[ABANDONED] National Taxation Act

[States of Glory WA Office]

National Taxation Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING its dedication to equal rights and treatment under the law,

NOTING that some member nations may increase or decrease taxation based on a taxpayer's income,

BELIEVING that this constitutes an unfair discriminatory practice,

ACKNOWLEDGING that this practice is therefore an affront to equal rights,

HOPING to rectify this unfortunate situation,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "progressive tax rate" as a rate which increases as the amount of taxable income increases,

2) DEFINES a "regressive tax rate" as a rate which decreases as the amount of taxable income increases,

3) DEFINES a "flat tax rate" as a rate which stays constant regardless of the amount of taxable income,

4) PROHIBITS member states from setting progressive or regressive tax rates,

5) MANDATES that member states introduce flat tax rates for all its citizens,

6) CLARIFIES that this resolution does not affect taxation based on factors other than personal income,

7) DECLARES that member states may elect not to implement any form of taxation which is based on personal income if they so choose.

Neville: "Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking. Doesn't this violate GA #17 a.k.a WA General Fund? Well, we disagree. Look at this quote:

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

"Now, this may seem strange, but we don't actually support our own proposal. However, if the majority of ambassadors agree that this proposal doesn't contradict that resolution and that this loophole should be rectified then we'd be more than happy either to close this loophole ourselves or allow someone else to do it. If the majority of ambassadors disagree with either of those things then we'd be more than happy to drop this."

Neville stands there, hoping that the other ambassadors don't defenestrate him for this stunt.

Past drafts:

National Taxation Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

NOTING that some member nations may increase or decrease taxation based on a taxpayer's income,

BELIEVING that this constitutes an unfair discriminatory practice,

REAFFIRMING its dedication to equal rights,

HOPING to rectify this unfortunate situation,

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a "progressive tax rate" as a rate which increases as the amount of taxable income increases,

2) DEFINES a "regressive tax rate" as a rate which decreases as the amount of taxable income increases,

3) DEFINES a "flat tax rate" as a rate which stays constant regardless of the amount of taxable income,

4) PROHIBITS member states from setting progressive or regressive tax rates,

5) MANDATES that member states introduce flat tax rates for all its citizens,

6) CLARIFIES that this resolution does not affect taxation based on factors other than personal income,

7) DECLARES that member states may elect not to implement any form of taxation which is based on personal income if they so choose.

[Wallenburg]

"Now, this may seem strange, but we don't actually support our own proposal. However, if the majority of ambassadors agree that this proposal doesn't contradict that resolution and that this loophole should be rectified then we'd be more than happy either to close this loophole ourselves or allow someone else to do it. If the majority of ambassadors disagree with either of those things then we'd be more than happy to drop this."

Neville stands there, hoping that the other ambassadors don't defenestrate him for this stunt.

"No, Ambassador, it really is illegal, and we will not stand for this tyrannical overreach of power. Progressive taxation is essential to guaranteeing our people equal opportunity."

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, you know full well that the clause which you deliberately misinterpret in an attempt to make this nonsensical draft legal, was intended to ensure that a State would not levy additional taxes on political opponents, or ethnic minorities. Progressive Taxation applies to all Citizens, Ambassador. This draft is Illegal before the Secretariat, and its goals are simply childish."

[Hannasea]

OOC: This is pointless. Whether or not this resolution contradicts Resolution #17, such a resolution would, I'm almost certain, be illegal as a Game Mechanics violation. Hannasea, for example, currently has a progressive income tax according to the core game stats:

The average income tax rate is 36.3%, but much higher for the wealthy.

It is not possible for a WA resolution to change that.

You would have to get confirmation from a moderator. But if you're worried a resolution like this would pass, I don't think you need to be.

[Normlpeople]

"Unfair is subjective" Clover spoke up "And discrimination occurs only when it isn't universal. If the same elevated tax rate is applied across the board to all income earners in that tax bracket, it cannot be considered discriminatory."

"As the very basis of your argument is flawed, there isn't much more to say."

[Bananaistan]

"Even if the draft wasn't illegal for contradiction of GAR#17, it's incredibly simplistic and naive. There are a myriad of different taxation systems in the different member states, and I have no doubt that many states have no income taxes at all, instead relying on regressive transaction taxes (which are neither unfair nor discriminatory as they apply to everyone completing a certain transaction).

"And this would be the most easily loophole-able resolution ever. Right so you must apply a fixed rate to everyone's taxable income. Well there's nothing stopping a member state from adjusting said taxable income either upwards or downwards based on the individual's personal circumstances. Or how would it apply to member state, like Bananaistan, which uses tax credits against gross taxation rather than tax free allowances? And I could go on and on."

