NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my intention to bring about a resolution that provides for the monetary needs of the United Nations. Despite the number of nations who would scream and yell if the UN ever came knocking for money at their door, I feel that providing for the good of the global community by ensuring that this organization has the financial ability to support it's initiatives is a worthwhile path to walk down. In it's final form, this resolution will accomplish the following five major planks:

1) Define the previous resolution, "A Ban on UN Taxation" as applying only to individual citizens and not the governments of member states.

2) Establish a progressive funding quota for all member nations, based on their gross domestic product. Small nations or those with weaker economies will be responsible for a smaller percentage, while larger, more economically powerful states will be responsible for more.

3) Prohibit the United Nations from requiring supplementary funding in any subsequent resolutions. Individual states are allowed and encouraged to voluntarily provide funds should they deem a particular issue has merit, but no additional requirements beyond the provisions of the funding resolution may be enacted.

4) Establish a United Nations Trust Fund for all surplus monies derived through the funding quota system. Should the United Nations end up with more income than expenditures, the net surplus will be set aside in interest-bearing accounts for use in future programs.

5) Establish the United Nations General Accounting Office, and bestow upon it the responsibility of ensuring that all UN monies are spent in the most efficient manner. The UNGAO will oversee all transactions involving funds from the UN budget, as well as maintain the United Nations Trust Fund. Furthermore, the UNGAO will be charged with setting each nation's funding quota, as per a sliding scale to be determined by the aforementioned GDP formula.

5) Prohibit the United Nations from engaging in defecit spending. In the event that total income does not provide adequate funding for the full-spectrum of UN programs, limited funding will be available through the United Nations Trust Fund, as allowed by the UNGAO. If this supplemental funding fails to cover the total burden, it is the responsibilty of each UN mission, under the cooridination of UNGAO, to reduce their financial needs until the budget is balanced.

Constructive criticism is welcome, and open debate encouraged. Complaining about how the UN shouldn't take any of your money does not count as constructive criticism, nor do tired arguments about national soveriengty. If you choose to make such an argument, be prepared to back it up with something aside from empty anti-UN rhetoric. Claims without warrants will most likely be ignored.

I am prepared to clarify the inent behind any of these planks, as well as the addition of new planks or modification of existing ones.

Thank you in advance for your time and effort.

2) Establish a progressive funding quota for all member nations, based on their gross domestic product. Small nations or those with weaker economies will be responsible for a smaller percentage, while larger, more economically powerful states will be responsible for more.


Is there going to be a tax bracket system layed out or did you intend on using a flat tax? And, though it may be too early to answer, of what magnitude?

I intend to use a bracket system. While a flat tax would fufill the requirement of spreading the burden - 10% of 10,000 is more than 10% of 1,000 - a bracket system does a better job, and gives the UN more money to work with. Unfortunately, I haven't worked that bracket out yet. If there's a math major among us who could whip out a formula, by all means, I'd appreciate that kind of help.

this is a very bad idea!!

This shall be voted against as it has no merit whatsoever.

The UN does not need any funding to squabble.

As far as I can see, this set-up, whilst otherwise a very good idea, would not allow for future increases in the amount of money collected, except by having nations' GDPs increase (i.e. if the UN starts by taking 3% of my GDP, that won't change unless I change tax bracket). There should be some allowance for the UNGAO to change the amount collected if, for instance, resolutions set up a few major programs.

Since we are unable to repeal resolutions, and most new resolutions involve setting up a new program which requires more money, the UN in fact consumes a constantly increasing sum of money. This must be recognised.

10% of GDP? 3%? Y'all ain't thinkin' very clearly, are ya?

Let's start by making a realistic budget of current needs, which by my reckoning pays for a few big-ass buildings, staff for those buildings, a couple of big server rooms for the databanks for the patent office and the like. That sort of stuff could be paid for out of the petty cash allotment of the Diplomatic Corps. The vast majority of UN activity is unfunded mandates. For the rest, we're talking maybe .0003% of GDP from ALL member nations.

Frisbeeteria will try to work up a sensible budget for the UN, or welcomes others to do so in his stead. Until then, isn't this a bit premature?

The number was only an example, the point is the principle.

The UN does not need any funding to squabble.

But the UN does need funding to bring about education reforms, improve world hygeine standards, defeat the AIDS virus, and other programs mandated by previous UN resolutions. As of now, they rely on voluntary funding to tackle the world's problems, which drastically reduces the effectiveness of said programs.

Since we are unable to repeal resolutions, and most new resolutions involve setting up a new program which requires more money, the UN in fact consumes a constantly increasing sum of money. This must be recognised.

The UNGAO would have the ability to adjust the bracket system depending on the needs of the UN. It's true that there are a few dozen resolutions on the books, but some, such as No Embargoes On Medicine, don't require any funding. Others, like Fight the Axis of Evil, would require minimal funding because the UN as a whole disagrees with it's function.

The UNGAO would also be responsible for keeping the budget in line with expenses. Part of that is ensuring that member nations pay their dues, part of it is preventing frivilous spending of UN funds.

10% of GDP? 3%? Y'all ain't thinkin' very clearly, are ya?

I was choosing an arbitrary number to illustrate the flat tax point. Asking for 3% of every nations GDP would be absolutely out of control, and I understand that. The key points are a) every nation gets a funding quota, and b) that quota is a function of GDP. If someone can present a better figure, percentage-wise, I'm more than open to changing the terms of the resolution. Perhaps asking for 0.0003% from every nation would meet the financial needs of the UN.

This is just an idea, rough, incomplete. I am entirely fine with this idea being not used at all or for some of this idea to be used or whatever Sophista desires.

If we want to tax the richer nations more and the poorer nations less, this might work:

We base the tax rates for a nation on the distance between their GDP and the mean GDP of UN member nations. So the higher above the mean UN nation GDP a nation is, the greater the taxation (and vice versa)

It might look something like this...

"mean GDP" = M
my nation's GDP = N

N - M = the difference between my nation and the mean = D

D/M = K (this is by what percentage your GDP is higher/lower of the mean)

Taxaton rate = (0.0003%) + (0.0003%)(K)

So, there you have your "flat rate", slanted to tax the higher GDP nations more and the lower GDP nations less. Here, if a nation has 2 times the mean UN GDP that nation is taxed twice as much (0.0006%).

The UNGAO would have the ability to adjust the bracket system depending on the needs of the UN.

That's ok then. Would proposal texts have to specify if they were to be funded from the UNGAO or by voluntary contributions?

To Powerhungry Chipmunks, I don't see any reason why that equation wouldn't work out fine. Then again, I got a C in College Algebra, so I wouldn't take my advice on the issue. Does anyone else have a comment in that area?

That's ok then. Would proposal texts have to specify if they were to be funded from the UNGAO or by voluntary contributions?

The intention is to fund all nations requiring a budget through UNGAO. Voluntarily contributions are simply a way for nations to fund pet projects or causes they find worth the extra intention. If someone wanted to limit spending to voluntary contributions, that's up to the author.

That's ok then. Would proposal texts have to specify if they were to be funded from the UNGAO or by voluntary contributions?

A good resolution should make this clear.

In the case of a declaration, funding isn't an issue. But when a new UN agency is created, it seems careless IMHO for a funding mechanism to not be in place.

This proposal is really back-filling that idea and addressing the number of proposals that already have "mystery funding".

This is kind of necessary. On the other hand, I can see the concern of some nations; the NSUN has a past record of passing rather dodgy, loophole-ridden legislation. I would want to see a funding approval body set up to ensure money doesn't get handed out for anything that isn't in the spirit of the UN and of individual resolutions, and also to make sure it doesn't get whittled away in corruption.

This is kind of necessary. On the other hand, I can see the concern of some nations; the NSUN has a past record of passing rather dodgy, loophole-ridden legislation.
I'm the last person in this forum who would want that, which is why we're here in this forum. I want people to tear the language apart, and make sure that if it ever makes it to the floor, it'll be in perfect form when it gets there.
I would want to see a funding approval body set up to ensure money doesn't get handed out for anything that isn't in the spirit of the UN and of individual resolutions, and also to make sure it doesn't get whittled away in corruption.
That's the responsibility of the UNGAO. Originally, I wanted it to be a body composed of NPCs and such to remove the pain of member influence. If it did turn into something else, I think it'd be better to keep the number small, perhaps three. Anything more is asking for a large commitment from people who might not otherwise have the time. Some people would call that undemocratic, but the role of UNGAO isn't to be undemocratic, it's to be precise. I'd volunteer to lead the organization, provided no one objected.

Mikitivity, I apologize, but this must be one of the few cases in which I must disagree with you.

I was aware that the UN is not allowed to impose any tax at all on it's member nations for any reason. This has been quoted to me many times, and I have had to change my own proposals several times in order to avoid it. While I do admit the UN needs some sort of funding to support it's resolutions with (as I did try to pass a proposal which would do this a while ago), taxation on member nations is not the answer.

Also, would this not be a sort of game mechanics issue? Income taxes would have to rise in order for the member nations to meet this tax. With many nations having a 100% income tax (my own is depressingly close), they may not be able to be pay this tax without changing around their budget - which could affect stats for all three of the main categories - Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms.

Despite the need for some sort of funding, this also is not the way to do it. I will vehemently oppose this proposal if it ever reaches quorum. I will not directly ask the mods to have a ruling on this, but I do ask you, Sophista, to look this over and reconsider your position on this issue. Thank you for hearing me out. Live Long and Prosper.

The United Federation of Hersfold
Founder, Part123
UN Member
Author of the UNEC
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Part123
Ambassador to The North Pacific
Part123

Mikitivity, I apologize, but this must be one of the few cases in which I must disagree with you.

I was aware that the UN is not allowed to impose any tax at all on it's member nations for any reason. This has been quoted to me many times

Disagreeing with me is fine. :) Heck it is encouraged when it is coming from a nation that is basing their opinion on actual information. And you are right, it has been often said that the UN can't tax nations. I think that oft stated remark is incorrect. Here is why:

The UN can tax member nations, but it can't just go out and tax individuals. You (and others) probably are thinking about resolution #4: UN Taxation Ban from 2003.01.13. It is poorly worded, but believe me, Sophista wouldn't have brought this proposal to the floor without having looked over that and other prior UN resolutions. Sophista and I have talked about this a small bit, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they haven't been asking other UN regulars about this as well. :)

But consider this, when we choose the "Category" of a UN resolution and if it passes, there are impacts. Take the current resolution as an example. If it passes, there will be a very short term economic cost (to all businesses, right?). The question is, where does this money get spent?

Sometimes it is domestically (in this case it is half that way). Othertimes it is given to a UN committee (this resolution does that too).

First, let me extend a genuine word of gratitude to the representative from Hersfold. When I first opened this thread, I expected an unending wave of people screaming and yelling about the UN stealing their money. People like you have left me pleasantly surprised, and I appreciate the polite and civil direction that this discourse is going. Thank you.

I was aware that the UN is not allowed to impose any tax at all on it's member nations for any reason. This has been quoted to me many times, and I have had to change my own proposals several times in order to avoid it. While I do admit the UN needs some sort of funding to support it's resolutions with (as I did try to pass a proposal which would do this a while ago), taxation on member nations is not the answer.

The taxation ban is open to interpretation, and that's a loophole my proposal intends to plug. With a funding program in place, you'd never have to change your resolutions again. I wish there was a better way than mandating financial contributions from member nations, but there is no comprable alternative. Our programs need money to be successful, or else the resolutions become empty gesture.

Also, would this not be a sort of game mechanics issue? Income taxes would have to rise in order for the member nations to meet this tax. With many nations having a 100% income tax (my own is depressingly close), they may not be able to be pay this tax without changing around their budget - which could affect stats for all three of the main categories - Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms.

As I understand it, the change in tax policy is extremely superficial. If your country is at 100% taxation, the computer doesn't raise it anymore, but there's no way for it to figure out how you would juggle all the needs of your government. The game doesn't think past that point, although you'd be welcome to role play such consequences. I also think that the amount of money being asked, a fraction of a percent of total GDP, would not be significant enough to force a government to completely reconstruct their programs and such.

Despite the need for some sort of funding, this also is not the way to do it. I will vehemently oppose this proposal if it ever reaches quorum. I will not directly ask the mods to have a ruling on this, but I do ask you, Sophista, to look this over and reconsider your position on this issue. Thank you for hearing me out. Live Long and Prosper.

I'm not sure I understand where your opposition comes from. It seems like the two issues you've raised are technical matters, and not a philosophical greivance with the idea. Perhaps you could expand?

I will expand a bit on the 100% tax idea first. If the game gives your nation a 100% tax, the assumption is that your nation is not getting enough money to run itself, even with income taxes out the wahzoo, which is possibly even higher for the rich, which makes no sense, and whatever road tolls, etc. are also being collected. Even if the proposed tax is small, the nation now has even less money to work with, and will struggle more to run itself.

I also feel that membership in the UN will drop rapidly once they find out that they will have to pay dues to keep an organization running that earlier worked just fine with no budget. This proposal will not go over very well with some people if it reaches quorum, and you will need to be ready for some people who will not be so polite.

Perhaps "vehemently" was a poor choice of words. While I do still disapprove of the proposal, I do wish you good luck with it, should you decide to continue.

The percentages in your nation description refer only to income tax, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, you could fund your UN dues with an increase in VAT, or import tarriffs or something like that, even if your income tax rate is 100%.

I also feel that membership in the UN will drop rapidly once they find out that they will have to pay dues to keep an organization running that earlier worked just fine with no budget. This proposal will not go over very well with some people if it reaches quorum, and you will need to be ready for some people who will not be so polite.

But the organization hasn't been working. Without money, a resolution has no mechanism to bring about the change it advocates, and no power to enforce it's mandates. Think about all the progressive resolutions that have been shot down because people say "Well, the UN can't take taxes, so you don't have any money for this and it won't work." To imply that a group with tens of thousands of members and a sprawling bureaucratic complex the likes of which boggles mankind's imagination is operating just fine on the good grace of a few nations is illogical, and ignoring an enourmous problem with effective international cooperation.

And hey, if membership numbers topple if the resolution passes, that just means the UN needs a smaller budget, and will take a smaller quota.

Without money, a resolution has no mechanism to bring about the change it advocates, and no power to enforce it's mandates.

And hey, if membership numbers topple if the resolution passes, that just means the UN needs a smaller budget, and will take a smaller quota.
[ooc]
I think the idea of providing funding is a fine one and deserves the kind of sensible and close scrutiny this one has been getting ... but ...

No matter what you pass in this resolution, the only game effect will be a one-shot bump in whatever category ends up being designated. It will only effect UN members at the instant of passage. I don't see any reason whatsoever for any mass exodus from the UN, apart from the usual philosopical-disagreement resignations.

That's why I proposed a tiny, fractional tap on the UN Member States' economy. .0003% would actually keep property and plant running without affecting member nations in any significant way. Since virtually all of the ongoing mandates are passed to member nations (and since NOT ONE OF THEM ever takes a pfennig from a member nation once the resolution has passed), it's better to make it a token amount than to actually attempt to fund actual agencies and programs. If you try to actually take the funding (from the non-existing economies), this resolution will get tossed on game-mechanics issues.

I understand completely that the game is going to see this and execute some piece of code that says "take more money, increase justice +2" or something along those lines. But, just as UN Rights and Duties didn't do anything for the average citizen (only prevented things from being done), this resolution is important to cement the way the UN works. Granted, this is a game, but it only makes sense for us to have some kind of justification on the books. As of now, it's like we're god-moding the existance of everything in the UN. The money is assumed to come from somewhere, but no one is spending a dime.

In the end, I don't see the UNGAO as having regular committee meetings with real forum members. It simply provides the opportunity for someone to put in their resolution, "enforcement funded via the UN operating budget, vis a vi UNGAO, and have all the internal logic click.

I'm not sure I understand where the games mechanics violation comes up in saying this resolution will continue to take funds from governments to further UN programs.

I'm not sure I understand where the games mechanics violation comes up in saying this resolution will continue to take funds from governments to further UN programs.
In the same sense that Anward's UN Lottery Fund (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=309082) was deleted after achieving quorum, because it implied the creation of an actual, coded mechanism that needed to be added to the game.
Game Mechanics
"We should make it so that all UN Members can vote on proposals before they reach the floor", "We should be able to vote on 2 proposals at once", "The UN should create 'multinational organisation'". All of these proposals propose changes to the Game Mechanics governing the running of NationStates.5) Establish the United Nations General Accounting Office, and bestow upon it the responsibility of ensuring that all UN monies are spent in the most efficient manner. The UNGAO will oversee all transactions involving funds from the UN budget, as well as maintain the United Nations Trust Fund. Furthermore, the UNGAO will be charged with setting each nation's funding quota, as per a sliding scale to be determined by the aforementioned GDP formula.
All I'm saying is that the UNGAO could easily be seen as a multinational organisation and deleted for cause. By emphasising the token nature of the charge/dues/funding, it might be possible to diffuse that appearance.

UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Nassland
Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003


Hello?... if you are going to tax a government based on "its citizens". That is where the bloody money is coming from. You are not basing it on the expenditure of anything, but on the income of its citizens.

EDIT: and yes. I feel this is the UN stealing our money and giving it to random bureaucrats. I would gladly fund that bloody UN building in NS New York all by myself if I had to but this is contrary to everything the UN has so far done. In effect, this is creating a world government without ANY accountability. BAD idea.

Hello?... if you are going to tax a government based on "its citizens". That is where the bloody money is coming from. You are not basing it on the expenditure of anything, but on the income of its citizens.
Not necessarily. It could just as easily come from tariffs on extra-national trade, government-owned mining companies, or contributions to the Church in theocratic societies. Just because income tax is common doesn't mean that's the only fund-raising avenue open to nations.

The key word in the above proposition is directly. This proposition is not in violation of the prior statute because it doesn't collect from the citizenry. It collects from the government based on national GDP.

Is this driven by the number and productivity of a nation's citizens? Of course.

Is it in violation of the letter of International Law? No, it isn't.

In effect, this is creating a world government without ANY accountability. BAD idea.Already got one, thanks. You're soaking in it.

The spirit of the resolution was clear because, ultimately, the people of a nation will pay for these UN taxes. While you may argue that citizens are not being targetted directly I feel it certainly goes against the spirit of the resolution. Let me elaborate my point because I feel this is beyond "OMG TEH UN IS TAEKING OUR MONEY".

The thing is: these resolutions have always been project-based. States provide money for a specific resolution and funding goes UP because taxes go up when the resolution is approved. This is also how the game is wired. This is also how past resolutions have worked.

However, what I really find worrysome is: who is going to decide about the money? That Accounting Committee suddenly gets HUGE political power that is NOT legitimised at all by the democratic decisions of nations. They can go and funnel funding between projects, increase taxes at will and do that without democratic control.

When I say "world government" this goes beyond having to pay for a resolution that is basically accepted by a majority of nations. It is about a small (roleplayed?) non-representative group of people saying exactly how much I have to pay without me even having a democratic vote in for WHAT I am paying exactly because that is delegated to that body. Even for the EU this kind of practice is unacceptable. It would be like giving the Commission free hand to plunder and pillage as they see fit. A communist committee could decide "100% progressive tax! The 1% richest pay everything! Glory to Lenin!" and then do with the money whatever the hell they want. (Statues of Lenin?) If they want to build UN peace palaces (complete with harems) where they themselves reside they can do so without the members having a say about it.

I am not saying that it WILL happen, I am saying that it is extremely likely to happen and even the idea that it COULD happen is enough to reject this resolution.

You know what, I hereby offer to pay for maintenance of the entire UN HQ building (in New York?) if you withdraw your resolution and allow this body to work on a project-based way.

That would probably be cheaper too for me.

The spirit of the resolution was clear because, ultimately, the people of a nation will pay for these UN taxes. While you may argue that citizens are not being targetted directly I feel it certainly goes against the spirit of the resolution. Let me elaborate my point because I feel this is beyond "OMG TEH UN IS TAEKING OUR MONEY".


Do recall that the early NS UN resolutions were at the time repealable and the resolution in question was only the 4th resolution adopted by 5,230 votes (which are always more than the number of voting nations due to the presence of UN Delegate voting).

I'd suggest taking a very liberal attitude when looking back on those old resolutions. Frankly they are very poorly worded and thought out.

With that in mind, I'd say the "spirit" of the resolution (which I wasn't around for) looks to be about direct taxation.

The percentages in your nation description refer only to income tax, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, you could fund your UN dues with an increase in VAT, or import tarriffs or something like that, even if your income tax rate is 100%.

Um... how? If Citizen Joe makes 40,000 per year, and pays 40,000 per year in income tax, how do he have any money for any other taxes?

The key word in the above proposition is directly. This proposition is not in violation of the prior statute because it doesn't collect from the citizenry. It collects from the government based on national GDP.

*Ahem*
In this Sultanate, I am the State. We can go into exactly how at some later point.

I am also a citizen of the UN.

Therefore, to pass this proposition would be to tax a citizen of the UN - namely, me.

Therefore, this proposition is illegal.

Um... how? If Citizen Joe makes 40,000 per year, and pays 40,000 per year in income tax, how do he have any money for any other taxes?

I would presume that if you pay 100% tax, the government would then redistibute it, probably equally, or according to need. Therefore, whilst actual salaries are taken by the government, everybody then gets back something like welfare, except it's for everyone (does that make sense?). That would then be used to buy goods and services, the sale of which could be taxed. Alternatively, goods would still have to be imported, and taxes could be levied on that.

I would presume that if you pay 100% tax, the government would then redistibute it, probably equally, or according to need. Therefore, whilst actual salaries are taken by the government, everybody then gets back something like welfare, except it's for everyone (does that make sense?).
Dangerous assumption. The government could just as easily seize all all earnings and provide food, shelter, clothing, etc. without actually giving any citizen any currency.

Well, then those few nations are going to have to cut their budget slightly to accomodate their UN dues. It's not likely that this will have much impact, since the suggested figure has been a tiny fraction of a percent of GDP.

Do recall that the early NS UN resolutions were at the time repealable and the resolution in question was only the 4th resolution adopted by 5,230 votes (which are always more than the number of voting nations due to the presence of UN Delegate voting).

I'd suggest taking a very liberal attitude when looking back on those old resolutions. Frankly they are very poorly worded and thought out.

With that in mind, I'd say the "spirit" of the resolution (which I wasn't around for) looks to be about direct taxation.

Perhaps instead of picking out a small piece of my post it would be nice to adress the big issue: the complete lack of democratic control, the theoretical possibility of limitless taxation by supposed UN bureaucrats (without democratic control), the question of the "progressiveness" either being without democratic control (so UN bureaucrats can decide the top 1% pays everything) or, if the currently proposed standard makes this resolution, being blatantly unfair towards richer nations. Basically it can be summed up as: no democracy, no accountability and no responsibility.

This proposal installs a UN bureaucracy that will make the most important decisions on the planet since the earnings of these taxes will trancend the total tax incomes of any UN memberstate. These people, who with the resolution being as it is now will ultimately become the worlds most powerful politicians whom this new resolution will empower to:


Raise taxes at will without a vote or democratic control if they deem this neccecery. Full authority is given, so there isn't even accountability, let alone responsibility or the chance to be called back.
Use UN funding for whatever they like, whenever they like, or give it to whoever they like. Make political decisions to, say, funnel more money from the environmental agency into the education agency because their personal preference is education. They may pay lip-service to the needs in education but technically they do not even have to.
Be corrupt without any form of punishment. Frankly, if anyone is given control over such huge sums without any sort of accountability there will be abuse. Look at the major corporations in the US and worldwide. Take another look at the corrupt "idealists" in the Olympic Committees if you think UN employees are somehow better because they are not corporate.
Become the worlds largest investment bankers paling ANY comparison to the World Bank. These UN funds will be accounting for HUGE sums since even a small change in tax intake will provide huge surplusses. And because no defecits are allowed, I´m sure the UN will be playing on the safe side. There is no limit on how much they can ask, so why should they ultimately play it safe?
Make tax more "progressive" without democratic control, something I fear since any communist or socialist nation now so active in this UN will no doubt go and sit in some nice RPed committee and decide that the rich nations must be made poor because it fits their ideological street.


Re: what you are saying.
Yes. I will be taking a very liberal attitude with this resolution as well should it be accepted, since the old one was pretty simple. It was meant as a safeguard.

This resolution will need serious improvement to fill the complete democratic gap that exists now. Without any form of democratic control, you are creating an upper class politbureau of corrupt maniacs.

Unfortunately, I do not see how you can make such an institution function democratically here in NS because we cannot have dozens of votes on every item of the UN budget. Currently, increased spending is already hardwired into the game code if a resolution is expected so this resolution is, in its current form, just a mandate for corruption where currently funds are limited to the increase given when a resolution is accepted.

All I'm saying is that the UNGAO could easily be seen as a multinational organisation and deleted for cause. By emphasising the token nature of the charge/dues/funding, it might be possible to diffuse that appearance.

Ah, I understand what you're saying now, but I think that precedent is on my side. The International Red Cross Organization was created by resolution The IRCO on 1 September 2003. The United Nations Space Consortium was created by the resolution UN Space Consortium on 29 February 2004, which was followed by the UN Education Committee, created by the resolution of the same name on 9 April 2004, and the World Blood Bank on 14 April 2004. The UNGAO is an organisation that exists within the UN, operated by the Secretariat and accountable to the General Assembley, just like the UNSC and UNEC. Even barring those examples, it still qualifies on the smae level of the World Blood Bank and IRCO. For the mods to disqualify the proposal on that grounds would be reversing a long series of previous decisions.

In this Sultanate, I am the State. We can go into exactly how at some later point. I am also a citizen of the UN. Therefore, to pass this proposition would be to tax a citizen of the UN - namely, me. Therefore, this proposition is illegal.

For reference, I'll provide you with the full text of the resolution you're referring to.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Your line or argumentation rests on the UN not being able to tax citizens of the United Nations, but that's not what the resolution specifies. It specifically declares that the immunity lies within the citizens: "directly from the citizens of any member state." The UN itself has no citizens. Going beyond that, there is a profound difference between a citizen and a state. You claim to be the Sultanate, the State. Nowhere does it say within the resolution that we can't tax the state, only the specific citizens. The argument that all money comes from the citizens eventually is asinine, as other members have pointed out sources of revenue that don't come from the citizen.

In America, politicians are barred from recieving contributions from corporations and certain other organizations, but an employee of that company can donate. That person's income, however, comes from the corporation. Do we bar all forms of political donation because the money eventually, somewhere up the line, comes from a source that is prohibited from donating? I think not.

This resolution will open the pit of Hell, and Satan will murder all of our children.

It is important to note that because there is no proposal text to look over, the entire debate is not on what the worst possible outcome is, but rather, how to avoid it. Because those conclusions can only be reached by deconstructing the arguments, I'm going to answer with what I think the most proper solution is. The end result, if everything goes according to plan, will be a solid set of rules and guidelines for a submittal-worthy proposal.

Let me start by pointing out that these political disadvantages, i.e. complete loss of democratic control, are simply pessimistic, extreme examples. Not only that, but the impacts of said disadvantages, e.g. choosing which resolutions to fund completely, "progressively" taxing nations at huge levels, spending on anything they want, are derived from a slipperly slope fallacy.

That is, in order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator. You assume that every necessary step along the way, from UNGAO being an organization run by states and not the UN to these states appointing corrupt, evil individuals, to those inviduals being able to execute the kind of corruption suggested. Not only are the odds of the chain making it that far astronomical, once you understand how the UNGAO, as a sponsored UN mission, operates, they become impossible.

Because it is an official UN mission, there isn't a committee to be role played, and no state will be a "member" of the executive power. The RLUN doesn't hire America to be in charge of UNESCO and then Belgium to be in charge of UNICEF and so on. The people who run these missions are hired individually from all over the world, and work for the UN as a cohesive unit. For a government to exert political pressure on these workers is illegal, and unlikely to succeed given the diverse (in our case, 10,000+) places of origin for each worker.

With that in mind, lets go on to a line by line:

Raise taxes at will without a vote or democratic control if they deem this neccecery. Full authority is given, so there isn't even accountability, let alone responsibility or the chance to be called back.

Just like the executive branch (Department of This, Bureau of That) of the American governmnet is accountable to Congress, United Nations missions (UNSC, UNEC) are accountable to the General Assembly. This doesn't need to be written into each and every resolution because it is assumed in the way the United Nations operates. We don't see it because of the way the game is coded (we haven't nailed down the C++ for infinite bureaucracy), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We, as role players, assume that things within the UN are working smoothly.

The UNEC, by mandate, is responsible for telling which new materials to buy for school districts in member states. With that power, they could wildly alter the curriculum for every nation, ensuring that every subsequent generation is less educated than the previous. Does it happen? No. For us to suddenly assume that all Hell can break loose with this proposal enforces a double-standard, and doesn't follow the logic we've established for UN missions. Then again, we can safely assume it doesn't happen because, as the previous paragraph points out, every UN mission is accountable to the General Assembly, and those problems are headed off by all the NPC diplomacy footsoldiers.

I'd be willing to add clauses that redundantly suggest this accountability, but only after the main points of the resolution are in place. It doesn't make much sense to create all the rules of the UNGAO, and then not have enough space left in the character limit to cover the rest of the funding act.

Use UN funding for whatever they like, whenever they like, or give it to whoever they like. Make political decisions to, say, funnel more money from the environmental agency into the education agency because their personal preference is education. They may pay lip-service to the needs in education but technically they do not even have to.

This argument, like the last, assumes for the worst and applies a new standard of judgement upon policy that hasn't existed in prior resolutions. That aside, it is still highly unlikely that the UN will ignore one resolution in favor of another simply because of political differences. Consider that the majority of UN nations are liberal, and the majority of UN resolutions are liberal. Why would citizens with that kind of ideology bankrupt a program that is furthering an ideal that they agree with? True, some conservative nations exist, but to assume that a minority of nations would end up with a majority significant enough to execute that kind of control and that all of them would desire to or cooperate in that kind of plan is another grotesquely improbable assumption. Again, the accountability of all UN missions to the General Assembly solves this issue, as would specific redundant wording in the resolution itself.

Be corrupt without any form of punishment. Frankly, if anyone is given control over such huge sums without any sort of accountability there will be abuse. Look at the major corporations in the US and worldwide. Take another look at the corrupt "idealists" in the Olympic Committees if you think UN employees are somehow better because they are not corporate.

This is a repeat of your previous argument about corruption, only with a different impact example. All of the answers offered in the previous two responses would counteract this claim, so there's no need to waste server space.

Become the worlds largest investment bankers paling ANY comparison to the World Bank. These UN funds will be accounting for HUGE sums since even a small change in tax intake will provide huge surplusses. And because no defecits are allowed, I´m sure the UN will be playing on the safe side. There is no limit on how much they can ask, so why should they ultimately play it safe?

Gee. I'm starting to notice a theme here. "Corruption will happen, and the world shall end." Okay. We've dealt with the corruption theme already, but I'll address this impact scenario specifically. The UNGAO is only allowed to fund programs established by resolutions passed by the General Assembly, so the idea that they'll be able to spend money on statues of Lenin as other countries have suggested is absurd (unless a resolution providing for these statues is passed). Any surplus funds are distributed to the UN Trust Fund, which can only be used to fund resolution in times where quota revenue is insufficient, so there's no advantage to acquiring huge surplusses unless there is reason to believe that global economic disaster is imminent..

Still, I understand your "play it safe, jack up the taxes and build a huge trust" argument, and again I disagree. Since all nations fall under the influence of UNGAO, any policy enacted would have harmful side effects in the leader's country just as it would in all others. It is irrational to assume that this person would punish his own country just to see the world suffer, and if he did, it is likely that his home government would recall him.

Make tax more "progressive" without democratic control, something I fear since any communist or socialist nation now so active in this UN will no doubt go and sit in some nice RPed committee and decide that the rich nations must be made poor because it fits their ideological street.

I see your complaints about corruption, and raise you a "been there, answered that." There is no RPed committee to be manipulated by members of this forum. Unlike the UNSC which specifically establishes an executive board, the UNGAO exists wholly within the Secretariat of the United Nations. You can apply the slippery slope argument again, along with the answers concerning the logic of the game in regards to UN missions.

So where does that leave us? The impacts of your examples won't happen for the following reasons:

A) The General Assembly, vis a vi its internal committees and other NPC institutions, controls who executes the authority of established UN programs. If at any point the UNGAO was percieved as abusing its authority or steering the UN in the wrong course, the GA could reform its leadership instantaneously, and put things right again.

B) These impact scenarios rest on a stack of assumptions, all of which would have to come true at once for the negative side-effects to actually materialize. Since funds raised by the UNGAO can only be spent on General Assembly-approved programs, there is no reason for a huge list of corrupt people to attempt to sieze control. Robbing the world blind would only mean a really big UN Trust Fund, and that doesn't benefit anyone.

However, to offset the risks of these impacts (no matter how small), I'll add the following stipulation to the planks of the funding act.

If at any point the balance of the UN Trust Fund reaches a size greater than two times the sum of current UN budgetary needs, any further surplus funds will be returned to the governments of UN states based on the percentage of the total budget they're resonsible for.

