NationStates Jolt Archive

soooooo.... obviously this thread will be meaningless if the WA fails to pass..... which it wont. obviously, if Nassland wants to repass this, i tip my cap to him. However he does not exist currently, so i doubt that will happen. i believe this should be the first thing passed, and was a keystone of the UN.

without further ado i propose the following.

The World Assembly

BEING a World Government ruling only with the consent of member States,

COGNIZANT of State Sovereignty,

AWARE of vast economic differences between States,

EMPHASIZING the right of States to tax their own citizenry,

Hereby Declares:

The World Assembly shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the populace of any member state for any purpose.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note the preamble is written to try to eliminate/reduce the insane number of repeal attempts, the actual text is edited only to apply to the populace as many states have non-citizen population, and to be the WA.

Without at all commenting on the likelihood of there being an "after" today with regards to the WAAAAA, there are several problems with the thing you're proposing. One of which is an inherent flaw with regards to the original piece of legislation. It only bans the UN taxing a populace of a member state directly, but doesn't mention banning the taxation of a nation itself. It's an easily exploitable loophole that has yet to be closed. Also, "COGNIZANT"? Are we really that snobbish? Just say "realizing".

Later, calmer...

Well, I disagree anyway: I can think of two examples - a tax on forex transactions, such as that suggested by the Quodite economist James Nibot, and a tax on airline fuel - where the UN would be better placed than national governments to collect a tax. There are probably others. While I understand the general sentiment of what was Resolution #4, now would be a perfect opportunity to take advantage of its being shelved and tackle the issue of UN funding free from its encumberance, as well as deciding where international organizations might be better placed to levy taxes. If, that is, it is shelved; it is currently marked as 'World Assembly Resolution #4', making its status somewhat uncertain.

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

Also, "COGNIZANT"? Are we really that snobbish? Just say "realizing"."Cognizant" is a perfectly fine word, young man. "Realizing" on the other hand, has that certain atmosphere of having woken from a three-day drunk only to realize one knows not where they are, where the car is parked and that they haven't any pants.

As for the resolution, we cannot support it. Individuals of each member nation benefit from the good works of the (soon to be) World Assembly; they should pay for it. Besides, even at the pitiable rate of 0.25 terus per year, think of the cash that would roll into the WA coffers. We could finally afford that new coffee machine in the GTT lounge. Mr. Smithers wouldn't have to authorize the re-use of paper towels in the men's rooms. We could commission the addition of 30 or so floors (I suggest we name them the Gratwick Memorial Addition) and allocate officers to those poor delegates sharing the third stall in the 7th floor women's restroom.

Leetha Talone
...standing once again

If we're just going to instantly replace everything that was eliminated, could we at least have a touch of originality? This does nothing to clear up the potential confusion of the original.

Agreement, we must improve upon things. The WA must not be allowed to collect taxes from the citizenry directly, but it must be stated that taxes may still be collected from the governments of member nations.

"COGNIZANT"? Are we really that snobbish? Just say "realizing".

cognizant and realizing arent paradisaic synonyms. exiguous words are. word choice is asunder from the crux of the conundrum however.


We could finally afford that new coffee machine in the GTT lounge. Mr. Smithers wouldn't have to authorize the re-use of paper towels in the men's rooms. We could commission the addition of 30 or so floors (I suggest we name them the Gratwick Memorial Addition) and allocate officers to those poor delegates sharing the third stall in the 7th floor women's restroom.

screw the gnomes. let them work in cramped quarters.


It only bans the UN taxing a populace of a member state directly, but doesn't mention banning the taxation of a nation itself. It's an easily exploitable loophole that has yet to be closed.

Here, im not sure it is inherently obvious that a national tax ban is necessary. all nations have different methods of income, and it is concievable that there are nations whose populace has zero income to be taxed. The RL UN actually runs off of memberstate dues. but, what do people think?

about a WA tax on nations ban

about a WA tariff ban

about any other methods of WA income?

If we're just going to instantly replace everything that was eliminated, could we at least have a touch of originality? This does nothing to clear up the potential confusion of the original.

here was my train of thought: UN Taxation ban is good. Lets use it as the starting point for the debate over it. People frequently think it means you cant tax your own citicenry, so lets try to eliminate that in a preamble. Then lets see what people yell at me for.

i highly doubt the finished product will be all that similar to the original. I welcome your input for the sources of confusion (and anything else really). Should the preamble somehow spell it out better that you can tax your own citizenry? What other confusion surrounds the resolution/proposal?

The WA should never be allowed to tax any nations citizens, and we of the TMZ feel that taxing the nations themselves is improper as well. How about voluntary contributions? or a flat annual membership fee?

