₦airaland Forum

How can a federal state be fair?

A federating unit must be weighted according to the tax it pays. Not according to the population or according to any other metric but according to it's revenue. A federal state is a corporate body and if a corporate body is being funded or expecting revenue then stakeholdership will be determined by contribution which is a form of shareholding

The revenue will then be spent according to the wishes of the federal government which will be influenced by need and etc.

Such a system will only make the federating units to be competing among themselves in a fair manner leading to a stronger union and more development.

The representation should also be reviewable from time to time say every five to ten years. It should not be static so that every unit will be seeking ways to increase their stature.

The tax you pay as a constituency is something that can not be faked unlike other metrics. However what you get by using taxes is what you are going to get by using census figures if the cost of living in all federating units are the same. The difference can not be substantial.

This also is how the United Nations should be organised

lawani:
How can a federal state be fair?

A federating unit must be weighted according to the tax it pays. Not according to the population or according to any other metric but according to it's revenue. A federal state is a corporate body and if a corporate body is being funded or expecting revenue then stakeholdership will be determined by contribution which is a form of shareholding

The revenue will then be spent according to the wishes of the federal government which will be influenced by need and etc.

Such a system will only make the federating units to be competing among themselves in a fair manner leading to a stronger union and more development.

The representation should also be reviewable from time to time say every five to ten years. It should not be static so that every unit will be seeking ways to increase their stature.

The tax you pay as a constituency is something that can not be faked unlike other metrics. However what you get by using taxes is what you are going to get by using census figures if the cost of living in all federating units are the same. The difference can not be substantial.

This also is how the United Nations should be organised

Lawani, having read through some of your posts on Nairaland it seems you approach issues from a practical angle and not just out of emotion or ideological and party loyalty.

We have put together a small platform called Project Nigeria for people who want to go beyond the usual political back and forth and have more serious discussions around national development. We want to focus on real issues like electricity, public education, security, taxation, governance, jobs, economic reform, and implementation.

We want to bring together people who can look at problems seriously and discuss workable solutions.

It is on Discord, but the platform itself is not really the main thing. The point is to have a more focused space than Nairaland, where thoughtful people can build on ideas continuously instead of starting from scratch every time.

If you are open to it, I would like to invite you in.

Here is the invite link in case you would like to have a look:
https://discord.com/invite/EPbXXNJUky

lawani:
How can a federal state be fair?

A federating unit must be weighted according to the tax it pays. Not according to the population or according to any other metric but according to it's revenue. A federal state is a corporate body and if a corporate body is being funded or expecting revenue then stakeholdership will be determined by contribution which is a form of shareholding

The revenue will then be spent according to the wishes of the federal government which will be influenced by need and etc.

Such a system will only make the federating units to be competing among themselves in a fair manner leading to a stronger union and more development.

The representation should also be reviewable from time to time say every five to ten years. It should not be static so that every unit will be seeking ways to increase their stature.

The tax you pay as a constituency is something that can not be faked unlike other metrics. However what you get by using taxes is what you are going to get by using census figures if the cost of living in all federating units are the same. The difference can not be substantial.

This also is how the United Nations should be organised

So what if a state pays less tax but gives the Federal govt over 70% of its resources?
Besides, tax experts will tell you that the best form of taxation is progressive tax whereby each entity pays according to his resources and strength. Flat rate taxes is generally known to be retrogressive because efforts do not always yield same results. So if you're advocating for taxation to be a standard of determination of how much weight a state carries in say voting, how does that cure the retrogression involved in Flat rate taxation?
Lastly, it sounds abnormal to use money as a basis for representation in a democratic system when democracy is about the rule of the majority which is supposed to be a cure for aristocracy which is a rule of the elites? Are you sure you still believe in democracy or you're simply telling us that aristocracy is the best form of govt?

Kukutente23:
So what if a state pays less tax but gives the Federal govt over 70% of its resources?
Besides, tax experts will tell you that the best form of taxation is progressive tax whereby each entity pays according to his resources and strength. Flat rate taxes is generally known to be retrogressive because efforts do not always yield same results. So if you're advocating for taxation to be a standard of determination of how much weight a state carries in say voting, how does that cure the retrogression involved in Flat rate taxation?
Lastly, it sounds abnormal to use money as a basis for representation in a democratic system when democracy is about the rule of the majority which is supposed to be a cure for aristocracy which is a rule of the elites? Are you sure you still believe in democracy or you're simply telling us that aristocracy is the best form of govt?

The idea is that many metrics can be manipulated but revenue can not and I don't think it is ever possible for a constituency of 5 million people to pay more tax then a constituency of ten million people if revenue drive and cost of living are the same. So leave people to do their census by themselves and weigh them by their revenue.