That is to say, the UN Trust Fund can only hold as much money as it would take to fund the UN budget for two years, assuming the UN was taking in no other income whatsoever. Once it hits that level, any surplus brought in by UNGAO would be returned to the member goverments. If you're country is responsible for 0.0015 percent of total UN funding, you'd get 0.0015 percent of the surplus.

Your line or argumentation rests on the UN not being able to tax citizens of the United Nations, but that's not what the resolution specifies. It specifically declares that the immunity lies within the citizens: "directly from the citizens of any member state." The UN itself has no citizens. Going beyond that, there is a profound difference between a citizen and a state. You claim to be the Sultanate, the State. Nowhere does it say within the resolution that we can't tax the state, only the specific citizens. The argument that all money comes from the citizens eventually is asinine, as other members have pointed out sources of revenue that don't come from the citizen.

In America, politicians are barred from recieving contributions from corporations and certain other organizations, but an employee of that company can donate. That person's income, however, comes from the corporation. Do we bar all forms of political donation because the money eventually, somewhere up the line, comes from a source that is prohibited from donating? I think not.

Sorry, George, you still lose. I'm a citizen of Vastiva, a member nation. In point of fact, I'm first citizen. I am also the State of Vastiva. Every centavo the State spends comes directly from the Sultan, and all taxes collected go directly to the Sultanate - which is to say "the Sultan" which is to say me, personally, a citizen of a member nation of the UN. State assets are in a most direct fashion my assets.

Therefore, this attempt is a direct attempt to tax me, a citizen, and is therefore illegal.

I realize you might not have comprehension of this, so I will state it again -

WHEREAS The Sultan of Vastiva is the State, directly.

WHEREAS The Sultan of Vastiva is also a citizen of Vastiva, a UN member nation.

THEREFORE - an attempt to put a tax upon the State of Vastiva is a direct tax upon the first citizen of Vastiva - the Sultan - and is therefore illegal as UN LAW prevents collection of taxes by the UN from "the citizens of any member nation", of which the Sultan is one.

Repeating your argument ad nasuem doesn't make it correct. Call yourself whatever you want, the definitions of international relations don't agree with you. Just because the interpretation of the UN Taxation Ban that I'm using doesn't jive with your desire to shirk the responsibility of putting your money where your mouth is and backing up the resolutions you vote on doesn't mean it's illlegal. It means you don't agree.

The Sultanate of Vastiva in all it's confused glory is welcome to vote against the proposal when it hits the floor. Just keep the whining to a minimum when we come for the check.

We find the arrogance displayed by Mr. Hillaker when adressing the Sultan of Vastiva highly disturbing and are currently considering whether we deem ourselves fit to continue a debate with somoene who has such utter disrespect for those who disagree with him, especially when considering their naive approach to organisational problems.

Should the decison be made by the Foreign Ministry to invest our time and effort to continue this debate we expect to be treated with a certain level of respect and dignity appropriate for the United Nations, an institution we all seek to further here after all.

~Low-level Knootian UN Rep.

Possibly if you instead of taxation, use an investment-based system or investment capital system, which would be completely voluntary.

OOC: In the real UN, they do have taxes and dues, but there's no way to enforce its collection; The US is a few million I think behind in its payments.
But, you could follow up this investment capital proposal, if it passes, with an issue (you know, the govornment decisisions) that asks UN countries whether or not they want to contribute, and then if they do, they can send you a link to your country and you can check it.

Perhaps instead of picking out a small piece of my post it would be nice to adress the big issue:

OOC: In case you've not figured this out, when anybody picks out a small piece of a post to reply to, it is because it is that piece that interests them.

That doesn't mean the other parts of your post are valid or even invalid. Don't take offense if people skip over the majority of your posts. If you really want to move the debate in a direction that it isn't going naturally reiterate your point.

In this particular case, I think putting too much of an emphasis on a poorly worded resolution from the first couple of months in NationStates (of which resolution 4 is), is a mistake.

I realize you might not have comprehension of this, so I will state it again -

WHEREAS The Sultan of Vastiva is the State, directly.

WHEREAS The Sultan of Vastiva is also a citizen of Vastiva, a UN member nation.

THEREFORE - an attempt to put a tax upon the State of Vastiva is a direct tax upon the first citizen of Vastiva - the Sultan - and is therefore illegal as UN LAW prevents collection of taxes by the UN from "the citizens of any member nation", of which the Sultan is one.

Actually you are the one here who doesn't have a comprehension of how the English language works.

The resolution in question says that the UN can not directly tax citizens, it says nothing about assessing UN member states. I for one know that no single citizen in the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has directly recieved a bill from the United Nations. However, I also know that the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has frequently been asked to pay an assessment to the United Nations based on our population.

Does your government pay its UN assessments? More importantly, would you mind if we open the UN records and look at which nations are paying their assessments and which governments are behind in their payments?

[OOC: A debate about the finicial status of the NS UN is pretty realistic since the real UN constantly struggles to make ends meet. As Infinite Hoarding pointed out, member nations do frequently fail to pay their UN dues. The amount that the US owes the UN changes from year to year, and isn't really a simple debate. There is some disagreement on what the US pays and doesn't, some of which has to do with the presence of the UN Headquarters in New York.

For those of you interested in the subject of the real UN:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt.htm

Keep in mind that how the real UN is paid is a two party process. The UN itself determines what members (not individuals, hence the no taxes on citizens resolution) pay. Then the members must decide how much they want to pay. Members can over or under pay. The UN can't really do that much about this, but it is constrained by rules as to how much it charges each nation.

Multiverse arguments aside, I think if you look at the real world UN and how it works (which was a rough model for our NationStates UN), the issue of funding in the real UN is pretty valid and it can be assumed that some nations fail to pay their assessments, that other nations volunteer to pay more, and that the NS UN does not send bills to individual nations.

Finally, to steer this away from the usually "USA focused" view, check out the following English Language link concerning France and the UN:

http://www.un.int/france/frame_anglais/france_and_un/france_contribution_to_un_budget/contribution_to_un_budget.htm

The link is from a list of UN Missions. If you are interested in role-playing more, it might be worth finding a nation you believe is similar to yours and looking at how that mission works with or against the UN. The French mission is very well done for English readers. :) I don't know how English friendly other UN Missions are.]

OOC:"You know the debate is heating up when Mikitivity drops down some research and links"

OOC:"You know the debate is heating up when Mikitivity drops down some research and links"

ROTFL!

Yeah, it usually means I see the early signs of a wave of NS UN forum posters recreating Monty Python's famous witch burning scene. But instead of grabbing some hapless woman to burn to death, the masses grab some random NS player to burn instead.

Actually you are the one here who doesn't have a comprehension of how the English language works.

Nope, you're the one lacking understanding of how my nation works.


The resolution in question says that the UN can not directly tax citizens, it says nothing about assessing UN member states. I for one know that no single citizen in the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has directly recieved a bill from the United Nations. However, I also know that the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has frequently been asked to pay an assessment to the United Nations based on our population.

That's nice for you. The Sultan of Vastiva directly receives all national taxes and assessments. It is not "the nation's money", it is quite directly his money.

Now, once more, from the top.

This attempt is a direct tax on a citizen of a UN nation, ergo illegal.



Does your government pay its UN assessments? More importantly, would you mind if we open the UN records and look at which nations are paying their assessments and which governments are behind in their payments?


The NS UN collects no assessments, though Vastiva has flown humanitarian aid to most countries which asked for them openly without seeking recompense. The few we did not were due to logistical considerations.

The other one is irrelevant to the discussion.

Our nation regrets understanding and clarity cannot be given in any other facet then to directly state them as we have repeatedly, but the facts of the matter still stand, and this attempt remains illegal as per the earlier UN resolution.

Possibly if you instead of taxation, use an investment-based system or investment capital system, which would be completely voluntary.

OOC: In the real UN, they do have taxes and dues, but there's no way to enforce its collection; The US is a few million I think behind in its payments.
But, you could follow up this investment capital proposal, if it passes, with an issue (you know, the govornment decisisions) that asks UN countries whether or not they want to contribute, and then if they do, they can send you a link to your country and you can check it.

An investment based or investment capital system Vastiva would accept. We would even open such in the form of bonds in our nation.

The matter again is taxation - proposition 4 prevents it. Therefore, weaseling around it will not work. Find another way. The UN could support resource exploitation in return for a fixed percentage on return, which would pay back the initial loan and add to the UN Treasury without taxation.

Repeating your argument ad nasuem doesn't make it correct. Call yourself whatever you want, the definitions of international relations don't agree with you. Just because the interpretation of the UN Taxation Ban that I'm using doesn't jive with your desire to shirk the responsibility of putting your money where your mouth is and backing up the resolutions you vote on doesn't mean it's illlegal. It means you don't agree.

The Sultanate of Vastiva in all it's confused glory is welcome to vote against the proposal when it hits the floor. Just keep the whining to a minimum when we come for the check.

No sir, it means the proposal as stated directly abrogates the legal necessities of Prop 4, as the proposer of this new bill does not have an appreciation or understanding of how the internal economy of the UN member state of Vastiva functions.

Vastiva has always paid it's bills, and has a long tradition and known history of giving humanitarian aid where it is needed, without request for recompense. We are most sorry this debate has so degraded in tone, and most certainly wish the proposer well in his attempt; most certainly, we would request that another method be discovered as this one is clearly illegal from inception.

It is my intention to bring about a resolution that provides for the monetary needs of the United Nations. Despite the number of nations who would scream and yell if the UN ever came knocking for money at their door, I feel that providing for the good of the global community by ensuring that this organization has the financial ability to support it's initiatives is a worthwhile path to walk down. In it's final form, this resolution will accomplish the following five major planks:

1) Define the previous resolution, "A Ban on UN Taxation" as applying only to individual citizens and not the governments of member states.

2) Establish a progressive funding quota for all member nations, based on their gross domestic product. Small nations or those with weaker economies will be responsible for a smaller percentage, while larger, more economically powerful states will be responsible for more.

3) Prohibit the United Nations from requiring supplementary funding in any subsequent resolutions. Individual states are allowed and encouraged to voluntarily provide funds should they deem a particular issue has merit, but no additional requirements beyond the provisions of the funding resolution may be enacted.

4) Establish a United Nations Trust Fund for all surplus monies derived through the funding quota system. Should the United Nations end up with more income than expenditures, the net surplus will be set aside in interest-bearing accounts for use in future programs.

5) Establish the United Nations General Accounting Office, and bestow upon it the responsibility of ensuring that all UN monies are spent in the most efficient manner. The UNGAO will oversee all transactions involving funds from the UN budget, as well as maintain the United Nations Trust Fund. Furthermore, the UNGAO will be charged with setting each nation's funding quota, as per a sliding scale to be determined by the aforementioned GDP formula.

5) Prohibit the United Nations from engaging in defecit spending. In the event that total income does not provide adequate funding for the full-spectrum of UN programs, limited funding will be available through the United Nations Trust Fund, as allowed by the UNGAO. If this supplemental funding fails to cover the total burden, it is the responsibilty of each UN mission, under the cooridination of UNGAO, to reduce their financial needs until the budget is balanced.

Constructive criticism is welcome, and open debate encouraged. Complaining about how the UN shouldn't take any of your money does not count as constructive criticism, nor do tired arguments about national soveriengty. If you choose to make such an argument, be prepared to back it up with something aside from empty anti-UN rhetoric. Claims without warrants will most likely be ignored.



Socialize the UN..! Wow.... Let's paint the sky blue while we're at it..!

It is impossible to argue with this, as by definition the UN is a "nation" in all but self-admittance, and as such may levy taxes as it's majority voting population sees fit.

The only real question is HOW you wish, collectively, to administer these taxes on your provincial (as opposed to national, as your nations are not nations at all but mere provinces of the UN) populations.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

The matter again is taxation - proposition 4 prevents it. Therefore, weaseling around it will not work. Find another way. The UN could support resource exploitation in return for a fixed percentage on return, which would pay back the initial loan and add to the UN Treasury without taxation.

First, they are called resolutions, not propositions.

Second, the text of the resolution reads:


The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

That is the full text.
It says nothing about indirectly taxing citizens. It simply says not directly.

I know you've told us that taxing your government is the same thing as taxing your citizens. But it just doesn't really work that way, watch:

I work. I get paid in Spice Melange. My government takes some of my Spice Melange. It is no longer mine.

My government joins the UN. The UN needs money. It collects some of my government's Spice Melange.

Guess where that Spice Melange came from? Exactly, it indirectly comes from citizens of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity.

It is not how you are suggesting. The CCSM joins the UN. The UN needs money. So UN bill collectors go door to door in the CCSM and directly take Spice Melange. That idea is silly.

If you are seeing UN bill collectors going door to door to the citizens of your nation, then we have a problem. These means somebody, and I assure you it isn't the UN, is robbing your people of their money. Let's get to the bottom of this silly idea!

First, they are called resolutions, not propositions.

Second, the text of the resolution reads:

That is the full text.
It says nothing about indirectly taxing citizens. It simply says not directly.

I know you've told us that taxing your government is the same thing as taxing your citizens. But it just doesn't really work that way, watch:

I work. I get paid in Spice Melange. My government takes some of my Spice Melange. It is no longer mine.

My government joins the UN. The UN needs money. It collects some of my government's Spice Melange.

Guess where that Spice Melange came from? Exactly, it indirectly comes from citizens of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity.

It is not how you are suggesting. The CCSM joins the UN. The UN needs money. So UN bill collectors go door to door in the CCSM and directly take Spice Melange. That idea is silly.

If you are seeing UN bill collectors going door to door to the citizens of your nation, then we have a problem. These means somebody, and I assure you it isn't the UN, is robbing your people of their money. Let's get to the bottom of this silly idea!

Your nation is being forcibly taxed by an extra-national entity.

Your nation's only means of getting "money" is through taxation of it's citizens.

Your citizens are being forcibly taxed by an extra-national entity.

Period. No matter how you gloss it, if your nation is obliged to contribute (under penalty) to the UN, your citizens are paying taxes to an extra-national entity,.. the UN.

You have therefore given up your nation-hood in favor of province-hood to the greater nation state of the UN.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

That is the full text.
It says nothing about indirectly taxing citizens. It simply says not directly.

I know you've told us that taxing your government is the same thing as taxing your citizens. But it just doesn't really work that way, watch:

I work. I get paid in Spice Melange. My government takes some of my Spice Melange. It is no longer mine.

My government joins the UN. The UN needs money. It collects some of my government's Spice Melange.

Guess where that Spice Melange came from? Exactly, it indirectly comes from citizens of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity.

It is not how you are suggesting. The CCSM joins the UN. The UN needs money. So UN bill collectors go door to door in the CCSM and directly take Spice Melange. That idea is silly.

If you are seeing UN bill collectors going door to door to the citizens of your nation, then we have a problem. These means somebody, and I assure you it isn't the UN, is robbing your people of their money. Let's get to the bottom of this silly idea!


*sigh* Why don't you listen first and read the words I am stating?

This does not concern the total citizenry of Vastiva. It concerns ONLY the first citizen, which is the Sultan.

The government has no separate treasury, it is directly funded by one citizen - the Sultan. When taxes are collected they go to the Sultan. Not the government of Vastiva, the Sultan himself. The Sultan allocates funds to the various government offices as the Sultan sees fit. All payments from Vastiva to foreign powers come directly from the Sultan himself, not a governmental office.

Therefore - yet again, I say - Taxing my government is directly taxing the person of the Sultan of Vastiva, who is a citizen of Vastiva, which is a member state of the UN. Therefore, this attempt is illegal.

Your nation is being forcibly taxed by an extra-national entity.

Your nation's only means of getting "money" is through taxation of it's citizens.

Your citizens are being forcibly taxed by an extra-national entity.

Period. No matter how you gloss it, if your nation is obliged to contribute (under penalty) to the UN, your citizens are paying taxes to an extra-national entity,.. the UN.

Yes, it is in an indirect way taxing from UN citizens. That is true. But remember the text of the resolution.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

This is indirect, not direct.

Yes, it is in an indirect way taxing from UN citizens. That is true. But remember the text of the resolution.


This is indirect, not direct.

Let's see,.. "I was indirectly robbed..." versus "I was directly robbed"...?

I think I like "I was ROBBED..!"

But the point was, your nation has given control of a national responsibility to an extra-national entity. That's called abrogation, and my culture's view of that abrogation is that you are no longer a nation, but a province of the Nation of the UN.

You may choose province-hood to nation-hood, but do describe yourself accurately.

If you may choose to describe yourself as a member nation of the UN, then I may choose to describe you as I wish.

Our definitions of "nation" are obviously at odds. But if you can, in your UN charter, describe yourself as being for the "betterment of the World Community", then I can also claim the moral highground (reciprocally) and describe you as a province of a tyranical nation.