Ok, now that more things are heating up, anybody have improvements to make? So far its 2-2 on whether or not a national taxation ban should be included.

in light of other distant events, a rewrite is in order:

The World Assembly

Being a World Government ruling only with the consent of member States,

Cognizant of State Sovereignty,

Aware of vast economic differences between States,

Emphasizing the right of States to tax their own citizenry,

Hereby Declares:

That the World Assembly shall pass no poll tax on the populace of its members.

That the World Assembly shall pass no involuntary tax on its memberstates.

That the World Assembly shall levy no tariff on the trade between any states.

....................................................................

still looking for any other confusion that could be cleared up.

You really do get what you pay for.


I think the tax ban was what let a lot of bad legislation pass without much penalty, the last time around.


Let's start fresh. Let's make all new mistakes.

Let's start fresh. Let's make all new mistakes.

Y'know, I think I like that statement better than anything I've read since the Conversion. Well said!

I agree that it makes much more sense to create an annual membership fee for the Assembly.

The Dominion

The WA should not be able to tax nations or governments, instead relying upon donations and possibly an annual membership fee.

I think the tax ban was what let a lot of bad legislation pass without much penalty, the last time around.

i am extremely confused what you mean by this. how did it let anything bad pass? the previous ban only banned direct taxes on citizens. I never saw a resolution that taxed anything..... or even provided any money to fund committees....... or ever talked about funding of any kind..... This is the confusion id love to address if you'd elaborate

also you do get what you pay for. the "mystical beings" that ran the UN work for free. total running cost for the UN=0.

Id also like to say that i saw the taxation ban as the best piece of legislation the UN ever passed, simple, pure, brilliant. While so many of the early resolutions were repealed, the tax ban was one of four that survived from the first 20. I never saw any problems, or was confused by it. It was very simple, the UN couldnt tax citizens. It was like the Third Amendment to the US Constitution, straight out and simple. every other resolution was widely criticized and revamped, this one was perfect and stood. Im not trying to get it reinstated to get my name on a friggin board, im trying to get a tax ban on the friggin board. please suggest what you would change about my proposal. "Let's start fresh. Let's make all new mistakes." means nothing. I dont know what you mean by that: would you rather have membership fees, tariffs, no ban at all, a massive poll tax, what? should we mandate advanced finance for every proposal to cover its costs and create a WAccounting division? Im all about making fresh mistakes, but what is wrong about the tax ban? if you have a problem with my proposal, please tell me what it is.

it makes much more sense to create an annual membership fee for the Assembly.
thank you!

with that said, Decapod Ten has a tax rate currentlyl of 64% on its citizens. Frisbeeteria has no income tax (and id wager little if any tax at all), New Hamilton has 71% tax. If the WA passed a tax on citizens, it would raise tax rates, would this be a games mechanics violation?

i am extremely confused what you mean by this. how did it let anything bad pass?You never read the Proposal list, did you? The UN Taxation Ban was easily responsible for the majority of deleted Repeals because people just didn't understand it.

Roshavia votes no on this one. The WA is not a world government and any resolutions passed should not give it that power/status. It is simply a "cool kids club" where everyone agrees to play nice and work together to get things done, sort of like a neighborhood of kids building a treehouse.

If you would like to surrender your nation's government's power to an outside organization comprised mainly of foreigners, you can go form a large conglomerate nation. However, the Roshavian people refuse to allow an organization of easily bribed bureaucrats bully and bulldoze their way into Roshavian homes and wallets. The WA is and never will be a world government, and such powers as taxation can not and will never be granted to the WA for this reason alone. Although member nations are in fact bound to any resolutions passed, the WA remains and will always remain an international think tank and nothing more.

Please read the resolution again. I think you'll find that it restricts, rather than promotes, the ability of the WA to tax member nations.

Not even passed and already people are confused.

We have an opportunity to shelve this dreadful resolution, unless there is presented something which is substantially improved (and even then on sentiment I disagree) I think there is a consensus to table this.

The UN is gone. And so the old is out and the new is in. So why are you asking for old. Yes the UN is no more and the TAX BAN is out. But thats a good thing. Without a tax ban the WA can do so much more. We can truly change the world. So lets put the past behind us.

wow.......... ok....... i had read the old repeals...... and were baffled by them....... and figured that "Emphasizing the right of States to tax their own citizenry," would clear things up a bit...... perhaps my reading comprehension is at an 23rd grade level or something.......

Not even passed and already people are confused.
agreed and still baffled as hell....

rewrite.....

The World Assembly

Being a world government and IN NO WAY STOPPING NATIONAL SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO TAX YOUR NATION

Hereby Declares:

That the World Assembly shall pass no tax on the populace of its members.

