot include a legislative clause.

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

2. Any way, there is no point. Right now, the UN could issue a resolution...probably...that demanded member states give 20%, 50%, 100% of their GDP to the UN. The resolution you are trying to repeal is only stating that the UN cannot tax individual citizens. This is a good thing. Nations taxing their citizens in order to comply with UN legislations is not illegal. You do not want the UN to be able to tax citizens directly, as this would quite possibly destroy your entire system, and your economy with it.

If you want UN funding, go get it. This is not the right way. I am now pleading with you: PLEASE, PLEASE LET IT GO.

(I'll give you something, if you want. A cookie, an SUV, a trade alliance...just let it go.)

I never said that, I said it could potentially pay for those programs. I want the UN to tax so it can pay for programs and projects like those and to have a steadt tax base at which to operate and do much better things for it's members. %.5 of a perosn who make, about 20,000-100,000 is nothing, at the mosr maybe 50-500 a year to pay for my proposed tax. Also remember, this could only happen once we repeal the un ataxaiotn reslotion, then I will begin to propse .5, a fixed rate that cannot and will not change, even if there is inflation, this is a very light tax.

I never said that, I said it could potentially pay for those programs. I want the UN to tax so it can pay for programs and projects like those and to have a steadt tax base at which to operate and do much better things for it's members. %.5 of a perosn who make, about 20,000-100,000 is nothing, at the mosr maybe 50-500 a year to pay for my proposed tax. Also remember, this could only happen once we repeal the un ataxaiotn reslotion, then I will begin to propse .5, a fixed rate that cannot and will not change, even if there is inflation, this is a very light tax.

0.5% is an enormous tax. Ironically, there is elsewhere in this forum a draft of a similar idea. It sets a maximum cap of 0.005%, and recognises that most nations would be lower.

Anyway, why are you so keen on taxing individual citizens? If you asked nations to set aside x% of their GDP per annum for the UN, they could choose whether to do this through taxes or other means.

I will actively campaign against this repeal proposal should it be submitted, even if you exclude the illegal clauses.

Sorry to have to say this, but I honestly doubt this repeal will ever pass. While I do wish you good luck, I don't like your chances.

The vast majority of nations will not agree with allowing direct taxation of their citizens by the UN. They won't even listen to your arguements, just the fact you want the UN to be able to take money out of their peoples paypackets will be enough.

You have ignored a mod now, so I assume nothing more is going to get through to you...but let's try:

1. YOUR REPEAL IS ILLEGAL You propose new policy: a tax. Your repeal cannot include a legislative clause.



2. Any way, there is no point. Right now, the UN could issue a resolution...probably...that demanded member states give 20%, 50%, 100% of their GDP to the UN. The resolution you are trying to repeal is only stating that the UN cannot tax individual citizens. This is a good thing. Nations taxing their citizens in order to comply with UN legislations is not illegal. You do not want the UN to be able to tax citizens directly, as this would quite possibly destroy your entire system, and your economy with it.

If you want UN funding, go get it. This is not the right way. I am now pleading with you: PLEASE, PLEASE LET IT GO.

(I'll give you something, if you want. A cookie, an SUV, a trade alliance...just let it go.)


And I will countinue to support it. If it is illegal, contact the Etiquette and get his or hers opinion on this. Look first I must repeal this resolution then we can debate on how much we should tax them, right now I think %.5 is resonable, but we can compromise and lower, it hasn't been proposed yet. Oh yeah, your little cookie, suv, trade alliance proposal, I will not drop my proposal for that. I take that statement as an insult and as of now I consider your nation Gruenburg an enemy of the Imperial Crown.

Ok. I am sorry I have offended you.

Please could you post a draft of your repeal text? I can't actually figure out what is the definitive one. I will still help with language, if you want: perhaps you will change my mind.

Once more, apologies. Heat of the debate and all that.

I have already, do you mean my plan to tax, if this proposal seceeds ?

No. What will you typing out as the text of your repeal? The thing in the first post clearly isn't it...where is it?

It already on the list of proposals.

Ok. It's not illegal. It's just not something we'll support.

I'll butt out, and let others have their say.