- Mrs Ambassador Mary CP Doe

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: This is pointless. Whether or not this resolution contradicts Resolution #17, such a resolution would, I'm almost certain, be illegal as a Game Mechanics violation. Hannasea, for example, currently has a progressive income tax according to the core game stats:

The average income tax rate is 36.3%, but much higher for the wealthy.

It is not possible for a WA resolution to change that.

You would have to get confirmation from a moderator. But if you're worried a resolution like this would pass, I don't think you need to be.

OOC:
That's ridiculous. This is like saying a ban on executions would be illegal because my nation page says Excidium Planetis is known for its frequent executions. It is not possible for a resolution to change that.

Unless a proposal actually tries to force action by players or game admins, it isn't illegal for game mechanics or metagaming.

[Calladan]

I really don't care if this is illegal or not - it is entirely unacceptable to my nation.

We believe that a flat tax is the most cruel and oppressive form of taxation, short of demanding a 100% income tax from everybody (which would still be a flat tax system, now that I think about it) and will have nothing to do with any proposal, or any organisation, that mandates such a tax be put in place.

[Hannasea]

OOC: *shrug* That was the ruling on National Systems of Tax/Representation in Taxation, and whether or not the tax system is progressive is a hard-coded game stat; but if you have a more recent ruling showing that proposals to change tax system are now legal, by all means fire away.

[Falcania]

The delegation from Falcania is glad to be exempted by the final section. Taxation in any form is a barbaric, feudal holdover and has no place in a modern society.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: That line in GA#17 was bascially copied (with my consent) from my own, then-recently failed proposal for funding the WA, and a potential ban on "progressive" taxation was probably -- although I can't now remember for sure -- one of the possibilities that I'd had in mind when drafting it.
One could also try arguing that because any thresholds used for the different rates of taxation would presumably be arbitrary, unless there is a very clear gap in the national population's range of incomes, "progressive" and "regressive" taxation systems are actually banned already under the CoCR.
However, though, on the basis of past precedent I strongly suspect that the 'Game Mechanics' factor would result in any such attempt at a direct ban being ruled illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: That line in GA#17 was bascially copied (with my consent) from my own, then-recently failed proposal for funding the WA, and a potential ban on "progressive" taxation was probably -- although I can't now remember for sure -- one of the possibilities that I'd had in mind when drafting it.
One could also try arguing that because any thresholds used for the different rates of taxation would presumably be arbitrary, unless there is a very clear gap in the national population's range of incomes, "progressive" and "regressive" taxation systems are actually banned already under the CoCR.
However, though, on the basis of past precedent I strongly suspect that the 'Game Mechanics' factor would result in any such attempt at a direct ban being ruled illegal.

OOC: I don't think it would really be arbitrary to divide income into brackets for progressive taxation, because the more you make, the larger a portion of your income you can afford to lose while maintaining a comparatively normal lifestyle. Those brackets are generally determined mathematically based on the cost of living geographically and socially. And, for the record, I disagree with progressive taxes in the general way of things, so this isn't a partisan position at all.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Ambassador, you know full well that the clause which you deliberately misinterpret in an attempt to make this nonsensical draft legal, was intended to ensure that a State would not levy additional taxes on political opponents, or ethnic minorities.

OOC: I know that Markhov is saying this, but I can't tell if this is an IC position or an OOC position so I'll be replying OOC. Firstly, the intentions don't matter. The law does what the law says. Secondly, I've already stated that I'm against the very idea of this proposal. Why on Earth would I try to use deliberate misinterpretation in an attempt to make this legal?!

Progressive Taxation applies to all Citizens, Ambassador. This draft is Illegal before the Secretariat, and its goals are simply childish."

OOC: The "goal" of this resolution is that if it it is legal then I'd be willing to draft a proposal declaring that member nations have the right to implement flat taxes, progressive taxes, regressive taxes or any other system of taxes as they see fit. Is that "childish"?

OOC: This is pointless. Whether or not this resolution contradicts Resolution #17, such a resolution would, I'm almost certain, be illegal as a Game Mechanics violation. Hannasea, for example, currently has a progressive income tax according to the core game stats:

It is not possible for a WA resolution to change that.

You would have to get confirmation from a moderator. But if you're worried a resolution like this would pass, I don't think you need to be.

OOC:
That's ridiculous. This is like saying a ban on executions would be illegal because my nation page says Excidium Planetis is known for its frequent executions. It is not possible for a resolution to change that.

Unless a proposal actually tries to force action by players or game admins, it isn't illegal for game mechanics or metagaming.

OOC: I was going to respond, but Excidium Planetis took the words right out of my mouth. Of course, if a Mod rules otherwise then I'll be satisfied that this proposal won't get passed and will thus drop this.

I really don't care if this is illegal or not - it is entirely unacceptable to my nation.

We believe that a flat tax is the most cruel and oppressive form of taxation, short of demanding a 100% income tax from everybody (which would still be a flat tax system, now that I think about it) and will have nothing to do with any proposal, or any organisation, that mandates such a tax be put in place.

