NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,
I have just proposed the repeal of UN resolution 4# - UN Taxation, and am looking for support.

Here is my argument.

Repeal "UN taxation ban"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #4


Proposed by: Reformists

Description: UN Resolution #4: UN taxation ban (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: WORRIED that this ban doesn't do enough to stop UN taxation - “The UN may not collect taxes DIRECTLY from any citizen.”

NOTING that the resolution bills itself as “A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.” – Whilst not even coming close to creating a solution.

SUGGESTING that this ban doesn't adequately say the UN is not allowed to collect any tax whatsoever.

SUGGESTING it is one extreme or the other, emergency taxing powers (on behalf of a Nation – e.g. a rebuilding Nation after War,) or none at all – neither of which Resolution 4# defines with clarity.

SUGGESTING it leaves the door open for back-door loophole taxation.
DEEMING UN taxation ban Void and in need of reform.
MINDFUL that it is in the interests of the United Nations to streamline and strike out superfluous and ineffective legislation;

SUGGESTING that this ban be repealed and re-legislated, allowing for emergency taxation on behalf of any member state.

RECOGNIZING the need for this legislation to be cleared up quickly

REPEALS Resolution #4: UN Taxation Ban

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 3 2006

NOTING that the resolution bills itself as “A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.” – Whilst not even coming close to creating a solution.
I don't think repeals are allowed to refer to the category of the original resolution, as an extension of the game-mechanics rules.

The problem is: your repeal is making an argument you agree, but which isn't an objective criticism. You are saying "it doesn't stop the UN taxing countries, so it's bad". I would say "it doesn't stop the UN taxing countries, so it's good". And I find a lot of your arguments difficult to understand. Could you summarise your basic point, or give an example of what the replacement would entail?