Access to Sweetness

[Gnoria]

2. Declares that no member nation may impose customs duties, tariffs or other taxes on any imported dietary sweeteners of such types, unless either or both of the following conditions apply _
A/ The nation concerned also produces the same substance within their own territories, and taxes that domestic product at least as heavily as they wish to tax the imports;
B/ The imposition of tariffs or other taxes is intended purely to counteract production subsidies within, and/or "product dumping" by, another nation, and does not exceed the level that is actually necessary for this purpose;

The way I read this, nations may only tax specific domestic goods at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they tax the same foreign goods. Which does indeed dictate what a nations domestic taxes can be, if and only if, they are also taxing foreign goods--it makes a floor basically, which cannot be gone under.

Well, OK. I was thinking in terms of having domestic taxes first, and then setting international taxes, so the domestic taxes aren't restricted, but it could go the other way too. No matter; it doesn't affect the resolution. I agree with your interpretation.

[Bears Armed]

But that aside, if the approach the honoured Ambassador is proposing were to work it could not possibly do so by creating massive imbalances in trade patterns,

Do you really think that this proposal would create "massive imbalances in trade patterns"?
*(Borrin rubs his stomach to show confusion)*
Are dietary sweeteners really likely to be a "massive" part of any nation's imports? Even for us they're only a small proportion of the imported goods, especially if one goes by price rather than by volume... And after all, as currently written this proposal wouldn't actually require any nation to allow any imports at all...
Hr'rmm, considering the latter point, I might add a clause urging national goverments to ensure that the supplies of such substances available (whether domestic, imported, or of mixed origins) are adequate to meet the demand within those nations in terms of both quanttity and quality.

With this in mind though, we would like to make a suggestion. We believe that clause 2/A should not require that the product is also produced within a nation's borders. This is because, in Gnoria, we have a nominal sales tax on most goods that are sold. Now, it is too cold in Gnoria to grow sugar, but we still would like to be able to tax imported sugar at the same rate as other products. So perhaps the clause could be loosened up to allow taxing imports at the same rate as an entire "class" of products are are produced domestically.

That does seem reasonable, I suppose, and I'll see about modifying the clause accordingly before the next time that this proposal gets submitted (OOC: which will probably next week, when I've got a break from work and will -- hopefully -- be able to manage a TG campaign...). Is your climate even too cold for Sugar Beet, not just for Sugar Cane?

Notice also that the way this clause is worded, specifically the "no member nation may impose customs duties, tarrifs, or other taxes" which would include a sales tax, which in my opinion, is unrelated to the nature of the product being foreign or domestic. Sales taxes are simply a way for national and local governments to fund their work. I think the wording is aiming for controlling taxes exclusively dealing with the nature of trade between nations, and in that case this line would need to be changed--but I could be wrong and the proposal could be trying to make all foreign goods more marketable than domestic goods.

It isn't trying to do so, and I'll take another look at that clause's wording before the next time that it gets submitted.

3. Creates an organisation called the ‘World Assembly Free Trade Investigation and Normalisation Group’ (or 'WAFTING'), and ...

OOC: wafting? seriously?

OOC: Seriously...



(Some of the later NSUN resolutions also created organisations whose acronyms some people might find amusing...)

[Absolvability]

The way I read this, nations may only tax specific domestic goods at a rate greater than or equal to the rate at which they tax the same foreign goods. Which does indeed dictate what a nations domestic taxes can be, if and only if, they are also taxing foreign goods--it makes a floor basically, which cannot be gone under.

Yes, thanks for explaining that so that the esteemed Ambassador from Gnoria can understand.

Hr'rmm, considering the latter point, I might add a clause urging national goverments to ensure that the supplies of such substances available (whether domestic, imported, or of mixed origins) are adequate to meet the demand within those nations in terms of both quanttity and quality.

Oh goodness. Now we're going so far as to presume that there is in fact a DEMAND for sweeteners? I understand the economic definition, but still think that is a little absurd.

I'm sure we've all seen copies of the 'Fattest Citizens,' census that runs through our regions every now and again. My nation is all but off the list... though I can see this will change.

I just got an idea for a proposal. Lets force all fast-food places to become non-profit organizations!
-dripping with sarcasm.-

[Bears Armed]

Hr'rmm, and I'll probably also add a sub-clause allowing tariffs/customs duties/etc when dealing with imports from non-WA nations that aren't themselves practicing free trade in such matters...

