NationStates Jolt Archive

Green taxes enactment is of essential importance nowadays.
The result is that we will create a tax system that encourages resource depletion and discourages investments in machinery and labor...such taxes have been used for two primary purposes:

* to generate revenue to pay for damages created from past pollution and for measures to reduce future pollution

* to change behavior

A third type of green tax has been also gaining visibility. It combines a significant pollution tax with a major restructuring of the tax system to make the overall economy more efficient. This process is called "tax shifting". These taxes are used to generate revenue to pay for the damages and cleanup costs from pollution and to pay for measures to reduce future pollution.A portion of this money can be used to finance recycling and waste minimization programs and to provide loans and grants for recycling businesses. Another portion goes to close down polluting landfills.
Greeen taxes will include:

1)An additional 17% tax on toxic chemicals.

2)An additional 25% tax for tobaccos. (These funds are used to finance aggressive public education programs and nicotine addiction treatment programs as well as to pay for health costs associated with tobacco use.)

3)Environmental costs ranging from 0.07 to 0.29 USD per kWh, depending on the type of plant and the type of fuel. In all nations utilities must include these environmental costs when choosing the least expensive source of additional electricity.

4)Prohibit the use of once-through water systems in Cities after 2012 and immediately raise the price of using once-through water 125% for commercial users and 50% for non-profits and schools.

5)2,5% of the value of each product recycled will be returned from the municipality.This will be checked by special staff.

6)50% of current taxes will be replaced by a tax based on environmental criteria which will include electricity spending, gas spending and garbage produced that each person contributes annualy.

And 7)People that spent less than the national average of energy, gas, and garbage production during the previous year will be free from taxation for the triple sum of money than the rest.(e.g. if the untaxed limit is 20.000USD, it will be 60.000USD for them for the year coming!)

In the future this shift can be also added on current green taxes, resulting on a more realistic, fair and representative tax system that will lead societies to higher standards of living.Any suggestion to this direction is of great value and will contribute to the effort being done to save our planet and improve our lives.

OOC: It would probably be advisable for you to read the rules for writing proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before continuing. One of those rules is that proposals are illegal if they contradict any resolution that is already in force... and its so happens that Resolution #128 'Representation in Taxation' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129) makes setting tax levels a matter to be decided at the national level rather than by the UN...

In addition, you should seperate drug use from the current proposal. They are not linked.

[B]
* to generate revenue to pay for damages created from past pollution and for measures to reduce future pollutionWe feel individual nations and the worlds they live in need to deal with this as they see it a problem to them not the UN set policy on issues that for some have been solved just because others are still in the 'dark ages of humankind' and have not come into the 'new world order of light'.

* to change behavior This will change nothing those who are rich will simply remain rich while the poor remain poor.. all in time will kill themselves...

We think that by this:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #4
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 UN will have no powers to enforce this if members don't comply with it since the UN can't under it's own resolution collect taxes on members.. directly and since the only ones that can serve to enforce resoltions are the UN ghomes then there is nobody to enforce it or collect taxes for the UN or distribute those taxes or even decide who pays what... and if the ghomes are collecting taxes on members then it means the UN is directly collecting and getting those taxes and thus not legal for them to do so..

Green taxes enactment is of essential importance nowadays.
The result is that we will create a tax system that encourages resource depletion and discourages investments in machinery and labor...such taxes have been used for two primary purposes:

* to generate revenue to pay for damages created from past pollution and for measures to reduce future pollution

* to change behavior

A third type of green tax has been also gaining visibility. It combines a significant pollution tax with a major restructuring of the tax system to make the overall economy more efficient. This process is called "tax shifting". These taxes are used to generate revenue to pay for the damages and cleanup costs from pollution and to pay for measures to reduce future pollution.A portion of this money can be used to finance recycling and waste minimization programs and to provide loans and grants for recycling businesses. Another portion goes to close down polluting landfills.
Greeen taxes will include:

1)An additional 17% tax on toxic chemicals.

2)An additional 25% tax for tobaccos. (These funds are used to finance aggressive public education programs and nicotine addiction treatment programs as well as to pay for health costs associated with tobacco use.)

