NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who are familiar with the UN resolutions, you know that there is presently a resolution calling for a ban on indirect taxes. I am now proposing a ban on indirect taxes.
It is called "Ban on Indirect Taxes".
As is stated in the resolution, it defines indirect taxes as a tax upon a nation, but not the people.

It also calls for UN funds to come in the form of dues, and not indirect taxation.

Please endorse this proposal: it will benefit the entire community.

It is considered polite to post the text of your proposal.
Ban on Indirect Taxes

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Sea Isles of Burgandy

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect indirect taxes from any of its members for any purpose. Indirect taxes are defined as taxes placed upon a nation, but not upon the people themselves. Funds to support the UN shall instead be collected in the form of dues.

I am a bit naive in matters of economics, but what exactly differentiates dues from taxes? In the end, won't the effect of either form of collection be, at its essence, a payment from a nation to the UN?

Yoshi Takahara
Director, International Affairs
Empire of Krioval

Read UN Resolution #4. Not to mention the fact that this contradicts every resolution that says it will collect a tax from nations.

We share the distinguished Director Takahara's naivete in economics and also his puzzlement over the difference between dues and taxes. We would also ask the honorable author to please explain why dues would be preferable to taxes.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"Are these 'dues' required of all nations? We certainly don't pay any now. If they aren't mandatory, let's call them 'donations'. If they ARE mandatory, then they are 'taxes'."

"Sorry, Burgandy, but I think you got a bit of Sea Isle spray on your glasses. Your eyesight and your logic are both a bit foggy. Here you are, sir ..."* passes an expensive embroidered silk hanky to the Sea Isles rep * "... why not spend a moment clearing your eyes before explaining the difference to the assemblage. We're all a-twitter in anticipation."

MJ Donovan
CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria

Read UN Resolution #4. Not to mention the fact that this contradicts every resolution that says it will collect a tax from nations.
"Sir, I beg to differ. This isn't against Resolution #4, it is in fact complementary to it. As for the others, cite chapter and verse, if you would. I don't believe any other resolutions specifically state that they tax nations directly."

"Mind you, I don't think this legislation is worth the electrons necessary to view it on my panel, much less the paper to print it on. Nonetheless, your argument has as as many holes as the swiss cheese in the refectory, and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged."

* Donovan sits back down *

Read UN Resolution #4. Not to mention the fact that this contradicts every resolution that says it will collect a tax from nations.

The author of the proposal obviously has read UN Resolution #4. It is the resolution to which he alludes in his initial post. Resolution #4 prohibits the UN from directly taxing citizens of member nations. It does not prevent the UN from levying taxes on the nations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"Sir, I beg to differ. This isn't against Resolution #4, it is in fact complementary to it.
That's what I meant. In combination with resolution #4, this would outlaw all taxes by the UN.
As for the others, cite chapter and verse, if you would. I don't believe any other resolutions specifically state that they tax nations directly.
Resolution #85 effectively taxes nations, as it forces them to pay money to farmers via UN channels.

That's what I meant. In combination with resolution #4, this would outlaw all taxes by the UN.

And how would the U.N. fund itself without membership dues (which would probably be viewed as a form of taxation)?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Resolution #85 effectively taxes nations, as it forces them to pay money to farmers via UN channels.

No, #85 is optional, and is nothing to do with membership taxes.

No, #85 is optional, and is nothing to do with membership taxes.
Darn. I didn't see the "may", I just went straight to the numbered clauses, which are usually the operative ones. :headbang:

Oh, this is amusing...

I have a question, actually, which relates to this proposal. This sort of thing - and also, the one in the list about banning the UN from taking land (eminent domain) - is legal? How does it not count as 'prohibiting the UN from a future action'.

And how would the U.N. fund itself without membership dues (which would probably be viewed as a form of taxation)?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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


LAE position is to contain the UN budget pretty small.

But it's obvious, as compadria said, that the UN need money for the UN building and also for some passed resolutions which have created UN services.
Maybe also to pay the Gnomes, or are they benevolant?

So we think the question is relevant how does the UN get his money?
Please forgive me if the answer is in the FAQs

LAE position is to contain the UN budget pretty small.

But it's obvious, as compadria said, that the UN need money for the UN building and also for some passed resolutions which have created UN services.
Maybe also to pay the Gnomes, or are they benevolant?

So we think the question is relevant how does the UN get his money?
Please forgive me if the answer is in the FAQs

It doesn't. If it does, then it's by some gnomic creation I've never been aware of. This is why Sophista once tried a UN Funding Act, which I briefly had a stab at resurrecting. People, though, were perhaps unsurprisingly unwilling to pay for something they were already getting for free.