Then resources is not population. I am looking for a metric that is an indicator of population size and natural resources don't qualify.

Juren:
Lawani, having read through some of your posts on Nairaland it seems you approach issues from a practical angle and not just out of emotion or ideological and party loyalty.

We have put together a small platform called Project Nigeria for people who want to go beyond the usual political back and forth and have more serious discussions around national development. We want to focus on real issues like electricity, public education, security, taxation, governance, jobs, economic reform, and implementation.

We want to bring together people who can look at problems seriously and discuss workable solutions.

It is on Discord, but the platform itself is not really the main thing. The point is to have a more focused space than Nairaland, where thoughtful people can build on ideas continuously instead of starting from scratch every time.

If you are open to it, I would like to invite you in.

Here is the invite link in case you would like to have a look:
https://discord.com/invite/EPbXXNJUky

I have joined.

lawani:
The idea is that many metrics can be manipulated but revenue can not and I don't think it is ever possible for a constituency of 5 million people to pay more tax then a constituency of ten million people if revenue drive and cost of living are the same. So leave people to do their census by themselves and weigh them by their revenue.

Then resources is not population. I am looking for a metric that is an indicator of population size and natural resources don't qualify.

Who said taxes cannot be manipulated? What about suppressing one side and inflating the other?
There's something called tax evasion which is a phenomenon where people are averse to paying tax for one reason or the other. If ten million people have aversion to tax while five million people are tax compliant, you'll see a skewed return in relation to population size.
I don't know why you are looking for a metric that's an indicator to population size when population size is a basic metric in itself that's easily obtainable as a primary data with little effort and least error

Kukutente23:
Who said taxes cannot be manipulated? What about suppressing one side and inflating the other?
There's something called tax evasion which is a phenomenon where people are averse to paying tax for one reason or the other. If ten million people have aversion to tax while five million people are tax compliant, you'll see a skewed return in relation to population size.
I don't know why you are looking for a metric that's an indicator to population size when population size is a basic metric in itself that's easily obtainable as a primary data with little effort and least error

The tax you pay is your weight. For ten years you pay half the tax I pay and you want equal representation? That wouldn't be fair

lawani:
The tax you pay is your weight. For ten years you pay half the tax I pay and you want equal representation? That wouldn't be fair

Like I said if you want to make taxes a parameter for representation, why do you exclude natural resources in an environment as well? How's that fair? What about the military? Don't you think the tribe with the highest military personnel should have more representation than others

lawani:
I have joined.

Welcome, brother.

Kukutente23:
Like I said if you want to make taxes a parameter for representation, why do you exclude natural resources in an environment as well? How's that fair? What about the military? Don't you think the tribe with the highest military personnel should have more representation than others

Natural resources are not human beings. I am not talking of resource control here but taxes. Should oil be a substitute for human beings?. Mind you I am not against giving people all their resources, that is another matter entirely. If Kano is organized with everybody paying tax, they will always have ten times the GDP of Bayelsa even if you give all the oil to Bayelsa. They will therefore generate comeasurate revenue. After all Kano can produce and export 5 billion dollars of farm produce per annum and Bayelsa cant. Cattle alone in Kano can rival oil in Bayelsa.

Therefore whatever they have whether farm produce, oil or cattle let them use it to generate revenue and that revenue should determine the representation at the center. Or are Bayelsa and etc not making money from oil already? Oil is an industry already in oil bearing states and it adds to their tax revenue. It does not add to the tax revenue of non oil bearing states. The FG is only taking what the constitution allows it to take.

If there are two thousand oil workers in Bayelsa, they all should be paying income tax to Bayelsa and it will shore up their revenue.

Military personnel are workers and they should pay tax like other workers as they use social amenities. They don't need special privileges. Only to be paid well. Are military personnel more important than farmers or teachers? No. All are important. Productivity is what should determine representation in a federal state

lawani:
Natural resources are not human beings. I am not talking of resource control here but taxes. Should oil be a substitute for human beings?. Mind you I am not against giving people all their resources, that is another matter entirely. If Kano is organized with everybody paying tax, they will always have ten times the GDP of Bayelsa even if you give all the oil to Bayelsa. They will therefore generate comeasurate revenue. After all Kano can produce and export 5 billion dollars of farm produce per annum and Bayelsa cant. Cattle alone in Kano can rival oil in Bayelsa.

Therefore whatever they have whether farm produce, oil or cattle let them use it to generate revenue and that revenue should determine the representation at the center. Or are Bayelsa and etc not making money from oil already? Oil is an industry already in oil bearing states and it adds to their tax revenue. It does not add to the tax revenue of non oil bearing states. The FG is only taking what the constitution allows it to take.

