NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING, the World Assembly will be passing several Bills and Proposals in the future of its existence that will incur costs on its member nations.

FURTHER NOTING, the World Assembly, as a working organization, will generate costs of conducting business which include, but are not limited to, building cost/maintenance, electric bills, water bills, office supply bills, electronic communications bills, and salaries of World Assembly Employees.

BELIEVING, the World Assembly will need to raise its own revenue or tax money to carry out and implement the several Proposals and Bills it passes in the future of it’s existence.

THEREFORE, The World Assembly will adopt the following measures in regards to the taxation of its membership and the implementation of such policy.

1. All World Assembly Members shall pay the taxes that are established by this organization

2. The World Assembly shall have the power to levy taxes on Income, Sales, Goods, Services and any other means it deems taxable.

3. All taxes shall be established through World Assembly Resolution and shall embrace one tax per Resolution.

4. All taxes shall be collected by the World Assembly Taxation Office (WATO), which shall implement the policies of this Resolution as well as any future Resolutions that require the payment of a new tax.

5. The World Assembly shall appoint a Tax Chancellor General to head the newly created World Assembly Taxation Office (WATO) and shall serve at the leisure of this organization.

Currently up for World Assembly endorsement procedures, I hope that you all see this proposal as satisfactory. I understand many peoples are against taxation from the World Assembly, but Suozziland believes this proposal covers many bases as well as explains it reasoning. There are reasons to tax, which are outlined in this proposal, and it will allow the World Assembly to do more to better the lives of the citizens of the world.

While this proposal doesn't set up an actual tax, it sets up the permission of the World Assembly to tax its membership and their citizens. It sets up procedures governing what can be taxed and how the taxes are made up. This puts every proposed individual tax under the individual scrutiny of the World Assembly rather than trying to pass 20 taxes under one resolution. It also sets up how the taxes will be collected as well as making a new office to head up the collection. Please understand that in order for this organization to be better than the old UN, we need to understand that working organizations operate on actual revenue. We need to make sure resolutions guaranteeing health care, education and other aid packages are more than just hot air of a dead-weight underfunded organization.

I implore World Assembly Delegates to please support this Resolution.

Sincerely,

King Ralph
Suozziland Executive Chancellor

Never.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO! The WA should have no power to directly tax its member nation's citizens. Make the governments of those nations pay, sure, but don't be imposing taxes on every Joe Schmo out there.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

take money from my citizens? they worked hard for that money. how do they see it returned to them? by some international body putting up laws which dont affect them. this money was made for my people and should not be taken from them by anyone other then their true ruler!

Remove the second clause and change the first one to general WA upkeep and enforcement of resolutions. Additional taxes should not be able to be levied without proposals though.

To those who oppose taxes: If you have a resoultion you want some other nation to follow, how do you propose to enforce it without any money?

Let me ask you, how would see citizens in your nation demanding they paid 0% tax on everything. No income, no sales, no luxury, no exise, no tariff, no tax period. Only government donations allowed. Tell me, would that be acceptable to you?

If not, that is essentially what you're telling the WA to be, a paper tiger.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO! The WA should have no power to directly tax its member nation's citizens. Make the governments of those nations pay, sure, but don't be imposing taxes on every Joe Schmo out there.

i believe im quoting you when i say i dont mind being an ass in this situation. man..... wouldnt it be nice if there were, say, a resolution saying something like

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

i cant resist. im not sorry. i know it is rude to post irrrellevant crap on other threads. i just find it too damn funny. TOO damn funny..... :D oh you are going to have your revenge but itll be worth it......... !

Remove the second clause and change the first one to general WA upkeep and enforcement of resolutions. Additional taxes should not be able to be levied without proposals though.

To those who oppose taxes: If you have a resoultion you want some other nation to follow, how do you propose to enforce it without any money?

Let me ask you, how would see citizens in your nation demanding they paid 0% tax on everything. No income, no sales, no luxury, no exise, no tariff, no tax period. Only government donations allowed. Tell me, would that be acceptable to you?

If not, that is essentially what you're telling the WA to be, a paper tiger.

Of course it would be acceptable. It's what I've got in my nation.

ok, see my thread on the same topic, but i believe this is illegal for games mechanics, it forbids the WA from creating more than one tax at a time.

(Christopher Windcharmer resists the urge to burn his copy of the proposed resolution...)


While we would not protest a fee for services rendered by the World Assembly. We would very much oppose an outright TAX on our citizens. What's worse, is that this is not a proposed tax, but rather a resolution GIVING the World Assembly the RIGHT to tax OUR citizens.

I would not fiercely oppose a funding structure that asked money from nations only when the WA provided a service. Funding should be attached to the proposal of service. (Rather than the WA taking money from citizens and then asking, "So what should we do with the money?")