That the World Assembly shall pass no involuntary tax on its memberstates.

That the World Assembly shall levy no tariff on the trade between any states.

Thus the World Assembly shall rely solely on voluntary contributions and donations for its funding.

..........................................................................
wow..... i never saw the confusing language on the old ban and that is hindering me now...... and i still dont see the confusing language and im quite hammered right now...... mustve been insane cleaning up those repeals that all said "why cant we tax our populace?" or whatnot....... goddamn.......

The WA is not a world government
The WA is and never will be a world government, and such powers as taxation can not and will never be granted to the WA for this reason alone.

agree and disagree at the same point....... i thought the entire point of my title, WA Taxation Ban would let you know that the entire point of the resolution is to restrict the abilllity of the WA to tax....... on the other hand the WA is precisely a world government and currently capable of passing almost any law, which willl perfectly bind its members to it................ for example, one of the first questions the game asks you is what currency you have, but as (i believe it was) The Most Glorious Hack has stated, it is possible for the UN/WA to create a world currency....... im hammmmmered...... im going to sleep nook.........

We will restate our objections. First, the WA is an organization membership of which is voluntary. It is as such perfectly reasonable to require membership fees because if a nation objects they can leave. There is no need to mandate only voluntary collection precisely because any such fee is in fact voluntary anyway! Furthermore, a doubly voluntary system introduces the likelihood of political corruption, as donor states - particularly those with cash to spare - fund agencies to their advantage, and defund agencies not to their advantage. A fund to help sustainable development, for example, might elicit little voluntary contribution given it would be seen as supporting economic competition to those nations most able to contribute. Hence while we will not necessarily endorse every funding proposal, we would prefer to at least discuss the possibility of one before ruling it out a priori.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC:also you do get what you pay for. the "mystical beings" that ran the UN work for free. total running cost for the UN=0.Ok. But can you at least accept some of us like to include an element of realism in our roleplays? This is not to mention potential WA services; for example, a new Global AIDS Initiative would cost money, regardless of the pay of its staffers. Funding is not an issue that can simply be ignored as inconvenient.

Later, calmer...

Well, I disagree anyway: I can think of two examples - a tax on forex transactions, such as that suggested by the Quodite economist James Nibot, and a tax on airline fuel - where the UN would be better placed than national governments to collect a tax. And how can this new WA tax airline fuel... as considering 3/4 of the nations that might use it are not members then it would add burden on members in regards to providing airtransportion for it people. As many buy fuel from nonmember nations at high prices already them would end up paying additional cost to the WA..

Only way around this is for nations to contract out airline services to nonmember nations then all they do is provide airports in the nation and people to man those airport. The duty of providing aircraft, fueling them, maintaining them becomes the duty of the nation contracted to do it. Then nations with an aircraft building business can sale aircraft to those who need them as well as parts for them. Never needing fuel as that becomes the duty of the user and buyer of the aircraft... a nation or business outside WA control. Also add the sale of associate equipment needed in this industry.. We build em, track em, repair em, you fly em... works for us...

Then define fuel for them, is it some weed one can smoke or oil based or nuke.. or some yet unknown source of energy that enables things to fly. How can the WA or UN be better at doing what many nations are experts at doing just look at what their citizens have left to live on from their pay..?

All this will do is drive the poor nearer their grave as all anyone is ever given as a right is to die and pay taxes..

Regardless of the re-write presented, Roshavia still votes "no" on this one. The WA simply is not a world government, and any resolutions passed should not grant it that type of power/status.

agree and disagree at the same point....... i thought the entire point of my title, WA Taxation Ban would let you know that the entire point of the resolution is to restrict the abilllity of the WA to tax....... on the other hand the WA is precisely a world government and currently capable of passing almost any law, which willl perfectly bind its members to it................ for example, one of the first questions the game asks you is what currency you have, but as (i believe it was) The Most Glorious Hack has stated, it is possible for the UN/WA to create a world currency....... im hammmmmered...... im going to sleep nook.........

It is not the actual proposal that is granting the WA world government status, but rather the one line, "Being a world government..."

This line alone grants Roshavia's undying support against this proposal because although the fact that the resolution would restrict the WA's power, at the same exact time it blatantly establishes it as a government. The WA is not a government. How it works is the member nations get together, decide on something that will benefit the large majority of nations, then all go home and pass identical laws around the globe at home. That's how it works; basically, the only way the WA has power is through each nation agreeing to uphold and pass laws it produces. It's an idea factory with no way to put the ideas into effect (and is essentially powerless) without member nations actually adopting WA ideas as laws at home, and as such proves that it is not a government. It has glaringly obvious restrictions as-is from this fact alone.

If I may ask something...