While it may be on the list of proposals...

Approvals: 2 (WZ Forums, Pope Lexus X)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Oct 14 2005



And WZ Forums approves every proposal. This thing's doomed, thankfully.

While it may be on the list of proposals...

Approvals: 2 (WZ Forums, Pope Lexus X)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Oct 14 2005



And WZ Forums approves every proposal. This thing's doomed, thankfully.
Thats not mine, mine is on page 8, that was proposed by Polska.

We agree that the UN needs to tax nations, but how much?

This propsal is sorely lacking, sorry. Do anybody has the link for the draft that will impose that 0.0005% tax? Maybe I can support that.

Why yes I do. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449005)

Thats not mine, mine is on page 8, that was proposed by Polska.


My mistake.

Yours:

Approvals: 11 (WZ Forums, Tepoztecal, Derekfarnam, Northern Sushi, Gymnophobia, Aurto, Pope Lexus X, Aramanaria, Jey, Great Britain---, Duetzefix)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 116 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 13 2005


Not much better. And note the presence of the ever-approving WZ Forums... :rolleyes:

This isn't the thread to discuss WZ Forum's approval record.

Santa Francisca, do you at least understand our concerns? The UN shouldn't be dictating tax policy.

We agree that the UN needs to tax nations, but how much?

This propsal is sorely lacking, sorry. Do anybody has the link for the draft that will impose that 0.0005% tax? Maybe I can support that.


Finally someone who agrees. SLI this is a proposal is to repeal this resolution, I recently made apost, saying right now, I think %.5 is good, but I am willing to lower it to say .005 or and compromise to make ap proposal if this resolution passes.

Finally someone who agrees. SLI this is a proposal is to repeal this resolution, I recently made apost, saying right now, I think %.5 is good, but I am willing to lower it to say .005 or and compromise to make ap proposal if this resolution passes.

The UN can tax nations without your repeal. Your repeal has nothing to do with this.

The UN can tax nations without your repeal. Your repeal has nothing to do with this.


But you do have to to tax the citizens. In that post I mentioned I also said citizens, read and then post Gruenberg.

No, you don't.

Let's say we tax nations at x%. What that means is: all nations have to give x% of their GDP - or of whatever we define x as a % of - to the UN.

They could sell all their gold reserves, raise x, and give it to the UN.

Taxes on citizens would not go up.

Then why id you call it illegal and you and ither saying I don't want want this to be repealed and now you tell me this ? What are you saying taxes on citizens would not go up, I never said that.

Then why id you call it illegal and you and ither saying I don't want want this to be repealed and now you tell me this ? What are you saying taxes on citizens would not go up, I never said that.

I originally said it was illegal because I thought you were including a legislative clause. I am wrong, have apologised, and do so again: sorry.

I do not understand the second half. I am saying that the UN can ask for finances from the member nations; it should not meddle with national systems of taxation.

Fellow head of states, I feel your concerns, but this will pay for itself. think about it, if there is a flat tax rate on all nations, many will end up lowering taxes because the UN offers the program, then the taxpayers, with the extra money can buy more product, boosting your economy even more, this will help you, I promise.

Don't treat us with such disrespect to think we do not understand. We understand your proposal just fine, it's a load of bullshit... And it will not be enforced in this Republic..... No foreign power is going to tax the citizens of my nation... PERIOD.

I never said that, I said it could potentially pay for those programs. I want the UN to tax so it can pay for programs and projects like those and to have a steadt tax base at which to operate and do much better things for it's members. %.5 of a perosn who make, about 20,000-100,000 is nothing, at the mosr maybe 50-500 a year to pay for my proposed tax. Also remember, this could only happen once we repeal the un ataxaiotn reslotion, then I will begin to propse .5, a fixed rate that cannot and will not change, even if there is inflation, this is a very light tax.

Santa Fransisca, Let me say this VERY slowly...

The
NationStates
United Nations
CAN
TAX
MEMBER-states...

IT
CANNOT
HOWEVER
TAX
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
OF
MEMBER STATES
DIRECTLY.

