NationStates Jolt Archive

In the reqirement of funding for the UN, the Taxation Ban should be repealed. What do you think?
:sniper:

Wrong forum. Most of us here don't give a rat's ass about the UN.

Wrong forum. Most of us here don't give a rat's ass about the UN.

Hey, this isn't the UN fourm! Can a mod move this to the UN fourm?

--> UN

No is the answer to your question.

If anyone hasn't notified the MODs yet i will.

Well, now that it's in the UN forum
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/notagain.jpg

I'll never understand why people think that this resolution which only prevents the UN from taxing a nation's citizens directly should be repealed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This resolution does not ban the UN from implementing taxes, but prevents it from levying it at the citizens directly. Pretty much, they can't have income or property taxes - though I would bet that, say, business taxes are still permissable. Even more accepted is the idea that taxation of the governments is common.

i would have to agree with my colleague.

this protects your nation. why would you want to repeal it?

however the UN can tax nations. the UN gets its money from its members paying its dues.

since they already have a source of income why does the NSUN need another one?

since they already have a source of income why does the NSUN need another one?

The UN in many cases would require an income source. This links up to a 1% general UN income tax, saving governments from losing money to the UN. The UN in any case, might want better income to allow better development in member nations. In other cases, the UN funding could have better use.

The UN in many cases would require an income source. This links up to a 1% general UN income tax, saving governments from losing money to the UN. The UN in any case, might want better income to allow better development in member nations. In other cases, the UN funding could have better use.

The UN could right now demand all nations pay 100% of their GDP into the UN to fund its projects.

The UN could right now demand all nations pay 100% of their GDP into the UN to fund its projects.

That's my point. If a 1% general UN tax was put on people's income, that wouldn't happen.

14 voters and 4 say NO UN IDIOT WILL GET MY MONEY!
Guess they're not UN supporters.

That's my point. If a 1% general UN tax was put on people's income, that wouldn't happen.

So you're saying we should tax people so we don't have to tax people? Don't think I'll be hiring you as my accountant just yet.

The UN already gets money from governments. I don't know how much but i'm sure a gnome up in the public accounts department could tell us how its gathered and the amounts involved.

thats the whole point of UNR #4. only governments can raise taxes against individual citizens of a nation.

the 'representation in taxation act' also reinforces what i'm saying.

with respect the honourable ambassador is flogging a dead horse. the answers to their question are contained in two resolutions.

In the reqirement of funding for the UN, the Taxation Ban should be repealed. What do you think?
:sniper::headbang:
:gundge: :mad: !HELLO PEOPLE!:mad: :gundge:
If anything the Taxation Ban should be amended to stop demanding money from governments. The UN should be a organisation where governments donate funding. Repealing this Ban would cripple every small countries economy, no matter how little the tax. The UN should of course receive at least a 0.5% member fee from small countries, and 2% from larger ones. It should donate money received from governmental donations to the poor and needy econonmies of failing countries. The UN should cut back on obviously stupid proposals, e.g. the IT Education Act, and focus more on trying to actually improve standards of life by working hard, and not fast tracking a country forward a decade at a time. :confused: The author of the repeal was obviously under some sort of unnatural influence when they wrote this piece of writing.
The sensible government of the correctly minded Optischer

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7060/crad42is.png

Already coming in use, Gruenberg.

:confused: OK, we have settled the point of that he UN needs funding, in the form of which the Tax Ban ENFORCES

The UN should of course receive at least a 0.5% member fee from small countries, and 2% from larger ones. It should donate money received from governmental donations to the poor and needy econonmies of failing countries.


An easier solution unless your family memembers are employed collecting all this funding is to just have those called larger one pay 1.5% and leave the small ones along.... As why give back as a so called governental donation to them that you took from them in the first place.. Makes no sense at all to me, but reads like that would be what would be going on...

Or do the old 'I have two copper shinny coins all you have to do is give me that dirty fifty bill'. As if anyone has to many of those dirty fifty bills, I will give you five shinny coins for each you give me...

The old adage of rob Peter to pay Paul here would simply make Peter and Paul the same person...

usually UN organisations get their funding from governments through the resolution passed creating them. personally, i would like the ban to stay, as i wouldnt want the UN bypassing us and taxing citizens directly, and also we want them to have something to take home at the end of the day. some nations have 100% income tax, and it would be ludacris to have an UN income tax on top of that.

usually UN organisations get their funding from governments through the resolution passed creating them. personally, i would like the ban to stay, as i wouldnt want the UN bypassing us and taxing citizens directly, and also we want them to have something to take home at the end of the day. some nations have 100% income tax, and it would be ludacris to have an UN income tax on top of that.

And some nations have no income tax (such as Hirota) - to put 1% tax would mean the whole tax burden of our citizens would be for outside sources.

That's my point. If a 1% general UN tax was put on people's income, that wouldn't happen.

And that's our point, the UN can collect it's dues from member-state governments.... Effectively allowing the states themselves to levy tax, or collect within their borders as they see fit... The ban protects the member-state citizens from direct unrepresented taxation from a foreign body (the NSUN)... Thus, the government is protected by this resolution to act as a protective buffer between their citizens, and Upossible UN tyrany.