NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal of UN Taxation Ban

COMMENDING the goals of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, yet

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

NOTING the passage of Resolution #128, Representation on Taxation,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #4 has been rendered redundant by Resolution #128, and

CONSIDERING the removal of unnecessary legislation to be in the best interests of all UN members,

REPEALS UN Taxation Ban

________

I think this should be fairly consensual, what do you think? This is my first time: No need to go easy, but do have some pacience. ;)

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.

The new one is long so I'll just post a link (if there is a better way to do this, please let me know):
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=125

UN Taxation ban is not made redundant by Representation in Taxation because they are two totally different animals. The only thing they have in common is the word tax.

UN Taxation Ban simply stops the UN ever taxing citizens of a nation directly. That the only effect it has. People have expressed interest in the UN directly taxing citizens in proposals in the past, bypassing a nations government and effectivly forcing citizens to pay their normal national taxes and a UN tax as well. This resolution is the only thing stopping them doing that.

Representation in taxation is asking national governments to tax fairly and allow citizens a say in their taxation. It also protects the nation's government the right to decide its own taxation system without UN interference, stopping proposals for flat taxes, progressive taxation ect.

Representation in taxation is asking national governments to tax fairly and allow citizens a say in their taxation. It also protects the nation's government the right to decide its own taxation system without UN interference, stopping proposals for flat taxes, progressive taxation ect.

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 rate, general type (progressive, flat, etc.) and specific application of such taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);

You might be right, but let me explain what I think. It is an "inviolable right of nations to impose or not to impose taxes," I would assume a tax imposed by the UN would be in violation of that right. In another thread, the legality of an eventual UN Tobin tax was questioned on the basis of #128, not of #4 (that might have been a mistake, but it still makes sense to me).

Frankly, until someone successfully repeals #4, just about any other tax-related proposals are doomed to failure. While I agree with the interpretation of "direct taxation" being the only thing banned, others of my ilk have been known to disagree. Rather than dance around it forever, just repeal the sucker and be done with it.

Frankly, until someone successfully repeals #4, just about any other tax-related proposals are doomed to failure. While I agree with the interpretation of "direct taxation" being the only thing banned, others of my ilk have been known to disagree. Rather than dance around it forever, just repeal the sucker and be done with it.

Good to know

Regardless, whether Taxation Ban prevents or does not prevent the UN taxing its members, the Taxation Ban is not redundant with Representation of Tax. The former prevents the UN from funding itself via taxes. The latter prevents the UN from dictating how local governments fund themselves.

Actually, I just thought about the following.

NOTING that the only effect of Resolution #4 is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

Is this sort of reference allowed?

True, but that clause goes on to say "on domestic activities, items, and businesses". Thats all internal, within the nation and controlled by the nations government. A direct tax on a nations citizens by an outside body, like the UN, is external and would not be controlled by the government, so it would be international, and not be domestic.

At the moment we can still pass resolutions that are funded by the UN taxing a nations government. Thats not stopped by the RIT because that resolution only covers how a nation deals with its own internal tax concerns. It doesn't stop an outside body, like the UN, imposing a tax on the nation.

The only thing stopping the UN, imposing a direct tax on a nations citizens is the Taxation Ban resolution. I just can't see how the RIT resolution would stop that as its focus is on internal national tax affairs only.

I personally think the Taxation Ban resolution is an important one because it protects the people of all UN nations from essentially paying taxes to two different bodies. One national and one international.

Of course I could well be reading the RIT wrong, but this is how I see the relationship (or lack of one) between the two resolutions. Perhaps when the author sees this thread, you'll get a better answer.

At the moment we can still pass resolutions that are funded by the UN taxing a nations government. Thats not stopped by the RIT because that resolution only covers how a nation deals with its own internal tax concerns. It doesn't stop an outside body, like the UN, imposing a tax on the nation.

Apparently even that is not consensual, see Frisbeeteria's post below. Which makes me hate it even more.

You are probably right about not being redundant. So I will try a more direct aproach:

Repeal of UN Taxation Ban

The General Assembly of the UN,

NOTING that the only effect of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

ACKNOWLEDGING that collection of taxes from citizens, with due moderation and to fund essential international projects, can be in the best interests of UN member nations, and

RECOGNISING that any Resolution regarding such taxation would need to be approved by the General Assembly of the UN, thus being a legitimate expression of the collective will of UN member nations,

REPEALS UN Taxation Ban

Apparently even that is not consensual, see Frisbeeteria's post below. Which makes me hate it even more.