So, santa... Here's your problem.
- You justify repeal, so the UN can fund programs.... Implying that it cannot right now. HOWEVER, the UN does in fact fund programs.... And it can tax states... I.E... No justification to begin with.

But you do have to to tax the citizens. In that post I mentioned I also said citizens, read and then post Gruenberg.

WHY do you need to tax the citizens?

You have yet to justify your position (really, no one has ever made a sucessful justification for the UnitedNations to directly tax citizens)...

Now, you're right, WE (that is member-states) can tax our own citizens... But that is besides the point. The U.N. can still tax member-states.

There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION OR REASON for the UN to directly tax the citizens of member-states.... Citizens of my state, are just that, CITIZENS OF MY STATE... The United Nations will never tax them directly....

I mean that too..... never....

Can I suggest we all back out now? We're getting worked up, and I don't think it's going to get us anywhere anymore. After Hack stepped in with size 7 print it was probably a lost cause: we have tried, and failed. The proposal won't reach quorum. Let's just let it lie.

Santa Fransisca, Let me say this VERY slowly...

The
NationStates
United Nations
CAN
TAX
MEMBER-states...

IT
CANNOT
HOWEVER
TAX
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
OF
MEMBER STATES
DIRECTLY.

So, santa... Here's your problem.
- You justify repeal, so the UN can fund programs.... Implying that it cannot right now. HOWEVER, the UN does in fact fund programs.... And it can tax states... I.E... No justification to begin with.

You know what this will be my last time saying, I have stated why, read my arguements. I would dorop, this, If only had 2 endorsements, if I only spent 10 minutes arguing about and stating my case, I would drop this if I hadn't lobbied 16 delegates to endorse this proposal. And I f I fail, I will propose a better, more supported, planned un proposal to repeal this UN Taxation ban, so your citizens, may not be taxed now from the Un, but they will later, when I am morer experienced, more well known and and more allies than I do now, I promise you.


Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

We understand your proposal just fine, it's a load of bullshit... And it will not be enforced in this Republic..... No foreign power is going to tax the citizens of my nation... PERIOD.


In your mind it is, just like the goverment of Tekania, you know what I am talking about, IF you truely feel about that, then leave the UN, because it enforces laws on your nation, pacts, acts, trade agreements and in some cases policies, so leave, because your attacks on my arguement and proposal are full of BS too.

Who said anything about leaving the UN?

Kirisubo is a new UN member as well and we accept that there is an existing resolution that you think needs repealed.

as stated this resolution states that the UN cannot tax individuals and i would like it to stay that way. We don't mind paying out to the UN for programmes as laid down in other resolutions but I draw the line at UN interference with my countries taxation.

You can draw up a new proposal if you want. that is your right but your rights do not extend to threatening another delegate.

If you really want to change the world work with the NS UN in peace and harmony and you will get further with sensible and practical proposals.

In your mind it is, just like the goverment of Tekania, you know what I am talking about, IF you truely feel about that, then leave the UN, because it enforces laws on your nation, pacts, acts, trade agreements and in some cases policies, so leave, because your attacks on my arguement and proposal are full of BS too.

This is essentially the same "love it or leave it" argument. However I suspect some nations may wish to try changing the UN from within rather than leaving because it is [highly] imperfect. Perhaps you could drop the obvious disrespect and childishness you display by telling others that basically, they either agree with you or they get out of the UN. But I think you will not, because it is clear to me you and many others wish to turn the UN into a World Government and you are already taking it upon yourself to act as a true 'patriot' offering 'patriotic' ultimatums to others!

Once more, let's all calm down. I don't think SF is going to change their mind. We disagree, but are prepared to base our hopes on believing that the UN will not approve their proposal to quorum.

This is essentially the same "love it or leave it" argument. However I suspect some nations may wish to try changing the UN from within rather than leaving because it is [highly] imperfect. Perhaps you could drop the obvious disrespect and childishness you display by telling others that basically, they either agree with you or they get out of the UN. But I think you will not, because it is clear to me you and many others wish to turn the UN into a World Government and you are already taking it upon yourself to act as a true 'patriot' offering 'patriotic' ultimatums to others!