Can anyone point out what the final UN budget was? How much it cost to run?

If I may ask something...

Can anyone point out what the final UN budget was? How much it cost to run?

Nope, the gnomes wouldn't tell us before, and now all the records were destroyed with the building.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Nope, the gnomes wouldn't tell us before, and now all the records were destroyed with the building.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

This being the case, how can anyone expect us to send taxpayer money to an agency that will not provide us records on how this money is being spent?

This being the case, how can anyone expect us to send taxpayer money to an agency that will not provide us records on how this money is being spent?

Given that taxpayers by and large weren't paying a damn thing, they aren't owed that kind of financial details. Those of us who left donations in the pickle barrel either didn't ask or aren't passing on that kind of confidential information, thank you very much.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

The flaw with any form of taxation is that it is inherently going to be advantageous/disadvantageous to a set of nations.

if we were to tax [and membership fees are a tax] equally, it would be baised for the larger nations, and the nations with a huge economy.

if we were to tax proportionally on GNP, its advantageous to large nations with no economy, they recieve the most benefit for the least cost.

if we were to tax proportionally to population it might crush nations that have no economy

Funding is not an issue that can simply be ignored as inconvenient.

its not that i see it as inconvenient so much as i see it as impossible. unless we want to sit here and come up with a full out tax code balancing population, GNP, the egalitarian nature of the WA, and environmentalism, and ideological disputes, and national sovereignty etc. etc. etc. etc.......

i also dont see it as relevant, as nobody would/can take into account the cost of a proposal when writing it or voting for it, or at any point really.

The flaw with any form of taxation is that it is inherently going to be advantageous/disadvantageous to a set of nations.

if we were to tax [and membership fees are a tax] equally, it would be baised for the larger nations, and the nations with a huge economy.
No it wouldn't. A flat, equal tax would be nothing short of fair. To say it is biased against those nations with larger economies is like saying it's bad to have a good economy.

Everyone should pay the same. When one goes to a supermarket, does the cashier ask how much one makes and then adjust the cost according to that? No, of course not. The only fair way to do it is to treat all the nations the same.

The Dominion

The only fair way to do it is to treat all the nations the same.

no, it would be the only equal way to tax, equality and fairness are different things. Let us compare, the nation "The Most Glorious Hack" with the nation "NeoPyrotopia" now, The Most Glorious Hack is a gigantic (10.974 billion) nation with a 'frightening economy' NeoPyrotopia is a tiny (124 million) with an 'imploded' economy. if we charge both nations the same, what amount do we charge? a large amount can be easily paid by The Most Glorious Hack, but is a huge burden on NeoPyrotopia. any amount that is not a burden on the economy of NeoPyrotopia, is insignificant to The Most Glorious Hack. TMGH may want to pay more, to get more services, and would be constrained by having to raise taxes equally for all states. while the amount may be the same, the amount of burden is not. I would be wholeheartedly against any resolution that might force NeoPyrotopia out of the WA because of inabillity to pay. The WA is not only for the rich.

Now, if we were to tax based on population, Hendon and The Most Glorious Hack have comparable populations, yet the economy of the Most Glorious Hack is 'frightening' and Hendon's is 'imploded' if we were to tax based on population, it would be a huge burden on Hendon. The WA is not only for the rich.

Now, if we were to tax based on GNP, Hendon is at the opposite advantage, while both Hendon and The Most Glorious Hack may reap the same benefits of WA membership, but The Most Glorious Hack would have to pay exponentially more. This would actually punish the rich, and reward the poor, and I see it as unfair.

Hopefully this elaboration of my previous statements is helpful. Hopefully my example nations dont mind being used to illustrate a point.

oh and,

To say it is biased against those nations with larger economies is

is the exact opposite of what i actually said,

t would be baised for the larger nations, and the nations with a huge economy. (italics and bolding added)

no, it would be the only equal way to tax, equality and fairness are different things. Let us compare, the nation "The Most Glorious Hack" with the nation "NeoPyrotopia" now, The Most Glorious Hack is a gigantic (10.974 billion) nation with a 'frightening economy' NeoPyrotopia is a tiny (124 million) with an 'imploded' economy. if we charge both nations the same, what amount do we charge? a large amount can be easily paid by The Most Glorious Hack, but is a huge burden on NeoPyrotopia. any amount that is not a burden on the economy of NeoPyrotopia, is insignificant to The Most Glorious Hack. TMGH may want to pay more, to get more services, and would be constrained by having to raise taxes equally for all states. while the amount may be the same, the amount of burden is not. I would be wholeheartedly against any resolution that might force NeoPyrotopia out of the WA because of inabillity to pay. The WA is not only for the rich.
Hold it right there. The Assembly may not be only for the rich, but it is only for those who can afford its services. Each nation has the ability to make choices on a regular basis, and these choices dictate whether the economy of each nation would be good or bad. If I work at a restaurant and I hope to implement live ballroom dancing and as a result, need to raise my prices, if a patron comes up to me and complains that he/she is not able to afford my food, I am not about to go out and charge another patron extra to cover his/her inability to pay.