You are probably right about not being redundant. So I will try a more direct aproach:

Repeal of UN Taxation Ban

The General Assembly of the UN,

NOTING that the only effect of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

ACKNOWLEDGING that collection of taxes from citizens, with due moderation and to fund essential international projects, can be in the best interests of UN member nations, and

RECOGNISING that any Resolution regarding such taxation would need to be approved by the General Assembly of the UN, thus being a legitimate expression of the collective will of UN member nations,

REPEALS UN Taxation Ban


Sorry, but I couldn't support this in any way, shape or form because it not only leaves the door open to the UN directly taxing my citizens, it promotes the idea.

I would much rather see this resolution left alone, and a proposal put up that requires all UN member governments to pay a fair set membership dues type thing.

Repealing resolution 4 does no more to inspire the UN to directly tax member states' citizens than repealing resolution 60 (UCPL) does to promote communism. At least, that is the finding of the government of Krioval.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

Sorry, but I couldn't support this in any way, shape or form because it not only leaves the door open to the UN directly taxing my citizens, it promotes the idea.

I would much rather see this resolution left alone, and a proposal put up that requires all UN member governments to pay a fair set membership dues type thing.

Read Fris's post - this is impossible as long as Res 4 is in place just due to misconceptions/interpretations.

It may not inspire it, but it still allows for the possibility of it happening which is not something I'll aprove or vote for. The most regretable thing out of all of this is that Frisbeeteria's earlier statement about a similar, well thought out and explained resolution not having a chance of making it untill this is repealed. What we really need is a means of amending the earlier one. It would make things a thousand times more simple. No need to crucify me, I know we're not getting it.

It may not inspire it, but it still allows for the possibility of it happening which is not something I'll aprove or vote for.

Is anybody else worrying that this resolution has absolutely no effect in the world? If we condone resolutions which exclusively forbid the UN from passing other resolutions, we are just red-taping the general assembly.

If this is repealed and someone puts forth a proposal including taxation, I would be very careful before supporting it, as you are. But I would prefer to judge it on its own merits and vote it, rather than dismissing it on technicalities before it reaches the floor. Doing otherwise is anti-democratic and unworthy of the UN.

I would be happy to rephrase the last two points so that they stop sounding like an endorsement. That was not my intention anyway.

Is anybody else worrying that this resolution has absolutely no effect in the world? If we condone resolutions which exclusively forbid the UN from passing other resolutions, we are just red-taping the general assembly.

If this is repealed and someone puts forth a proposal including taxation, I would be very careful before supporting it, as you are. But I would prefer to judge it on its own merits and vote it, rather than dismissing it on technicalities before it reaches the floor. Doing otherwise is anti-democratic and unworthy of the UN.

I would be happy to rephrase the last two points so that they stop sounding like an endorsement. That was not my intention anyway.

If you are worried about resolutions forbidding future resolutions then the RIT resolution does that far better than UN Taxation Ban could ever hope to. Thats the main reason it was written, to stop anyone writing proposals that affect how a nation runs its tax system.

Others that do the same are..

Nuclear Armaments
United Nations Security Act.

Of the three, the only one I think should be repealed is United Nations Security Act because it has an enormous loophole which makes it practically worthless. Nuclear Aramaments I support 100% and RIT I'm pretty indifferent about but opposed at the time it was up for vote. However all passed resolutions do affect and restrict future resolutions in some way. For example the abortion resolution gives women the right to an abortion, so new proposals that try to restrict that right, by time limits ect, could run into problems.

I think peoples perceptions of what UN Taxation Ban can and/or can't do depends on how they read the resolution. I read it as written and accept what it says in black and white. Some people may look deeper than that and see more to it than I do.

You know, the text of this repeal sounds vaguely familiar. Not that I mind.

I read it as written and accept what it says in black and white. Some people may look deeper than that and see more to it than I do.
That's how I interpret it too, but i'm pretty sure others do read more into it than that. I'm still cautious/skeptical about the idea of repealing it.

That's how I interpret it too, but i'm pretty sure others do read more into it than that. I'm still cautious/skeptical about the idea of repealing it.
i agree too. i dont think the author had any hidden agendas when they wrote it, and is to be taken of face value. it simply states the UN cannot tax nations citizens directly. trying to read anything into that is like trying to read into the shapes Kiaonese Tea Leaves form in a tea cup

You know, the text of this repeal sounds vaguely familiar. Not that I mind.

Fonzoland humbly acknowledge being heavily inspired by the Repeal of "Protection of Dolphins Act" for the original draft, due to lack of fluence in "legalese" and inexperience in UN matters. The rewritten version is original. We apologise for the faux pas, and hope it will be accepted as a compliment on the excellence of that repeal.

If you are worried about resolutions forbidding future resolutions then the RIT resolution does that far better than UN Taxation Ban could ever hope to. Thats the main reason it was written, to stop anyone writing proposals that affect how a nation runs its tax system.