[Urgench]

But that aside, if the approach the honoured Ambassador is proposing were to work it could not possibly do so by creating massive imbalances in trade patterns,

Do you really think that this proposal would create "massive imbalances in trade patterns"?
*(Borrin rubs his stomach to show confusion)*
Are dietary sweeteners really likely to be a "massive" part of any nation's imports? Even for us they're only a small proportion of the imported goods, especially if one goes by price rather than by volume... And after all, as currently written this proposal wouldn't actually require any nation to allow any imports at all...
Hr'rmm, considering the latter point, I might add a clause urging national goverments to ensure that the supplies of such substances available (whether domestic, imported, or of mixed origins) are adequate to meet the demand within those nations in terms of both quanttity and quality

Whatever your contention honoured Ambassador this is not a free trade resolution, essentially this is form of command economics. the prioritisation of one from of trade over others in this manner is not in any way liable to make trade any more free it will simply bias trade in favour of one industry.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

Whatever your contention honoured Ambassador this is not a free trade resolution, essentially this is form of command economics. the prioritisation of one from of trade over others in this manner is not in any way liable to make trade any more free it sill simply bias trade in favour of one industry.

Agreed. Furthermore, despite things I have said, I am beginning to see what admirable consistancy the Ambassador of Urgench broadcasts multi-issually.

It has been my contention on occassion that exceptions should be made to such lofty ideals on the grounds of necessity, or at least my own admittedly warped (aren't all of ours to some extent?) version of necessity. The bottom line is that sweeteners do not constitute necessity and therefore the Ambassador of Urgench is correct in any stretch of the imagination.

[Gnoria]

With this in mind though, we would like to make a suggestion. We believe that clause 2/A should not require that the product is also produced within a nation's borders. This is because, in Gnoria, we have a nominal sales tax on most goods that are sold. Now, it is too cold in Gnoria to grow sugar, but we still would like to be able to tax imported sugar at the same rate as other products. So perhaps the clause could be loosened up to allow taxing imports at the same rate as an entire "class" of products are are produced domestically.

That does seem reasonable, I suppose, and I'll see about modifying the clause accordingly before the next time that this proposal gets submitted (OOC: which will probably next week, when I've got a break from work and will -- hopefully -- be able to manage a TG campaign...). Is your climate even too cold for Sugar Beet, not just for Sugar Cane?

Heh...yes, I've received several irate messages from our sugar beet farmers over the past week; apparently, we do grow sugar beets in Gnoria. Still, if for some reason our supply was disrupted, or the farmers left, or we were another nation that didn't happen to grow any sugar products, we wouldn't want to be bound by such an arbitrary restriction.

I also resent the comment from the good ambassador from Absolvability and request that he show more respect to his fellow delegates.

Douglas Moore
Secy. to the WA

[Absolvability]

I also resent the comment from the good ambassador from Absolvability and request that he show more respect to his fellow delegates.

Yes, thanks for explaining that so that the esteemed Ambassador from Gnoria can understand.

That comment? I do not think that was insulting, Ambassador. At one point you did not seem to understand. I was appreciative of someone else doing what I could not. If we were to operate under the presumption that everybody understood everything then there would be little need for debate. I do not think respect should undermine our reasons for being here. In fact, I think the Ambassador of Gnoria should develop some thicker skin.

[Bears Armed Mission]

New version, just submitted:

Access to Sweetness
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

Description: The World Assembly,

Recognising that many people like to include various sweet substances, such as (but not limited to) honey, maple syrup, marmalade, condensed milk, treacle, sugar, or molasses, amongst the foodstuffs that they consume,

Regretting that some governments choose to impose customs duties, tariffs, or other taxes, that make it harder for people to afford such substances,

Recognising that this organisation should only reduce the sovereign rights of the member nations' governments within their own lands when this is absolutely necessary, but that international trade is a legitimate subject for international legislation;

1. Strongly urges member nations to refrain from taxing any such dietary sweeteners that are produced within their borders, or at least to refrain from taxing these at rates that would make them too expensive for most of those nations’ inhabitants;

2. Strongly urges member nations to ensure that the supplies of such sweeteners available within their territories, whether produced domestically or imported, are adequate in both quantity and quality to meet the demand for those substances there;

3. Declares that no member nation may impose customs duties, tariffs, or other taxes on any such imported dietary sweeteners, unless at least one of the following conditions applies_
A/ The nation concerned also produces the same substance within its own territories, and taxes that specific domestic product at least as heavily as it wishes to tax the imports;
B/ The nation concerned produces at least one other such substance within its own territories, and taxes all such domestically produced sweeteners at least as heavily as it wishes to tax the imports;
D/ The nation concerned applies taxation at the level concerned to all foodstuffs, regardless of whether those are domestically produced or imported;
D/ This imposition of tariffs or other taxes is intended purely to counteract production subsidies within, and/or "product dumping" by, another nation, and does not exceed the level that is actually necessary for this purpose;
E/ This imposition of tariffs or other taxes is intended purely to help balance any such charges that the nation exporting the sweeteners itself places on some or all of its imports from this nation, and does not exceed the level that is actually necessary for this purpose;