..And we'd all be "right"..! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

The government has no separate treasury, it is directly funded by one citizen - the Sultan. When taxes are collected they go to the Sultan. Not the government of Vastiva, the Sultan himself. The Sultan allocates funds to the various government offices as the Sultan sees fit. All payments from Vastiva to foreign powers come directly from the Sultan himself, not a governmental office.

Therefore - yet again, I say - Taxing my government is directly taxing the person of the Sultan of Vastiva, who is a citizen of Vastiva, which is a member state of the UN. Therefore, this attempt is illegal.

Sounds like it is a problem for your government, because you state:

- Government has no separate treasury.
- Taxes are collected (which is the indirect part).
- They then get put in a fund for the Sultan.
- The Sultan funds government offices, including the UN (the direct part).

It sounds to me like the problem is yours. Separate the Sultan's personal budget like everybody else does and hush. The resolution is clear, and completely legal. You are twisting words (and frankly not doing a very good job at it).

Here is one way to change your "way of describing your system":

- Government has no separate treasury.
- Taxes are collected from all (except the Sultan).
- They get put in a fund, which the Sultan oversees.
- The Sultan, not having paid taxes, can do with these funds as he wishes, including choosing to pay the UN or not.

Indirect and direct are pretty easy concepts to understand, so when you have a real point to make, I'm sure the rest of us will be interested in listening to you. Until that time, I'll consider you another one of those nations that responds to debates with statements like, "Whales can't be extinct! The mods forced me to clone humans, so I can clone millions of whales for everybody!"

Sounds like it is a problem for your government, because you state:

- Government has no separate treasury.
- Taxes are collected (which is the indirect part).
- They then get put in a fund for the Sultan.
- The Sultan funds government offices, including the UN (the direct part).

It sounds to me like the problem is yours. Separate the Sultan's personal budget like everybody else does and hush. The resolution is clear, and completely legal. You are twisting words (and frankly not doing a very good job at it).

Next you will whine about how the mods forced you to clone millions of whales like Lacomb is doing, right? Indirect and direct are pretty easy concepts to understand, so when you have a real point to make, I'm sure the rest of us will be interested in listening to you.


""Separate the Sultan's personal budget like everybody else does and hush. The resolution is clear, and completely legal.""

So now you've (Mik) openly stated that your goal is to change the culture of the Sultan's nation..?!

My,... I'm impressed..! This kind of blatant interference would only come from another nation,.. and in this case it in fact does,.. the UN, or rather that province of the "Nationstate UN" known as Mikitivity.

Thanks for the confirmation of motives.

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

You have therefore given up your nation-hood in favor of province-hood to the greater nation state of the UN.


Yup!

It is just that simple. But like the Chipmonks and others have said, the key word in question is indirect vs. direct control / taxation.

On a tagent, what kind of word is "is" really? These debates over things like indirect vs. direct or "are whales really in endanger of dying off or is this resolution just a fluffy communist plot somebody made on a whime, because everybody knows millions of whales are being produced in the Lacombian clone factories every day, thus nobody in the right mind would suggest that whales are endangered" really remind me of the 2nd grade when we also used to argue:

- My dad can beat up your dad.
- Spiderman is cooler than Superman.
- C-3PO, gay or not.
- The moon, is it really made of cheese or not.

You know, all of the "important things" in the world. Let's not focus on the "hard" discussions. Many we can hand those decisions over to some sort of thinking machine, because this is a GAME. This is FANTASY. WooHoo. Let's not make any sense and focus on these 2nd grade questions instead. ::rollseyes::

""Separate the Sultan's personal budget like everybody else does and hush. The resolution is clear, and completely legal.""

So now you've (Mik) openly stated that your goal is to change the culture of the Sultan's nation..?!

My,... I'm impressed..! This kind of blatant interference would only come from another nation,.. and in this case it in fact does,.. the UN, or rather that province of the "Nationstate UN" known as Mikitivity.

Thanks for the confirmation of motives.


I was too slow on my edit. I wanted to tone it down a bit, and give that V-country a way to stop arguing about indirect / direct, but frankly I'm here to play this game because like you, I enjoy arguing really stupid things. (That is sarcasism in case you missed it.)

So, do you think C-3PO is gay?

Really, let's not actually talk about the UN or anything like the subject of this thread. No, let's talk about C-3PO (a robot's) sexuality. And once we've agreed that he is in fact gay, let's next talk about what the words "direct" and "indirect" mean.

Personally, I think that V-country just has problems with the English language, and unless his nation was created in 2003, he joined the UN already knowing what that resolution said.

How much do you want to bet that V-country and the Sultant joined recently (past two months), and only know looked at the prior resolutions. I'd say his time to cry about "indirect" vs. "direct" (i.e. the gayness of a robot from Star Wars) would have been back in 2003 when the resolution was adopted. Otherwise, like you ... he is just trolling.

Sounds like it is a problem for your government, because you state:

- Government has no separate treasury.
- Taxes are collected (which is the indirect part).
- They then get put in a fund for the Sultan.
- The Sultan funds government offices, including the UN (the direct part).

It sounds to me like the problem is yours. Separate the Sultan's personal budget like everybody else does and hush. The resolution is clear, and completely legal. You are twisting words (and frankly not doing a very good job at it).

Here is one way to change your "way of describing your system":

- Government has no separate treasury.
- Taxes are collected from all (except the Sultan).
- They get put in a fund, which the Sultan oversees.
- The Sultan, not having paid taxes, can do with these funds as he wishes, including choosing to pay the UN or not.

Indirect and direct are pretty easy concepts to understand, so when you have a real point to make, I'm sure the rest of us will be interested in listening to you. Until that time, I'll consider you another one of those nations that responds to debates with statements like, "Whales can't be extinct! The mods forced me to clone humans, so I can clone millions of whales for everybody!"


Your pardon, father of lies, but it is not in Vastiva's interest to alter how her internal economy functions. We are not changing us to make you happy. And as we have no such interest, the proposal remains illegal.

We most heartilly agree - direct and indirect are very easy to understand. You are attempting direct taxation. That is illegal.

We are most sorrowful that you lack comprehension of our system, but alas that is your lack and not ours. You may take whatever action you wish, including showing no "open mindedness" but rather stating "you're not agreeing with me so you must be wrong".

You have our sympathies. Vastiva will most assuredly rush emergency aid to your educational system, as it is most apparent such is sorely lacking.

I was too slow on my edit. I wanted to tone it down a bit, and give that V-country a way to stop arguing about indirect / direct, but frankly I'm here to play this game because like you, I enjoy arguing really stupid things. (That is sarcasism in case you missed it.)

So, do you think C-3PO is gay?

Really, let's not actually talk about the UN or anything like the subject of this thread. No, let's talk about C-3PO (a robot's) sexuality. And once we've agreed that he is in fact gay, let's next talk about what the words "direct" and "indirect" mean.

Personally, I think that V-country just has problems with the English language, and unless his nation was created in 2003, he joined the UN already knowing what that resolution said.

How much do you want to bet that V-country and the Sultant joined recently (past two months), and only know looked at the prior resolutions. I'd say his time to cry about "indirect" vs. "direct" (i.e. the gayness of a robot from Star Wars) would have been back in 2003 when the resolution was adopted. Otherwise, like you ... he is just trolling.


Your pardon again, father of lies, but this nation has english as one of it's common language, and most certainly is known to speak - and to comprehend - the english language far better then yours has demonstrated.

We are sorrowful that your only reply is emotional arguements, directed at the messenger and not the message itself. This does display an utter lack of ability to find fault with what is our system, and the dilemma such creates for this proposal. We therefore acknowledge your indication that this proposal is illegal through your inability to logically acknowledge what Vastiva has repeatedly stated, and to logically explain why if the Sultan himself is to pay said tax, that such tax is not illegal.

Your pardon, father of lies, but it is not in Vastiva's interest to alter how her internal economy functions. We are not changing us to make you happy. And as we have no such interest, the proposal remains illegal.

We most heartilly agree - direct and indirect are very easy to understand. You are attempting direct taxation. That is illegal.

We are most sorrowful that you lack comprehension of our system, but alas that is your lack and not ours. You may take whatever action you wish, including showing no "open mindedness" but rather stating "you're not agreeing with me so you must be wrong".

You have our sympathies. Vastiva will most assuredly rush emergency aid to your educational system, as it is most apparent such is sorely lacking.

Whatever,

I looked. Your nation was founded in Jul. 2004, the resolution you are crying about was adopted in Jan. 2003.

If you joined the UN, then you either are in compliance with the resolution or stated, or it is your nation that is in violation of the UN law. Or perhaps, your citizens aren't being directly taxed.

In any case, your argument about a resolution that was debated and adopted a year and a half before you joined is a red hearing and honestly has as much significance to this thread as C-3POs sexuality or debating what the word "is" means.

Move along troll, because this isn't about being open minded. It is about you picking a fight over something that was decided before you choose to join the UN and only realizing a chance to pick a petty fight over the words "indirect" and "direct" just now.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, look at the thread and you'll see anybody who isn't basically here to troll agrees.

Whatever,

I looked. Your nation was founded in Jul. 2004, the resolution you are crying about was adopted in Jan. 2003.

If you joined the UN, then you either are in compliance with the resolution or stated, or it is your nation that is in violation of the UN law. Or perhaps, your citizens aren't being directly taxed.

In any case, your argument about a resolution that was debated and adopted a year and a half before you joined is a red hearing and honestly has as much significance to this thread as C-3POs sexuality or debating what the word "is" means.

Move along troll, because this isn't about being open minded. It is about you picking a fight over something that was decided before you choose to join the UN and only realizing a chance to pick a petty fight over the words "indirect" and "direct" just now.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, look at the thread and you'll see anybody who isn't basically here to troll agrees.


Sorrows again, father of lies, but you still lack understanding.

Foremost, when Vastiva joined the UN is not relevant. The law exists.
Secondly, this attempt to tax the Sultan of Vastiva directly is a violation of said law.

If you would most kindly prove the open-mindedness you flaunt by explaining precisely how the Sultanate's internal economy functions, followed by a short discussion of the power structure within this nation? That would most certainly demonstrate your understanding of the difficulty we are having, and then would lay a foundation by which clarity could be gained?

Wow. You two are taking boring to a whole new level.

Why don't you just agree to vote opposite each other and let it go?

Foremost, when Vastiva joined the UN is not relevant. The law exists.

Secondly, this attempt to tax the Sultan of Vastiva directly is a violation of said law.


OOC: It is extremely important when your nation was formed and joined the UN!

The UN passed this resolution before you joined the game. You joined the UN at your own free will, agreeing to follow all of its resolutions. If you didn't like Resolution 4 (not proposition as you mistakenly called it -- which leads me to believe you didn't read it until recently, since it says its a resolution in its sub-title), you could have choosen to not join. Simple enough for a 3rd grader to understand.

From the NationStates FAQ:


So I'm a UN member. Now what?

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Either you conform with UN resolutions, are you aren't in the UN. Again, simple. And really, I have zero respect for newbies that burst in here and waste our time, as you continue to do.

Frankly I'm not planning on responding to any more of your posts, because clearly you don't have a freakn clue about NationStates (both the UN and how this game works). You're a troll and you aren't here to do anything else. While I'm aware you think you know more about this game than everybody else and think yourself extremely clever, you aren't. This ploy has been played out many times, and will continue to be played out long after you get bored and leave.

Before you continue to dig a deeper grave for yourself, ask yourself this:

Do you really want the rest of the UN players to think of you as a troll?
Do you want others to take your opinion seriously?

If the answer is that you would like your nation's name to not be considered a UN troll / god-modder, then you have to accept that the FAQ is correct. That your nation accepts prior UN resolutions, and if it can't fit within them, that it leaves the UN.

Now please bother somebody else. Maybe you can argue what the word "is" means. It will have about as much merit as your posts.

Wow. You two are taking boring to a whole new level.

Why don't you just agree to vote opposite each other and let it go?

Because, sir, my position is that the proposition is illegal because of the method of government present in my nation.

His position appears to be "you disagree with me, therefore you're a troll. You're a young nation, therefore you're a troll. You won't do what I want, therefore you're a troll".

As you can see, Vastiva is attempting to debate the issue as it is her belief the proposal is illegal.

Mikitivity is tending towards emotional attacks and character assassination.

OOC: It is extremely important when your nation was formed and joined the UN!

The UN passed this resolution before you joined the game. You joined the UN at your own free will, agreeing to follow all of its resolutions. If you didn't like Resolution 4 (not proposition as you mistakenly called it -- which leads me to believe you didn't read it until recently, since it says its a resolution in its sub-title), you could have choosen to not join. Simple enough for a 3rd grader to understand.

From the NationStates FAQ:



Either you conform with UN resolutions, are you aren't in the UN. Again, simple. And really, I have zero respect for newbies that burst in here and waste our time, as you continue to do.

Frankly I'm not planning on responding to any more of your posts, because clearly you don't have a freakn clue about NationStates (both the UN and how this game works). You're a troll and you aren't here to do anything else. While I'm aware you think you know more about this game than everybody else and think yourself extremely clever, you aren't. This ploy has been played out many times, and will continue to be played out long after you get bored and leave.

Before you continue to dig a deeper grave for yourself, ask yourself this:

Do you really want the rest of the UN players to think of you as a troll?
Do you want others to take your opinion seriously?

If the answer is that you would like your nation's name to not be considered a UN troll / god-modder, then you have to accept that the FAQ is correct. That your nation accepts prior UN resolutions, and if it can't fit within them, that it leaves the UN.

Now please bother somebody else. Maybe you can argue what the word "is" means. It will have about as much merit as your posts.

To save much time, we shall not attempt to point out the many logical flaws and backflips you have made in your last few posts.

Please read the following:


Resolution 4 - the UN cannot directly tax the citizens of a member nation.

This proposition would directly tax a citizen of a member nation by nature of it's economic structure.

Therefore, the proposition is illegal.

That is the sum total of Vastiva's position. Please contain your response to attempting to show fault in the position.

The emotional - and illogical - attacks in your response again prove you are not debating the issue, but attacking the messenger. Such is the last bastion of those who will not change their minds.

His position appears to be "you disagree with me, therefore you're a troll. You're a young nation, therefore you're a troll. You won't do what I want, therefore you're a troll".


Actually my position is you are a troll because you are ignoring the NationStates FAQ and insisting upon claiming that the UN is in voliation of its own laws because some nation that joined a year and a half after a resolution was adopted doesn't like the word "direct" used in a resolution it agreed to follow.

I'm not going to respond to any of your threads until such a time that you address how you joined the UN already knowing of this resolution, and yet the FAQ says that nations can not choose to ignore UN resolutions. Just how does this work?

I'd encourage other nations to ignore the troll as well.

Actually my position is you are a troll because you are ignoring the NationStates FAQ and insisting upon claiming that the UN is in voliation of its own laws because some nation that joined a year and a half after a resolution was adopted doesn't like the word "direct" used in a resolution it agreed to follow.

I'm not going to respond to any of your threads until such a time that you address how you joined the UN already knowing of this resolution, and yet the FAQ says that nations can not choose to ignore UN resolutions. Just how does this work?

I'd encourage other nations to ignore the troll as well.


Resolution 4 - and all others - are all a matter of law already in Vastiva.

We would point out that your arguements have come full circle. Perhaps you would point out precisely which passed resolution Vastiva is not in line with, so we could discuss your point?

We lack clarity - perhaps you could also explain how a nation stating that in view of a prior resolution, a proposal is illegal, is not countenanced by the UN? It was our understanding debate was the normal course of action, not character assassination and name-calling, which more properly belong in kindergarden. But, as you have pointed out, we are young. Please to take our exact words and describe how they are somehow out of line with our position of "in view of the prior resolution having been passed, and given the economic structure of Vastiva, the proposal as stated is illegal through the application of UN law"?

Our definitions of "nation" are obviously at odds. But if you can, in your UN charter, describe yourself as being for the "betterment of the World Community", then I can also claim the moral highground (reciprocally) and describe you as a province of a tyranical nation.

..And we'd all be "right"..! :)


I do not appreciate the cheek. I think it's a little late to claim the moral highground. And I do not believe having a tax on member nations makes the UN tyranical, per se.

As you can see, Vastiva is attempting to debate the issue as it is her belief the proposal is illegal.

Mikitivity is tending towards emotional attacks and character assassination.
Haha this sounds like Kerry v. Bush. Kerry calls on Bush to stop attacking politcal ads, then refuses to do anything about the mudslingers on his camp.

The fact is both of them are using attacking methods to try to win.

I find Vastiva's posts to be just as much (more actually) of a personal attack as any of Mikivity's and I feel, though this is sometimes frustrating to me, that Mikivity's stance is more adaptable and based in lucid thought.