Others that do the same are..

Nuclear Armaments
United Nations Security Act.

I object to proposals that exclusively affect the workings of the UN, without mandating/encouraging countries to do anything else. And I believe the mods would object to Res #4 if it was proposed today, but I may be wrong.

RIT is clearly not like that, the other two are at least declaring the right of a country to do something, which is arguably affecting the countries. Of course any proposal restricts future resolutions by preventing contradicting statements from being made, and that is only fair, as long as it is not the only thing it does.

The government of St Edmund believes that we know a lot more about how our nation's economy works & what taxes our citizens would find acceptable than does the UN, that the same is probably true for most other nations' governments regarding their own economies & citizens, and that allowing the UN to impose direct taxation would therefore be not only a gross violation of national sovereignty but a serious mistake.

The government of St Edmund believes that we know a lot more about how our nation's economy works & what taxes our citizens would find acceptable than does the UN, that the same is probably true for most other nations' governments regarding their own economies & citizens, and that allowing the UN to impose direct taxation would therefore be not only a gross violation of national sovereignty but a serious mistake.

I don't want to repeal this resolution to encourage taxation, but only to permit debate on it, on a case by case basis.

St Edmund has the right to that opinion. If the majority of UN member states also believe that international taxation is a violation of national sovereignty and a mistake, then no resolutions would ever be passed supporting taxation, even after a repeal. The opinion of St Edmund would still be enforced by what, in my view, are more democratic means.

I would like to encourage anyone to suggest other failures of the resolution, beyond my arguments and the (rather strong) problems described by Frisbeeteria.

I don't want to repeal this resolution to encourage taxation, but only to permit debate on it, on a case by case basis.

St Edmund has the right to that opinion. If the majority of UN member states also believe that international taxation is a violation of national sovereignty and a mistake, then no resolutions would ever be passed supporting taxation, even after a repeal. The opinion of St Edmund would still be enforced by what, in my view, are more democratic means.

I would like to encourage anyone to suggest other failures of the resolution, beyond my arguments and the (rather strong) problems described by Frisbeeteria.

The problem I would see is that the UN has decidedly democratically that direct taxation of citizens is a sovereign right. One could argue that we should decide everything democratically: 'hot' issues like euthanasia, abortion, nuclear armaments. But, in each case, we have. We have democratically decided that international taxation is not needed, and not wanted.

Fonzoland humbly acknowledge being heavily inspired by the Repeal of "Protection of Dolphins Act" for the original draft, due to lack of fluence in "legalese" and inexperience in UN matters. The rewritten version is original. We apologise for the faux pas, and hope it will be accepted as a compliment on the excellence of that repeal.
Oh, I wasn't mad! When I said I didn't mind, I meant it. To be honest I don't get too hung up over the text of repeals. The only important part is the word "Repeals". I didn't even notice the similarities until last night. I like the wording of the rewritten version too, though I'm still leaning against voting for it.

The problem I would see is that the UN has decidedly democratically that direct taxation of citizens is a sovereign right. One could argue that we should decide everything democratically: 'hot' issues like euthanasia, abortion, nuclear armaments. But, in each case, we have. We have democratically decided that international taxation is not needed, and not wanted.

I never denied the democratic legitimacy of this resolution, or any other, as you will surely not deny my democratic right to propose a repeal. I was arguing about the evident (in my opinion) shortcomings the proposal has. Exclusively restricting democratic UN debate on an issue, even if that issue is considered outrageous, does not have any Social Justice consequences whatsoever in member nations.

Unlike in other issues, like the UCPL, removal of the proposal does not automatically expose countries to any of the risks the proposal is trying to prevent. These risks would be dependent on further resolutions, which could not pass before receiving close scrutiny.

Even firm defenders of Res #4 agree on (some) of its shortcomings, namely the possible twisted interpretation preventing the UN from taxing governments, which is arguably not part of the original intention, and have expressed desire to see a properly worded replacement. This is the reason I previously mentioned "preventing debate on technicalities."

Anyway, it seems like this is approaching campaign, rather than drafting. I will try to write a version less prone to partizan interpretations, and submit it.

Anyway, it seems like this is approaching campaign, rather than drafting. I will try to write a version less prone to partizan interpretations, and submit it.

Fair enough. Seeing as you have written off the possibility of debate, we will, as you say, have to move to campaigning.

you may like to know you're not the first person to try and repeal this.

I see UNR #4 as an important resolution which protects all nations (even the nation of Fonzoland) from harmful direct taxation attempts by the UN.

combined with Representation in Taxation they secure a nations sovereign right to tax its people and not have to worry about an outside tax.

