by Vuldaron » Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:26 pm
by Vancouvia » Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:58 pm
by Vuldaron » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:17 pm
Vancouvia wrote:Any feedback people present for you will be irrelevant since it's already submitted and you can't change the text. You can file a GHR if you'd like to remove the proposal and give everyone time to present feedback so that you can edit it and then resubmit it later.
by Jarish Inyo » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:35 pm
by Vuldaron » Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:16 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:I believe that the WA can not interfere with domestic taxation of it's member nations. If I'm correct and tariffs being domestic taxation, this could be illegal.
Chances of you gaining any support for this idea is slim.
by Caracasus » Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:23 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:54 am
Jarish Inyo wrote:I believe that the WA can not interfere with domestic taxation of it's member nations. If I'm correct and tariffs being domestic taxation, this could be illegal.
by Socialist Federative Slavia » Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:05 am
by Percussionland » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:41 am
by Vuldaron » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:33 pm
Socialist Federative Slavia wrote:NOOOOOOOO way in hell any nation in their right mind would ever support this
Percussionland wrote:Tariffs allow nations to protect local industry, and gain funding without increasing the income tax, as well as keep the nation from becoming dependent on foreign trade for it's economic health, prevent foreign monopolies, and promote their nations self-sustainability. I am completely against this.
Jarish Inyo wrote:I believe that the WA can not interfere with domestic taxation of it's member nations. If I'm correct and tariffs being domestic taxation, this could be illegal.
Chances of you gaining any support for this idea is slim.
by The Mid East Federation » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:34 pm
by Vuldaron » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:15 am
The Mid East Federation wrote:Limiting Tariffs? Yes.
Abolishing Tariffs? No.
I think many nations including myself support that simple above phrase.
Edit: I would like to see a resolution on tariffs, however, just not in that context.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:21 am
Vuldaron wrote:The Mid East Federation wrote:Limiting Tariffs? Yes.
Abolishing Tariffs? No.
I think many nations including myself support that simple above phrase.
Edit: I would like to see a resolution on tariffs, however, just not in that context.
Perhaps sometime in the future I will completely revamp this proposal, to reflect limiting tariffs?
by Malkir » Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:50 am
FURTHER STATING that if the above option is not viable, that a non-tariff barrier may also be considered as a viable secondary option in relation to the first, and finally,
UNDERSTANDING what a non-tariff barrier is, that it is a form of restrictive trade where barriers to trade are set up and take a form other than a tariff, and that non-tariff barriers can frequently take the form of quotas, levies, embargoes, and sanctions.
by Shazbotdom » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:12 pm
Trump is Part of the Swamp. (VoteGold2024)
ShazWeb || IIWiki || Discord: shazbertbot || 1 x NFL Picks League Champion (2021)
NHL: NYR 45-20-4 (94) | COL 44-20-5 (93) | CHI (e) 19-45-5 (43) | VGK 36-25-7 (79)
NCAAM: Tulane 14-17 | LSU 17-16 || NCAAW: Tulane 12-20 | LSU (8) 28-5 || NBA: Pelicans (5) 44-28
NCAA MBB: Tulane 15-10 | LSU (3) 20-6 || WSB: LSU 26-4
by Bears Armed » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:03 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:30 am
Vuldaron wrote:The Mid East Federation wrote:Limiting Tariffs? Yes.
Abolishing Tariffs? No.
I think many nations including myself support that simple above phrase.
Edit: I would like to see a resolution on tariffs, however, just not in that context.
Perhaps sometime in the future I will completely revamp this proposal, to reflect limiting tariffs?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], The Ice States
Advertisement