An inability to pay, a lack of funds is not a source of any rights.

Under the mindset you operate under, do you complain to a high-end car dealer that you cannot afford such and such a car and demand that the dealers charge another customer more because you have not created sufficient wealth for yourself? I hardly think so.

In retrospect, this post seems to have far too many examples. But you understand me: the money given to the Assembly would be a fee for the services it provides. This fee is no different from fees individuals pay for goods and services. Unless we are promoting some type of socialism here, we believe each party should pay an equal amount for the same service(s).


Respectfully,
The Dominion

So, because we have no idea how much it will actually take to run the WA.... perhaps member nations proposing WA services include a fee proposal in their resolutions? (To be charged in proportionate to the size of their nation?)


This way, there is no set tax for the WA and if the WA wants a particular service. They can pay for it.

Also, if a nation really really wants to avoid having to give money to the WA. They can resign from the WA to avoid getting hit with a resolution and then re-join after it's taken effect. (Of course, they wouldn't get the benifit of the service either.

This would also give us a nice itemized list of services and the money that goes towards those services.

havensky

Also, if a nation really really wants to avoid having to give money to the WA. They can resign from the WA to avoid getting hit with a resolution and then re-join after it's taken effect. (Of course, they wouldn't get the benifit of the service either.

ive heard of this before...... im vastly confused by it, and deny its effect (whether it is true or not) as i see it, a member of the UN/WA is subject to all resolutions passed at any time. otherwise i could have had unfair trials at every point in Decapodian NShistory because fair trials were mandated before my nation came into existence. i dont believe that the compliance ministry tg is that which makes you adhere to resolutions, its being a member.

we have no idea how much it will actually take to run the WA

0. nations can choose to roleplay whatever they want for its cost, but in reality, 0.

perhaps member nations proposing WA services include a fee proposal in their resolutions?

to do this would require ridiculous calculations of economies of nations, somehow assessing the effect of proposals (how many creatures would require the services of a global AIDS initiative for example) which is impossible. then you'd need to take into account that nations cease to exist every minute, are created every minute, and grow at a ludicrous pace. its impossible, which is why the taxation ban is necessary.

Dagnus Reardinium


Hold it right there. The Assembly may not be only for the rich, but it is only for those who can afford its services.
a lack of funds is not a source of any rights.

aha. here we see the fundamental impasse between our nation's positions. i see the WA as providing universal goods, and working to promote the world. you see it as a way to buy services akin to a restaurant. i see universal rights as given to me by my very existence {very ooc: by god} and you see rights as a smaller version of "a high-end car."

i see every sentient creature as born with rights, something that cannot be bought, but can be oppressed by governments. the right to a fair trial cant be bought (and actually any effort to buy it makes it inherently unfair).

i see the WA/UN as providing rights and protections of sentient creatures, you see it as providing services. i dont see a way to convince you of my position, and you sure as hell will never convince me of yours.

i see the WA as providing universal goods, and working to promote the world.
What? What goods does the Assembly provide? "Promote the world"? There must be something wrong with our translators. *Smacks translator

i see universal rights as given to me by my very existence {very ooc: by god} and you see rights as a smaller version of "a high-end car."
You are quite mistaken here. Universal rights are given to you by your existence, the services are the things that must be bought.

i see every sentient creature as born with rights, something that cannot be bought, but can be oppressed by governments.
Relevance not detected. It is not as though these creatures could join the Assembly and complain; that is, those oppressive governments are not likely to join the Assembly anyhow and have their powers taken away from them. But of course this is irrelevant.

the right to a fair trial cant be bought (and actually any effort to buy it makes it inherently unfair).
What? Obviously the right to a fair trial is inherent. You're not buying rights here. You would be paying the Assembly for a service ie to ensure fair trial in nations.

i see the WA/UN as providing rights and protections of sentient creatures, you see it as providing services.
I'm sorry. I see rights as inherent, and the Assembly as providing services (like protection of these rights). The Assembly is not a source of rights. It is an agency to ensure these rights are not violated.

you see it as a way to buy services akin to a restaurant.
Services (protection of rights) vs Rights (inherent). The Assembly cannot provide rights. It provides the service of protecting rights. I thought that was fairly obvious.