If you feel that the UN needs money to fund its programs please note all resolutions are funded by the nation its being implented in, even Fonzoland.

Fair enough. Seeing as you have written off the possibility of debate, we will, as you say, have to move to campaigning.

It is not my intention to write off the possibility of debate, it just seemed that the opinions were getting extreme. There do not seem to be many suggestions to alter the text of the resolution, rather strong positions of fighting any repeal.

If there is will to prolong the debate, i will delay my submission accordingly. i will post a revised version shortly.

ooc: your wonderful irony did not go unnoticed ;)

It is not my intention to write off the possibility of debate, it just seemed that the opinions were getting extreme. There do not seem to be many suggestions to alter the text of the resolution, rather strong positions of fighting any repeal.

If there is will to prolong the debate, i will delay my submission accordingly. i will post a revised version shortly.

ooc: your wonderful irony did not go unnoticed ;)

That's because with any proposal, there should be a debate on whether it should be submitted at all. To my mind, and seemingly to other dissenters, you have not yet shown why removing it would be valuable. So, before I consider textual amendments, I have to consider the text as a whole. If someone submitted a draft on cardigan design, we would tell them it's not worthy of UN consideration; we would not immediately leap into a discussion on the merits of real wool over imitation. Equally, until you demonstrate a need to repeal it, I can't see how I could usefully add to a repeal proposal.

Incidentally, your logic that a repeal wouldn't impose a tax, but would merely open the possibility of tax proposals, which could be defeated, smacks rather of putting a gun in one's mouth, on the basis that it's only dangerous if the trigger is pulled. Why create that situation in the first place?

you may like to know you're not the first person to try and repeal this.

Thanks, that is useful.

If you feel that the UN needs money to fund its programs please note all resolutions are funded by the nation its being implented in, even Fonzoland.

Some programs, by their very nature, are not "implemented" in each country. Say one wants to create something like *tries to dream up an example* a UN International Civil Rights Court, and force nations to abide by it. Maybe I am wrong, but then the current options would be:
- Pretend it doesn't need funding;
- Ask countries to volunteer the money;
- Put a court in every country and tell governments to pay;
- Make it a commission of unpaid mystical beings.

I object to proposals that exclusively affect the workings of the UN, without mandating/encouraging countries to do anything else. And I believe the mods would object to Res #4 if it was proposed today, but I may be wrong.

RIT is clearly not like that, the other two are at least declaring the right of a country to do something, which is arguably affecting the countries. Of course any proposal restricts future resolutions by preventing contradicting statements from being made, and that is only fair, as long as it is not the only thing it does.

This resolution affects the workings of the UN only to protect the citizens of our nations from the UN. That makes it an important resolution in my opinion, but I'm not entirely against its repeal because many misread it. There would have to be a well written replacement ready to go before I'd ever consider supporting any repeal however.

The main thing that worries me is people wanting to impose direct taxation by the UN on citizens, as in this thread. Things are a bit confusing until about page 3 or 4, then the intention is made clear. You can see the other side of the mod coin in this thread as well....

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448806)

This resolution affects the workings of the UN only to protect the citizens of our nations from the UN. That makes it an important resolution in my opinion, but I'm not entirely against its repeal because many misread it. There would have to be a well written replacement ready to go before I'd ever consider supporting any repeal however.

The main thing that worries me is people wanting to impose direct taxation by the UN on citizens, as in this thread. Things are a bit confusing until about page 3 or 4, then the intention is made clear. You can see the other side of the mod coin in this thread as well....

Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448806)

Thank you for the link. I am encouraged by your open mind, and will put effort into making the repeal well written. I had prepared something, but now I will delay it until I read through that thread.

Incidentally, your logic that a repeal wouldn't impose a tax, but would merely open the possibility of tax proposals, which could be defeated, smacks rather of putting a gun in one's mouth, on the basis that it's only dangerous if the trigger is pulled. Why create that situation in the first place?

No. If I had said "I believe any non-voluntary fund-raising by the UN is wrong, any yet repealing Res #4 does not have any problems," then your gun metaphore would be correct. What I actually said is that, although I agree with the principle of non-taxation in most circumstances, I can also envisage situations where this principle should be abandoned for the greater good. I would probably support an act imposing pollution quotas and imposing penalties (a pollution tax) to countries who exceed their quotas.

A better story involving weapons would be:
We impose a law which forbids any citizen from stabbing another one with a knife. After a while, we realise that this is unfortunately preventing doctors from performing surgery. In a situation where it is still illegal for anyone to stab me against my will (hence my point about approval by the General Assembly being required), I would prefer to have that law repealled. I would still be protected against muggers in the street.