It doesn't. If it does, then it's by some gnomic creation I've never been aware of. This is why Sophista once tried a UN Funding Act, which I briefly had a stab at resurrecting. People, though, were perhaps unsurprisingly unwilling to pay for something they were already getting for free.

So maybe, in the same manner as the UN building is magical, then UN funds are magical, great :p

I always thought the UN Gnomes snuck into our offices at night, stole all the paper clips, then sold them on the black market to fund the UN.

I support the idea of this proposal. I don't support it as written however.

I have said in other threads that I do support a dues type system for funding the UN. I don't see dues as a tax. For example when a person pays their yearly dues to a golf club, they are paying green fees, not a golf tax.

The dues part of the proposal really needs to be fleshed out and explained a lot better than it is now, especially since that is going to be pretty much the only funding the UN is going to get if something like this proposal ever passes.

I am a bit naive in matters of economics, but what exactly differentiates dues from taxes? In the end, won't the effect of either form of collection be, at its essence, a payment from a nation to the UN?

Yoshi Takahara
Director, International Affairs
Empire of Krioval

That's a good question Yoshi. A tax inherently is something that is collected mandatorily by a government in exchange for services. For example, income taxes and sales taxes. A due is something that is paid by volunteer from one organization to another organization. For example, swim club dues.

For the purposes of this resolution, the idea is to eliminate indirect taxes. We can do that, and have dues at the same time, without being contradictory.

We share the distinguished Director Takahara's naivete in economics and also his puzzlement over the difference between dues and taxes. We would also ask the honorable author to please explain why dues would be preferable to taxes.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

To put it simply, a due is a fee paid for a rendering of services. For example, you might pay dues to your swim club or your bowling league. A tax is something mandatorily collected by a government.

"Are these 'dues' required of all nations? We certainly don't pay any now. If they aren't mandatory, let's call them 'donations'. If they ARE mandatory, then they are 'taxes'."

"Sorry, Burgandy, but I think you got a bit of Sea Isle spray on your glasses. Your eyesight and your logic are both a bit foggy. Here you are, sir ..."* passes an expensive embroidered silk hanky to the Sea Isles rep * "... why not spend a moment clearing your eyes before explaining the difference to the assemblage. We're all a-twitter in anticipation."

MJ Donovan
CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria

Semantics are a beautiful thing sir. I guess you could call them whatever you wanted, but that's really up to you.
And to be totally honest, I would normally expect somewhat more mature, useful remarks from a moderator than the ones you've left here. Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread?

That's a good question Yoshi. A tax inherently is something that is collected mandatorily by a government in exchange for services. For example, income taxes and sales taxes. A due is something that is paid by volunteer from one organization to another organization. For example, swim club dues.
I don't know about you, but I pay club dues for the privilege of using their facitlites. Sounds to me exactly like "something that is collected mandatorily by a government in exchange for services".

I would normally expect somewhat more mature, useful remarks from a moderator than the ones you've left here. Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread?
I had several substantive comments which I placed in the context of a pair of in-character posts. You blew them off as "semantics". I thought I'd give you the chance to defend your position. You've failed at that so far.

You're saying that taxes are forbidden, and then propose collecting "dues", which I and several others demonstrated were effectively the same thing as taxes. Semantically speaking, your proposal is a massive contradiction and should probably be deleted on that basis alone.

Give me a reason to NOT delete this. I haven't seen one yet.

Semantics are a beautiful thing sir. I guess you could call them whatever you wanted, but that's really up to you.

Might be a good idea to define the difference between the two in the resolution.

I suspect the intended difference was that dues have a fixed value [although this might differ from member to member] whereas taxes' levels can be varied at will by the collecting government or [in this case] the UN.

I don't know about you, but I pay club dues for the privilege of using their facitlites. Sounds to me exactly like "something that is collected mandatorily by a government in exchange for services".

Actually that's a good point. The difference, however, lies within the nature of the entity collecting money. You can't exactly decide not to pay taxes, but you can decide not to pay dues to an organization. Just think of it this way: you don't pay "dues" to the government, and you don't pay "taxes" to your golf club. But when it comes down to it, the more important issue is whether or not the UN should be allowed to collect indirect taxes. What's your take on that?

I had several substantive comments which I placed in the context of a pair of in-character posts.
I'm sure you have, but I doubt your work of art talking about you giving a hankercheif to my delegate was one of them.