Anyway I hope Sophista can come in here and keep this thread on track in the morning.

Anyway I hope Sophista can come in here and keep this thread on track in the morning.

My apologies for allowing a troll to distract me ... (if you do not think that Vastiva is a troll, I encourage you to look at this nation's first attempt to derail this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6812455&postcount=5) ...

I'll continue with the original purpose of this thread now. :)

As for the original idea, I will support whatever Sophista comes up with because I'm convinced that that nation will put forward a quality proposal, consistent with its long standing UN tradition of adding insightful comments to UN debates.

Furthermore, my nation agrees with the following general idea:

2) Establish a progressive funding quota for all member nations, based on their gross domestic product. Small nations or those with weaker economies will be responsible for a smaller percentage, while larger, more economically powerful states will be responsible for more.

The point of the UN is to work together, and my government feels this can be best accomplished by encouraging a diversity of friendly nations. By friendly, a nation need not be rich, but it certainly should follow the ideals of the UN and adopt all UN resolutions (including those it disagrees with).

With that in mind, I feel it would be remise to not mention that there are rogue nations which join the UN with the sole intent to destroy the organization and stand in the way of cooperation (this thread and the whaling debate have two examples of these nations). While I don't feel these nations should be penalized or banned from the UN, I do feel that their assessed financial responsibility should be based on the scale scale as others. In other words, an assessment for regular contributions based on our GDP sounds good.

As for the scale of assessments, you brought up / suggested the use of a weighed scale of assessments:

Tax = 0.0003% + 0.0003% * ( Nations GDP - Mean UN GDP) / Mean UN GDP

Did I get it right?

Is there a tool we can use to work through some examples based on our GDPs? And what would the Mean UN GDP be? Guesses are appropriate for making primilary decisions.

Here is a link that I've saved that compares the economies of nations from the International Democratic Union (of which my nation is a member):

http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?region=International_Democratic_Union

(I think you can add your region into this script to calculate your own GDP.)

Finally, before we continue, I think it is important to build any scale of assessments around what we feel the UN's current and near future needs may be. Frisbeeteria already pointed out:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6813757&postcount=7

that our needs may in fact be small.

Socialize the UN..! Wow.... Let's paint the sky blue while we're at it..!
It is impossible to argue with this, as by definition the UN is a "nation" in all but self-admittance, and as such may levy taxes as it's majority voting population sees fit.
The only real question is HOW you wish, collectively, to administer these taxes on your provincial (as opposed to national, as your nations are not nations at all but mere provinces of the UN) populations.

This proposal isn't about socialism or capitalism. The UN isn't bound by traditional definitions of economic systems because the UN has no economy. It isn't being socialist in that it isn't taking everyone's money and giving it back in equal sums, and it isn't capitalist because there's no market in the UN to buy or sell goods. It's pretty much just us, sitting around, talking about resolutions. The idea that everyone should be involved in making the world a better place also defies definition: it's not economics, it's being human.

In a roundabout way, I feel the draft is making progress. I will be adding language to the proposal that gives the General Assembly oversight over the UNGAO, provided they don't use that power to interfere with the mission's intention. That is, they can shake the department up if someone is trying to pull out the doomsday scenarios that some of this forum's residents feel fond of, but they can't fire everyone to prevent the UNGAO from collecting its funds. There will also be a limit applied to the growth of the UN Trust Fund, as per the statements made earlier.

1) Define the previous resolution, "A Ban on UN Taxation" as applying only to individual citizens and not the governments of member states.

2) Establish a progressive funding quota for all member nations, based on their gross domestic product. Small nations or those with weaker economies will be responsible for a smaller percentage, while larger, more economically powerful states will be responsible for more. This amount will be defined by the following equation: quota = 0.0003% + ((0.0003% * ( Nations GDP - Mean UN GDP) / Mean UN GDP).

3) Prohibit the United Nations from requiring supplementary funding in any subsequent resolutions. Individual states are allowed and encouraged to voluntarily provide funds should they deem a particular issue has merit, but no additional requirements beyond the provisions of the funding resolution may be enacted.

4) Establish a United Nations Trust Fund for all surplus monies derived through the funding quota system. Should the United Nations end up with more income than expenditures, the net surplus will be set aside in interest-bearing accounts for use in future programs. The United Nations will not, however, allow the Trust Fund to grow beyond two times the size of the current operating budget. Should the Trust Fund accumulate this level of wealth, surpluses will no longer be collected, and each nation will recieve a portion of the total surplus back, based on their contribution to the total UN budget.


5) Establish the United Nations General Accounting Office, and bestow upon it the responsibility of ensuring that all UN monies are spent in the most efficient manner. The UNGAO will oversee all transactions involving funds from the UN budget, as well as maintain the United Nations Trust Fund. The missions cheif executives will remain under the oversight of the General Assembly, as per standard United Nations procedure. This oversight shall not include, however, taking action that undermines the mission of the United Nations, the intent of this resolution, or the mission of UNGAO.

5) Prohibit the United Nations from engaging in defecit spending. In the event that total income does not provide adequate funding for the full-spectrum of UN programs, limited funding will be available through the United Nations Trust Fund, as allowed by the UNGAO. If this supplemental funding fails to cover the total burden, it is the responsibilty of each UN mission, under the cooridination of UNGAO, to reduce their financial needs until the budget is balanced.

That covers the issues that were raised at various points. If we can agree on the aforementioned plans, then I'm more than ready to move on into determining the level of funding needed to make the UN's big wheels spin, and then assessing the best percentages to feed into our formula.

To start the discourse, I think the following expenses should be considered:
a positively enourmous UN headquarters and all costs incurred via the building's operation (heating, cooling, paper, etc.); payroll for the staff of the United Nations, including the employees of the Secretariat, and employees attatched to UN missions (UNSC, IRCO); funding the operational budgets of UN missions requiring funds beyond their payroll, such as IRCO and the World Blood Bank. I'm not sure how to begin estimating those expenses, but I imagine I can dig up some information on the RLUN's finances here before too long.

In a roundabout way, I feel the draft is making progress.

I'm not sure how to begin estimating those expenses, but I imagine I can dig up some information on the RLUN's finances here before too long.

Again, my apologies for allowing myself to be baited.

I did look a bit trying to find some RLUN data, and it wasn't just jumping out at me. I'll continue to look, but it might take a while.

Again, my apologies for allowing myself to be baited.

Don't worry about it. I fell into the same habit, as you can see. At least all the opposition has been from tolls and the usual soveriegnty crowd.

I'm going to try to dig up information today about the dues the United States is supposed to pay. In theory, if I can figure out what percentage of the UN budget is paid by the UN, and what percentage of the world GDP comes from America, then figure out what percentage UN dues would make of the US federal budget we should be able to crunch the data and find a solution.

In theory, if I can figure out what percentage of the UN budget ...
Burden Sharing in Support of the United Nations (http://www.library.yale.edu/un/burdnshar/b-I.htm)
... some good basic ideas in these selected excerpts ...
Possible Bases of Assessment: The sum of individual country values of gross national product (GNP) is an obvious assessmet base. This sum is estimated at $23,580 billion for 1993, the latest year for which the figures are available in the Human Development Report, 1996; so total assessment of $1.5 billion amounts to about 0.00636% of world income.

The Working Group of the General Assembly considered some other concepts besides the world total of GNP as possible assessment bases. They considered GDP, NNP (net national product) and national income. They considered purchasing-power-parity monetary conversion rates (PPP) and also market exchange rates (MER). Each concept has its advantage and drawbacks, but they finally settled on GNP at market exchange rates ...

Different conceptual principles that help to guide one in devising a fair scheme of assessment for financial support of the UN are:

(i) assessment according to ability to pay

(ii) the system should be progressive

(iii) the system should have horizontal equity

(iv) the system should have transparency: the assessment base should be statistically available, understandable, and acceptable to all members
That only leaves the math for arriving at the proper values:
http://www.library.yale.edu/un/burdnshar/IMG00022.GIF

... It's possible we could use an even simpler version of this forumla ... just a suggestion ...

Lol that looks scary. Actually, if you tell me what those letters represent, then it probably won't look so bad. BTW what's horizontal equity?

Lol that looks scary. Actually, if you tell me what those letters represent, then it probably won't look so bad. BTW what's horizontal equity?
You don't need to know what those letters mean. Trust me. You don't want to know. To be honest, most of that post was for illustrative purposes. The primary reason for posting was to give Sophista that link.

Horizontal equity: people at the same income level should have the same tax burden. This could mean the same total amount of taxes paid or it could mean the same average tax rate.



as a non-smiley-using-poster, it is sometimes difficult for others to tell when I'm being tongue-in-cheek. Sorry. Learn to live with it.

as a non-smiley-using-poster, it is sometimes difficult for others to tell when I'm being tongue-in-cheek. Sorry. Learn to live with it.
Yours in solidarity, fellow shunner of emoticons.

You don't need to know what those letters mean. Trust me. You don't want to know.

Well, if we knew what they meant, it might be possible to adapt and simplify the formula and actually put it in the proposal - even if the suggestion was intended as tongue-in-cheek, I think there is the potential for it to be a good idea.

Horizontal equity: people at the same income level should have the same tax burden. This could mean the same total amount of taxes paid or it could mean the same average tax rate.

Thanks. Yeah, that sounds like a fairly basic necessity for a taxation system.

Well, if we knew what they meant, it might be possible to adapt and simplify the formula and actually put it in the proposal
A full explanation of the formulas involved can be found on the second page of the article linked above (http://www.library.yale.edu/un/burdnshar/b-II.htm). Prepare yourself for a loooong technical read.

Ok took a brief glance at the beginning, decided not to - I don't really know/understand anything much about economics.

I will most certainly be incorporating the information Frisbeeteria shared into the draft resolution. There's a lot of specific language that would help nail down vague areas, and ensure that this system is based in equality and doesn't become a tool for manipulation or punishment.

With in mind, what remains is figuring out just what we have to pay for as the United Nations. Once there's a number to shoot for, we can figure out the percentages, finalize the proposal, and move on.

In light of new developments, I'm going to expediate this process and jump to the draft phase. Here's my preliminary text.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this quota will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, to a limit of two times the current UN operating budget.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size

3. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

4. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

To save much time, we shall not attempt to point out the many logical flaws and backflips you have made in your last few posts.

Please read the following:


Resolution 4 - the UN cannot directly tax the citizens of a member nation.

This proposition would directly tax a citizen of a member nation by nature of it's economic structure.

Therefore, the proposition is illegal.

That is the sum total of Vastiva's position. Please contain your response to attempting to show fault in the position.

The emotional - and illogical - attacks in your response again prove you are not debating the issue, but attacking the messenger. Such is the last bastion of those who will not change their minds.


Around, and around, and around again we go.

This now has struck amazing levels. For some reason, Mikitivity cannot get his head around the fact that an Absolute Monarchy ("J'etait!" to quote Louis)exists, and as such a structure exists, the wording of the 4th Resolution makes this illegal.

Rather then face such a challenge to the bill, he decides that it doesn't exist and continues on. This is the "I don't see it, it doesn't exist" method of debate. Claiming later to be "actually roleplaying the UN" becomes ridiculous - such challenges happen as a matter of course. The color of a shipping box can be a matter of huge debate. In this case, the position of the economy of a nation is a stumbling block.

Instead - the nation which claims that by virtue of Resolution Four the proposal is illegal, is told they are in violation of that very resolution?

Can anyone say "illogical"? Either you are working in a "semi-real" structure where such things can happen - a position which follows your positions in the moderation thread - or you are attempting to godmod my nation's structure out of existance to fit your version of reality, which would confound as it is completely inconsistant with your stated view.

So, once again, proposal is illegal by virtue of the internal economic structure of a member nation. Like it or not, so it remains. The question now is - will this be responded to logically, or with more emotionalism?

As to your emotionalist rebuttals to date - please do not waste time with them, or I'll be forced to turn teacher and point out each and every logical fallacy within them. That will simply waste time. Suffice it to say, your actions are puerile in extremis - so lets take this to a level of logic rather then emotion, if you would be so kind?

The floor is yours.

Even if I agree with your take on the resolution, which, as I'm sure you've noticed by now, I don't, it doesn't make this proposal illegal by any means. If you want to sit and parade around how your Sultan is the state and everything in the entire country is his so I can't take his assets, whatever. I don't care. The ban on taxation would apply to your country, and Vastiva can have a big "we don't pay UN taxes" cakewalk. For any other form of government, that is, governments that have any other person involved in the business of administration over the general public, they will fall under the resolution and (gasp) have to spend less than a percent of their budget making the world a better place.

Meanwhile, get off it.

OOC: I would point out that as part of the game mechanics, UN taxes are already imposed on member nations. That's why UN nations have slightly higher tax rates...

I would presume that the Sultan of Vastiva does not make every single governmental decision and action in Vastiva - this after all is not possible for even comparatively large central governments. Instead, you probably delegate power to various officials, who make certain minor decisions for themself. This means that, in fact, you do not constitute the entire government, merely the most important part of it, therefore taxing your government is not the same as taxing you. The only way that taxing the government could be the same thing as taxing you is if you were in fact the entire government and carried out every single governmental decision and action in your entire nation - such a claim could be regarded as godmodding, since it is not possible for a single human to deal with all such affairs in a country of almost as many people as the USA, and thus could safely be countered with a barrage of IGNORE missiles.

OOC: I would point out that as part of the game mechanics, UN taxes are already imposed on member nations. That's why UN nations have slightly higher tax rates...
That I did not know. Do you have some form of confirmation?

That I did not know. Do you have some form of confirmation?I hope they do. It would be a nice blow to another proposal just sprung upon us to challenge this noble effort. In a some-what questionable time and manner ...

OOC: I would point out that as part of the game mechanics, UN taxes are already imposed on member nations. That's why UN nations have slightly higher tax rates...

I don't think the higher tax rates are due to UN dues, but rather the majority of NS UN resolutions have been either Human Rights or Social Justice resolutions, many of which have been significant or strong in effect. The result of a Social Justice resolution *sounds* as if it increases our welfare system (and hence tax rates).

Here is my suggestion:

Make two puppets tonight. Have one join the UN and the other not. Make sure that their creation is about the same, and don't answer any issues. See if the one that joins the UN has a higher tax rate. I'm guessing it won't.

Continue the experiment until the next UN resolution, and see how they change after is passes.

Because I don't believe you are right in your believe that the UN just sends a blanket tax to all nations.

Assuming there are no comments on the draft, I intend to post this proposal to the queue tomorrow afternoon. If you see something wrong with the text of the draft, please, let me know now.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this quota will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, to a limit of two times the current UN operating budget.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size

3. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

4. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this quota will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, to a limit of two times the current UN operating budget.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size
I think you need an E, Sophista

e. the UN assessment may never, by law, exceed .005% of that nation's GDP

No upper limits and you've lost before you start. Put in a fairly low number like that (remember, we were originally suggesting .0003%) and maybe you've got a chance for approval and passage. Knootos (or whomever it was earlier) was right in not allowing the UNGAO to spiral without limit.

C needs some revision too. You can't base it on an amorphous 'current budget'. It too needs to be variable. How about this:

c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, with an upper limit calculated as .008% of the combined GDP of all UN member nations. This value to be calculated annually and approved by a majority of all UN members.

Hmmm. Wording needs some work, and I'm out of time. See what you can do.

More reflection. Needs oversight. Changes in bold.
The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation?s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation?s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this quota will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, to a limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size
e. the UN assessment may never, by law, exceed .005% of that nation's GDP

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, comprised of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket.

a. This Committee may, upon proof of hardship and by majority vote; reduce, defer, or waive a member's annual assessment.
b. Members with a petition of hardship shall be excluded from the pool of random names.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

That I did not know. Do you have some form of confirmation?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6854445&postcount=18

There you go.

The entire thread makes good reading; I'd suggest reading all of it after you read the relevant post in question.

Axis Nova

Thanks for the input, Frisbeeteria. I was trying to shy away from putting real nations in the UNGAO equation, just because I don't think any of us are capable of putting that kind of thing forth in role play. Esepecially right after passge (God willing), the committee would be overwhelmed with people trying to appeal out, and I don't want to put anyone through that. I'm comfortable if we just assume that those nations exist and are doing their job, but I'd have to put a bit more thought into it if your intention is to have an actual committee, like the UNSC. That aside, I think all the suggestions you've made add a great deal to the proposal. Thank you again for your help, both now and in the discussion in general.

All I saw was Actually, the UN has a budget because it takes funds from nations. You see how your taxes go up? Game mechanics. I do not see how RPing your nation in any specific way affects this.I don't think that's an actual confirmation. Taxes go up based on your issue choices and effects of passed UN resolutions (Environment at the expense of industry, for instance). Those funds don't go to UN dues, they are merely effects of UN actions.