Repeal of UN Taxation Ban

The General Assembly of the UN,

NOTING that the only effect of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

RECOGNISING its ambiguity, which has allowed it to be viewed as encompassing and expressly forbidding most types of non-voluntary fund-raising by the UN, in contradiction with the apparent original intention of the author,

ACKNOWLEDGING that this ambiguity severely limits the UN fund-raising capability, and thus its ability to implement and support essential supranational projects,

RECOGNISING that any such projects would require previous approval by the General Assembly of the UN, thus being a legitimate expression of the collective will of UN member nations, and

DECLARING that any such projects should be individually judged on their cost and benefits, rather than dismissed on the basis of Resolution #4,

REPEALS UN Taxation Ban

_____________________

OK, fire away!

NOTING that the only effect of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

So, in line with established precedent, then. Proposal categories are awkward. The resolution has not been ruled illegal by the moderators, to my knowledge, so it is implicit that arguing it is in the wrong category is something of a dead end. As has been pointed out, both Nuclear Armaments and UNSA do not mandate any increase in defence spending; they simply preserve that right. Equally, the taxation ban does not actively reduce income equality or increase basic welfare, but it frees up personal and government funds, which could then be spent on welfare.

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

The motivation for its mandate is irrelevant. We go by the letter of the law, not the intentions of its author.

RECOGNISING its ambiguity, which has allowed it to be viewed as encompassing and expressly forbidding most types of non-voluntary fund-raising by the UN, in contradiction with the apparent original intention of the author,

Again, irrelevant. We can't repeal worthwhile legislation on the basis that some people might interpret it incorrectly. The UN has already passed resolutions that contain compulsory funding requirements. They have not been declared illegal. Therefore, they are not in violation: the taxation ban does not prohibit non-voluntary fund-raising by the UN.

ACKNOWLEDGING that this ambiguity severely limits the UN fund-raising capability, and thus its ability to implement and support essential supranational projects,

No, it doesn't. Because the UN can impose a 110% tax on member nations.

RECOGNISING that any such projects would require previous approval by the General Assembly of the UN, thus being a legitimate expression of the collective will of UN member nations, and

True.

DECLARING that any such projects should be individually judged on their cost and benefits, rather than dismissed on the basis of Resolution #4,

That sounds suspiciously substantive. In any case, resolutions have already been approved - and are thus legitimate expressions of the collective will of UN member nations - which call for compulsory funding. As such, it is doubtful that projects that did just that would be dismissed.

While we appreciate the good work of the honorable representative of Fonzoland on this repeal, we cannot support it.

We believe that NSUN Resolution #4 is perfectly clear and unambiguous:

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

It bars the NSUN from directly levying taxes on individual citizens of member nations. That's all it does. Period. Anyone who tries to read more into it than that is blindly grasping at nonexistent straws.

We further believe that the effect of the resolution is valid. The NSUN has no business reaching down into local communities to tax individual citizens.

As the honorable representative pointed out earlier, it would be possible to repeal this resolution and then debate the issue each time a resolution proposed such a tax scheme. But why should we be forced to cover the same old ground over and over again?

We believe that NSUN Resolution #4 is a worthwhile resolution that should remain in force.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

It bars the NSUN from directly levying taxes on individual citizens of member nations. That's all it does. Period. Anyone who tries to read more into it than that is blindly grasping at nonexistent straws.

This point has been raised often in this post, and I confess I am getting confused. I agree with this interpretation and, apparently, everyone else posting here does too. However, I read Frisbeeteria's post as indicating that any resolution implementing a UN tax on governments would probably be deemed illegal by the "powers that be."

If this is the case, then we should be treating this resolution as a de facto ban on all taxation, independently of our personal interpretations. If it is not, I would appreciate some clarification from more experienced members.

Repeal of UN Taxation Ban

The General Assembly of the UN,

NOTING that the only effect of UN Resolution #4, UN Taxation Ban, is limiting the scope of subsequent UN resolutions, thereby not reducing income inequality nor increasing basic welfare in any of the UN member nations, in violation of current rules for UN proposals,

REGRETTING the complete lack of motivation for its mandate,

RECOGNISING its ambiguity, which has allowed it to be viewed as encompassing and expressly forbidding most types of non-voluntary fund-raising by the UN, in contradiction with the apparent original intention of the author,

ACKNOWLEDGING that this ambiguity severely limits the UN fund-raising capability, and thus its ability to implement and support essential supranational projects,

RECOGNISING that any such projects would require previous approval by the General Assembly of the UN, thus being a legitimate expression of the collective will of UN member nations, and

DECLARING that any such projects should be individually judged on their cost and benefits, rather than dismissed on the basis of Resolution #4,

REPEALS UN Taxation Ban

_____________________

OK, fire away!