OOC: Trust me, I am also strongly opposed to this.

OOC: *shrug* That was the ruling on National Systems of Tax/Representation in Taxation, and whether or not the tax system is progressive is a hard-coded game stat; but if you have a more recent ruling showing that proposals to change tax system are now legal, by all means fire away.

OOC: Do you have a link to that ruling?

OOC: One could also try arguing that because any thresholds used for the different rates of taxation would presumably be arbitrary, unless there is a very clear gap in the national population's range of incomes, "progressive" and "regressive" taxation systems are actually banned already under the CoCR..

OOC: Did you really have to give IA a repeal hook?

[Hannasea]

OOC: *shrug* That was the ruling on National Systems of Tax/Representation in Taxation, and whether or not the tax system is progressive is a hard-coded game stat; but if you have a more recent ruling showing that proposals to change tax system are now legal, by all means fire away.

OOC: Do you have a link to that ruling?

OOC: No. Even I don't keep records of everything from that long ago. But, it's not needed.

This resolution is a Game Mechanics violation. It is mechanically impossible for this resolution - which is filed as Human Rights, Mild - to have the effect of converting all WA member nations into flat tax systems.

Given your argument is "Oh no, this resolution might be possible, and that's bad!", isn't it in your interests to find out whether it actually is or not?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Do you have a link to that ruling?

OOC: No. Even I don't keep records of everything from that long ago. But, it's not needed.

OOC: I found the thread. Where's the ruling?

This resolution is a Game Mechanics violation. It is mechanically impossible for this resolution - which is filed as Human Rights, Mild - to have the effect of converting all WA member nations into flat tax systems.

When Convention on Execution was repealed, someone tried to pass a ban on capital punishment. It is mechanically impossible for a resolution to ban executions. I don't recall that proposal being ruled illegal.

Given your argument is "Oh no, this resolution might be possible, and that's bad!", isn't it in your interests to find out whether it actually is or not?

That's the whole point of this thread. I've tried to look up relevant rulings, but I don't see any. Any help in this area would be appreciated.

[Hannasea]

OOC: No. Even I don't keep records of everything from that long ago. But, it's not needed.

OOC: I found the thread. Where's the ruling?

OOC: Uh, that appears to link to a resolution from about 4 years after PC's resolution.

When Convention on Execution was repealed, someone tried to pass a ban on capital punishment. It is mechanically impossible for a resolution to ban executions. I don't recall that proposal being ruled illegal.

It's true there are some inconsistencies in how NS game mechanics and WA resolutions interact, but that's not really a good argument for introducing even more inconsistency.

If anything, we should be trying to reduce that inconsistency.

That's the whole point of this thread. I've tried to look up relevant rulings, but I don't see any. Any help in this area would be appreciated.

But a lot of it rests on Game Mechanics, which is one of the rules players are not well suited to comment on, because they don't have access to the game stats that the moderators do.

I agree that on many rules, getting players to comment first is desirable. Duplication, for example: one of the WA moderators has said in the past he believes WA regulars know the previous resolutions better than the moderators, and thus may be best placed to comment on such issues! But Game Mechanics is not such a rule, because the game stats are intentionally opaque to players. Whether or not this is a legal Human Rights resolution isn't something I can see players really being able to answer for you.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I found the thread. Where's the ruling?

OOC: Uh, that appears to link to a resolution from about 4 years after PC's resolution.

OOC: That's a UN Resolution. I'm a little confused as to what your point is.

That's the whole point of this thread. I've tried to look up relevant rulings, but I don't see any. Any help in this area would be appreciated.

But a lot of it rests on Game Mechanics, which is one of the rules players are not well suited to comment on, because they don't have access to the game stats that the moderators do.

I agree that on many rules, getting players to comment first is desirable. Duplication, for example: one of the WA moderators has said in the past he believes WA regulars know the previous resolutions better than the moderators, and thus may be best placed to comment on such issues! But Game Mechanics is not such a rule, because the game stats are intentionally opaque to players. Whether or not this is a legal Human Rights resolution isn't something I can see players really being able to answer for you.

Originally, I was testing to see if this contradicted GA #17, something which I believe the WA regulars are able to comment on.

As for the Category issue, I admit that finding a category was hard. Yes, write to the category and all that, but since this wasn't intended to become a resolution, I felt that an exception could be made. That said, I see no reason that the WA regulars can't discuss the category. For what it's worth, I'm going to make a slight modification to deal with that problem.

However, I agree that ultimately, the Mods should decide if this proposal violates the Game Mechanics rule. Unlike with the category, I was anticipating a challenge and I was sort of relying on the fact that there are already inconsistencies between nation stats and WA resolutions. Whether there should be any inconsistencies is something which will probably be debated for all eternity.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Uh, that appears to link to a resolution from about 4 years after PC's resolution.