The Dominion

Mr Decapodian Ambassador, I wouldn't bother trying to debate this kind of thing with the Dominion. They don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around humanitarianism, and it only gives you a headache trying. Just accept that they see regressive taxation as a good thing, and move on.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Oh, don't be such a killjoy, Cerys.

The Dominion

Edit:
And of course my points are still valid.

well, ill address those points i feel like, and leave others alone to avoid the headache.

Relevance not detected. It is not as though these creatures could join the Assembly and complain; that is, those oppressive governments are not likely to join the Assembly anyhow and have their powers taken away from them. But of course this is irrelevant.

hi! that's me! WA delegate from the nation of futurama! To quote the wise Dr. Jon Zoidberg, "On Earth, freedom is a given. But on my planet, we have suffer for it." His planet is Decapod Ten. We saw the UN as a method to advance our beliefs, {and were a member of the DOOP, so i figured Decapod Ten would be a member of the UN}

It is not irrellevant in the least actually, the WA (i believe eventually will) promote rights that my government does not wish to give, (fair trials for example). as you apparently believe rights are inherent, may i ask what the purpose of them is if they are oppressed?

let me try to point out the flaw in your logic (actual byzantine logical flaw here)

Universal rights are given to you by your existence

that is, those oppressive governments are not likely to join the Assembly anyhow
The Assembly is {...} an agency to ensure these rights are not violated.

so you think the WA should ensure rights...... in nations that already protect them?

and, since youre all about cost/benefit, how does it make sense to have your (tiny) nation of 160 million pay the same as GMC Military Arms nation of 11.141 billion(were it a WA nation.... sorry, im hasty, i have to get to class)? obviosly the cost of the latter would dwarf the former, but youd pay the same. to use your analogy, it be as if i went to a restaurant and ate around 69.6 dinners and you ate one, and we split the bill.

I have to agree with Decapod Ten here.

Taxes are not the same as food bills.

In fact, if I recall correctly, taxes on food (as well as many other products) scale according to a fixed percentage. In other words, you will never be taxed $50 for a $5 sandwich.

In the restaurant example, any increase on a food's cost in a restaurant subsequentially increases the amount of tax the consumer must pay. At a tax rate of 10%, the menu cost of a Lobster Dinner normally priced at $60 increased to $80 due to poor restaurant management is going to cost the consumer $22 dollars more, not $20. (OOC: Any restaurant owner who decides to build a dancefloor in their restaurant not only without having a portion of the price put aside ahead of time but also determines to pay for it by increasing the costs of food products will likely go bankrupt within a year. Talk about poor financial skills!) A soup that normally costs $10 will increase the total price to $11, including tax.

At the same tax rate, a new car normally priced at $150,000 will come with a whopping $15,000 worth of tax, effectively increasing the amount the consumer must pay to $165,000 total. On that same note, a new car normally priced at $10,000 will come with $1,000 tax, changing the price to $11,000.

A bowl of soup that costs $10 will never come with tax of $6-8 (that's a tax rate of 60-80% compared to the Lobster Dinner's 10%), and a car normally priced at $10,000 will never come with a tax of $15,000 (that's a tax rate of 150%!). I do not believe that the argument presented by the delegate from Dagnus Reardinium is a practical and/or valid one, as he has confused two substantially different parts of an economy.

Let's assume that Nation A has a gigantic, horrific economy that instills fear in the hearts of men and devourers children. Nation A brings in $9000 trillion dollars a year. Nation B, however, is the high school sweetheart of economies, and only brings in $100 million a year. Now let's say that the WA decides to tax member nations for $25 million as an annual membership fee. That's 25% of Nation B's economy tossed away for membership fees alone, while Nation A only forks over less than 1% of their yearly income. Nation B obviously cannot handle the financial stress that WA membership adds to not only their government but their taxpaying citizen's pockets, and as such is forced out of the WA. Are these tax rates equal? Yes, they are equal; both nations are paying the same amount. Are they fair? I would assume that they are not.

REMEMBERING that taxes are not part of the same tab as INCOME,

the Holy Empire of Roshavia would like to deem it mandatory that all nations that comment from hereon out take time to critically analyze each post previously listed, and come to a conclusion based off of common sense.