The awkward fiscal realities involved in running the U.N. have been determined by this resolution. It was enacted so that smaller nations would not have to bear an excessive burden from U.N. taxation, thus enabling a focus on implementing domestic legislation and U.N. acts and resolutions. Equally, given that the costs of U.N. resolutions fall on member nations to implement, it can be regarded as inhumane to levy additional funds.

Compadria gives 2.5% of its Budget (forming around 60% of GDP) per year to the U.N. We would not wish to enter into the horrendous legal and political difficulties involved in calculating a taxation rate for U.N. membership. The U.N., regardless, already receives adaquate funds, or has shown no sign of not having them at any rate.

Now, were we to enact a taxation rate, it would simply add to bureacracy and engender anger towards the U.N. More nations would leave and we'd end up worse off than were we began. Let's be realistic, it just isn't feasible to implement such measures.

Equally, I would note, the U.N. already puts forwards legislation and should not be distracted by the task of tax-collecting, which would place strain of an unnecessary nature on its resources.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I know this has already been addressed, but I'm going to raise it again: does OC2 of "Representation In Taxation" extend the same protection to citizens?

DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations...the determination of level, type (progressive, flat, etc.) and application of those taxes (who/what is and is not taxed)

If deciding who is and is not taxed remains an inviolable right of nations, then I don't see how the UN could tax citizens. If someone can provide further explanation, I'd be much obliged.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'd support a repeal anyway. Having two checks is not necessarily a bad thing.

I know this has already been addressed, but I'm going to raise it again: does OC2 of "Representation In Taxation" extend the same protection to citizens?

Since the issue has been raised again, I would ask the same question, and add for consideration the following points:

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:

The first clause I quote is not mandatory, but indicates the spirit of the legislation. The second one does seem like a mandatory clause against taxation above the government level.

While we absolutly don't question the good intentions of this repeal, we really think resolution #4 is an important one for the credibility of the UN, LAE doesn't want the UN to become greedy. LAE oppose repeals of #4.

While we absolutly don't question the good intentions of this repeal, we really think resolution #4 is an important one for the credibility of the UN, LAE doesn't want the UN to become greedy. LAE oppose repeals of #4.

And this is the point. Does RiT stop the UN from being greedy, regardless of the presence of the taxation ban?

I know this has already been addressed, but I'm going to raise it again: does OC2 of "Representation In Taxation" extend the same protection to citizens?



If deciding who is and is not taxed remains an inviolable right of nations, then I don't see how the UN could tax citizens. If someone can provide further explanation, I'd be much obliged.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'd support a repeal anyway. Having two checks is not necessarily a bad thing.

Our opinion is that "Representation in Taxation" could be construed as limiting the NSUN's ability to levy taxes. We don't believe that was the intent of the legislation. We see it as a prohibition against the NSUN legislating how an individual nation would tax its own citizens. We would defer to the author on this point, though.

Even if the resolution did place a limit on NSUN taxation, it is a limit that is very narrow in scope. The main operative clause ("2. DECLARES and PROTECTS...") applies only to "taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses". If you look at the definition of that term, it is a very restrictive one.

Resolution #4 provides a clearly defined and inclusive protection for citizens against being directly taxed by the NSUN. Resolution #128 does not. We maintain our opposition to the repeal of Resolution #4.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Shit. I hadn't spotted the word 'those'. Yes, you're right. Scratch all that.

And this is the point. Does RiT stop the UN from being greedy, regardless of the presence of the taxation ban?


LAE voted for RiT, and even supported it on the forum;)

Even if the resolution did place a limit on NSUN taxation, it is a limit that is very narrow in scope. The main operative clause ("2. DECLARES and PROTECTS...") applies only to "taxes or fees on domestic activities, items, and businesses". If you look at the definition of that term, it is a very restrictive one.
Yeah, that's what I was aiming for. Sort of a UNSA with a restrictive definition of what weapons were "necessary". I had to split the definition of the national rights and the declaration of them up into two clauses because the proposal's wordiness would've otherwise necessitated "giant anal sphincter" levels of clarification. And that's a rather unpleasant thought to me.

Now, the NSoT could probably have been interpreted as barring a lot of UN taxation legislation. I'm not sure whether that would extend to the UN instituting its own taxes upon nations or national citizens, but the NSoT was definitely more expansive than its replacement--and that's the reason I felt the replacement necessary.