Santa Barbara he calle my proposal a load of shit, I don't car who you are, you will never insult me. I was talking about Tekania, I didn't mean disagree or leave the UN to all members only to Tekania, who has more than once insulted me. I am sorry if I offended you and made you feel that I am trying to force you to accept my idea , I am only defending my proposal and trying to get people to understand it, I apologise. I think this is more of a moral rejection, than of a "this will not boost my economy" rejection fro, the people who are against it.

This is essentially the same "love it or leave it" argument. However I suspect some nations may wish to try changing the UN from within rather than leaving because it is [highly] imperfect. Perhaps you could drop the obvious disrespect and childishness you display by telling others that basically, they either agree with you or they get out of the UN. But I think you will not, because it is clear to me you and many others wish to turn the UN into a World Government and you are already taking it upon yourself to act as a true 'patriot' offering 'patriotic' ultimatums to others!

The people of Cluichstan admire and respect the wisdom of my esteemed colleague from Santa Barbara. I also must note my agreement with my Gruenberger friend when he says that this has gotten out of control. All delegates need to display the decorum that this austere body warrants.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Seeing as my proposal will fail, I will give it up as of now. I want to sit and talk with leaders of other countries to try to fund the UN by alternatives, instead of taxing citizens. I sincerely want to boost all UN members economies at heart. My first proposal, was very crude and I wish to change it and istead of a repeal, I want to turn it into a proposal to collect dues from nations. I welcome anyone, except the Tekanians, to talk and hold a discussion on how to draft this proposal and use the proper language and word in my proposal to fund the UN and boost int's member's economy.


Emperor Alfonso I of Santa Francisca

In your mind it is, just like the goverment of Tekania, you know what I am talking about, IF you truely feel about that, then leave the UN, because it enforces laws on your nation, pacts, acts, trade agreements and in some cases policies, so leave, because your attacks on my arguement and proposal are full of BS too.

It is, because the UN can put tax upon member-states (the states themselves)... There is no funding issue, because the UN already has the power to levy taxes... It's just limited upon the parties to which it can tax [the government and not the citizens]....

The issue is, the issue of direct vs. indirect taxes.... The UN has the power to levy indirect tax, but not direct tax in regards to citizens of member-states. [Taxing a member state is an indirect tax upon the citizens of such a state, and is thereby not invalidated by the Tax prohibition of the resolution].

I am vehemently opposed to mircomanagement [which is all a repeal and implimentation of direct tax in lieu of UN operations vs. National Operations is].... Thus, if you could get it through, I would leave... Simply because the UN is not the proper party to provide, fund and operate services for my citizens..... I am fundamentally based upon the idea of inverse government.... That is the view that the best governmental body, is that which is "closest to" the people they are governing.... The U.N. is not capable of operating close to the people... It is far too "distant"... And thus could not reliably provide all needed services to the people in general... And even the one's it would, would still need to be supplimented by issue... [The effect, is regardless, their would be no relative change in taxes, and would likely result in an INCREASE in tax based upon the fact that on top of UN operations, localities and states would need to impliment FURTHER funding to fill the needed gaps for its citizens].

To put it bluntly... The United Nations is not compitent enough to operate and fund local services in all areas, regions and cities.... It's compitency only lays in that which is of concern between member-states.

The principle of inverse government, relies on the established fact that, the larger and more complex the body is, and the further disconnected the body is from the concerns of the citizens, the less capacity such body has of creating fair and applicable legislation covering such issues.... And worse, the LONGER it takes for such issues to get addressed in the first place...

If a citizen needs support and services, and would have to go through the UN to get them (in lieu of such a tax); it could be years or even decades before they would even get heard; consering such would need to be addressed through an entire beucratic chain... At present, they only need to appeal to their local government to begin such operations.

The other issue is the problem which stems between national-economic forms.... The UN has states which range from total capitalists, to absolute communists, and every form and facet inbetween... Applying direct taxation upon memberstates is a violation of that state's fundamental established right to economic form [how do you tax citizens of a civilization where "money" doesn't really exists, and there is no effective "income"?]...