3. Creates an organisation called the ‘World Assembly Free Trade Investigation and Normalisation Group’ (or 'WAFTING'), and _
A/ Gives WAFTING the right and duty to impose binding arbitration on any disputes about the application of this resolution's terms that are brought before it;
B/ Creates a universal right of appeal to WAFTING in any disputes about these matters that the relevant nations’ legal systems do not settle to the satisfaction of all parties involved;
C/ Authorises WAFTING to collect the costs of holding its hearings from the parties to those hearings, as a part of its decisions in those cases;
D/ Requires that WAFTING and all of its staff act honestly, and without fear or favour, in these matters.

I hope that the changes in wording since the previous version are enough to satisfy the government of Gnoria?
I realise that this proposal will not satisfy those governments that really want to see another 'Free Trade' proposal of very wide scope, such as the late & lamented 'World Assembly Economic Union', but I have already explained my own government's preference for trying a series of smaller steps instead in the replacement process (and, OOC, will point out that a series of narrow-scope 'Free Trade' resolution would actually have a better cumulative effect on our WA nations' economic strengths than a single 'Strong' resolution would provide...).
As for those governments that might be worried about these measures creating a "major imbalance" in trading patterns, I will point out that this text still refrains from compelling nations to import any such substances, so that any national governments that do perceive such an imbalance forming in their own trade-patterns would still be completely free either to set limits on the amounts of these substances produced/exported/imported or -- as I and my own government would think preferable -- to negotiate bilateral or multilateral treaties extending the principles of Free Trade to other categories of goods themselves without waiting for the WA to do this.

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
For
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.


____________________________________________________________________________________

Approval link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=Sweetness

[Malikov]

This is the most ridiculous resolution proposal that I have ever heard of, or read. What is the point of setting up a trade system for sweetners? They are un-neccessary, and un-healthy. Lets leave them be!

Malikov

[Allech-Atreus]

OOC: You know, I'm officially tired of your wank. You're not being cute, you're not being funny, you're not being clever- you're just wasting everyone's time arguing this pointless bullshit. WAFTING? Really? That's what you've come up with?

Come on. Get a fucking grip and stop wasting everyone's time. It's not becoming of you.

[Meekinos]

The government of Meekinos resents the idea of lowering import taxes and tariffs. It'll run counter to its desire to protect its economy. Our manufacturers enjoy a wonderful situation no tax levied on goods produced domestically. Imported goods are subject to a variety of taxes. This keeps our manufacturers happy; they stay in the country, provide jobs. It allows them to remain competitive. If the good isn't readily available then there is no import tax levied on the good, but as we can produce our own sweeteners of different varieties we don't need to import, and thus, that which is imported is subject to an import tax. For this reason alone, we object to this proposal. It would hurt our economy.

[Bears Armed]

The government of Meekinos resents the idea of lowering import taxes and tariffs. It'll run counter to its desire to protect its economy. Our manufacturers enjoy a wonderful situation no tax levied on goods produced domestically. Imported goods are subject to a variety of taxes. This keeps our manufacturers happy; they stay in the country, provide jobs. It allows them to remain competitive. If the good isn't readily available then there is no import tax levied on the good, but as we can produce our own sweeteners of different varieties we don't need to import, and thus, that which is imported is subject to an import tax. For this reason alone, we object to this proposal. It would hurt our economy.

if you don't need to import, then don't import: This proposal wouldn't force you to do so...

[Meekinos]

The government of Meekinos resents the idea of lowering import taxes and tariffs. It'll run counter to its desire to protect its economy. Our manufacturers enjoy a wonderful situation no tax levied on goods produced domestically. Imported goods are subject to a variety of taxes. This keeps our manufacturers happy; they stay in the country, provide jobs. It allows them to remain competitive. If the good isn't readily available then there is no import tax levied on the good, but as we can produce our own sweeteners of different varieties we don't need to import, and thus, that which is imported is subject to an import tax. For this reason alone, we object to this proposal. It would hurt our economy.

if you don't need to import, then don't import: This proposal wouldn't force you to do so...

Why do you want to remove a nation's sovereign right to charge an import tax? We may not need to, but there are others who will, but will choose to levy their own tax.

There are certain items on which an import tax makes sense, and those on which it doesn't. It makes sense to tax a luxury item. Anything that is a sweetener is a luxury item, therefore nations should be left to tax it when appropriate.

[Bears Armed]

Why do you want to remove a nation's sovereign right to charge an import tax? We may not need to, but there are others who will, but will choose to levy their own tax.