3)Environmental costs ranging from 0.07 to 0.29 USD per kWh, depending on the type of plant and the type of fuel. In all nations utilities must include these environmental costs when choosing the least expensive source of additional electricity.

4)Prohibit the use of once-through water systems in Cities after 2012 and immediately raise the price of using once-through water 125% for commercial users and 50% for non-profits and schools.

5)2,5% of the value of each product recycled will be returned from the municipality.This will be checked by special staff.

6)50% of current taxes will be replaced by a tax based on environmental criteria which will include electricity spending, gas spending and garbage produced that each person contributes annualy.

And 7)People that spent less than the national average of energy, gas, and garbage production during the previous year will be free from taxation for the triple sum of money than the rest.(e.g. if the untaxed limit is 20.000USD, it will be 60.000USD for them for the year coming!)

In the future this shift can be also added on current green taxes, resulting on a more realistic, fair and representative tax system that will lead societies to higher standards of living.Any suggestion to this direction is of great value and will contribute to the effort being done to save our planet and improve our lives.



This is very similar to what my friend and i are trying to pas and i think it a great idea. Just though i'd say that

No. No no no. Number Four states the UN will not directly tax the citizens of its member nations. It can tax the governments of member nations. So, if it tried to implement a sales tax, that would not fly. Taxing the nation as a whole, however, is fine.

That aside, that's quite what appears to be happening in this proposal. You can't do that. The UN has no power to tax citizens, and shouldn't go mucking about in individual government's tax schemes, if that's what you're implying, as per St Edmunds' comment.

The Wolf Guardians;13545386']No. No no no. Number Four states the UN will not directly tax the citizens of its member nations. It can tax the governments of member nations. So, if it tried to implement a sales tax, that would not fly. Taxing the nation as a whole, however, is fine.

That aside, that's quite what appears to be happening in this proposal. You can't do that. The UN has no power to tax citizens, and shouldn't go mucking about in individual government's tax schemes, if that's what you're implying, as per St Edmunds' comment.
In addition to taxes being effected by this it intrudes in a nations right under R171 to set it's own eduction when it gets into this:

2)An additional 25% tax for tobaccos. (These funds are used to finance aggressive public education programs and nicotine addiction treatment programs as well as to pay for health costs associated with tobacco use.)As R171 leaves individual nations the right to set up its education system and finance it as it dems suitable and the UN has no say in it unless a past resolution has given it to them before this one. And no such resolution yet passed gives them the UN any say on tobacco as subject of eduction, thus until R171 is repealed this part can't be enforced.

In addition to taxes being effected by this it intrudes in a nations right under R171 to set it's own eduction when it gets into this:
2)An additional 25% tax for tobaccos. (These funds are used to finance aggressive public education programs and nicotine addiction treatment programs as well as to pay for health costs associated with tobacco use.)As R171 leaves individual nations the right to set up its education system and finance it as it dems suitable and the UN has no say in it unless a past resolution has given it to them before this one. And no such resolution yet passed gives them the UN any say on tobacco as subject of eduction, thus until R171 is repealed this part can't be enforced.

Wouldn't that be more along the lines of Public Service Announcements not school courses?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Wolf Guardians;13545386']No. No no no. Number Four states the UN will not directly tax the citizens of its member nations..
We have been reminded by a brother of the General Council that if you remove the citizens of any nation from that nation then it is no more a nation. As the people are the nation not the nation a people or citizen. Thus taxes on a nation are taxes directly on its people or citizens.. any way one looks at it.

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Cavirra

Peter Fargon,
Minister of Domestic Affairs Cavirra

As for the question by the Honorable Flibble prior ask about Education as per R171. It to us leaves all forms of Education at any level up to individual nations so since the 'public' is the nation then how they are educated and what they are taught is up to the nation not the UN in any form as nations set that also not the UN. If we stick them in a mind machine and implant wisdom in their minds then we as a nation selected that as a means to educate our citizens, the public. If we implant chips so we can update their learning process then under R171 we have that right and can spend funds on it or use other means to educate our citizens, the public... the UN has no say in Education in any form or at any level.

