NationStates Jolt Archive

The World Assembly,

Hereby:

Asserts that absolute control of all taxation, including, but not limited to, direct taxes, and tariffs, and is reserved solely for regional governments, national governments, and they may delegate that authority to lower governments.

Reiterates that the World Assembly continues to hold the right to legislate for the purpose of making freer trade.

Reiterates that the World Assembly continues to hold the right to legislate on the fair distribution of taxes.

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

so apparently i was wrong, my last taxation proposal wasnt illegal, it just needed to be tweaked. anybody see any problems? i feel it is pretty damn clean, and hope to submit sometime monday.

and yes, im an asshole. please keep those comments in your head.

and social justice, significant.

How in the hell is this Social Justice?

i was going with what the original UN taxation ban was. although im (from your outrage) going to suggest Furtherment of Democracy may be better, since nobody has objected to other funding proposals being under that category.

i don't think there's a need for a resolution to reiterate the fact that national governments should own their citizens' taxes and not the WA.

Reiterates that the World Assembly continues to hold the right to legislate for the purpose of making freer trade.

Reiterates that the World Assembly continues to hold the right to legislate on the fair distribution of taxes.The statement above just negates the fact that a nation can"assert absolute control of all taxation, including, but not limited to, direct taxes, and tariffs..."the mere fact that the WA reserves the rights to legislate what a nation must do with its taxes isn't a furtherment of democracy nor is it social justice.

the proposal has the two clauses granting the WA that power because it would be illegal not to. i cant ban 'free trade' proposals, and so i have to put that in.

unless anybody has a suggestion (other than go F yourself) i will probably propose tomorrow, with TG campaign.

the proposal has the two clauses granting the WA that power because it would be illegal not to. i cant ban 'free trade' proposals, and so i have to put that in.

unless anybody has a suggestion (other than go F yourself) i will probably propose tomorrow, with TG campaign.

I have a general request to make the justification / preamble a bit longer. Right now your proposal just starts off with actions, but it doesn't say why nations have final say over their taxation policies.

Here is one (of many) possible clause ideas:

RECOGNIZING that nations currently have the freedom to set their own taxation policies,

CONVINCED that the needs of each nation are best understood by the respective nation,

1. AFFIRMS that nations should ...

Not seeing how this is "increas[ing] democratic freedoms" either.

I have a general request to make the justification / preamble a bit longer. Right now your proposal just starts off with actions, but it doesn't say why nations have final say over their taxation policies.

Here is one (of many) possible clause ideas:

RECOGNIZING that nations currently have the freedom to set their own taxation policies,

CONVINCED that the needs of each nation are best understood by the respective nation,

good point, i should probably add a preamble. revision will come out tomorrow, when im not falling asleep as i am now.

Not seeing how this is "increas[ing] democratic freedoms" either.

should i wait for bookeeping then? because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that it allows for greater control over methods of taxation for the people by not allowing control over it by an international organization run solely by national representatives. while only some nations have democratic accountability for approving and/or voting for a certain proposal, more nations have democratic accountability over forms of taxation. furthermore, if democratic nation A votes against a taxation proposal, and yet it is forced upon it by the WA, that is anti-democratic.

granted i could say the same about almost any natsov thing.

because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that it allows for greater control over methods of taxation for the people by not allowing control over it by an international organization run solely by national representatives.

My head is spinning from this sentence, but I think I get what you're trying to say. Maybe.

while only some nations have democratic accountability for approving and/or voting for a certain proposal, more nations have democratic accountability over forms of taxation.

Woah, what?

furthermore, if democratic nation A votes against a taxation proposal, and yet it is forced upon it by the WA, that is anti-democratic.

Since when is something "anti-democratic" because one side didn't get its way? By this logic, the entire democratic system is "anti-democratic" because there is always going to be a side that doesn't get what it voted for.

The UN Taxation Ban was still extant when the UN was dissolved.
I am quite sure that a majority would vote in favour of an identically worded resolution if it was put to the World Assembly to vote.

Minor Islands;13631188']I am quite sure that a majority would vote in favour of an identically worded resolution if it was put to the World Assembly to vote.

But since we've declared that plagiarism won't be permitted by anyone other than the original author (and the original sucked eggs besides), we're going to have to have a new one.

should i wait for bookeeping then? because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that it allows for greater control over methods of taxation for the people by not allowing control over it by an international organization run solely by national representatives. while only some nations have democratic accountability for approving and/or voting for a certain proposal, more nations have democratic accountability over forms of taxation. furthermore, if democratic nation A votes against a taxation proposal, and yet it is forced upon it by the WA, that is anti-democratic.

granted i could say the same about almost any natsov thing.

so i rarely feel it necessary or good to respond to my own post, especialy without adding anything. however, after having read 210 pages of 6th century sasanian tax practices, i apparently had no brain. so to redo:

should i wait for bookeeping then? because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that the proposal allows for greater control over methods of taxation by denying it to a non-democratic organization as the WA. The WA gives equal credit to 12billion pop. nations and 5million pop. nations, and decisions can be demonstrably undemocratic. furthermore, only a fraction of nations have democratic accountability for their WA voting and/or approval. lastly, for nations that do have direct or representative voting for WA decisions, WA decisions can run contrary to the vote of nations. by reserving the right for nations to make taxes, it keeps decision making out of the hands of the undemocratic WA, and keeps that power with nations which are more likely to have democratic accountabillity for taxation.

so i rarely feel it necessary or good to respond to my own post, especialy without adding anything. however, after having read 210 pages of 6th century sasanian tax practices, i apparently had no brain. so to redo:

should i wait for bookeeping then? because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that the proposal allows for greater control over methods of taxation by denying it to a non-democratic organization as the WA. The WA gives equal credit to 12billion pop. nations and 5million pop. nations, and decisions can be demonstrably undemocratic. furthermore, only a fraction of nations have democratic accountability for their WA voting and/or approval. lastly, for nations that do have direct or representative voting for WA decisions, WA decisions can run contrary to the vote of nations. by reserving the right for nations to make taxes, it keeps decision making out of the hands of the undemocratic WA, and keeps that power with nations which are more likely to have democratic accountabillity for taxation.

NationStates is broken. Mikitivity has the "influence" of nearly 10 billion citizens, but carries a merger population that is a tiny fraction of that.

OOC: Some players, like myself, ignore the game generated stats. If you have an idea that better fits into bookkeeping then, yes, wait.

because i doubt youd be swayed by the argument that the proposal allows for greater control over methods of taxation by denying it to a non-democratic organization as the WA.You're right. I'm not. If I was going to buy this tortured reasoning, then every Proposal could be filed as Furtherment of Democracy.

NationStates is broken. Mikitivity has the "influence" of nearly 10 billion citizens, but carries a merger population that is a tiny fraction of that.

OOC: Some players, like myself, ignore the game generated stats. If you have an idea that better fits into bookkeeping then, yes, wait.

(out of what character i ever stay in: yeah, same here. i run a nation that exists canonically and fashion my decisions after what i can run on. the stats may or may not look anything like the real decapod ten. and i started this as a way to see if such a proposal is legal at all. apparently they mods only have a problem [sorry Fris, legal problem] with category which revives my abillity to ban WA taxation. however im extremely tempted to submit sooner rather than later to possibly get it passed and eliminate much of the possibiliity of ways and means proposals from being able to manifest themselves.)

You're right. I'm not. If I was going to buy this tortured reasoning, then every Proposal could be filed as Furtherment of Democracy.

oh the hilarity that ensues. ok, bookkeeping it is then. (i think.....).