by Yaak » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:12 pm
by Apatosaurus » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:14 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:27 pm
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:46 pm
Yaak wrote:The World Assembly,
Noting that governments sometimes issue unfair taxes without a good reason,
Hereby:
1. Defines, for this resolution, an unfair tax as a tax discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups, What defines a discriminatory tax? That should be defined properly.
2. Outlaws unfair taxes completely, unless a person or group doesn't earn enough money to pay their taxes.
3. Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes. Can't interfere in a nation's domestic taxation, thanks to GAR#17. Let me stress that that definition is the main cause of this illegality; it never defines what exactly a discriminatory practice is in taxation.
Frankly, this needs to be broadened and made into a supporting proposal for GAR#17.
Sorry it's kind of lazy, this is my first GA proposal and I do need improvement.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:53 pm
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:56 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Untecna, you need to read the latter half of that clause in GA 17. Please stop giving unsubstantiated and bad advice.
by WayNeacTia » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:37 pm
Untecna wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Untecna, you need to read the latter half of that clause in GA 17. Please stop giving unsubstantiated and bad advice.
As this draft currently stands, I'm not wrong. The definition is not flared out enough and so if it won't be, then the 3rd clause is illegal. Of course, the definition most likely will be flared out, so OP, if you do, ignore the second thing I pointed out in blue.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:41 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Untecna wrote:As this draft currently stands, I'm not wrong. The definition is not flared out enough and so if it won't be, then the 3rd clause is illegal. Of course, the definition most likely will be flared out, so OP, if you do, ignore the second thing I pointed out in blue.
The draft certainly isn’t good, but that third clause isn’t illegal. Perhaps you need to bone up on passed resolutions before you continue to give bad advice?
by Wallenburg » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:46 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:18 pm
Untecna wrote:Wayneactia wrote:The draft certainly isn’t good, but that third clause isn’t illegal. Perhaps you need to bone up on passed resolutions before you continue to give bad advice?
With the current definition in place, it is. Currently, it just defines nothing, or what is practically nothing, and so without that good definition it would be against that, since that clause is claiming that exempting some is discriminatory, despite never stating that in the definition.
When it is better defined, that's when I'm wrong.
Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;
Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:20 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Untecna wrote:With the current definition in place, it is. Currently, it just defines nothing, or what is practically nothing, and so without that good definition it would be against that, since that clause is claiming that exempting some is discriminatory, despite never stating that in the definition.
When it is better defined, that's when I'm wrong.
GAR #17 clearly states:Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;
The third clause of this states:Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes.
Forcing one group to pay taxes that are legitimately assessed, whilst allowing another group to not pay their taxes would be defined as discriminatory. So you are wrong.
by WayNeacTia » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:23 pm
Untecna wrote:Wayneactia wrote:GAR #17 clearly states:Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;
The third clause of this states:Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes.
Forcing one group to pay taxes that are legitimately assessed, whilst allowing another group to not pay their taxes would be defined as discriminatory. So you are wrong.
The definition of "unfair discriminatory practices" is about as vague as it is on GAR#17. It doesn't clear being illegal because the definition on this proposal never states what is "unfair discriminatory practices".
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:26 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Untecna wrote:The definition of "unfair discriminatory practices" is about as vague as it is on GAR#17. It doesn't clear being illegal because the definition on this proposal never states what is "unfair discriminatory practices".
Were you appointed a member of GenSec and nobody bothered to announce it, because you seem to be making a pretty firm ruling here whilst standing on quicksand.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:07 pm
Untecna wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Untecna, you need to read the latter half of that clause in GA 17. Please stop giving unsubstantiated and bad advice.
As this draft currently stands, I'm not wrong. The definition is not flared out enough and so if it won't be, then the 3rd clause is illegal. Of course, the definition most likely will be flared out, so OP, if you do, ignore the second thing I pointed out in blue.
Untecna wrote:It doesn't clear the line between illegal and legal because the definition on this proposal never states what is "unfair discriminatory practices", only what an "unfair tax" is, and that is still vague and useless without the definition of "unfair discriminatory practices".