OOC: That's a UN Resolution. I'm a little confused as to what your point is.

OOC: NSUN resolutions are purely historical. They have no relevance to the WA, and the rulings made with regard to them do not apply to the WA rules.

[Shazbotdom]

Wouldn't this whole thing be a Game Mechanics Violation anyways?

[Excidium Planetis]

Wouldn't this whole thing be a Game Mechanics Violation anyways?

That's what we've been debating.

[Hannasea]

OOC: That's a UN Resolution. I'm a little confused as to what your point is.

OOC: A number of rulings made in the UN still apply today - which is not surprising, as some of the rules, and even some of the resolutions, are the same. If, as Wallenburg seems to state below, the moderators have publicly confirmed that's no longer the case, then that's a huge departure, but I'll obviously yield to those familiar with rulings made in the last 12 months (although if they have a link for their strongly definitive statement, that would be handy in helping me catch up).

Originally, I was testing to see if this contradicted GA #17, something which I believe the WA regulars are able to comment on.

As for the Category issue, I admit that finding a category was hard. Yes, write to the category and all that, but since this wasn't intended to become a resolution, I felt that an exception could be made.

In the past, I've usually seen the moderators say "we don't rule on hypotheticals", and thus not have much interest in resolutions that are intrinsically hypothetical. If you're more confident of getting an answer from them on what appears to be nothing more than point-scoring, then go for it, but I still don't see that there's a category that fits what you want to do with this.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: That's a UN Resolution. I'm a little confused as to what your point is.

OOC: A number of rulings made in the UN still apply today - which is not surprising, as some of the rules, and even some of the resolutions, are the same. If, as Wallenburg seems to state below, the moderators have publicly confirmed that's no longer the case, then that's a huge departure, but I'll obviously yield to those familiar with rulings made in the last 12 months (although if they have a link for their strongly definitive statement, that would be handy in helping me catch up).

Having been here the last 12 months, I don't think there is such a ruling. I could be wrong, but I don't agree with Wallenburg on that point.

I do, however, still hold to my earlier statements regarding game mechanics and taxation.

It's true there are some inconsistencies in how NS game mechanics and WA resolutions interact, but that's not really a good argument for introducing even more inconsistency.

If anything, we should be trying to reduce that inconsistency.

But doesn't ruling in such a way reduce inconsistency? As it is, the rulings are inconsistent because a ban of executions is not illegal for trying to change the capital punishment stat, but a ban on progressive tax is illegal for trying to change the taxation stat. I argue that rulings should be made consistent as follows: proposals only violate game mechanics if they actually try to change the way the game works.

I can't recall where at the moment, but I seem to remember a mod ruling saying something along the lines of "if it can be interpreted in a way that does not change the game mechanics, it is legal". Not too sure on that though, so I'll keep looking.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: For what its worth, I've always told people, as have several others, that the GA is primarily a roleplay environment and there is nothing that prevents you from answering issues a certain way. There is no reason a religious nation can't ban abortion via issue, despite its legality by WA law. There is nothing preventing 'frequent executions' (as previously mentioned) by issue choice, despite WA regulation stating otherwise. Thus, I don't believe it a game mechanics issue.

I do question rather its honest mistake, as I do not see the argument put forth as adequately proving progressive taxation as 'unfair or discriminatory'.

[Wrapper]

Regardless of whether or not this is a game mechanics violation, it contradicts GAR#17: "nations have full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices":

discriminatory [dih-skrim-uh-nuh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] adj
1. characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, especially as an indication of bias related to age, color, national origin, religion, sex, etc.: discriminatory practices in housing; a discriminatory tax

A graduated tax is not an "unfair discriminatory practice" as it is applied equally to all within a salary range, regardless of race, age, sex, religion, national origin, orientation, etc. If a nation were to disproportionately tax people based on any of those characteristics, that's an issue that the WA can meddle in without contradicting GAR#17.

[Bears Armed]

A graduated tax is not an "unfair discriminatory practice" as it is applied equally to all within a salary range, regardless of race, age, sex, religion, national origin, orientation, etc. If a nation were to disproportionately tax people based on any of those characteristics, that's an issue that the WA can meddle in without contradicting GAR#17.

But how isn't deciding which "salary ranges" should involve which rates arbitrary? for example, if a threshold's set at 2 times the average income then why not at 2.1 or 1.9 or whatever? How isn't that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of income group? Saying that if one earns below 'X' then one is only liable for paying tax at he basic rate but if one earns above 'x' then one is part of "the rich" and should be expected to pay at a higher rate -- possibly a much higher rate* -- instead certainly seems like "arbitrary and divisive categorization" to me.

(OOC: I'm British, and old enough to remember Labour politicians -- when asked how all of their policy plans would be funded -- openly campaigning on a slogan of "soak the rich"...)