I'd have to put a bit more thought into it if your intention is to have an actual committee, like the UNSC.
Good Lord NO! Just look at the damn whaling exemptions.

Let people role-play it if they want. I won't be reading those threads.

Second Draft

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this quota will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by funding quotas, to a limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
b. nation’s receiving a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

Picky shit:

Why use quota on one line and assessment on another? I like 'dues' or 'assessment'. Quota isn't the right word IMHO.

3b. nation's receiving a petition of hardship

Lose the apostrophe in nations. It's plural, not possessive.

2c. ... to a limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment

... to a maximum of two times. We used maximum elsewhere, better to be consistent.

I'll go confirm or deny what I said in the Technical forum, then.

Axis Nova

Third Draft

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
b. nations receiving a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

I'll go confirm or deny what I said in the Technical forum, then.


Cool, because it is a good question.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351951

Apparently the current answer is no.

I stand corrected >.>

Axis Nova

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351951

Apparently the current answer is no.
I stand corrected >.>


Thanks was fast!

So does this change things at all with respect to the proposal?

I posted a précis of the proposal concept in that same Axis Nova topic. If Sal makes a ruling, somebody can cross-post it.

Oops - caught another one:

"b. nations receiving a petition of hardship shall be ineligible..."

change to:

"b. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible..."

Whether they get their petition accepted or not, they shouldn't have the opportuinty to sit on the panel. The clause was added specifically to inhibit judge-bribing and corruption.

Heh. It's your qualm, so I'll take your word for it.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
b. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

Could you say that a more than 2/3 supermajority vote from the General Assembly can be made to throw out the current overseers and randomly select new ones? Or even to allow a 2/3 vote to completely overrule the UNGAO itself?

Could you say that a more than 2/3 supermajority vote from the General Assembly can be made to throw out the current overseers and randomly select new ones? Or even to allow a 2/3 vote to completely overrule the UNGAO itself?
How about this change instead: (which I thought was implied, but apparently not)

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket, selected annually.

Given the long-term, far-sighted nature of UNGAO work, I think giving them terms of a year would make it hard to accomplish much of anything. I'd be more supportive of a five or ten year term, with the terms staggered so only a portion are getting replaced each year. Fresh faces would continue to show up on the board, but not at the expense of progress.

The Oversight Committee (as currently defined) exists only to allow exemptions in the case of hardship. One year would be more than plenty in terms of listening to whining nations. If you want to add more roles to their playbook, let's do that before you submit this. Otherwise, one year is plenty.

Ah. I saw the word oversight and got drawn into a few prior discussions. I was under the impression that you meant for the committee to be independent of UNGAO, as the General Assembly's way of keeping an eye on things. I'm fine with them just handling the petitions and leaving the more traditional bureaucratic oversight to the Assembly as a whole. A year is fine.

Oh I was under the same impression as Sophista - I thought if they were overseeing the UNGAO, it might be nice to have a way to replace them ASAP if they weren't doing their jobs to the satisfaction of the Assembly.

Oh I was under the same impression as Sophista - I thought if they were overseeing the UNGAO, it might be nice to have a way to replace them ASAP if they weren't doing their jobs to the satisfaction of the Assembly.
I think that the Oversight Committee should probably have a bigger role. I just couldn't think of a short, elegant way to phrase it. Since Sophista seems to be hanging on to his drafts until we get it fine tuned, why don't we toss around a few ideas and see if they can be neatly and efficiently added?

I think the resolution would get excessively complex if we took the step to explain that we have an oversight committe (UNGAO) with an oversight committee (UNGAOOC) who reports to an oversight committee (GA).

I'm assuming that the NSUN follows the pattern of the RLUN in that all UN missions are under the oversight of the General Assembly. The UN wouldn't want to create an organization that it had no control over, right? In the real world, if UNESCO started getting a little fiesty, the UN could either pass another resolution to reshape its powers, or the Secretariat could reform the leadership to steer the organization back on course. No one has ever given me a reason to believe that the NSUN doesn't work in that way as well. We just assume that the organizations we create are well run unless they have real boards and are role played. Role playing seems to be a dirty word in this forum, so that really narrows it down.

On the other hand, I understand that a lot of people aren't going to swallow the pill that is UNFA unless they have some kind of reassurance that it isn't going to degenerate into a UN-sponsored rape and pillage. My first thought would be to put in some kind of supermajority check. If two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of reforming the UNGAO administration, it happens. A number that high ensures that a single group of economic systems can't claim to be wrongfully oppressed because they don't like the concept. They'd have to form a coalition with other "wronged" nations, which would reduce the likelihood of frivilous reform while still allowing the ability to chang course. Then again, this kind of system would require a change in game mechanics, thus invalidating the whole proposal. It's tricky.

Personally, I'm comfortable resting on the precedent that all programs are assumed to operate at maximum efficiency. The probability exists that some rogue state (not mentioning names) would stir up some kind of trouble by claiming that the whole thing is corrupt and wrongfully taxing them, but that kind of grandiose claim skips into godmoding territory. If they can claim everything sucks, I can just turn around and claim everything is fine, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Since we aren't going to actually use the check, we'd just assume all is well, couldn't you say that it is possible to change it even though we realistically couldn't due to game mechanics? (did that make sense? I need to go to bed)

It makes sense to me, but the moderators work in mysterious ways sometimes. The last thing I want is this resolution to fail because we were working outside the system.

Try this then:3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket, selected annually.

a. the committtee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, and provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation's annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

I like that language. With that incorporated into the resolution, it now reads as follows:

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five randomly selected UN member nations from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.


4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All
monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

Character count is at 2151. Plenty of room.

Character count is at 2151. Plenty of room.
In that case, can you add "selected annually" back in, please?

And take out that spurious hard return in the final line, between All and monies. It's been buggin' me since the first draft.

The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

I never knew it was there. When you plug it into the post box, it looks like a plain 'ol "uh oh, out of space, better wrap around." Should be fixed.

All righty then. This will be the last suggestion of the evening.

Do we want to establish a baseline minimum in part 2? I'm thinking

e. to limit each nation's quota to no less than 0.0003% and no more than 0.005% of that nation's GDP.

When I first started replying, I didn't notice that extra zero. I was confused as to why we'd only want 0.002 percent differential between the top and bottom spenders, as that would eliminate any measureable "progressive" standard. Now that I'm clear on it, I don't see any real reason why it shouldn't be in there, and it's entirely possible that more numbers will make people think it's a better plan.

I like it as it is in the last version but with Fris' latest suggestion included.

Character count is at 2151. Plenty of room.

What is the character limit?

Given the removal of the Olympic Games proposal, I think it's highly likely that Mods will kill this proposal on Game Mechanics. Given that, we need to review this one extensively. In fact, I withdraw my latest suggestion that we put a minimum value on dues, as this is almost certain to kill the proposal.

Let's see if we can't get Cogitation or Tactical Grace to review this. They seem to be among the more active UN mods lately (though TG has been out a bit).

I'll be cross-posting the draft text in a Moderation thread as soon as this post is over, and ask that a moderator look over it to help us make it acceptable. I only hope that we can reach a common understanding about the clauses involved. We've put quite a bit of work into this to see it fall apart because of implications or miscommunications.

What is the character limit?

I've heard varying estimates, but the average seems to be between 3000 and 3500 characters.

The moderators have yet to respond to my thread asking if the proposal is legal or not. I know they've been on, because they've posted in other threads. This means one of two things: 1) they don't care or 2) it's okay. As much as I'd like to side with the second, I'm pretty sure it's the first. Perhaps some of the forums more experienced members can offer their commentary? Right now, it's the best I'll get.

Since there's a complete absence of commentary from all sides, I'm going to go ahead and put this one in the queue. I've read it again and again, and I can't find anything that mandates on-forum activity, and I hope by now the mods have figured out that this is to facilitate role play, not force a code-monkey to write formulas all day. I'll be telegramming delegates within the hour.

Given the removal of the Olympic Games proposal, I think it's highly likely that Mods will kill this proposal on Game Mechanics. Given that, we need to review this one extensively. In fact, I withdraw my latest suggestion that we put a minimum value on dues, as this is almost certain to kill the proposal.

Let's see if we can't get Cogitation or Tactical Grace to review this. They seem to be among the more active UN mods lately (though TG has been out a bit).

This is actually sound advice. Cog, Tactical Grace, and even Stephanistan have showed an interest in the UN (though Stephanistan only made her recent presence known months ago during a debate).

I'm guessing that it was the Most Glorious Hack that deleted Hersfold's resolution (not proposal, but resolution). The problem with the ruling against Hersfold's resolution (and the warning they've placed against him) is that they aren't explaining exactly what text in his resolution led to the warning.

But post in moderation. If they don't respond, some of them will likely be realize that you put in a good faith effort to respond to the team's lack of direction with respect to their recent actions.

I posted the full text of the resolution in moderation a few days before sending the proposal to the queue, and the moderators never poked their heads in. I'd seen them posting in other threads, so I assumed they'd seen it, shrugged, and moved on.

I posted the full text of the resolution in moderation a few days before sending the proposal to the queue, and the moderators never poked their heads in. I'd seen them posting in other threads, so I assumed they'd seen it, shrugged, and moved on.

Just save the link (or stay subscribed) to the moderation thread just in case. :)

Best of luck!

perhaps voluntary taxation with benefits for nations who pay the tax?
reason being, is that new nations probably won't be able to handle much more spending than what they go through just inside their borders.
if the taxation is voluntary, then young and new nations will not have to worry about their budget until they are better developed. and when they are ready, they can recieve some kind of benefit that they would not have otherwise if they choose to pay the tax (one example being access to international, UN-funded space platforms)

perhaps voluntary taxation with benefits for nations who pay the tax?
reason being, is that new nations probably won't be able to handle much more spending than what they go through just inside their borders.


Taxation is already voluntary. Nations aren't forced to join the UN.

Furthermore, any nation that is in financial trouble can leave the UN until it feels it is ready to return.

The idea that the UN has a lasting negative impact on ones economy is IMHO ill founded. You can choose 2 daily issues / day. Historically we have a single resolution before us each week. One UN resolution can only change your nation's economy once. A week's worth of daily issues has the potential of changing your nation's economy up to 14 times. While I think expecting to get 14 good daily issues is completely unrealistic even in a month, I think expecting to get one acceptable daily issue per week is a fair trade off.

Younger nations can always observe the UN for a month, and once they've stablized their economies, perhaps full membership is then warranted.

new nations probably won't be able to handle much more spending than what they go through just inside their borders.
That's why the proposal is designed with a progressive aspect. Those with the least ability to pay will be charged the least, by far. A fledgling nation might be charged at a rate of, say, 0.0003% ($3,000 dues / $billion GDP) while a mature nation could see a maximum of 0.005% ($50,000 dues / $billion GDP). If even that is a hardship (natural disaster, war, etc), there is an exclusion clause built in.

You're covered, pal. It's cheap at twice the price.

Younger nations can always observe the UN for a month, and once they've stablized their economies, perhaps full membership is then warranted.
Ya blew it there, Mik. You're in or you're out. No 'trial memberships' allowed in this club. You sign on, you get ALL the benefits and ALL the responsibilities.

Ya blew it there, Mik. You're in or you're out. No 'trial memberships' allowed in this club. You sign on, you get ALL the benefits and ALL the responsibilities.

I think what he meant was a new nation can watch the forums before joining to see just what they're getting themselves into. If it turns out their opposed to the majority of UN legislation or are indifferent towards the debate, they can refrain from jumping in full on.

Ya blew it there, Mik. You're in or you're out. No 'trial memberships' allowed in this club. You sign on, you get ALL the benefits and ALL the responsibilities.

An observer isn't a card carrying UN member, but a non-member who posts in the forum and pays attention to the UN. I'd say that this is a "trial membership" and a great way to start.

Think of all the nations that joined the UN without first looking at the prior UN resolutions or reading the UN debates. Then think of all the silly debates these newbie nations initiate. A "trial membership" is a very wise policy for nations to consider investing in.

Over all, I am impressed with this proposal.

However, I wanted to ask a couple of questions before offering my support.

1. While I feel one year is a suffiencent time for any member to be seated, I feel uncomfortable with only 5 committee members who are responsible for the entire budget. Has this been discussed, and if so, what were the findings?

2. Would all the committee members be replaced at one time? I do think a staggered approach would be more suitable, so that new members would have someone who knows the procedures. Otherwise, one year would not be enough time. Once the annual budget was written and dues paid, it would be time to teach another group.

What are the assessment brackets are using to determine committee membership? Could those same brackets be used to determine committee member terms of service? Would it be plausible to stagger the terms based on the two extremes bracket classifications?

What are the assessment brackets are using to determine committee membership? Could those same brackets be used to determine committee member terms of service? Would it be plausible to stagger the terms based on the two extremes bracket classifications?
Since both brackets and the committee were my idea, I'll take this.

It's not 5 members, it's 5 members per bracket. Given the size of the UN, I'm assuming there are between three and twenty different brackets, ranging from perhaps 0.0003% to as much as 0.001% or even 0.003%. Why didn't we include specifics? Because this was intended to be a general outline, and by making it specific we invite far too much scrutiny into the game mechanics aspect of the proposal. There will NOT be any actual charge to any UN nation. We chose these percentages because they have both real-world applicability and they are also so ludicrously small as to be irrelevant to game mechanics.

Nobody said anything about staggered or non-staggered for much the same reason. We can't include specifics of committe membership and organization for reasons best explained here, by Game Mod Cogitation (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6909172&postcount=52). We're choosing vagueness and will let the final (imaginary or role-played) committee structure itself.

Does that cover it?

Just to amuse myself, I went to the ThirdGeek Calculator (http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=frisbeeteria) and gathered some stats. I made some fairly random assumptions about progressive assessment brackets, increasing them gradually based exclusively on population. I then picked five different nations that have contributed to this topic and tossed them in the mix. The results:


http://home.nc.rr.com/ezjtb/images/UNFunding.gif

As you can see, assessments vary widely. Sophista while square in the middle in terms of population, carries by far the highest burden because of their roaring economy. Myopia suprised me by being in the highest bracket, but having the second lowest assessment, barely triple an almost brand new nation. Frisbeeteria's UN assessment is roughly equivalent to our governmental budget for toilet plungers in state-owned janitorial closets.

As they say, "it's the economy, stupid." And it's pretty damn cheap for what we get.

Just to amuse myself, I went to the ThirdGeek Calculator (http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=frisbeeteria) and gathered some stats...
...
Frisbeeteria's UN assessment is roughly equivalent to our governmental budget for toilet plungers in state-owned janitorial closets.

As they say, "it's the economy, stupid." And it's pretty damn cheap for what we get.

WOW...! To finally see some "meat" in game mechanics other than roleplay..!

That still begs the question though: "What do I do with this (my nation stats) info, and how do I affect it in-game?"

You may call me stupid,..that's quite acceptable (and often applied).

A little assistance in this manner would be welcomed.

Thankies..! :)

That still begs the question though: "A) What do I do with this (my nation stats) info, B)and how do I affect it in-game?"

A) Umm, use it to help you role-play?
B) Choices within issues and/or membership in the UN change these automatically.

It's a simple game. That's pretty much it.

Edit Iakeokeo Stats (http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Iakeokeo)
You guys sure spend a bunch of clams on pointy sticks. Is the blue goo that hard to defend against?

A) Umm, use it to help you role-play?
B) Choices within issues and/or membership in the UN change these automatically.

It's a simple game. That's pretty much it.

Edit Iakeokeo Stats (http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Iakeokeo)
You guys sure spend a bunch of clams on pointy sticks. Is the blue goo that hard to defend against?

I LOVE FRISBEETERIA...! :D

Thanks for the info.

The pointy sticks are not for defense. They are recreational. Iakeokeoians LOVE to poke things,.. it's a BIG part of our mythology (see the "Poking the Man-Eating-Clam (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6878801&postcount=17)" story, which is our (sort of) "Exodus" myth), as well as things like smiling, sand, more smiling, surfing, swimming, reverence for the elderly (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6878502&postcount=4), sand, and that weird "incest (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6826571&postcount=5)" problem that we always say we'll deal with later concerning our "founding wash-ups".

And the "Blue Goo (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6895176&postcount=48)", after many MANY months of CAREFUL harvesting, has been safely turned to "Goo-d", which is fried up and served, much like SPAM (the pseudo-meat) in every Iakeokeoian household and "restaurant".

It's become a staple food actually, which our "health officials" find a bit disturbing, as it's NOT a traditional foodstuff.

... and now back to our ongoing funding saga, already in progress ...