There are certain items on which an import tax makes sense, and those on which it doesn't. It makes sense to tax a luxury item. Anything that is a sweetener is a luxury item, therefore nations should be left to tax it when appropriate.

We realise that some governments may regard these substances as a "luxury item" and therefore consider taxing them to be a sensible matter: We disagree with that viewpoint, and that is one of the main reasons for this proposal.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Malikov]

The only places that might consider these items "luxury items", are places that should probably be spending time concetrating on improving their country's economic situation. Seriously, anyone who considers sugar a "luxury" is in a hole. Just to clarify, I have nothing against people that have that kind of problem. It's not their fault if their government doesn't know how to run their country.

Malikov

[Meekinos]

The only places that might consider these items "luxury items", are places that should probably be spending time concetrating on improving their country's economic situation. Seriously, anyone who considers sugar a "luxury" is in a hole. Just to clarify, I have nothing against people that have that kind of problem. It's not their fault if their government doesn't know how to run their country.

Malikov

We are bemused... what do you mean by "in a hole"? Do you not mean under a rock?

We also believe the good ambassador should inform his nation that they ought to focus on their own economic situation before they criticize others. What does your tiny little nation get on preaching to others on how to govern a nation, especially one that is exponentially larger than yours? Once you're nation has been self-sufficient for a while should it consider preaching to others.

[Malikov]

Ambassador Alexia Papadaki wrote:
We also believe the good ambassador should inform his nation that they ought to focus on their own economic situation before they criticize others. What does your tiny little nation get on preaching to others on how to govern a nation, especially one that is exponentially larger than yours? Once you're nation has been self-sufficient for a while should it consider preaching to others.

Nations of small status can have good ideas, regardless of their size and longevity. What you said is like saying, a country such as Canada should not be as recognized on a national level, when compared to a nation like Japan. Just becasue Canada was created after Japan, and has a signifcantly smaller population does not mean that they are a country of morons who have no idea what they are doing.

Malikov, Jordia

[Meekinos]

Ambassador Alexia Papadaki wrote:
We also believe the good ambassador should inform his nation that they ought to focus on their own economic situation before they criticize others. What does your tiny little nation get on preaching to others on how to govern a nation, especially one that is exponentially larger than yours? Once you're nation has been self-sufficient for a while should it consider preaching to others.

Nations of small status can have good ideas, regardless of their size and longevity. What you said is like saying, a country such as Canada should not be as recognized on a national level, when compared to a nation like Japan. Just becasue Canada was created after Japan, and has a signifcantly smaller population does not mean that they are a country of morons who have no idea what they are doing.

Malikov, Jordia

We're quite sorry, good ambassador, but what are these places of which you speak? I have never heard of any 'Canada' or 'Japan'... unless you are of course referring to Japanada. We are not familiar with these places of which you speak.

[Malikov]

I mean real countries in the real world... you know, Canada was part of the Allies in WWI and WWII, and Japan, that was part of the Axis in WWII. If you don't know then your'e a complete moron, because both nations were part of a massive historical event (if you weren't following they were part of WWII).

Malikov, Jorida

[Meekinos]

I mean real countries in the real world... you know, Canada was part of the Allies in WWI and WWII, and Japan, that was part of the Axis in WWII. If you don't then your a complete moron, because both nations were part of a massive historical event (if you weren't following they were part of WWII).

Malikov, Jorida

The "real world"? Is this not the real world? We believe it would be prudent for the good ambassador to go get some rest. You're experiencing a mild form of delusion, and we worry for you. After a nice cup of decaf Earl Grey tea and a good night's rest you should be in a sound mind again and not babbling utter non-sense about the "real world" and these mythical countries or events.

[Malikov]

Meekino's...

When you attack the reputation, and ideas that my Nation puts forward then I will use example from the world that you, and everyone else in Nation States in. If you refuse to acknowledge that you do not exist within Nation States, exclusivly then I suggest that you take your own advise, and you should probably go see a doctor...

Malikov, Jordia

[Meekinos]

Meekino's...

When you attack the reputation, and ideas that my Nation puts forward then I will use example from the world that you, and everyone else in Nation States in. If you refuse to acknowledge that you do not exist within Nation States, exclusivly then I suggest that you take your own advise, and you should probably go see a doctor...

Malikov, Jordia

OOC: If you made a distinction between IC and OOC comments you wouldn't have to worry about me taking you literally. Since you failed to include an OOC tag next to your real world example, I presumed you were still IC and thus, continued to conduct myself in an IC manner. Alas, there was no distinction so I continued to play my part.

[Malikov]

I apoligize for my ingnorant mistake.

Malikov, Jordia

[Meekinos]

I apoligize for my ingnorant mistake.

Malikov, Jordia

OOC: It is quite all right. I got your telegram and have responded. I hope it helps you.