(OOC: Seriously guys, you're treating the WA as if it's some sort of commercial product. Just as the WA isn't a Government, it's also not a huge corporate business. You can't say "tee hee, let's tax people for our services," as most of the time the WA (assuming it works along the same lines as the UN does in the real world) can't do anything for anyone (besides think, and even then...) anyway. What services are they being taxed for? Are we taxing them for services when we can't even agree with each other enough to get things done half the time? If the WA were a single entity applying for a job, it would be turned down or fired due to lack of productivity. What service? Also, I understand that this is all just roleplay, but just because it's roleplay doesn't give you an excuse to slack on the job and provide not-so-well-thought-out replies. If this entire argument about taxing even exists as a means to pay WA Delegates, you all need to remember that being a member of the WA is not a job that the WA supplies, it is a job that the member nation's government supplies. As such, member nations are already paying membership fees by paying for their own employees to attend WA debates. The land that the WA is located in is more than likely Maxtopia, and is also more than likely recognized as a donation by the Maxtopian government/people. There's no money involved anywhere anyway, why does the WA need money?! Sorry for the OOC, couldn't think of a way to flat out express what I'm trying to get out there as effectively IC.)

Jorn Cortez begins to take down his super-advanced Powerpoint 2001 materials...

Also, just curious... How do you propose we put a tax on WA "goods and services," when at the moment they come to a net worth of $0?

we have no idea how much it will actually take to run the WA0. nations can choose to roleplay whatever they want for its cost, but in reality, 0.

By the same logic, it costs 0 to run your nation. Therefore, you won't mind giving away your entire GDP to anyone who asks.

The WA, like the NSUN, is entirely a fictional creation. Nonetheless, it ought to maintain a sense of fictional continuity with the rest of the NS world. Reinstating the silliest of the prior resolutions in the new organization is one of the craziest ideas in current vogue.

TANSTAAFL = There ain't no such thing as a Free Lunch. You get what you pay for, and denying the UN the ability to pay for anything essentially hamstrings the entire roleplay concept. This is an exceedingly dumb idea and should be dropped.

no, it would be the only equal way to tax, equality and fairness are different things. Let us compare, the nation "The Most Glorious Hack" with the nation "NeoPyrotopia" now, The Most Glorious Hack is a gigantic (10.974 billion) nation with a 'frightening economy' NeoPyrotopia is a tiny (124 million) with an 'imploded' economy. if we charge both nations the same, what amount do we charge? a large amount can be easily paid by The Most Glorious Hack, but is a huge burden on NeoPyrotopia. any amount that is not a burden on the economy of NeoPyrotopia, is insignificant to The Most Glorious Hack. TMGH may want to pay more, to get more services, and would be constrained by having to raise taxes equally for all states. while the amount may be the same, the amount of burden is not. I would be wholeheartedly against any resolution that might force NeoPyrotopia out of the WA because of inabillity to pay. The WA is not only for the rich.You have already answered the way out.

Set dues, taxes, whatever you want to call them, based upon the lowest-common denominator that can suficiently pay them without undue burden.

Also taxes based upon population are not entirely unjust. It is the base way of determining the size of the nation and almost every nation taxes in the form the more own/purchase/etc, the more you pay, but at a fixed percentage.

I have to agree with Decapod Ten here.
..... wow.... i think this may be the first and only time that has been said..... im touched..........

This is an exceedingly dumb idea and should be dropped.

starting to come around to this way of thinking. while i see it possible (and the above discussion proves it) that people may try to pass things with taxes or membership dues that are inherently unfair, i doubt that anybody will ever take into effect cost of resolutions and due that effectively...... not sure.

By the same logic, it costs 0 to run your nation. Therefore, you won't mind giving away your entire GDP to anyone who asks.

yeah, but my corporations wouldnt like that. GDP is not under gov control in Decapod Ten.

Reinstating the silliest of the prior resolutions in the new organization is one of the craziest ideas in current vogue.

well, ill first point out the Ban Video Games proposal, A Resolution Regarding Welfare, that are much crazier than this. id also point out that in all the ludicrously numerous repeal attempts, the UN taxation ban was never ended, and so there might be some support. then of course, ill reiterate that this would end possible injustices against nations, and so i see it as not crazy at all.

Also, just curious... How do you propose we put a tax on WA "goods and services," when at the moment they come to a net worth of $0?

If a resolution were passed that said something akin to "Every NationState shall pay an equal share of the operating budget of the World Assembly." in the future (i assume) that the cost would go up, and the hypothetical equal taxation resolution would be unjust.