You're saying that taxes are forbidden, and then propose collecting "dues", which I and several others demonstrated were effectively the same thing as taxes. Semantically speaking, your proposal is a massive contradiction and should probably be deleted on that basis alone.

No, because you disagree with my opinions does not allow you to censor what I write, even it you think it makes no sense. As long as it's relevant (which it is, since my proposal has been alive in the UN for days now, and it has not been deleted), it may stand on its own merit.

And you're right, they are "effectivley" the same thing, because they accomplish the same ends: raising money. But that doesn't mean that they areexactly the same thing. Maybe what I found off of Dictionary.com can help you understand the difference:

dues: A charge or fee for membership, as in a club or organization
tax:A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government
do you see the difference? tax implies that the amount collected is "required", and "dues" imply that that fee is levied because an entity wants to be a member of the organization, not because they have to.

Taking into account these definitions, a due would be a lump sum that the government would be asked to pay. Using a real-world analogy, but only to clarify, real governments have to pay dues to the United nations. A tax would be something levied by the UN to tax commerce and money. A due would be to say "you owe $5000, write us a check and leave it in the budgeting office", a tax would be "you owe $5000, so we're going to place a 8% figure on your interstate commerce, a 2% tax on income", etc.

But in reality, this is all aside the point. My resolution attempts to outlaw indirect taxes. These taxes are defined by economists and historians as taxes not placed directly on the consumer. i.e., tarriffs.

OOC:

Just because a proposal isn't deleted doesn't make it automatically legal. Granted, most are fine, but those of questionable legality sometimes don't attract a moderator's attention before they expire. Just something to keep in mind.

IC:

The government of Krioval would ask that the author of this proposal please expand the definitions of "taxes" and "dues" in the proposal itself, and possibly include a section describing how the proposal would actually affect how money flows into the UN.

Yoshi Takahara
Director, International Affairs
Empire of Krioval

Actually that's a good point. The difference, however, lies within the nature of the entity collecting money. You can't exactly decide not to pay taxes,
Yes you can. Leave the country. Or the UN, in this case

tax implies that the amount collected is "required", and "dues" imply that that fee is levied because an entity wants to be a member of the organization, not because they have to.
"Implies"? I don't think we need to argue semantics.

Taking into account these definitions, a due would be a lump sum that the government would be asked to pay. Using a real-world analogy, but only to clarify, real governments have to pay dues to the United nations. A tax would be something levied by the UN to tax commerce and money. A due would be to say "you owe $5000, write us a check and leave it in the budgeting office", a tax would be "you owe $5000, so we're going to place a 8% figure on your interstate commerce, a 2% tax on income", etc.
That's not how you defined it in the proposal, but I see your point here. But this is sort of forbidden in Resolution #4, which states that the UN cannot collect taxes directly from citizens. This (as I understand it) means that money cannot go directly from people to the UN. So this proposal isn't really necessary, unless I understand #4 wrong.

You can't exactly decide not to pay taxes, but you can decide not to pay dues to an organization.
This is not the real-world UN. There is no such thing as 'optional'. Anyone suggesting that a UN ruling of any nature is optional to members who don't want to participate will find their proposal deleted.
But when it comes down to it, the more important issue is whether or not the UN should be allowed to collect indirect taxes. What's your take on that?
I thought you would have picked that up from the tone of my earlier posts. I think it's a phenomenally stupid idea. The NSUN is a fantastically powerful entity in NS, and you want to cut off both direct and indirect sources of funding. Like it or not, when the UN passes something, it has an effect on your nation's economy. Passing such a law is like declaring pi=3. If it makes you feel good, do it in your own nation. A lot of us can see it as the sophistry it is.
No, because you disagree with my opinions does not allow you to censor what I write, even it you think it makes no sense. As long as it's relevant (which it is, since my proposal has been alive in the UN for days now, and it has not been deleted), it may stand on its own merit.
On the contrary, I have every right to remove it as "unworthy of the UN's attention" or any other legitimate reason. In fact, I should remove it right now for Category violation, as there is no way this fits the desciption of "Free Trade". The only reason I have not done so is that I'm an ethical human being, and I don't think it's fair to remove it after the way I've interacted with you in this thread. It's NOT legal. But it stays until one of the others notices it.

Maybe what I found off of Dictionary.com can help you understand the difference:
I was an economics major in college, and have spent several decades running my own businesses and working for other people. I don't need your patronizing dictionary definitions to know a tax when I see one.

