Firstly, I want to express that the concept is interesting...however..

Everyday I get sicker from all the new coins that pop like mushrooms...its amazing the amount of altcoins people are creating, just to be in the front-line of some "new" movement that seems different from all the others.

For me, the underlying "feature" of your coin is the following: taxes. I agree that there should some kind of tax mechanism on these coins, but not only I have no clue about how to implement that in a reasonable way, as I also know that your suggestion fails (because I already thought about that one - it was probably the first hypothesis that I raised).

First, realize that what you thought of can easily be done over bitcoin. There is no super-special-stunt required to technically implement the transfer of funds to a given address - let me stick to you on this one - a charity institution address.

The real questions are not technical, are the "high-level" questions that are independent of a particular implementation.

So you propose a % of every transaction. hmm, thats fishy. Every transaction is taxed, so, even if you just transfer funds between two addresses you own, these are taxed. This is not a real problem - people would just avoid transferring funds between addresses.

Now lets begin with the weaker point: how do you define an address to be eligible to receive tax funds?
 - a pre-agreed list of addresses, at every X blocks?
 - each node chooses a list of addresses (for local charity institutions)?

Well, on all these hypothesis, there could be some sort of lobbying. Definitely not good!
This puts your "charity" method quite fragile, but I surely encourage you to challenge me, because I love a good discussion.

What I would suggest is to pay those taxes to countries, where each country publishes a state-owned address. But still, some problems persist.

Lets think about the following: A person makes a transaction. To which country would the taxes go?
Few options here:
 - A random address from one of the ~200 countries OR all the 200 addresses (mathematically the same, leads to equally distributed taxes)
 - A country address specified by the payer or payee.

This is a question hard to answer, but I guess I would go for the second option, as the first one would benefit small (population) countries. For instance, for each transaction, china would receive the same amount of money as Luxembourg, which yields a lower contribution per capita.

The second one would even have an interesting feature, as it would allow someone in Norway to pay taxes to Nigeria, or something similar.

As a bottom-line, I advise you to forget about technical stuff, and start by thinking about the real questions.

What is your oppinion over my arguments, aidcoins?