If there are two thousand oil workers in Bayelsa, they all should be paying income tax to Bayelsa and it will shore up their revenue.

Military personnel are workers and they should pay tax like other workers as they use social amenities. They don't need special privileges. Only to be paid well. Are military personnel more important than farmers or teachers? No. All are important. Productivity is what should determine representation in a federal state

You're not following me. Anyone with basic knowledge of governance will tell you that military and generally instruments of enforcement are the ones that give a state its sovereignty and stability. So in the sense of a state's corporate existence, the state force appaatchik is more important than any other office even that of the president. So why shouldn't we determine representation by the number of people a tribe or constituent contribute to the stability of the state instead of using the state purse? I don't think the state purse is superior to enforcement apparatus
Control of natural resources is carried out by human beings. The natural crude does not flow to the surface by itself. So denying people's contribution in terms of natural resources is simply hypocritical. I don't know where you got the idea that cattle can rival oil in today's world economy but that's not even an issue for me.
My point is that you can't pick a single parameter like taxation to advocate for representation. That's highly biased and unfair

Kukutente23:
You're not following me. Anyone with basic knowledge of governance will tell you that military and generally instruments of enforcement are the ones that give a state its sovereignty and stability. So in the sense of a state's corporate existence, the state force appaatchik is more important than any other office even that of the president. So why shouldn't we determine representation by the number of people a tribe or constituent contribute to the stability of the state instead of using the state purse? I don't think the state purse is superior to enforcement apparatus
Control of natural resources is carried out by human beings. The natural crude does not flow to the surface by itself. So denying people's contribution in terms of natural resources is simply hypocritical. I don't know where you got the idea that cattle can rival oil in today's world economy but that's not even an issue for me.
My point is that you can't pick a single parameter like taxation to advocate for representation. That's highly biased and unfair

In a civilized settings you can not say the person with the biggest guns should be ordering other people around. That does not happen in any civilized society. The only thing that makes a constituency ahead of another in a civilized setting is the economy or the size of the GDP which is a direct result of the population other things being constant. The constituency with the larger population will have a larger GDP and a larger government revenue as a result other things being constant. We are no longer in that era of might is right.

Again if you give all the oil in Nigeria to the states that bear them, Bayelsa will still have like one tenth of Lagos or Kano GDP. Yes cattle can be more than oil. There are countries making more from cattle than Nigeria makes from oil. Cattle consumed in Lagos per day will be close to ten thousand heads, all over the country per day will be up to seventy thousand heads and there is still dairy products.

You can pick taxation to determine representation at the center because revenue can not be faked unlike census figures. I wonder why you can't see this

lawani:
In a civilized settings you can not say the person with the biggest guns should be ordering other people around. That does not happen in any civilized society. The only thing that makes a constituency ahead of another in a civilized setting is the economy or the size of the GDP which is a direct result of the population other things being constant. The constituency with the larger population will have a larger GDP and a larger government revenue as a result other things being constant. We are no longer in that era of might is right.

Again if you give all the oil in Nigeria to the states that bear them, Bayelsa will still have like one tenth of Lagos or Kano GDP. Yes cattle can be more than oil. There are countries making more from cattle than Nigeria makes from oil. Cattle consumed in Lagos per day will be close to ten thousand heads, all over the country per day will be up to seventy thousand heads and there is still dairy products.

You can pick taxation to determine representation at the center because revenue can not be faked unlike census figures. I wonder why you can't see this

Do you mean your idea of representation is about who gets to order people around? You see why it is good to interrogate deeply any idea to know and understand the unspoken and underlying prejudices under it?
Just as might cannot be right, wealth should not be right as well. If you think your wealth gives you right, then nothing stops the man with might to also exhibit it in forcing his believed rights.
It is not true to say the only thing that makes a country ahead of others is GDP in a civilised setting. That's simply your own bias speaking. If not, point me to any convention or statutes that says economy should be the deciding factor in determining the status of countries in relation to one another. It is also misguided to claim that population alone decides GDP when the country with the largest GDP in the world is not the most populous nor even close.
And revenue can indeed by faked. Just last year, the President claimed that revenue target had been met for the year in August only for the budget to perform at 30% by year end. This is a veritable example of faking revenue. Even the world bank had to caution Nigeria when the GDP figures were about to be cooked!!
So your points are to narrow and biased for any serious governance system to be built on. It seeks to serve a narrow and preconceived and not build an enduring system that ensures justice and fairness for mankind

