[DRAFT] Unfair Tax Act

[Yaak]

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,

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.


Sorry it's kind of lazy, this is my first GA proposal and I do need improvement.

[Yaak]

Reserved

[Apatosaurus]

Ambassador Scott "So this prohibits progressive taxes?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

This definition doesn't seem to add anything. Can you describe to me what you think is a discriminatory tax concretely?

Defines, for this resolution, an unfair tax as a tax discriminatorily issued to certain people or groups,

[Untecna]

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Untecna, you need to read the latter half of that clause in GA 17. Please stop giving unsubstantiated and bad advice.

Note. When I commented, the comment above on read only "Can't interfere in a nation's domestic taxation, thanks to GAR#17".

[Untecna]

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.

[WayNeacTia]

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.

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?

[Untecna]

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?

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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

[WayNeacTia]

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.

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.

[Untecna]

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.

The definition of "unfair discriminatory practices" is about as vague as it is on GAR#17. 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".

This whole proposal is written in the most useless way possible, no offense to the writer. It needs serious improvement. Until then, I stand against this proposal.

[WayNeacTia]

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".

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.

[Untecna]

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.

I'm stating the worst issue of this proposal, Wayneatica, and I'm sure you can see it as well. GenSec has nothing to do with it, and yes, I am clear on the fact that that was sarcasm.

Yaak, my recommendation to you is to broaden that definition of "unfair taxation" to include what discriminatory taxation practices are and types, to some extent. That clears the issue with Section 3 of this proposal being illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Well, you're not wrong now. You amended your post above that GA 17 makes interference in domestic taxation illegal (no qualifiers in the original!) to include those qualifiers that I told you to read.

---

Historically there are two ways around a blocking clause. An interpretative assertion in a proposal suffices to permit voters to decide. Eg Ethics in International Trade (2010) 1 IAM 8 (establishing this); Responsible Armaments Trading (2014) 1 IAM 25. Nor does one need to recite magic words identical to those in the blocker. See Agricultural Invasive Species Act [2018] GAS 4 (where the proposal "toes the textual minimum" required by NEF, ie "extreme hazard to national populations", even though it merely asserts significant harm to "agricultural ecosystems").

Alternatively, something may be permitted even without it by reasoning alone. This is most developed in discussions on GA 35 (CoCR). Eg Entheogens Legalization Act (2011) 1 IAM 13. In another matter, Ardchoille implies an argument merely needs to be "plausible enough" to suffice to be presented to voters. International Money Transfers (2015) 2 IAM __ ("This seems... to be plausible enough to take it to the GA for a final decision"; though interpretation of this sentence may differ). Permission by reasoning also need not be made in the text of the proposal, it can be made extratextually. Entheogens Legalization Act, supra.

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".

Here, you misunderstand the textual requirement in terms of reciting magic words rather than what is actually required. See Agricultural Invasive Species Act, supra.

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.

I must disagree. GA 17 s 8 says:

the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices [is affirmed.]

An author does not need to establish that something is actually an unfair and discriminatory tax policy. She merely needs to establish that something might be such a policy. She would not need to do so explicitly either, per Agricultural Invasive Species Act, supra. It could be carried through by reasoning alone, as Wayneactia demonstrated above.

[Separatist Peoples]

"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?"

[Untecna]

"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?"

OOC: I can't find where this occurs, would you mind pointing this out?

[Imperium Anglorum]

"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?"

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.

[Untecna]

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.

Well, tax breaks I can see, clearly. More or less I meant tax brackets.

[WayNeacTia]

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.

I just want to confirm that you are fully cognizant of the fact that you are arguing taxation with an economist, correct?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Proposal is too vague.

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.

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.

Section 2 is also problematic in light of how it would permit a delinquent member state to actively discriminate against sensible people who do not squander all their money.

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.

I just want to confirm that you are fully cognizant of the fact that you are arguing taxation with an economist, correct?

Please play the ball and not the man. Untecna has as much right to contribute their opinions as anyone else.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

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.

Reading over again, I agree with this interpretation. One cannot "not pay tax" if the tax bill itself is reduced by government policy.

[Bananaistan]

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.

OOC: I have no idea that a CRRA utility function is. I disagree with the premise that progressive taxation systems are unfair or discriminatory.

[Berginseln]

You need to be more specific maybe if you specified "unfair tax against racial, ethnic, political, sexual, or religious groups" but what your proposing is a law which goes against most taxes.

[WayNeacTia]

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.

Let's pretend we're all not as smart as we are (or think we are....) and could you dumb that down just a tad?