by Quantipapa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:54 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:10 am
by Quantipapa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:16 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
But does taxing items that happen to be used by only one gender really constitute "discrimination"... or is it giving an exemption for items used by one gender and not for items used by the other gender[s] as well that does so? I'm inclined to say the latter, especially where [for example] it's just one aspect of a 'sales tax' that applies to all goods purchased retail...
I haven't labelled this as illegal for contradiction of existing legislation (GAR #17, clause 8 ) yet, but am considering the possibility.
by Tinhampton » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:18 am
by Athonuna » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:22 am
by Quantipapa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:23 am
Athonuna wrote:Yes, but have you considered that women's hygiene products, like razors, for example, cost more to make than men's products? Women have much more to shave with a razor than men on average, and hence have more stuff added to the blade. That's just one example, but I think it's a good example of how this isn't discrimination. It's the free market. It's simple supply and demand. Women only have to pay more because they're getting more than men get. Besides, I could probably go to Walmart right now and find a women's razor that costs less than a men's razor. There are different brands, you know.
by Quantipapa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:24 am
Tinhampton wrote:Why did you submit this without drafting? Or is this in response to Nohtasha doing the same with her Women's Products Act?
by Athonuna » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:27 am
Quantipapa wrote:Athonuna wrote:Yes, but have you considered that women's hygiene products, like razors, for example, cost more to make than men's products? Women have much more to shave with a razor than men on average, and hence have more stuff added to the blade. That's just one example, but I think it's a good example of how this isn't discrimination. It's the free market. It's simple supply and demand. Women only have to pay more because they're getting more than men get. Besides, I could probably go to Walmart right now and find a women's razor that costs less than a men's razor. There are different brands, you know.
So you don't consider a pad a basic need. Ok
by Quantipapa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:28 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:31 am
by Athonuna » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:32 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:37 am
Quantipapa wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
But does taxing items that happen to be used by only one gender really constitute "discrimination"... or is it giving an exemption for items used by one gender and not for items used by the other gender[s] as well that does so? I'm inclined to say the latter, especially where [for example] it's just one aspect of a 'sales tax' that applies to all goods purchased retail...
I haven't labelled this as illegal for contradiction of existing legislation (GAR #17, clause 8 ) yet, but am considering the possibility.
It's discrimination if - other items that constitute basic needs are tax exempt, and sanitary products are mislabeled as health and beauty products along with perfumes and makeup for example.
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:46 am
by Liberimery » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:16 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Quantipapa wrote:
This is better.
OOC: "Better" doesn't necessarily mean "ready for submission." The point of drafting these things here in the forum is to actually draft them, i.e. get feedback from other players on ways to improve it. The intended result isn't just to make a resolution (the international law by which the nations of the world comport themselves[!]) that's "better than that guy's version," but one that's literally the best possible law you could ever make. Yes, this is better, but that's a pretty low bar. Try to aim a bit higher and you'll get the true respect of the GA community.
by Arasi Luvasa » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:00 pm
by The New California Republic » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:26 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:36 pm
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Are you relying on an assumption that this is the case in all WA members? There are bound to be some where that isn't the case, and those items are only covered by a general sales tax that covers other "basic needs" as well.
Having thought this over, I am labelling it as illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #17, clause 8.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:03 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Are you relying on an assumption that this is the case in all WA members? There are bound to be some where that isn't the case, and those items are only covered by a general sales tax that covers other "basic needs" as well.
Having thought this over, I am labelling it as illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #17, clause 8.
Are you arguing that because discrimination might not be happening in all WA nations, the proposal is illegal under GA 17's internal taxation clause? If that's the case, then the exception is absolutely completely useless.
by Liberimery » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:56 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:48 pm
Liberimery wrote:OOC: I'm getting to a point where I'd like to know if it's possible to get a rule against submitting before drafting.
by Wallenburg » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:44 pm
by Bears Armed » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:33 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Are you arguing that because discrimination might not be happening in all WA nations, the proposal is illegal under GA 17's internal taxation clause? If that's the case, then the exception is absolutely completely useless.
OOC: I don't read it that way. The clear thinking behind that exception is to allow prohibition of actually discriminatory taxation - e.g. taxing Bigtopians at a higher rate than natural born citizens (taken care of by GAR #35, but a concern upon passage of #17), or taxing gender transition surgery at a higher rate than facelifts and liposuction.
Applying ordinary sales tax on feminine hygiene items isn't discriminatory if the same tax is applied to other toiletries.Waiving such taxes is inarguably helpful in fighting poverty (though not as helpful as, say, supplying these items free to women below certain income levels), but it's hard to make the case that in a WA that contains Resolution #344, sales taxes on some items are inherently discriminatory based on their use. Everyone needs soap and shampoo and deodorant; women need tampons and pads as well. If these things are taxed at the same rate, there's no discrimination.
Now, if the author wanted to assert that pads and tampons are more necessary to women than soap, shampoo, or deodorant are to anybody, that would be sufficient for me to mark this legal under the theory that equal taxation with those other items is inherently discriminatory - as equal per-ounce taxes on (e.g.) baby formula and roquefort cheese possibly discriminate against infants (and their families), who absolutely require the former for fundamental nutrition. OR, the author could argue that since women require pads or tampons in addition to the other necessities, while children and men have no such additional needs, taxation on those items constitutes an additional (and therefore discriminatory) tax upon being a woman. That would suffice as well. It would then be up to voters to determine if they agree with that argument.
by Roast Pork » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:10 am
Bears Armed wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: I don't read it that way. The clear thinking behind that exception is to allow prohibition of actually discriminatory taxation - e.g. taxing Bigtopians at a higher rate than natural born citizens (taken care of by GAR #35, but a concern upon passage of #17), or taxing gender transition surgery at a higher rate than facelifts and liposuction.
Applying ordinary sales tax on feminine hygiene items isn't discriminatory if the same tax is applied to other toiletries.Waiving such taxes is inarguably helpful in fighting poverty (though not as helpful as, say, supplying these items free to women below certain income levels), but it's hard to make the case that in a WA that contains Resolution #344, sales taxes on some items are inherently discriminatory based on their use. Everyone needs soap and shampoo and deodorant; women need tampons and pads as well. If these things are taxed at the same rate, there's no discrimination.
Now, if the author wanted to assert that pads and tampons are more necessary to women than soap, shampoo, or deodorant are to anybody, that would be sufficient for me to mark this legal under the theory that equal taxation with those other items is inherently discriminatory - as equal per-ounce taxes on (e.g.) baby formula and roquefort cheese possibly discriminate against infants (and their families), who absolutely require the former for fundamental nutrition. OR, the author could argue that since women require pads or tampons in addition to the other necessities, while children and men have no such additional needs, taxation on those items constitutes an additional (and therefore discriminatory) tax upon being a woman. That would suffice as well. It would then be up to voters to determine if they agree with that argument.
OOC
Thank you for explaining this more thoroughly than I did. Full agreement.
by Quantipapa » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:28 am
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:31 am
Quantipapa wrote:Thank you all for completely derailing a good idea and taking it way off topic.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Republic of Mesque, The Overmind
Advertisement