Our opinion is that "Representation in Taxation" could be construed as limiting the NSUN's ability to levy taxes. We don't believe that was the intent of the legislation. We see it as a prohibition against the NSUN legislating how an individual nation would tax its own citizens. We would defer to the author on this point, though.Interesting. Does RiT stop the UN from "imposing or not imposing" taxes on "domestic activities, items, and businesses"? Lemme quote the entire "DECLARES and PROTECTS" clause: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 rate, general type (progressive, flat, etc.) and specific application of such taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);
The question is, who is “imposing or not imposing”? what’s the subject to that verb? If the subject to that verb is more universal (such as “protects the right to impose or not impose taxes”), then yes, I think this clause stops the UN from taxing domestics in nations.

However, I think a critical thing is examining the use of the word "their" in subclause (a). If we put it all together: "PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of nations: imposing or not imposing of taxes or fees on domestic activities...within their national boundaries". So it is the nation which is or is not “imposing…taxes…within their national boundaries”. To me, this seems to refer strictly to what the national government can do, rather than the absolute right to tax people. It seems to say “UN you can’t tell my national government to tax or not tax a certain way” rather than “only the national government can control taxes in a nation”, since it’s just protecting the right of “[nations] imposing or not imposing taxes”, not the right to impose or not impose taxes in general.

So, in theory, I think a UN tax committee/commission could be created to tax domestics things in a nation under RiT. If that answers any questions.

Yes, thank you, that does clear that up. Apologies if my earlier confusion was at all contagious.

OK, let me sum up my current view about this:

When I started this thread, I had the impression I was proposing something relatively consensual, due to my misinterpretation of RiT. At least, the last few posts allow me to believe that my error was not as trivial as initially suggested.

I don't like Res #4. I don't like its wording, potential ambiguities, category choice, and lack of real world implications. I disliked it even more after seeing the possible interpretation of some mods (which we all agree is knitpicking, but is relevant if enforced). I still believe the arguments I have presented thus far, and I think that even nations that have stated their position against this repeal have agreed on some of its shortcomings.

However, I do recognise the lack of support for this repeal, and I understand why everyone is sensitive about the issue. For the record, this was never intended as a way of opening the door for new taxes. I also did not intend to open such a "legalese" can of worms, which is mostly out of my reach: I am still not 100% sure of what either RiT or UN Taxation Ban allow or disallow.

Therefore, while I do want to see Res #4 repealed, I will let this sleep until such a time when a good replacement for it is drafted, and has some public support. I would be very pleased if someone else would take the initiative on this, but otherwise I will do it myself if/when I have time and pacience.

It is my hope that, in case a sensible draft is written, it will answer the concerns of the delegates who were kind enough to post their opinion here, and at the same time, clarify the rules of debate for UN financing issues.

Ausserland commends the distinguished representative of Fonzoland for his constructive attitude and courteous demeanor throughout this debate. We disagree strongly with his position on NSUN Resolution #4, but we appreciate having had the opportunity to hear and consider his views and those of the others who participated. We hope the honorable representative will turn his attentions to other matters and that we will see other proposals authored by him in the future.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

:headbang: :( :mad: :mp5: :sniper:

Look, I've tried to repeal the Tax Ban myself, but it's pointless. So I won't even look at your proposal...

:headbang: :( :mad: :mp5: :sniper:

Look, I've tried to repeal the Tax Ban myself, but it's pointless. So I won't even look at your proposal...

I would like to thank the wise delegate of Eranmane for his colorful, dismissive, and uninformed support. We look forward to equally thoughtful contributions in the future.

I'd draft a replacement, but I'm not sure what we're replacing. I don't see 'bans the UN from direct taxation of citizens' - in more specific language - as being either enough to justify a repeal and replacement, or necessarily legal. If you could give us an idea of the sort of replacement you'd be looking, we might be better served to help you. What would you think, for example, of including this as part of a general funding proposal?

I'd draft a replacement, but I'm not sure what we're replacing. I don't see 'bans the UN from direct taxation of citizens' - in more specific language - as being either enough to justify a repeal and replacement, or necessarily legal. If you could give us an idea of the sort of replacement you'd be looking, we might be better served to help you. What would you think, for example, of including this as part of a general funding proposal?

I would surely have no problems with your idea of a funding proposal, as your NatSov beliefs are stronger than mine. ;) My concept of an adequate taxation ban would include:

1. Banning direct taxation of citizens and companies (thereby removing one possible ambiguity) on the basis of their domestic activities, items, and businesses within their national boundaries, as defined in RiT.

2. Explicitly exempting from this ban taxation/fining of activities that the UN Assembly deems damaging to other nations, on the basis of due compensation for negative externalities. Whether this is considered a tax or a punishment is currently open to interpretation, and that is another ambiguity I would like to see removed. Internal law would not be enough, as the funds would have to be redirected to offended nations.