Pffft. That's not the point. The point is its up to each nation to collect its own taxes. I know this to be a done deal, I've seen it get argued about. All philosophical arguments notwithstanding, the UN cannot send tax collectors to citizens' homes. Just their governments.

"Really, as written, there's just no way for this to work. I also disagree with hard-coding in tax percentages, as there's no way of knowing whether or not that will be not enough or too much in the future, or indeed for different nations. Prior Resolution contradictions aside, I think you'd be better off, unfortunately, to create a committee to essentially deal with the issue."

The use of very exact figures is a little troubling without any justification provided. 'Show your working' would be the injunction of some of my maths teachers (also 'Sam you have brain of cabbage'). I'm wondering how possible, in fact, it would be to make very precise revenue predictions, given how many nations there are in the UN, and the relatively current flux of its membership. Boring as it might seem, it might be better to grant, for example, the United Nations Environmental Agency discretionary authority to set and adjust rates. Bear in mind once the proposal is passed it would be very hard to adjust (it would necessitate a complete repeal and then a replacement for every change in rates).

I agree in excluding tobacco; for one thing, its inclusion might violate the UN Drug Act. There is no Universal Standard Dollar to which you allude, which creates an added complication. Not all nations operate a governmental structure commensurate with municipal authority. And clause 5 is particularly puzzling, especially given the UN has already encourage market policies in recycling (Resolution #158, "UN Recycling Commission"): value can't really be set in that way. I would also suggest policies relating to water have been covered by Resolution #222, "Water Quality and Conservation".

A green tax that might be very feasible would be a tax on airline fuel. This is necessarily international and would be easier to administrate.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I agree with the ambassador of Cavirra when she implied that the government is a representatives of its citizen. Besides, an enforcement of such resolution is not clearly defined, and as such, what happens if a nation refuse to pay taxes? Again, the ambassador of Cavirra raised a good point. We could clearly end up with a huge diplomatic crisis. Any attempt to tax a member of the UN would be most unwise, regardless of its intention.

The Kingdom of Pasier Rise takes great concern in environmental issues. Therefore, I agree with the ambassador of The Wolf Guardian, I think it would be a good suggestion for an International committee to encourage a global fight against environmental decline. This could be allow for easier sharing of resources, information, and technology among UN members as well as set up goals and provide clear guidelines.


Yours Sincerely,
On Behalf of His Majesty, Lord Asriel, King of Pasier Rise,
Ahmad Firdaus
Prime Minister of The Kingdom of Pasier Rise

I'm not debating this anymore. Nations cannot refuse to pay taxes; by being in the UN, the perfect UN gnome-bureaucracy WILL collect the taxes, whether the nation likes it or not. It is important to remember, however, that we do NOT infringe sovereignty to the point of collecting taxes from the citizens, which is what Resolution Number Four says. It's incredibly simple and one of the cornerstones of the UN, in my opinion. Yes, we're taxing the people by taxing the government, obviously. But we're NOT meddling with how the taxes are collected inside that nation. As stated, I'm not debating this anymore. It's been flogged to death, and THIS is the agreed-upon meaning.

Why should my country have to pay a tax for something we tax our own companies for in our nation? why should we pay taxes on oil and energy that we produce and use ourself? paying these taxes would hurt our nation by driving the cost to our people. it ould hurt growth of our nation and others.

Because by doing this you may harm the whole planet where I live too.
I wish people who pollute more could suffer more, but unfortunately those who suffer more are the weak and poor people all across the world...
I am sure that Bush :gundge: has a good AC and enough food and water!
That's why he is not interested in the problem...(and because he is so dump! :p)
Don't make the same mistake, please.
After all the proposal was good but inappropriate for this RPG and thus not voted from enough members.
Thank you all for discussing about it and giving advice.I am looking forward to reading a new Green Tax proposal which will be appropriate enough to be voted by more members.
:cool:

I am sure that Bush :gundge: has a good AC and enough food and water!
That's why he is not interested in the problem...(and because he is so dump! :p)Delicious irony of you misspelling "dumb" aside, please leave the real world politics in General.

I will do my best!