Saga indeed. After telegramming roughly 330 delegates to ask for their support, the proposal has garnered only 36 endorsements, slightly over ten percent. Voting ends tomorrow, and real-world events prevent me from doing the exhaustive work of digging up another 300 delegates (or probably more, given the telegram:endorsement ratio).

Perhaps I'll try again in a month or so.

Saga indeed. After telegramming roughly 330 delegates to ask for their support, the proposal has garnered only 36 endorsements, slightly over ten percent. Voting ends tomorrow, and real-world events prevent me from doing the exhaustive work of digging up another 300 delegates (or probably more, given the telegram:endorsement ratio).

Perhaps I'll try again in a month or so.

Resubmit it please. Normally delegates who endorse a proposal understand that you can't get a 100 endorsements in the first try.

My government believes in this proposal and would be happy to telegram *only* those nations that have already endorsed the proposal asking that they re-endorse it on your government's behalf. Furthermore, I'll keep a log of all nations my staff have contacted on the International Democratic Union's UN forum, and encourage other nations to view the list with the intention of avoiding accidental spam.

The IDU proposals may never reach it to the UN floor, but for now we've agreed that our resources are best spent in passive campaigns for resolution support.

Two IDU proposals that are currently in the queue are listed in my sig below (you can view signatures by changing your Jolt profile settings).

I intend to resubmit the proposal, just not right away. Generally, I frown upon people who just submit and submit and submit without ever seeking revision or, at the very least, giving people a break. I'll take the delegates who've supported and save their names, then let them know in the future when the proposal is back in the queue.

Any support that you're willing to offer in this matter would be greatly appreciated. More often than not, the rhetorical weight of the name Mikitivity is greater than ours, and it means quite a bit to me that you're willing to support this proposal. In a non-sentimental, more policy-and-diplomacy-oriented way.

Resubmit it please. Normally delegates who endorse a proposal understand that you can't get a 100 endorsements in the first try.Submitting proposals is also a timing problem. Right now, you're working on a relatively new forum. I abandoned NS for 4 months because of the server issues, just hanging in enough to keep my nation alive. The Jolt move is still fairly recent and not all the regulars are back.

Here in the US, it's return-to-school week. Lots of people are in transition and adjusting to school-year workloads. Give 'em a chance to adjust.

Finally, it took me three tries to get Rights and Duties of UN States into the queue at the correct time. You have to balance the major and minor updates, how best to reach both the weekend and weekly posters, etc. I don't know if the update schedule has changed, but pre-move the major update finished up about 8 AM EST. If you submitted a proposal at 07:30, you effectively lost a day's approvals. Watch the UN page one morning and look for deletions of expired proposals. Post about half an hour afterwards. That gives you the front page on your final day, which is key to success.

By the way, this is all secret information. Don't let anyone know I told you.

I intend to resubmit the proposal, just not right away. Generally, I frown upon people who just submit and submit and submit without ever seeking revision or, at the very least, giving people a break. I'll take the delegates who've supported and save their names, then let them know in the future when the proposal is back in the queue.

I think that with all things, that a "moderated" rule is better than an absolute one. If support is growing with each pass, then I feel resubmitted proposals are valid. If support is decreasing with each iteration, then I tend to agree with you.

As Frisbeeteria pointed out, there is in fact much to gain or lose by timing. But above all things, as the proposal's author, I think the most important timing issue is to make sure that you'll be around when your resolution finally hits the floor.



Any support that you're willing to offer in this matter would be greatly appreciated. More often than not, the rhetorical weight of the name Mikitivity is greater than ours, and it means quite a bit to me that you're willing to support this proposal.

Why thank you, but I am afraid that many nations might beg to differ with your government's opinion on the wisdom (or lack thereof) associated with my government.

From the Office of the Dir. of Finance.................

It has come to my attention the new proposal concerning funding for the U.N. I am certain that a portion of our funds are already going to the U.N. is that not correct. If i already fund the U.N. why then should i again pay the U.N. through a tax. This proposal would have been a very decent one indeed, "however your asking that something be put in place that already exists, are you not". At this present time our vote will be a NAY.

Dir. Mr. Gavin Denny
New Californiajai

I am certain that a portion of our funds are already going to the U.N. is that not correct.
Dir. Mr. Gavin Denny
New Californiajai
Director, you have been misinformed. Unless New Californiajai has been so kind as to donate to the Building, Underwriting, and Social Help League, no such funds have been received from your treasury.

This proposal is an attempt to provide a reliable and continuous stream of income for the UN's good works. Quite frankly, the previous system has not worked all that well. It is in fact time to retire the B.U.S.H. League system we have been using and institute a proper system suitable for a major international organization.

Sincerely,
MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

http://home.nc.rr.com/ezjtb/images/UNFunding.gif

:eek: :(

Really need to do something about my economy. This is just embarassing...$90/capita!

I hope this will be re-submitted fairly soon - currently you have quite a bit of momentum here on the forum, and I'd hate to see that die down because of inactivity, something which I've seen when I've had to put proposal submissions on hold.

Really need to do something about my economy. This is just embarassing...$90/capita!
You wacky liberals ...

Weeeeell even if you aren't quite as horrendously poor as me, your GDP per capita is hardly that of a wealthy MEDC :p

In my defence, I believe there is a significant flaw in the workings of that calculator. I think that to work out the strength of your economy, it takes your economy rating (imploded, frightening, whatever...) but then modifies it according to how motivated the calaculator's creator reckons your workforce is. I believe that the economy rating should be taken as is, because it's already a measurement of what the calculator needs. But as long as the calculator does what it does, I am doubly screwed by my Imploded economy, because the calculator factors in additional economic crapness because the workers are supposed to be depressed that the economy is rubbish. If that makes any sense

the Kingdom of Jackspants would support this Act, as we believe that the United Nations would benefit from such a funding source based on a flat tax.

Here's a progress update for all of you following this proposal as it endures the United Nations process.

United Nations Funding Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sophista

Description: The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding. All monies for UN programs must come from the UNGAO budget.

Approvals: 43 (East Hackney, Kiwipeso, Endolantron, Melmond, Flibbleites, Jeff Malcolm, The Gaza Strip, Real Freedonia, New Christonia, Coolet, Widjitiwio, Maxitron, Clintoned, Jovianica, Cheney-Land, Danitoria, Braaaiiiiins, DragonsReach, Blackbird, Free Outer Eugenia, Frisbeeteria, Nireva, Tramuntana, True-wisdom, The Starry-Eyed, Dyne of the Blue Storm, Nag Ehgoeg, Saint Mere Eglise, Baudrillard, YB, Orioni, Slavickia, Kortepohja, Eyremon, Tzorsland, Workers Communes, Shutthehellup, Kwazamarzians, Peaonusahl, Xerxes855, Lambopollis, Candia, Primaina)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 92 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 1 2004

I've saved this list of delegates and will likely update it as close to the deadline as possible, so I might telegram them again at a later date to secure their support once more. Between submissions, however, I'd like to throw the ball once more to the forums in case anyone has had some burst of insight or similar epiphany that they feel will add to the proposal. Also, if you happen to know any delegates who would support this legislation, feel free to telegram me with their contact information.

Have you considered dumping the 5th clause or watering it down? I understand its purpose, but I'm worried about this clause a wee bit.

Have you considered dumping the 5th clause or watering it down? I understand its purpose, but I'm worried about this clause a wee bit.

How about "Prohibits future resolutions from requiring supplementary funding, although they may request voluntary contributions from UN members", or something to that effect?

How about "Prohibits future resolutions from requiring supplementary funding, although they may request voluntary contributions from UN members", or something to that effect?
Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.

Voluntary contributions aren't excluded. Only required contribs.

Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.

Voluntary contributions aren't excluded. Only required contribs.

Sure, I understood that that was the intention, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify it, given the willingness of some members to twist the meaning of UN resolutions until they break.

it wouldn't hurt to clarify it, given the willingness of some members to twist the meaning of UN resolutions until they break.

Indeed. East Hackney's suggestion should be included.

After thinking about it, dropping the second part of the clause in question is a good idea. Aside from the potential game mechanics or "can't limit future proposals" rules, I've realized the language goes contrary to one of my original intentions for the resolution.

Targeted voluntary donations can be a nations way of showing their enthusiasm for a particular resolution. We encourage nations who feel strongly about a specific issue to go above and beyond what is required, providing even more solvency for the resolution in question. That said, the clause will now read:

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.

Might I suggest changing from a tax to a use-fee?

The UN is supposedly part of many international organizations, including WHO.
It also allows many connections simply through it's existance. So create a use fee on UN services, based on the size and relative economy of the nation.

Add a clause that a minimum use-fee will be charged to the countries for simple UN communication between nations. This is not a tax, it is a fee for services. Tie that to population and economy (after all, more people, more use of UN services), and you have a functioning income which is not a tax.

I'm also in support of the "prohibit requirement of supplimentary funding" clause, as I'm still not going to support a wild UN-based bureacracy. As the numbers of nations grows, eventually any percentage will cause growth beyond any member nation. So why not accomplish the goal another way?

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.

I think this clause is fine. Technically we can't repeal or amendment resolutions, so any future resolution that would try to change what we've done here would already be off limits. :)

Much like the Rights and Duties resolution, you are only really just restating the rules with the above structure. I'm happy with it.

Add a clause that a minimum use-fee will be charged to the countries for simple UN communication between nations. This is not a tax, it is a fee for services. Tie that to population and economy (after all, more people, more use of UN services), and you have a functioning income which is not a tax.

While the idea is workable and even advantageous in certain cases, the United Nations isn't a catalog of programs to sign up for. Under this scenario, poverty stricken nations with poor education would pay infinitely more than your country or mine. It's hardly fair to place that burden upon nations who already suffer from economic and social hardship.

The reason I created the resolution in it's current form was to take UN funding beyond volunteerism or commerce, and change it into the kind of campaign for global change that it should be.

I support thr proposal as it was last posted.
thanks for including S-H in the stats, Fris!

I support thr proposal as it was last posted.
thanks for including S-H in the stats, Fris!
No prob. I needed some punk newbie anyway. ;)

While the idea is workable and even advantageous in certain cases, the United Nations isn't a catalog of programs to sign up for. Under this scenario, poverty stricken nations with poor education would pay infinitely more than your country or mine. It's hardly fair to place that burden upon nations who already suffer from economic and social hardship.

The reason I created the resolution in it's current form was to take UN funding beyond volunteerism or commerce, and change it into the kind of campaign for global change that it should be.

Ah, but the UN is a series of advantageous programs - that is part of it's advantage of being.

Under the scenario, new nations with little population would pay a use-fee of far less then an established, high population nation. There could also be a credit of sorts established...

The point is to move away from taxes to a more "enlightened" method of gaining funding. If you want global change, start with a changed form of funding - something besides the same method. That is where your resistance is, so therefore something with a new take will have less resistance.

Under the scenario, new nations with little population would pay a use-fee of far less then an established, high population nation. There could also be a credit of sorts established...
I gotta ask ... have you even read through the proposal and this thread? Did you see the charts I posted using a progressive fee structure based on Sophista's definitions?

UN membership is all-or-nothing. If you're a member, you're bound by all the resolutions, and you get all the program benefits. Whether we call them fees, assessments, dues, or taxes; it's still coming out of the same national budgets. I happen to think we've done a hell of a job incorporating as many of the recommendations as we have.

The one that we didn't incorporate was Vastiva's complete and total ban on funding of any sort, ever. Somehow we couldn't make that fit this concept. I don't expect you to vote for this - hell, it wouldn't bother me if you actively campaigned against it.

Tax programs are always unpopular, and I fully expect this one to be a hard sell. So be it. It's the responsible thing to do.

UNFA will be resubmitted with the changes next weekend. I figure too many people will be traveling/tied up in family activities to push it again this weekend, and it gives me more time to find other supporters.

I gotta ask ... have you even read through the proposal and this thread? Did you see the charts I posted using a progressive fee structure based on Sophista's definitions?

UN membership is all-or-nothing. If you're a member, you're bound by all the resolutions, and you get all the program benefits. Whether we call them fees, assessments, dues, or taxes; it's still coming out of the same national budgets. I happen to think we've done a hell of a job incorporating as many of the recommendations as we have.

The one that we didn't incorporate was Vastiva's complete and total ban on funding of any sort, ever. Somehow we couldn't make that fit this concept. I don't expect you to vote for this - hell, it wouldn't bother me if you actively campaigned against it.

Tax programs are always unpopular, and I fully expect this one to be a hard sell. So be it. It's the responsible thing to do.


Take a lesson from the real life politicians.

Call it an assessment, call it a fee. Don't call it a tax. Simple. Don't call it a tax, and people like me won't hit the magic buzzword and go "HELL NO!". If you're going to play politics, do realize it is a mental game as much as an intellectual one. And buzzwords are absolutely part of the game.

And actually, you did incorporate that ban in your final bit.

UN membership is all-or-nothing. If you're a member, you're bound by all the resolutions, and you get all the program benefits. Whether we call them fees, assessments, dues, or taxes; it's still coming out of the same national budgets. I happen to think we've done a hell of a job incorporating as many of the recommendations as we have.

The one that we didn't incorporate was Vastiva's complete and total ban on funding of any sort, ever. Somehow we couldn't make that fit this concept. I don't expect you to vote for this - hell, it wouldn't bother me if you actively campaigned against it.

It's the responsible thing to do.

Your nations are doing a hell of a job, even if "the Sultan" doesn't give you his seal of approval. ;) HINT: Continue to focus on the nations that actually appreciate your efforts.

OOC: Just to let everyone know. NO TAXES OF ANYKIND CAN BE COLLECTED FROM ANY MEMBER NATIONS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! Just thought you all should know that.

P.S. I found out that a UN resolution was passed in 2003 saying almost exactly what i just said. It is a ban on taxes resolution that was passed in 2003, please check the resolutions passed in history area in the UN and you will find it! Sorry, whoever started this proposal.

OOC: Just to let everyone know. NO TAXES OF ANYKIND CAN BE COLLECTED FROM ANY MEMBER NATIONS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! Just thought you all should know that.

P.S. I found out that a UN resolution was passed in 2003 saying almost exactly what i just said. It is a ban on taxes resolution that was passed in 2003, please check the resolutions passed in history area in the UN and you will find it! Sorry, whoever started this proposal.

See how this thread is 12 pages long? Guess what? Oh, the first page makes a reference to that resolution. And guess what else? This thread would have stopped long ago if we all made the same mistake you made. That resolution says the UN can't *directly* tax citizens, it says nothing about collecting dues from governments.

[OOC: When you get a job some day, if you are an American, you'll get a tax statement from the IRS. If you live in California or one of many other states, you'll get a separate tax statement from the state. If you own a house, you'll get yet another tax statement from the city / county in which you live (it is called a property tax). My point is, most American adults are taxed 2-3 times by completely different organizations. That resolution was designed to stop that. Trust me, once you graduate from college and start getting these tax statements, you'll find them annoying. You will hate the month of April ... completely. And you'll agree that it would completely suck if the UN sent you a tax statement every April too!]

[OOC: When you get a job some day, if you are an American, you'll get a tax statement from the IRS. If you live in California or one of many other states, you'll get a separate tax statement from the state. If you own a house, you'll get yet another tax statement from the city / county in which you live (it is called a property tax). My point is, most American adults are taxed 2-3 times by completely different organizations. That resolution was designed to stop that. Trust me, once you graduate from college and start getting these tax statements, you'll find them annoying. You will hate the month of April ... completely. And you'll agree that it would completely suck if the UN sent you a tax statement every April too!]

OCC:Why is it you assume i am not educated(Or not employed), insulting me, or the attempts to do so is very immature and i would have thought someone of your supposed intellect would or could grasp this concept, and could be a little more mature, guess i was wrong??? If your goal is just to insult me, then please, KISS OFF!!

OOC: To everyone else who is not in the buisness of personly attacking everyone, I could almost agree with Mikitivity, oh yeah, but then i would wrong like he/she is. Your taxes that the Government takes from you(in America its called Federal tax)this money, rather a portion there of goes to things like UN, NATO, OECD, Military Aid, Military deployments, Blah, Blah, Blah, ect., soooo that being what it is. If you plan to tax a government then really your taxing a citizen, for without the money from a citizen your own government has none. So when a gov. is taxed, so is the people, and as i have shown you cant do that!! Allthough i think this is one for the UN deligates to decide.

I'm guessing you still haven't read the previous pages. If you had, you would have seen that the problem was solved to the satisfaction of the majority present like this - since that old resolution only says you can't tax citizens directly, it's still ok to tax governments, because that's only taxing citizens indirectly.

No prob. I needed some punk newbie anyway. ;)
XD

OOC: Just to let everyone know. NO TAXES OF ANYKIND CAN BE COLLECTED FROM ANY MEMBER NATIONS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! Just thought you all should know that.

