NationStates Jolt Archive

The Representation in Taxation Act

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING one’s right to own property and to utilize that property, within certain boundaries, at his or her discretion and conscience,

UNDERSTANDING the role taxes play to fund governments, and that adequately funded governments can benefit nations as a whole,

RECOGNIZING great diversity among member nations’ peoples, cultures, political groups and economies,

SUPPORTING the view that representative government can best address the diverse issues regarding taxation of these peoples, cultures, political groups and economies--more so than any other system of government,

REAFFIRMING that representative government--especially regarding issues of taxation--allows those most closely involved with and knowledgeable about an issue to address it while also permitting individual citizens the opportunity for redress and for debate,

BELIEVING it to be impossible or near impossible for an individual citizen in a member nation to receive a fair form of representation in tax legislation written and passed by the World Assembly,

DETERMINING, in the interest of the World Assembly’s diverse peoples, cultures, political groups and economies, that taxes in member nations are best determined by, at highest, the member nations’ respective national governments:

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, “representative government” as a form of government which provides citizens the good faith opportunity to represent themselves in the writing, the debating and the voting of legislation OR in which citizens are provided the good faith opportunity to elect representatives who write, debate and vote upon legislation for them;

2. DECLARES and PROTECTS, as inviolable rights of those member nations that utilize representative government:

(a) the decision to impose or not impose taxes (including fees, surcharges, etc.) on sales, incomes, properties, and intra-national businesses (that is to say, businesses that operate within their national boundaries, or branches of international businesses operating within national boundaries);

(b) the determination of the rate of sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes and intra-national business taxes as well as the distribution of said taxes (that is to say, the determination of which class of income, good, property, business, etc. are taxed at a given rate);

3. CONFIRMS that member nations may voluntarily relinquish all or part of their rights to determine taxes and tax distribution to local, regional, and international groups other than the World Assembly (such as an international economic alliance) if a member nation so decides;

4. URGES member nations which utilize representative government to use this right to tax their peoples with responsibility and transparency, NOTING that unjust government in any form is often punished economically, politically, and militarily by other governments as well as by those oppressed;

5. AND REPEATS that these national rights are only protected for governments which utilize representative government AND NOT for governments which tax absent any political mechanism for citizens (directly or through elected representatives) to determine the rates and distribution of taxes placed upon them.
Yes it is in the queue, but seeing as I've already altered it from the version I posted there (a couple of wording simplifications and clarifications), I'm won't let that reach quorum (heck, I haven't sent a single telegram).

Just wanted some thoughts/criticism/comment from the forum. This is a different thrust than the original UN resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129). This draft goes more along the line of argument that if a national government has a system in place for the people to determine their own taxation there's no legitimate right for the World Assembly to interfere in the people's self-determination.

EDIT: added poll. Sorry those who either abstained fro the original or abstain from this. No options for you. If you weren't around that long ago, you can make an educated guess as to what your vote would've been. I don't mind ;)

Look back at clauses 8 and 9 of WA General Fund to check against duplication. I don't know if it actually is duplication, but it is worth a think.

EDIT:

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

Oh my...I'll have to give that a look over (and probably get some mod advice). I hadn't even remembered that your resolution had those clauses in there.

Isn't restricting a resolution's effects to just some limited set of the WA's member nations, in this case by clause #5 restricting the rights concerned to those of the member nations whose governments "utilize representative government", illegal in itself?

I'd suggest replacing that aspect of the proposal with a clause along the lines of "Strongly urges all member nations to utilize representative government" instead...

We could not support this resolution since it conflicts with our constitution in an way which we could not remedy.

We wold have to oppose this statute absolutely.


Yours,

That's an odd position to take, considering the resolution doesn't force your government to do anything.

It enshrines a right, regarding representative government which would conflict with our national constitution.

All states which are members of the empire, including the autonomous ones elect representatives to the Imperial Diet, the representatives are organised in to regional circles which sit as regional parliaments, there are also smaller diets elected within some specific autonomous states.

The Imperial Diet deals with business effecting the entire empire, the regional circles deal with regional business and local diets deal with local e.t.c.

As well as this representative system our constitution also recognises the rights of some Hereditary rulers of some autonomous states to rule with executive power within their (usually small) states and sometimes they are recognised in an almost complete authority. Even so the peoples of these states elect representatives to the Imperial diet and its regional circles. But the tax rates and other taxation policies within these states may be set by their hereditary ( and executive ) rulers.

In this statute is contained a right over taxation policy of elected government which would give taxation policy control effectively to the Imperial government of the CSKU and would remove it from the rulers of these autonomous states, simply because their citizens elected representatives to the Imperial Diet.

This would undo the constitutional arrangements created by the Treaty of Derbent which ended a particularly vicious civil war which cost us millions of Urgenchi lives.


Yours,

Isn't restricting a resolution's effects to just some limited set of the WA's member nations, in this case by clause #5 restricting the rights concerned to those of the member nations whose governments "utilize representative government", illegal in itself?
We are inclined to agree with Ambassador Borrin that the selectivity of this proposal renders it illegal, no matter whether it is also a duplication, contradiction or both of WAGF.