This could set up situations where member nations could agree to pay a fee replacing the Red Cross, but turn down a fee proposal for a giant cheesecake factory in every nation.

(Windcharmer reads the proposal again....and then burns it)

To those who disapprove of this proposal, I issue a challenge to. If you all are to pass mandates on other nations, my challenge is this....

If you pass a proposal that generates a cost to other World Assembly Member Nations, pay for it out of the coffers of your own national treasuries. If you do not wish to have taxes, at least make sure you take responsibility for the proposals that you pass and provide provisions in your future resolutions to use your national tax money to pay for the unfunded mandates you pass onto other nations. Its not fair to small nations and regions to pay for the expensive mandates passed by larger nations and regions.

Of course it would be acceptable. It's what I've got in my nation.You of course, have room to speak. However what about the other 99% of nations?

(Christopher Windcharmer resists the urge to burn his copy of the proposed resolution...)


While we would not protest a fee for services rendered by the World Assembly. We would very much oppose an outright TAX on our citizens. What's worse, is that this is not a proposed tax, but rather a resolution GIVING the World Assembly the RIGHT to tax OUR citizens.

I would not fiercely oppose a funding structure that asked money from nations only when the WA provided a service. Funding should be attached to the proposal of service. (Rather than the WA taking money from citizens and then asking, "So what should we do with the money?")

This could set up situations where member nations could agree to pay a fee replacing the Red Cross, but turn down a fee proposal for a giant cheesecake factory in every nation.

(Windcharmer reads the proposal again....and then burns it)
While we think outright taxes are bad, we believe that allowing a fee for services provided for at the WA itself should be paid for irreguardless since all members use the facilities and those facilities don't magically pay themselves.

Of course if your nation is willing to foot the bill for the rest of the WA's existance, we would drop this concern...

However a proposal should still then be drafted to ensure mandates are funded through fees or taxes, if they require them, unless they specifically say they are unfunded mandates or they are simply suggestions.

The Dominion shall never vote in such a heinous resolution!

The Dominion

While we think outright taxes are bad, we believe that allowing a fee for services provided for at the WA itself should be paid for irreguardless since all members use the facilities and those facilities don't magically pay themselves.

First, It costs nothing to cast a vote. It also costs nothing to send a TG. And, it cost nothing to post information on the WA website. Since not all nations spend a lot of time at the WA, one would imagine they don't really need to have full time offices. I would imagine it would cost very little to run the WA. Besides, the UN ran just fine while being under a strict tax ban... (And the WA is currently running just fine without taking funding from nations)

Second, the idea of having one nation footing the bill is illegal branding. (As it would require you placing the nation name in the resolution.) And, in our opinion, is a crappy argument as it is entirly infeasible. Please stop using it.

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/t-228566694.jpg
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tzorsland_0.jpg

I have been informed by the WA Gnomes that my nation’s application for membership is “In the mail.” But until then I suppose I have as much right as anyone to comment on this most important matter. Tzorsland is, in general, opposed to the resolution as it is currently written.

Article 1 states that “members” shall pay taxes. But who are members? The members of the WA are the NationStates that make up the WA, not the people of those NationStates. Yet article 2 talks about taxes that are assessed on people (last time I checked a Nation-State does not have an “income”) while according to Article 1 the tax should be assessed to the Nation-State.

Implementing a separate WA taxing agency that is designed for a wide spectrum of possible tax systems that must be applied to a plethora of economic models is a waste of WA resources. There are, for example, NationStates that already tax their citizens one hundred percent. How are you going to enforce an income tax on the people of those nations? It is far easier to bill the Nation-State and let them figure out how to get the money.

I’m sure that someone will bring up the tired claptrap “No taxation without representation.” They are idiots, but they do have a point. NationStates are represented in the WA not citizens of NationStates. The issue of taxation should come to two basic fundamental questions:

1) Mandatory of voluntary? There are pros and cons to both. Some expenses need to be paid. Some argue that some degree of voluntary contributions will cause WA agencies to be more attentive to the needs of the member NationStates and will work hard to get the good graces of those NationStates in order to receive necessary funding. I think a combination of the two is best.

2) Per Capita or Gross Domestic Product? This depends on the nature of the expense and the attitude of the WA towards who should pay for WA expenses. Should the people pay uniformly even though some are better off than others? Should those who are successful bear the brunt of the WA burden?

These are the questions a tax resolution should address. It of course begs the question in that technically speaking you can’t really write a resolution that will do the future stat adjusting that this resolution would technically imply. So given that all attempts are either illegal or mindless text fluff it doesn’t matter much does it?

