NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Unfair Tax Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Yaak
Envoy
 
Posts: 248
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

[DRAFT] Unfair Tax Act

Postby Yaak » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:12 pm

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.
Taiwan is a country, Tiananmen Square Protests happened, and free Tibet.

User avatar
Yaak
Envoy
 
Posts: 248
Founded: Sep 19, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Yaak » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:12 pm

Reserved
Taiwan is a country, Tiananmen Square Protests happened, and free Tibet.

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 482
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Apatosaurus » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:14 pm

Ambassador Scott "So this prohibits progressive taxes?"
Card farmer, fenda and filthy cosmo | WA Ambassador: Ambrose Scott | Go admire my factbook and upvote! | He/Him
fenda nations always deserve banjection - Evil Cub
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort. - Altmoras
Diagrams of urine were not what I expected to find in NSGP today, but perhaps my expectations were too high - Refuge Isle
SEASON T*REE!

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11102
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:27 pm

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,

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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.
Last edited by Untecna on Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11102
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:53 pm

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".
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by Untecna on Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2591
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

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?
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.
Nothing
Everything

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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?

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.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21830
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:46 pm

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.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2591
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

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.
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.
Nothing
Everything

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by Untecna on Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2591
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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".

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.
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.
Nothing
Everything

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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.

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.
Last edited by Untecna on Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11102
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby 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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16490
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Dec 03, 2021 10:33 pm

"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?"

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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?"

OOC: I can't find where this occurs, would you mind pointing this out?
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11102
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:47 pm

Untecna wrote:
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?"

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.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Untecna
Minister
 
Posts: 2357
Founded: Jun 02, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby 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.

Well, tax breaks I can see, clearly. More or less I meant tax brackets.
Californian
Dragon with internet access
Unironic NSG Poster
Queer!
Deputy Prime Minister in Institute of Cellulose
Political Beliefs (Not entirely finished)
Huge interstellar Empire
across the Milkdromeda galaxy,
with cool space lizards and fish
WA Ambassador: Awack'ir Vensinu

Flag Dragon's Name: Hieronymus

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2591
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

I just want to confirm that you are fully cognizant of the fact that you are arguing taxation with an economist, correct?
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.
Nothing
Everything

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3241
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:15 am

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.

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?


Please play the ball and not the man. Untecna has as much right to contribute their opinions as anyone else.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11102
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby 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.

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.

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.

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

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3241
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby 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.

OOC: I have no idea that a CRRA utility function is. I disagree with the premise that progressive taxation systems are unfair or discriminatory.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Berginseln
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: Nov 29, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Berginseln » Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:43 am

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.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2591
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby 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.

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?
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.
Nothing
Everything

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andusre, Holy federacion, Old Hope, Thousand Branches

Advertisement

Remove ads