Wallenburg wrote:The language here is vague to the point of uselessness. I must also disagree with IA here. The proposal as written contradicts GA #17. Its exception to the blocker on tax law extends only to "unfair discriminatory" tax policy, not all discriminatory policy. That the proposal defines discriminatory taxes under the word "unfair" doesn't clear that standard.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:33 pm
by Untecna » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:28 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"This proposal appears to have outlawed tax brackets and tax break programs. Opposed. How on earth could anybody but the rankest anarchists not oppose this?"
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:47 pm
by Untecna » Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:29 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Untecna wrote:OOC: I can't find where this occurs, would you mind pointing this out?
If an unfair tax is "a tax discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups" and "unfair taxes [are outlawed] completely", do the substitution:[taxes discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups] [are outlawed] completely
That would include discriminating against rich people for earning more income that is taxed more heavily than tax applied to poor people.
Then, you have:Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes.
Tax breaks are literally allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes, unless you interpret "not pay their taxes" to mean only just taking a blind eye to tax evasion. Tax incentives are commonly used to promote activities that states view as useful or helpful.
by WayNeacTia » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:07 am
Untecna wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:If an unfair tax is "a tax discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups" and "unfair taxes [are outlawed] completely", do the substitution:[taxes discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups] [are outlawed] completely
That would include discriminating against rich people for earning more income that is taxed more heavily than tax applied to poor people.
Then, you have:Prevents governments from allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes.
Tax breaks are literally allowing certain people or groups to not pay their taxes, unless you interpret "not pay their taxes" to mean only just taking a blind eye to tax evasion. Tax incentives are commonly used to promote activities that states view as useful or helpful.
Well, tax breaks I can see, clearly. More or less I meant tax brackets.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Bananaistan » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:15 am
Wayneactia wrote:Were you appointed a member of GenSec and nobody bothered to announce it, because you seem to be making a pretty firm ruling here whilst standing on quicksand.
Wayneactia wrote:I just want to confirm that you are fully cognizant of the fact that you are arguing taxation with an economist, correct?
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:39 am
Bananaistan wrote:Tax bands, tax free allowances and general reliefs available to everyone are neither unfair or discriminatory. It's not unfair to require that those most able to shoulder a burden are given a greater share to do, and those least able are given a smaller share to do.
Bananaistan wrote:The only valid reading of section 3 is that it acts only on turning a blind eye to tax evasion which would be unfair and discriminatory to those who are not also granted the blind eye. One could speculate that COCR likely already has this covered.
by Bananaistan » Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:14 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Bananaistan wrote:Tax bands, tax free allowances and general reliefs available to everyone are neither unfair or discriminatory. It's not unfair to require that those most able to shoulder a burden are given a greater share to do, and those least able are given a smaller share to do.
That seems defensible if the tax were applied flatly, ie some fixed per cent of income. Or literally flatly, as in a fixed amount of income (though a capitation is pretty regressive). I'm not sure how you would give a similar defence to a progressive tax outside something like a CRRA utility function where σ > 1 (ie where marginal utility declines faster than 1 / c, where c is consumption). I think it's very likely that judges tasked with interpretation, who are well known in some countries to be self-dealing and corrupt, would choose flat or head taxes and choose the appropriate justifications post hoc.
by Berginseln » Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:43 am
by WayNeacTia » Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:27 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Bananaistan wrote:Tax bands, tax free allowances and general reliefs available to everyone are neither unfair or discriminatory. It's not unfair to require that those most able to shoulder a burden are given a greater share to do, and those least able are given a smaller share to do.
That seems defensible if the tax were applied flatly, ie some fixed per cent of income. Or literally flatly, as in a fixed amount of income (though a capitation is pretty regressive). I'm not sure how you would give a similar defence to a progressive tax outside something like a CRRA utility function where σ > 1 (ie where marginal utility declines faster than 1 / c, where c is consumption). I think it's very likely that judges tasked with interpretation, who are well known in some countries to be self-dealing and corrupt, would choose flat or head taxes and choose the appropriate justifications post hoc.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan, Majestic-12 [Bot]
Advertisement