I have an additional concern, which is that 2 (a) could be used to circumvent the trade system of Resolution #26, the WA Economic Union. A tax credit to retailers that do not sell imported goods would be discriminatory; but it would be protected under this proposal.

Resolution #8 protects domestic taxation rights while acknowledging the WA's right to prevent discriminatory practices; I feel that protection is sufficient, and that adding this measure would unduly complicate things.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

FWIW I voted for Option #4; I did like the original, but I feel it's been supplanted.

In this statute is contained a right over taxation policy of elected government which would give taxation policy control effectively to the Imperial government of the CSKU and would remove it from the rulers of these autonomous states, simply because their citizens elected representatives to the Imperial Diet.

First, let me note that I am fully aware of the current legality of this proposal, and this is simply an observation that assumes that the problems will be fixed. Wouldn't the Imperial Diet be able to quell the ramifications of this resolution supplying it the authority to set taxation policies by simply relinquishing such authority, per article 3?

That said, I find myself in agreement with Dr. Merrywether, although I'm assuming a technician made some sort of error and meant to relay WAR #17, rather than WAR #8. The clause in question -- "8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;" -- seems to do just what this proposal intends to do.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

First, let me note that I am fully aware of the current legality of this proposal, and this is simply an observation that assumes that the problems will be fixed. Wouldn't the Imperial Diet be able to quell the ramifications of this resolution supplying it the authority to set taxation policies by simply relinquishing such authority, per article 3?


Unfortunately the Imperial Diet, or indeed the Divan its executive, could not accept the authority in question in the first place to re-devolve upon the autonomous states in question. The Imperial Diet cannot relinquish a right it has constitutionally devolved upon certain autonomous states permanently for all time. If the resolution said something to the effect of

"CONFIRMS that member nations may voluntarily relinquish or have already relinquished all or part of their rights to determine taxes and tax distribution to local, regional, and international groups other than the World Assembly (such as an international economic alliance) if a member nation so decides;"

Then we could support this statute, with its legal inconsistencies ironed out of course.

Yours,

Okay I have several concerns to respond to. These two, I feel, are along a similar vein.
Unfortunately the Imperial Diet, or indeed the Divan its executive, could not accept the authority in question in the first place to re-devolve upon the autonomous states in question. The Imperial Diet cannot relinquish a right it has constitutionally devolved upon certain autonomous states permanently for all time. If the resolution said something to the effect of

"CONFIRMS that member nations may voluntarily relinquish or have already relinquished all or part of their rights to determine taxes and tax distribution to local, regional, and international groups other than the World Assembly (such as an international economic alliance) if a member nation so decides;"

Then we could support this statute, with its legal inconsistencies ironed out of course.

Yours,
I have an additional concern, which is that 2 (a) could be used to circumvent the trade system of Resolution #26, the WA Economic Union. A tax credit to retailers that do not sell imported goods would be discriminatory; but it would be protected under this proposal.

Resolution #8 protects domestic taxation rights while acknowledging the WA's right to prevent discriminatory practices; I feel that protection is sufficient, and that adding this measure would unduly complicate things.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
The proposed addition of the Khan is more than appropriate for that clause and similar language in other clauses (such as, "not including taxes, credits or distribution schemes of such which would violate previously passed, active international law") would, we believe, satisfy the conflicts with Resolution #26 raised by Dr. Merrywether.

However, Omigodtheykilledkenny has an unbeatable point. We tried hard to work around it (mainly because forgetting it was there made the PC delegation feel like we had a cumulative IQ of about 52 and 1/2...especially after that oh, so memorable debate/dictionary war).

We came up with very little. First, was that we could try to give more definition to "domestic" taxes (which I'd try to phrase in a way so as not create a house of cards violation) through this resolution--since technically a tax regulating proposal could still pass in the WA if it defines its tax effects as outside the scope of "domestic" taxes. Second, was the same thing, but shoring up the definition of "discriminatory" practices, to ensure that some practices weren't illegitimately (or what PC would view as illegitimate) termed "discriminatory" in future proposals and thus controlled by the WA.

But, quite frankly, we don't see a setting to justify that act. There hasn't been a pressing need to protect national tax practices as no one has been proactively trying to micromanage them from the WA. Granted, we feel there's a 'general' need, since we still think the eroding of national rights to taxation policy (and through it, to individual political rights) is possible since proposals that redefine the two words mentioned above are still a possibility.

PC just feels it a better use of resources to cross those bridges when we come to them. There are more urgent needs for legislation and discussion. OMGTKK's proposal, which is great just as it is (and y'all thought I was done browning my nose), goes right at exactly what we wanted to legislate, and there's no present indication it'll be compromised.

RITA, alas, is shelved.

"The good news," Sam Palleel shouts, pointing to the pimple-covered intern beside him, "is that drinks are on him."

:eek2:

Hey, if you wanna bring back an oldie but goodie, try the Microcredit Bazaar! That should be fun. :D