Kukutente23:
Do you mean your idea of representation is about who gets to order people around? You see why it is good to interrogate deeply any idea to know and understand the unspoken and underlying prejudices under it?
Just as might cannot be right, wealth should not be right as well. If you think your wealth gives you right, then nothing stops the man with might to also exhibit it in forcing his believed rights.
It is not true to say the only thing that makes a country ahead of others is GDP in a civilised setting. That's simply your own bias speaking. If not, point me to any convention or statutes that says economy should be the deciding factor in determining the status of countries in relation to one another. It is also misguided to claim that population alone decides GDP when the country with the largest GDP in the world is not the most populous nor even close.
And revenue can indeed by faked. Just last year, the President claimed that revenue target had been met for the year in August only for the budget to perform at 30% by year end. This is a veritable example of faking revenue. Even the world bank had to caution Nigeria when the GDP figures were about to be cooked!!
So your points are to narrow and biased for any serious governance system to be built on. It seeks to serve a narrow and preconceived and not build an enduring system that ensures justice and fairness for mankind

Government get to order people around. Don't you know that?.
I am talking of revenue and not wealthy individuals or wealth in particular. Revenue will be an indicator of population size when cost of living and revenue drive are the same. Any variance will not be very significant. I don't know why you want a constituency of one million people to have the same representation as one of ten million people. Do you care to explain?.
The countries with the highest population have the biggest real GDP and why you don't know this is because cost of living and revenue drive are not uniform all over the world. China consumes three times the electricity the US consumes for instance and buys three times more brand new cars too. India definitely consumes three times the number of smart phones the US consumes and etc.

Revenue can not be faked and if it is faked it is okay once you are paying in the percentage you are supposed to pay as a constituency to qualify for the number of seats you are allotted

lawani:
Government get to order people around. Don't you know that?.
I am talking of revenue and not wealthy individuals or wealth in particular. Revenue will be an indicator of population size when cost of living and revenue drive are the same. Any variance will not be very significant. I don't know why you want a constituency of one million people to have the same representation as one of ten million people. Do you care to explain?.
The countries with the highest population have the biggest real GDP and why you don't know this is because cost of living and revenue drive are not uniform all over the world. China consumes three times the electricity the US consumes for instance and buys three times more brand new cars too. India definitely consumes three times the number of smart phones the US consumes and etc.

Revenue can not be faked and if it is faked it is okay once you are paying in the percentage you are supposed to pay as a constituency to qualify for the number of seats you are allotted

Government gets to order people around because the people gave them the power to do so. What we're discussing is how that power is arrived at and if you claim that might is not right but money is right then you shouldn't have a problem with a govt formed on account military might since everyone must use what they have to get power.

As to your question about population size, I've not said anything close to what you claimed. It is you who is claiming that revenue should be a determinant of the level of power a community should have in a political system. In other words, power should be available for the highest bidder. In a democracy, what usually holds is equal rights and representation and then rule of the majority. You want that truncated for money. Consumption alone does not determine GDP. GDP as the name implies is based on production activity not Consumption activity. So without even looking at the veracity of your claim, US will drive more GDP from China and India's use of the smartphone since the android technology in those phones is a US product. This means more revenue for US even though both countries have far higher population.
So you see now that in your conclusion, your focus is no longer on the determination of population using revenue but the ability to pay. So Bayelsa with humongous revenue from oil can decide to buy up all the population of Kano and thus have higher say even with the least population

Kukutente23:
Government gets to order people around because the people gave them the power to do so. What we're discussing is how that power is arrived at and if you claim that might is not right but money is right then you shouldn't have a problem with a govt formed on account military might since everyone must use what they have to get power.

As to your question about population size, I've not said anything close to what you claimed. It is you who is claiming that revenue should be a determinant of the level of power a community should have in a political system. In other words, power should be available for the highest bidder. In a democracy, what usually holds is equal rights and representation and then rule of the majority. You want that truncated for money. Consumption alone does not determine GDP. GDP as the name implies is based on production activity not Consumption activity. So without even looking at the veracity of your claim, US will drive more GDP from China and India's use of the smartphone since the android technology in those phones is a US product. This means more revenue for US even though both countries have far higher population.
So you see now that in your conclusion, your focus is no longer on the determination of population using revenue but the ability to pay. So Bayelsa with humongous revenue from oil can decide to buy up all the population of Kano and thus have higher say even with the least population

I can't be going back and forth with you. You don't understand how things work and that is why you say Bayelsa can buy up the whole of Kano.

lawani:
I can't be going back and forth with you. You don't understand how things work and that is why you say Bayelsa can buy up the whole of Kano.

I went through the whole thread, I blame u for wasting your time with that Kukutente23.