Besides, the UN ran just fine while being under a strict tax ban... (And the WA is currently running just fine without taking funding from nations)

No, it didn't. And no, it isn't.

The UN taxation ban caused more problems than any other single passed resolution. Ambassadors had to make the utterly foolish assumption that funds for whatever they voted in would magically appear. Tons of perfectly legal and reasonable proposals were deleted or never posted because they required UN funding, which by definition did not exist.

If you're going to make a case against WA funding, make it on its merits, not on historical precedent. Historically, it's the stupidest thing the UN ever did.

Sorry, perhaps I should clarify my point a bit.

I meant that the administrative aspect of the UN ran just fine with the tax ban. I didn't mean to imply that the whole thing worked well.

I support the idea of nations to helping to fund the WA, but not a direct tax. I've always supported the idea of a fee for services rendered as an alternative. (Since the WA is not offering any services at this time the cost of running it should be very low at this point)

I may write a draft a proposal for a funding structure sometime later today.

We have seen many way to say no to this proposal like:
Never.
or
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times NO!
and my fav
take money from my citizens? they worked hard for that money.

This is a bad idea. Not only because the WA can't tax any of the nations in the WA (the proposal is going though) but your planing to tax the delegates...

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND. The WA is there to help the world not make money.
I wish i could say that there was a way to fix it but there isn't because there very essence of this proposal is bad.

This is a bad idea. Not only because the WA can't tax any of the nations in the WA (the proposal is going though) but your planing to tax the delegates...
This proposal does not pass a tax, but it merely gives the World Assembly the power to tax. I wonder if many of you actually read the proposal in light of this poorly misinformed quote. If this proposal goes through, great, then its done its job. If a proposal goes through to place a fee onto member nations to pay for these massive overhauls of International Law, then this taxation proposal has done its job yet again. The whole point of this proposal is to pay for the World Assembly mandates of the future. We have a real chance here to not make the same mistakes of the past UN. It pains me to see that a new nation who wants to be involved with International affairs would have either an education mandate or a Universal Health Care System shoved down their throats with no way to pay for it. I want you all to think long and hard about how every mandate is going to be paid for.

Sincerely,
King Ralph

Suozziland

2. The World Assembly shall have the power to levy taxes on Income, Sales, Goods, Services and any other means it deems taxable. [/I]

A fee paid by member governments is one thing, this is something else entirely.

We feel very strongly about the concept of no taxation without representation. Member governments have a say at the WA, but individual citizens do not. Therefore, taxing individual citizens in any way is out of the question.


(As a side note, what category would this funding proposals fall under anyway?)

That the WA needs funds to carry out even the most basic functions, is obvious enough. An international forum that acts like a prepubescent little girl with Mum's credit cards at a shopping complex would hardly garner the respect of any government that understands the concept of "fiscal responsibility."

However, I do not believe it is the place of the WA to directly levy taxes. Member nations should retain the sovereignty to decide for themselves how to distribute the burden of financially supporting of WA amongst their taxpayers. For instance, my government would strongly oppose implementing a sales tax, on the grounds that a sales tax is a de facto regressive tax; and, personally, I would hate to be unable to support otherwise stellar resolutions because of fears that the financial backing of the resolution would overburden our nation's poor (especially when, if member nations retained sovereignty over matters of taxation, it could have been otherwise).

I would prefer to see the establishment of an institutional body that would be responsible for apportioning WA dues to each member nation.

Erskine Chauncey
UN Representative, Cartographic Boxes

I have drafted an alternative proposal that would allow for the World Assembly to have an institutional body in place to collect dues from member nations while reassuring hesitant nations that this body would not have the ability to directly levy taxes on citizens. I submit it here in its infancy for your perusal; comments and suggestions would be most welcome. Thank you.

Erskine Chauncey
UN Representative, Cartographic Boxes

World Assembly Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: International Security (?)
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:

1. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

2. ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances in its apportionment of member dues;

3. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

4. ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof, and to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations as it sees fit;

5. FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

Addendum: I have slightly changed Operative Clause IV (added "regarding dues and payments thereof"; added parenthetical note "partially or wholly"). I am also wondering whether this resolution should be classified as "International Security" or as "Social Justice." --EC

This proposal does not pass a tax, but it merely gives the World Assembly the power to tax.

That has to be the dumbest justification for a proposal I've ever heard, and His Nibs has come up with howlers in his time. If the WA didn't have the power to tax already, it couldn't give it to itself.

Not that the idea of the WA taxing its member states is a bad one, but this version won't fly.

OOC: Cartographic Boxes, it's a bit impolite to post your proposal in someone else's thread. Especially if it looks better ;-)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

OOC: Thanks. I was offering the alternative proposal as part of the dialogue that had already been taking place here, but if you and others believe I should make a new topic for it, I will go ahead and do so. :)

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;
The Dominion delegate throws a leaky pen at the Boxes delegate.

2. ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances in its apportionment of member dues;
This is absolutely unacceptable. This clause alone would see a "no" vote from us.

3. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;
What is the WATS policy. What justifies not being able to pay the dues? If you are taking such a hard policy as the first part of the proposal I have quoted for you, I do not see why this is acceptable.

4. ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof, and to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations as it sees fit;
See above. This is completely self-contradictory.

It is all good and well that there are to be no taxes levied on our citizens, but we find the above articles as, if not more, revolting. We shall not vote for a piece of legislation such as this.


The Dominion

Mr. Chauncey frowns upon the bits of ink that landed on his brand-new business suit, but quickly regains his composure.

I fail to see any contradiction between the third preambulatory clause and the third and fourth operative clauses.

The preambulatory clause in question concerns those governments who oppose the mere idea of member dues on philosophical or political grounds--these member nations might as well withdraw their membership from the World Assembly. I would like to point out that nonmember nations can still work with the World Assembly and participate in its deliberations, even though they cannot vote or formally submit proposals. [OOC: Switzerland had held such a 'nonmember' status in the RL UN for several decades, on the grounds that UN membership violated their stance of neutrality.]

The operative clauses in question, on the other hand, concern exceptional circumstances that would reasonably prevent member nations from paying dues. These would include, but are not limited to, economic depressions, times of intense warfare, crippling natural disasters, and so on. (As currently written, member nations could also make an appeal to the Treasury on other grounds, including allegations of unfair apportionments.) These clauses merely allow the Treasury to have the flexibility to consider and appropriately address the appeals of member nations on a case-by-case basis.

The distinction that ultimately saves this proposal from self-contradiction is the difference between refusing to pay member dues as a matter of principle and merely being unable to pay dues.

3. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

What is the WATS policy? [etc.]

As WATS has not been established yet, no policy exists. The compliance clause is there because, without requiring member nations to comply with WATS policy regarding due payment schedules, some member nations could choose to interpret "regular and timely fashion" to mean once every millenium, which is simply unreasonable.

2. ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances in its apportionment of member dues;

This is absolutely unacceptable. This clause alone would see a "no" vote from us.

Could the Dominion explain their objections to this particular clause?

--------

[OOC: I believe, seeing the tide of discussion is starting to shift from the Suozziland proposal to mine, that I should create a separate topic for my own proposal. I will link to it from here once I have created it.]

[OOC #2: Thread created (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553774).]

1) Mandatory of voluntary?One could argue that since membership is voluntary, any and all fees are automatically voluntary, and thus there is no need to add another hurdle to collecting needed funds.

As WATS has not been established yet, no policy exists. The compliance clause is there because, without requiring member nations to comply with WATS policy regarding due payment schedules, some member nations could choose to interpret "regular and timely fashion" to mean once every millenium, which is simply unreasonable.
Well you could hardly refer to a policy that does not exist. If this proposal is voted in, we would be voting a kind of blank check to the WATS. "Here, we approve this, but we don't know what it will be--go ahead and decide." It is rather unreasonable. Also, do you not believe that WATS policy should be included in the WATS proposal?

Could the Dominion explain their objections to this particular clause?
I have responded in your other thread.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

That has to be the dumbest justification for a proposal I've ever heard, and His Nibs has come up with howlers in his time. If the WA didn't have the power to tax already, it couldn't give it to itself.

Not that the idea of the WA taxing its member states is a bad one, but this version won't fly.

OOC: Cartographic Boxes, it's a bit impolite to post your proposal in someone else's thread. Especially if it looks better ;-)

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I wrote the proposal the way I did to outline a procedure in the collection of taxes as in creating an office and creating a position to head up that office. I also wrote the proposal to outline what kind of taxes could be passed as well. You can't collect taxes without putting the infrastructure in place to do so. Its similar to deciding to go to war, and sending your troops out into the battlefield with no clothes on and a half loaded gun. It doesn't work.

OOC: How about letting me police my own thread???

One could argue that since membership is voluntary, any and all fees are automatically voluntary, and thus there is no need to add another hurdle to collecting needed funds.

My argument with the mandatory/voluntary is more along the lines of in the former the WA gives the member nation states a bill every year and in the latter the WA goes on a pledge drive every year and asks for contributions by the members. There has been proposals for doing the latter in the UN recently as it makes the body more aware of being senstitive to the needs of the members. In the case of the former, there is no real method to enforce the fees (and there isn't in the UN either, the US has not paid its dues on many an occasion and we were never kicked out or deprived of priviledges) so if you don't like the WA you just don't pay and thumb you nose at the gnomes.