You are making the arbitrary assumption that a tax must necessarily be indexed to some other figure, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. There are ample examples of non-indexed taxes, though they often have other names. If you buy a hunting license for $100, they don't care whether you shoot 1 or 20, as long as you stay under the legal limit. The money goes from you to whatever government agency collects it. It's a tax. It goes into the general funds, or may be earmarked so that it fills in for general fund requirements.

These taxes are defined by economists and historians as taxes not placed directly on the consumer. i.e., tarriffs.
This makes even less sense than the rest of it. Are you just pulling words out of books now? "A tax is not a tax if a historian defines it as such, i.e. tarriffs". WTF, mate?

Simple fact: NS is not set up to accurately reflect economic values and properties. You're not going to manage to shove this one into a category that make sense, and the one it's in won't work. Try your hand at something else for a while.

Taxes are compulsory charges collected by the government, or some other political authority. Dues are the price for a particular type of service, namely they are the amount paid for membership of some organisation/club.

Although it is surely debatable, I would put any compulsory contributions by citizens to the UN more in the first category. I see the UN more as a supranational political organisation than a service-providing club. However, I would not classify payments from a government to a supranational institution as either taxes or dues: I believe it would be more accurate to describe them as contributions (OOC: which is the term used in the EU budget).

In economics, direct taxes are those paid directly to the collector by the individual or company being taxed. The main examples are taxes on income, property, or profits. Indirect taxes are those paid to an intermediary, who then hands the money over to the government. Examples are VAT, stamp duty, or import tariffs.

I don't think the word directly is meant in the previous sense in Res #4. As such, I believe VAT and other indirect taxes would still be considered direct taxation of citizens, as opposed to national contributions. But since Res #4 is such a vague can of worms, I am not sure anyone can be sure.

This is not the real-world UN. There is no such thing as 'optional'. Anyone suggesting that a UN ruling of any nature is optional to members who don't want to participate will find their proposal deleted.


There is such thing as optional, if a resolution states it such. The nature of the UN is two things: 1. the nature of the game rules, and 2. the nature of the resolutions passed. Therefore, in theory, if a resolution was passed saying "you don't have to pay UN dues if you don't want to", then that would stick to the forms and customs of our hallowed halls. I'm not saying that dues would be optional: I just object to the UN being allowed to collect funds by taxing at its own discretion. I think the idea of it demanding a lump sum from each nation is a phenomenal idea.

I thought you would have picked that up from the tone of my earlier posts. I think it's a phenomenally stupid idea. The NSUN is a fantastically powerful entity in NS, and you want to cut off both direct and indirect sources of funding.


No I don't. As I clearly listed, I think the UN should collect money in the form of dues.

On the contrary, I have every right to remove it as "unworthy of the UN's attention" or any other legitimate reason.


Key word, of course, being legitimate. In my opinion, and I think any realistic interpretation of the rules would back me on this one, a moderator disagreeing with a proposal simply because they don't like it doesn't make it eligible for deleting.

In fact, I should remove it right now for Category violation, as there is no way this fits the desciption of "Free Trade".


That's fine with me. In fact, I probably need to change a couple things on it anyway, simply because discussing this with everyone has given me some useful insights. So, if you want to delete it, go right ahead.

As a sidenote, I think these categories need to be changed: it's difficult to fit stuff in sometimes.

I was an economics major in college, and have spent several decades running my own businesses and working for other people. I don't need your patronizing dictionary definitions to know a tax when I see one.

I didn't doubt for a second that you're a smart guy; I can tell that you are. The only thing that turned me off was your insult right at the start. But what I am saying is that I think I've defined the true difference between a due and a tax.

You are making the arbitrary assumption that a tax must necessarily be indexed to some other figure, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. There are ample examples of non-indexed taxes, though they often have other names. If you buy a hunting license for $100, they don't care whether you shoot 1 or 20, as long as you stay under the legal limit. The money goes from you to whatever government agency collects it. It's a tax. It goes into the general funds, or may be earmarked so that it fills in for general fund requirements.


Actually, I never mentioned the word "index" at any point in my argument, so i'm certainly not making that assumption at all. I know this isn't real life, but what I had in mind was something like the real UN: I think if you take a look at how it collects money (i.e. through dues), you will get the general idea of what I mean.




Simple fact: NS is not set up to accurately reflect economic values and properties. You're not going to manage to shove this one into a category that make sense, and the one it's in won't work. Try your hand at something else for a while.


Trying my hand at something difficult is by far more rewarding than trying my hand at something easy.