3. Reaffirming the right of the UN to impose taxation of governments (eventually in a progressive manner), for the following purposes only:
a) covering the costs of the basic UN structure
b) implementation of supranational projects or institutions, meaning resolutions which are not meant to be implemented by each individual member nation in their own country, yet still require funding.

2. Explicitly exempting from this ban taxation/fining of activities that the UN Assembly deems damaging to other nations, on the basis of due compensation for negative externalities. Whether this is considered a tax or a punishment is currently open to interpretation, and that is another ambiguity I would like to see removed. Internal law would not be enough, as the funds would have to be redirected to offended nations.

This is what I don't follow. We are banning the UN from direct taxation of citizens because in principle that is a Bad Idea TM. We can't then say "except when they're naughty". I still believe you are talking about a fine, which I believe:
the UN can already legally impose;
the UN can already legally collect.

This is what I don't follow. We are banning the UN from direct taxation of citizens because in principle that is a Bad Idea TM. We can't then say "except when they're naughty". I still believe you are talking about a fine, which I believe:
the UN can already legally impose;
the UN can already legally collect.

I think a fine is related to an illegal activity, while externality compensation does not make something illegal. Forgetting the international issue for a moment, at the national level you might impose taxes on:
- Tobacco (passive smoking, burdening of national health system)
- Gasoline (pollution)
- Congestion charges (traffic jams)
These are not meant to make eg smoking illegal, just to force smokers to "take into account" the damage to other individuals, and to provide reasonable compensation to non smokers (by making health care cheaper for them).

Now, if these externalities occur strictly within a nation, the government has the right to impose/not impose these taxes, as my first point and RiT both indicate. However, think about the following:

Country A has some important factories which pollute a river. The river flows into country B, which is damaged by that pollution. The optimal outcome (in an economic sense) is not acheived by forbidding the factories in A altogether, as they are also creating benificial economic activity. Imposing a suitable tax on that activity and directing it to B would reduce activity to "socially optimal" levels, by forcing the factories to consider the full costs and benefits of their activity. This cannot be done without international coordination, ie without a UN resolution in that direction.

I think a fine is related to an illegal activity, while externality compensation does not make something illegal. Forgetting the international issue for a moment, at the national level you might impose taxes on:
- Tobacco (passive smoking, burdening of national health system)
- Gasoline (pollution)
- Congestion charges (traffic jams)
These are not meant to make eg smoking illegal, just to force smokers to "take into account" the damage to other individuals, and to provide reasonable compensation to non smokers (by making health care cheaper for them).

Now, if these externalities occur strictly within a nation, the government has the right to impose/not impose these taxes, as my first point and RiT both indicate. However, think about the following:

Country A has some important factories which pollute a river. The river flows into country B, which is damaged by that pollution. The optimal outcome (in an economic sense) is not acheived by forbidding the factories in A altogether, as they are also creating benificial economic activity. Imposing a suitable tax on that activity and directing it to B would reduce activity to "socially optimal" levels, by forcing the factories to consider the full costs and benefits of their activity. This cannot be done without international coordination, ie without a UN resolution in that direction.

This is somewhat similar to a "Polluter Pays Principle", which someone was touting in the forums. That was submitted as a proposal (I believe more than once), and not ruled illegal/deleted. As such, one can only assume, for the moment, that it was legal. Its point was that funding was not collected by the UN, but required by the UN to be paid to the afflicted countries. I did not like that proposal, and there were many problems with it, but it illustrates the point that ideas similar to your scheme might be possible. By assessing the companues for a financial contribution towards repairing the damage, you are working towards a socially optimal balance.

I believe this is the right approach. Having the UN able to levy 'abstract' taxes, or collect funds for no fixed purpose, is not necessarily a good idea. I would much favour directional taxing (no idea if that's a real term), in the form of fines which must be paid to specific countries, or, ideally, specific projects. So in your example we could establish a water purity fund, and have companies with irresponsible disposable practices be forced to pay a percentage of their profits into this fund. I still consider such an approach legal under the Taxation Ban.

The thread you mention is clearly a fine, of the style "Environmental disasters are bad, bad things. You should try to avoid them, but if you don't, you have to pay."
However, it is part of many production processes (or consumption, but those tend not to have international effects) to pollute, for example, in a dirty, coal-burning power plant. As you suggested, suppose that, due to the international impact of air and water pollution, the UN wants to fund an environmental agency to research alternatives, clean up, treat diseases in affected countries, whatever. If the UN decided to impose a yearly contribution on all polluting agents, proportional to the measured emissions of given chemicals, would you still argue that this is a fine, rather than a tax?

In short: I am not convinced of the clear distinction between tax and fine. I am sure many would disagree with your position. Personally I am indifferent to the name, would call it a boring legalese discussion, and go outside to play. But I do worry about the ambiguity.