I am vehemently opposed to mircomanagement [which is all a repeal and implimentation of direct tax in lieu of UN operations vs. National Operations is].... Thus, if you could get it through, I would leave... Simply because the UN is not the proper party to provide, fund and operate services for my citizens..... I am fundamentally based upon the idea of inverse government.... That is the view that the best governmental body, is that which is "closest to" the people they are governing.... The U.N. is not capable of operating close to the people... It is far too "distant"... And thus could not reliably provide all needed services to the people in general... And even the one's it would, would still need to be supplimented by issue... [The effect, is regardless, their would be no relative change in taxes, and would likely result in an INCREASE in tax based upon the fact that on top of UN operations, localities and states would need to impliment FURTHER funding to fill the needed gaps for its citizens].

To put it bluntly... The United Nations is not compitent enough to operate and fund local services in all areas, regions and cities.... It's compitency only lays in that which is of concern between member-states.

The principle of inverse government, relies on the established fact that, the larger and more complex the body is, and the further disconnected the body is from the concerns of the citizens, the less capacity such body has of creating fair and applicable legislation covering such issues.... And worse, the LONGER it takes for such issues to get addressed in the first place...

If a citizen needs support and services, and would have to go through the UN to get them (in lieu of such a tax); it could be years or even decades before they would even get heard; consering such would need to be addressed through an entire beucratic chain... At present, they only need to appeal to their local government to begin such operations.

Cheers!

I am much agreed in this great explanation.

Santa Barbara he calle my proposal a load of shit, I don't car who you are, you will never insult me. I was talking about Tekania, I didn't mean disagree or leave the UN to all members only to Tekania, who has more than once insulted me. I am sorry if I offended you and made you feel that I am trying to force you to accept my idea , I am only defending my proposal and trying to get people to understand it, I apologise. I think this is more of a moral rejection, than of a "this will not boost my economy" rejection fro, the people who are against it.

Your proposal is....
If you take that as an insult upon yourself, so be it...

And yes, it is VERY moral, though has economic implications as well. Any free-state looking out for the best interests, and providing needed services to their nation, is not going to hand over micro-management control to some third [disconnected] party, which is not compitent to address the needed issues of the people in a specific capacity....

The UN has not demonstrated being compitent enough to provide education to my people... We, as a state, have prooved more than compitent to provide those services...

The UN has not demonstrated being compitent enough to provide for the retirement of my people... We, as a state, have prooved more than compitent to provide such...

And the list goes on and on.... My people will not trade the services they have, for only the merely possiblity of getting other services they may not need or want... And they are not going to go through 400,000 kilometers of U.N. red-tape to get what they need, when they already can get it much quicker now. The U.N. cannot, and can never, represent the best interest of my people... Because, that is my job. And I will not deny them their right to self-determination. They even have this self-determination in their taxes... They choose where their tax money goes... Why should they trade this, for some third-party group, who does not know their needs and wants, to make such determinations FOR them? I have absolutely NO GURANTEE that the UN can provide for my people... And it is impossible for such to even BE guranteed.... And thus, will not surender that which is already guranteed for that which is nebulous and uncertain.

The Santa Franciscan goverment does not recognize the Tekanian goverement, but if you didn't see I dropped my proposal and admitted it was choppy. So you can grandstand all you want, but I have apologised and welcomed nations to sit down and talk to propose a better proposal.

The Santa Franciscan goverment does not recognize the Tekanian goverement, but if you didn't see I dropped my proposal and admitted it was choppy. So you can grandstand all you want, but I have apologised and welcomed nations to sit down and talk to propose a better proposal.

Yet another strike against your state. You have no choice but to recognize Tekania.

But that's besides the point.

I'll be glad to talk about any proposal which does not necessitate micromanagement via levying tax directly upon the citizens of a member-state. As I said before, I have no objection to the UN levying tax upon a member-state [which is already legal]... But will oppose any measure to repeal such, to allow direct taxation upon the citizens.

I am sorry Tekania, but your on the Emperor's "Enemies of Imperial Crown List" we do not and will not recoginse Tekanian arguements and any type of proposals. Check the International Incidents and look for a thread by Santa Francisca, it'll tekk what this means with more detail.


Imperial Minister Ruben Luna, Ministry of Foreign Relations