NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: The Nations of the UN,

NOTING while nations should retain their own soverignity and taxation rates and freedoms,

AGREEING with the original intention of the resolution to maintain those freedoms to stop the UN from carte blanche taxing individuals within soverign states,

CONCERNED that the UN cannot continue to afford things such as adminstration costs, and continuing oversight into resolutions or being able to raise funds to draft future resolutions or fund any costs of the resolutions,

CONCERNED as well that this could be interpreted to mean the UN can't gather funding from nations because most nations use direct taxation, so any money from nations could be argued indirectly as 'collecting taxes directly from citizens',

ASSURING that the UN can continue fiscally as well as a body of nations, and to assist legislation can be passed to assure funding for the UN,

NOTING that the nations of UN are capable of coming to a fair and decisive conclusion on fair taxation of nations to fund the UN august body with a minimum amount of impact to individual nations, and that such taxes shall not impede on the tax codes of individual nations or their soverignity,

NOTING as well that this 'Taxation Ban' can find well into any funding proposal and be authored to be understood in all fascets with no confusion,

AGREEING with the premise as a part of the UN, all nations shall contribute to its well-being,

Repeals Resolution #4, UN taxation ban.

In addition to the above remarks, might I add the one sentence proposals are particularly vague because it doesn't tell the UN what to do or what the UN is permitted to do, and this one is particularly subject to interpretation, and can be housed in any UN fincaning bill, which the UN needs badly.

-Alex Taurit, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, UN delegate, Ghostlin

I think this does an excellent job of explaining why the taxation ban should be repealed and how the current wording of the ban could cause it to prohibit actions that, in my reading, do not seem to be its intention to ban (i.e. collecting fees from member nations to finance an initiative or action--although not a direct taxation to each citizen by the U.N.).

I know repeal proposals for the ban have been submitted before, but this one I think is deserving of consideration by the assembly and hope it reaches quorum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His Very Royal Highness, Prince Dirk Koller, P.Aff.M.
Deacon Prince & Heir-Apparent of The Constitutional Monarchy of Relikmere
Head of Financial & Constitutional Affairs
Ambassador to the United Nations
Member in the Highest, Royal Order of the Deaconate

Before anything exciting happens, it should be stated that the official RL opinion (to my knowledge) of Number Four is that it bans the UN from taxing citizens of nations, not the nations themselves.

What Wolf Guardians said.

The UN Taxation Ban does not in any way prevent a UN funding resolution. Funding proposals incorporating member nation fees have been considered in the past, have been deemed legal, and objections based on supposed "contradictions" of this resolution have been laughed off the GA floor.

As it is, UN Resolution #4 is in our view an essential buffer against UN tyranny, and the Federal Republic would be categorically opposed to its repeal.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

We're sorry, but we could not support this repeal. Meaning no disrespect to our new colleague from Ghostlin, but the repeal's argument is based on a misinterpretation of the very clear language of the resolution in question:

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

This does not in any way prohibit the UN from collecting revenues from nations or organizations. It prohibits only the direct taxation of citizens. The example cited by the representative in the second CONCERNED clause is one in which the UN is directly taxing the nations. It is the nations that are directly taxing the citizens. You can't indirectly directly tax someone.

This has been discussed, debated, and decided several times in this Assembly, before the honorable representative joined us. We applaud his concern and his effort, but, in this case, it's misdirected.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I say Existing reality does not support this bill. True, in many countries the people are the government. However, the UN, to obtain taxes, taxes the governments, and indirectly, not directly, taxes the citizens of the country.

I know that will win many votes, however, those wishing to vote that way should really read that last paragraph.

-Nobah D. Cares
UN ambassador
The Rogue Hodgepodge of Existing reality

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w107/Cookesland/chris-crocker-2.jpg

Yeah, anyways we feel you may have misinterpreted the wording of Resolution #4.

We are vehemently opposed to the UN collecting taxes from our citizens directly so we cannot and will not support this repeal. Have a nice day!

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Repeal BAD!!! UN Taxation Ban GOOD!!! Why Ghostlin people want UN to tax Glog people? Tax bad. UN tax MORE BAD!!!

Glog Firemaker, son of Glog Crushdogskullwithrock
UN Ambassador

Indeed.

CONCERNED as well that this could be interpreted to mean the UN can't gather funding from nations because most nations use direct taxation, so any money from nations could be argued indirectly as 'collecting taxes directly from citizens',Directly taxing citizens means just that: the UN directly taking the money from individual citizens. Taking money from nations is not directly taking it from citizens, even though the nation has taken it from said citizens.

For a real world example, look at the real UN. It is funded by "donations" by member nations. Those nations get their UN money from tax pools. Your country is directly taxing you, and then handing it over to the UN. What Resolution 4 bans would be akin to Ban Ki-moon sending you, personally, a bill.

The Wolf Guardians;13082022']Before anything exciting happens.

We are still talking about tax aren't we, only it seems that someone has mislaid the word 'exciting'? Anyone wish to claim it?

"Sarcasm, my dear sir. Have a pint."