The World Assembly,

AWARE of the World Assembly's vital position as an international forum for debate and diplomacy for its member states,

AWARE of the necessity of such an Assembly to be a neutral force in regards to national sovereignty,

AWARE of vast economic differences, be it in economic system, economic strength, and other importan issues between its various member states,

EMPHASIZING the need for money to keep World Assembly organizations and operations active,

Hereby Declares:

FROM HENCEFORTH, The taxation of any member-states' citizenship, commerce, or other national not specified within this Resolution by the World Assembly illegal under International Law,

FURTHERMORE, all nations within the World Assembly shall be required to be submited to Inspectors, as specified by International Law, for compliance with International Law,

DEFINING International Law as any and all unrepealed World Assembly Resolutions,

REQUIRING a fee for all violations of International Law by a World Assembly member state in the order of one hundred thousand Universal Standard Dollars for each violation,

DEFINING a Universal Standard Dollar (USD) as an international auxillary currency to which all other currencies shall be ranked, as judged by the World Assembly,

REQUIRING the entree of property, such as the World Assembly complex, owned by the World Assembly to have a fee in the order of one thousand USD's per month per nationalies.

well this is something ive never seen before........ a complete hijack, somebody has actually submitted a proposal, on a thread about a different proposal........ balsy.

on the otherhand, i think (if roshavia is evidence) the idea of a flat tax has been..... shall we say clawed to hell?

if not, ill keep clawing, :headbang:

FURTHERMORE, all nations within the World Assembly shall be required to be submited to Inspectors, as specified by International Law, for compliance with International Law,

ummm..... impressively intrusive, and i believe its illegal for a WA police force.....

DEFINING a Universal Standard Dollar (USD) as an international auxillary currency to which all other currencies shall be ranked, as judged by the World Assembly,

now, TMGH suggested this was possible...... but i thought it would be established by a long, complex proposal. im also confused by how the USD would work, as with every nation having its own currency, the USD wouldnt purchase anything.... (i.e. when Vanteland's currency is the Vantemark, why would a Vantenian wand a USD to purchase goods?) i assume your trying to replicate special drawing rights, but that would have to be done in a lot more words.

REQUIRING the entree of property, such as the World Assembly complex, owned by the World Assembly to have a fee in the order of one thousand USD's per month per nationalies.

first, im not sure what "nationalies" means. mainly because it is not a word. i think you either mean nationalities, or nation...... if its nationalities it is insane, as many people are of more than one nationality, and some nations have no set nationality..... and the problem of defining nationality would be cumbersome and difficult......

second, really? your going to charge people to come to the WA? im amazed and confused by the concept. are you going to charge the workers? how about the gnomes?

then of course, how much is the WA going to cost, and is it going to run on 18,947,000 USD per month? oh.... of course the USD is valueless so.......

and a side note, i definitely see the difficulty of getting a tax passed...... especially a decent tax.........

<snip>

Vanteland, this thread is about Decapod Ten's proposal. It's considered rude to post your own proposal in his thread. Start your own topic.

Game Mechanics

Game Mechanics violations are attempts to change how the WA works. Generally, these are Proposals that should be threads in Technical. Anything that requires and adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code falls into this category. Requiring "proper" spelling, adjusting the number of votes needed for queue, creating a universal WA currency, and forming a "secondary WA" are all examples of this. Another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time --

did i just declare my own proposal illegal?

That the World Assembly shall pass no poll tax on the populace of its members.

That the World Assembly shall pass no involuntary tax on its memberstates.

That the World Assembly shall levy no tariff on the trade between any states.

why yes..... yes i believe i did...... wow....... well that ends that........ unless, just for irony, frisbeeteria corrects me that it isnt illegal to tell the WA that it cant 'at a future point in time' pass (which is an action) no tax blah blah blah.... yeah, i declared my own proposal illegal while debating with a mod the entire time........ awesome....... i cought an illegality the mods didnt.......

never mind my joke on that other thread on taxation.

just out of curiosity fris, you dont play ultimate do you?

wait a tick, anybody wanna confirm my logic that any taxation ban is illegal because of gamesmechanics violations?

wait a tick, anybody wanna confirm my logic that any taxation ban is illegal because of gamesmechanics violations?
You can't forbid the WA to set or collect taxes.
You can, as in the UN resolution 'Representation in Taxation', say that the right to set & collect taxes belongs solely to the national governments... which would have the same effect.

did i just declare my own proposal illegal?

why yes..... yes i believe i did...... wow....... well that ends that........ unless, just for irony, frisbeeteria corrects me that it isnt illegal to tell the WA that it cant 'at a future point in time' pass (which is an action) no tax blah blah blah.... yeah, i declared my own proposal illegal while debating with a mod the entire time........ awesome....... i cought an illegality the mods didnt.......

never mind my joke on that other thread on taxation.ROFL That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while here.

Hmm...I've been doing a little thinking here Decapod, and I understand your arguments about equal but unfair taxation. However, there is a workable (sort of anyway) example of how to overcome this problem and institute a...less unfair...system of taxation. Just let me know if you are still trying to work on this.

institute a{...}system of taxation

this alone is antithetical to the will of Decapod Ten

You can, as in the UN resolution 'Representation in Taxation', say that the right to set & collect taxes belongs solely to the national governments... which would have the same effect.

tempting.... tempting......