P.S. I found out that a UN resolution was passed in 2003 saying almost exactly what i just said. It is a ban on taxes resolution that was passed in 2003, please check the resolutions passed in history area in the UN and you will find it! Sorry, whoever started this proposal.

Actually, Sophista redefined that resolution to mean "can't be taken directly from citizens", which allows the loophole of being taken from governments as that amounts to an indirect taxation of citizens.

Politics and law is tricky, in that the words used - not the spirit of - becomes the defining factor.

A simpler suggestion would be to call it an assessment, or UN dues, or somesuch. The result would be the same, with different wording.


OCC:Why is it you assume i am not educated(Or not employed), insulting me, or the attempts to do so is very immature and i would have thought someone of your supposed intellect would or could grasp this concept, and could be a little more mature, guess i was wrong??? If your goal is just to insult me, then please, KISS OFF!!

Because, basically, all he does is emotional attacks based on innate sense of arrogance. Logic does not function, he doesn't use it and if in actual debate, his points would be swiss cheese as "attacking the messenger" is not a valid debate method. But he's entertaining if you like that level of discussion. You'll note he's also a pit bull when fixated on attacking someone - though he's screwed if someone brings up "Griefing" to the Mods.

To be honest, I have yet to see much of an argument for actually Funding this UN by "tax" on member states, to be honest, the UN has nothing, really, to be funded on that requires taxation, since all of her "programs" are implimented and paid for already by the member states on a as needs basis. Sure it may "impliment" programs, but those programs are then carried out, and funded by the members, effectively this is no more then a graduated double "fee" on the members, that effectively goes nowhere but into some administrators pocket. In reality all that needs to be paid is for "utility" fees on the buildings, since all the "members" and "delgates" to the councils are already paid by their own governments, as any other "Diplomatic Representative" from said government.

As for the argument that this is not a taxation of the people, but the "states" (but then, if you can forcibly penalize "states" with tax, they are no longer "states" but merely provinces of the UN)... is all arbitrary, if you "tax the states" you are "taxing the people of the state" there's no difference between the two... the state exists and is funded by the people, and would need to make up the the loss of their Federal funds through more taxation on the people... in addition the GDP is a product of the people, so you're taxing the "state" on the output of the "people" who make up the state. So this is an indirect tax on the people of the states of the member nations. In addition there is alot of states of the "libertarian" mindset, with massive economies, and little to no taxation on their populace, where the state would not have the funds to "pay" any tax on their nations GDP.....

This is still a "direct tax" on the populace of the state no matter what or how you label it.

GDP is in effect the entire ecompassing "income" of a state (read state as the entire citizenry of a nationstate).... so this "use-fee" "tax" or whatever you want to "label" it as, is an "Income Tax" on the "state" (citizenry of a nationstate)... "Income Tax" is by DEFINITION a "direct tax"... completely arbitrary of WHO you are billing for it (the people/state)....

This proposal is a DIRECT TAX (BY DEFINITION) on the citizenry of the member states... and is therefore a violation of previously established resolution, regardless of your opinions, thoughts or "labels". "Taxes" fall into "direct" and "indirect" types by what they are based upon, and not where, who or how far removed....... Income, and any Capital-type tax, is always a DIRECT TAX...... Tariffs, and other taxes placed upon the exchange of "goods and services" are INDIRECT TAX....

The only way around the proposal is to remove it from GDP base, and place a "Tariff" on goods/services traded by member nations.....

Like I said - all that needs to change is to call it an "assessment" rather then a "tax", and Resolution 4 is taken care of in simple form.

I'm rather happy many more are in this debate. This is what the UN is all about - getting many involved to make decisions which create propositions which please as many as possible.

Like I said - all that needs to change is to call it an "assessment" rather then a "tax", and Resolution 4 is taken care of in simple form.

I'm rather happy many more are in this debate. This is what the UN is all about - getting many involved to make decisions which create propositions which please as many as possible.

Actually it doesn't, a "tariff" is still a tax, an "assessment" would also still be a tax....if you assess an "owed" ammount, off of the "income" of the populace, it is still an INCOME TAX (and thereby a DIRECT TAX) regardless of the label you attach to it....

The only LEGAL way to impliment this at present would be to TAX import/export goods, or apply "UN sales taxes" to goods, as those fall under the catagory of "indirect" tax.... as it is a tax applies to "goods" rather than "directly on income"... Once again the LEGAL definitions (which come into play here) define taxes on their relation to capital, taxing income "directly" is a "direct" tax, taxing income "indirectly" is an "indirect" tax, a "tariff" or a "sales tax" applies tax to sold/bought goods, and thereby "indirectly" pulls from "income" of the people..... applying tax "directly"
based upon the income of the populace, is a "direct" tax..... once again, has nothing to do with WHO is billed, but from WHERE the "tax" is "assessed".... also a "tax" is a penalized "Assessment" so once again, symantecs don't work here...

IRL: The US Constitution had to be ammended to allow for the DIRECT taxation of the populace (sic. Income Tax) because the body of the Constitution specifically forbade it....

In reality all that needs to be paid is for "utility" fees on the buildings, since all the "members" and "delgates" to the councils are already paid by their own governments, as any other "Diplomatic Representative" from said government.

So you admit something does need to be paid for - the massive facilities in which we are currently debating and working. This place must be on a scale never before imagined to provide offices and a main debating chamber for 33,817 member nations' delegates including 2,262 Regional Delegates who presumably require larger offices to deal with the affairs both of their nation and their region, as well as other facilities not related to any one nation dealing with administration (i.e. the compliance ministry and the mods' offices).

As well as funding these facilities, the UN does need some funding to deal with those resolutions that aren't unfunded mandates but actually set up international organisations. A few examples are: the commission set up by "Banning whaling" "to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions" and "to licence limited scientific whaling"; the World Woodland Protection Team set up by "Illegal Logging"; the World Blood Bank; the UN Educational Committee; the International Copyright Organization set up the "UCPL"....etc.

This tax is needed to fund these programmes.

Most of us here - including I think the mods who haven't said this clashes with the past resolution - seem to be happy with this being defined as "indirect", and having "direct"/"indirect" refer to who is being billed - after all, this is the more logical interpretation of the terms, regardless of the interpretation preferred by RL US law. BTW, I'm not sure that the tax is solely based on GDP - this impression I got from the examples was that what percentage of GDP is decided based on population.

From the Office of the Dir. of Finance.............
I could agree if it were not for the fact that the monies of a Government is infact the monies of the poeple. As i have said before if you tax a gov. you indeed tax a citizen. Most of a gov.'s funding comes from a federal tax of some sort, and knowing that if you tax a nation then that tax most assuredly will come from the federal tax reserves that a nation should have. So, when you tax a nation the money you recaive is from the citizens, not the gov. itself. According to the resolution, you cannot take monies from a citizen (that would be a taxation) to pay for the bills of a nation. For as most know a citizen pays the bills of a nation, not the nation itself. Do you see what im saying? Be it indirect or direct, the resolution does not state that you can tax either way, infact the resolution says NO TAXATION. So even if you call it indirect taxation, well its still a taxation therefor not possible. I would agree with getting a mod's decision on this just to clarify. But as far as we in New Californiajai are concerned, ANY AND ALL TAXATION FROM THE UN IS ILLEGAL.
Dir. of Finance
New Californiajai

But as far as we in New Californiajai are concerned, ANY AND ALL TAXATION FROM THE UN IS ILLEGAL.
Since we've already addressed this point to the readers of this topic, there really isn't a need for repeats of previously made points. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows your opinion, we just don't all agree with it. See, that's why we put these here resolutions to a vote, so's nations like yours can express their opinions in a nice, friendly, democratic way.

What say we just put you down for a nice big NO right now, and let the conversation move along.

So you admit something does need to be paid for - the massive facilities in which we are currently debating and working. This place must be on a scale never before imagined to provide offices and a main debating chamber for 33,817 member nations' delegates including 2,262 Regional Delegates who presumably require larger offices to deal with the affairs both of their nation and their region, as well as other facilities not related to any one nation dealing with administration (i.e. the compliance ministry and the mods' offices).

I certanly will not admit any such thing. Oh this is not to say that somehow these bills have to be paid and that somehow someone has to pay for them, but I can come up with a half dozen methods of getting that funding in ways other than a direct tax on member nations, and all of them can be folded and hidden within current Nation State Nations budgets without even realizing it.

Deligates have to stay somewhere right? Accomodations in the UN Hotel are known to be above normal ... it's the price you pay for access. They have to go to the general assembly building (I imagine it's like a closed sports stadium, since a 40K stadium capacity is a practical structure so they can be charged an entrance fee (which explains why so many nations fail to attend a vote). Compliance is done on an individual nation level, and the few extra UN compliance ministers barely register on the budgets of all the individual nations.

All in all, there is no need for UN funding whatsoever, when the UN can create unfunded mandates. Given this and the fact that the current argument that the resolution doesn't violate the letter (it certanly does violate the spirit) of the previous passed resolution, I just can't justify myself going for this resolution. I guess out of all the good resolutions there had to be one that I don't like ... I didn't think it would be this one.

(Actually given the lack of activity in the UN forum, I think that most deligates vote by absentee ballot.)

I certanly will not admit any such thing. Oh this is not to say that somehow these bills have to be paid and that somehow someone has to pay for them, but I can come up with a half dozen methods of getting that funding in ways other than a direct tax on member nations, and all of them can be folded and hidden within current Nation State Nations budgets without even realizing it.

Deligates have to stay somewhere right? Accomodations in the UN Hotel are known to be above normal ... it's the price you pay for access. They have to go to the general assembly building (I imagine it's like a closed sports stadium, since a 40K stadium capacity is a practical structure so they can be charged an entrance fee (which explains why so many nations fail to attend a vote). Compliance is done on an individual nation level, and the few extra UN compliance ministers barely register on the budgets of all the individual nations.

All in all, there is no need for UN funding whatsoever, when the UN can create unfunded mandates. Given this and the fact that the current argument that the resolution doesn't violate the letter (it certanly does violate the spirit) of the previous passed resolution, I just can't justify myself going for this resolution. I guess out of all the good resolutions there had to be one that I don't like ... I didn't think it would be this one.

(Actually given the lack of activity in the UN forum, I think that most deligates vote by absentee ballot.)

Eh, the UN exists only on an internet site. Costs a quid a month. ;)

Eh, the UN exists only on an internet site. Costs a quid a month.
There's a proposal in there somewhere if you're willing to dig it out, Vastiva. Yours if you want it ...

Taking the UN Virtual
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Vastiva

Hell, I'd probably vote for it.

OCC:Why is it you assume i am not educated(Or not employed), insulting me, or the attempts to do so is very immature and i would have thought someone of your supposed intellect would or could grasp this concept, and could be a little more mature, guess i was wrong??? If your goal is just to insult me, then please, KISS OFF!!

No, I was just treating you with the same lack of respect you were showing the others in this thread. You jumped in the middle of a 12 page (now 13 page) long thread and started basically implying that all of these people had made a very stupid mistake, that they hadn't read earlier resolutions.

The truth was they have. Furthermore, they also dealt with this in the first several pages of this thread. If you are going to tell people to read the older resolutions (which they've done) the LEAST you could do is read the older posts in this thread.

Since you didn't, I naturally assumed you meant to be insulting and figured you should get a bit of your own treatment.

Be it indirect or direct, the resolution does not state that you can tax either way, infact the resolution says NO TAXATION. So even if you call it indirect taxation, well its still a taxation therefor not possible. I would agree with getting a mod's decision on this just to clarify. But as far as we in New Californiajai are concerned, ANY AND ALL TAXATION FROM THE UN IS ILLEGAL.

UN taxation ban

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511
Votes Against: 719
Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003

So, if you'd care to take a look, the resolution implicitly allows indirect tax by only banning direct tax. If you still haven't, I suggest you go back and read the preceding discussion.

All in all, there is no need for UN funding whatsoever, when the UN can create unfunded mandates.

Ok I'll accept if you don't agree that the UN HQ needs dues to fund it, but what about those resolutions that aren't unfunded mandates? Some of them create international organisations, which clearly aren't unfunded mandates and clearly do require funding. I already mentioned this in the post you quoted, just below the bit you quoted:

As well as funding these facilities, the UN does need some funding to deal with those resolutions that aren't unfunded mandates but actually set up international organisations. A few examples are: the commission set up by "Banning whaling" "to study the effects of overfishing and on other human activities on the marine ecosystem, and to propose solutions" and "to licence limited scientific whaling"; the World Woodland Protection Team set up by "Illegal Logging"; the World Blood Bank; the UN Educational Committee; the International Copyright Organization set up the "UCPL"....etc.

I leave you guys alone for two days and look what you've done. If all you're going to do is fight, I'm hiring a babysitter the next time I leave.

Now, don't we all feel better?

Four days until resubmission.

No, I was just treating you with the same lack of respect you were showing the others in this thread. You jumped in the middle of a 12 page (now 13 page) long thread and started basically implying that all of these people had made a very stupid mistake, that they hadn't read earlier resolutions.

The truth was they have. Furthermore, they also dealt with this in the first several pages of this thread. If you are going to tell people to read the older resolutions (which they've done) the LEAST you could do is read the older posts in this thread.

Since you didn't, I naturally assumed you meant to be insulting and figured you should get a bit of your own treatment.

OOC: Actually i have read a few of your posts throughout different areas, mostly in UN areas, and i have seen quite a bit of insults coming from you. Please be very careful in the future to whom you insult or that you insult anyone for that matter, Greiving is not allowed here my friend. As for me, i was not insulting at all infact all i was doing was pointing out my opinion, which is what we do here. I did it with tact and respect. Unlike what you seem to do often when someone does not agree with your ideas.

"The forum for the UN is where nations come together to argue over whether a proposal is good enough or not, it is not a place to insult someone just so you can look important"

If you continue to insult ANYONE, i will report you for greiving to the mod's. I dont want to do that but i came here thinking that i could voice my opinion, irregardless of whether it had already been discussed or not. Its my opinion and even if it had been discussed countless times already, untill i write it, then i have not givin' my 2 cents worth. Frisbeeteria you should also consider what i have said inregards to voicing my opinion about a proposal.

OOC: As for me, i was not insulting at all infact all i was doing was pointing out my opinion, which is what we do here. I did it with tact and respect.

You call this tactful?


OOC: Just to let everyone know. NO TAXES OF ANYKIND CAN BE COLLECTED FROM ANY MEMBER NATIONS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER! Just thought you all should know that.

P.S. I found out that a UN resolution was passed in 2003 saying almost exactly what i just said. It is a ban on taxes resolution that was passed in 2003, please check the resolutions passed in history area in the UN and you will find it! Sorry, whoever started this proposal.

You are "YELLING TO EVERYBODY" in the middle of a page 12 tread something that was already discussed on page 1 and telling them to review old resolutions ...

[Edit:
Look, this is all taking away from what is a really good proposal and a lot of hard work that others have done. I'm sorry I allowed you to drag me into this, but it is really bad form to:

(1) Yell at people (TYPE IN ALL CAPS),
(2) To imply that they are ignorant for not having read something, when it was addressed in the first post of a thread,
(3) To then act hurt when somebody flames you for flaming somebody else.

For what it is worth, I'm sorry that I've lowered myself to your level (twice now), and I'm going to stick to the issue at hand ... basically I recognize that the authors of this proposal have done a wonderful job and I think they need our support.

OOC: To everyone else who is not in the buisness of personly attacking everyone, I could almost agree with Mikitivity, oh yeah, but then i would wrong like he/she is.

OOC: See, NC, stuff like this just smacks of complete hypocracy. This is why people are not treating you with "respect".

Vastiva, I have to ask, does this Sultan of your nation control every single aspect of policy in your nation? If that is so, doesn't your country contravene the resolution that requires each member state to provide some semblance of democratic government at a certain level, and if not, how can you claim your Sultan is the State if there are other institutions that are also part of government?

Not asking in a hostile way, just interested, s'all.

Vastiva, I have to ask, does this Sultan of your nation control every single aspect of policy in your nation? If that is so, doesn't your country contravene the resolution that requires each member state to provide some semblance of democratic government at a certain level, and if not, how can you claim your Sultan is the State if there are other institutions that are also part of government?

Not asking in a hostile way, just interested, s'all.

Resolution 8 reads:


Citizen Rule Required
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Description: This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.

Votes For: 11546

Votes Against: 7233

Implemented: Fri Apr 4 2003

The Sultan controls the treasury directly and all internal businesses indirectly (via 51% ownership).

At the federal level, the individuals are a mix of appointees and meritocratic designees. A few positions are elected, but the majority are not.

At the "state" level, groups are raised from the local levels by appointment, meritocratic method, or election.

At the local level, the governance is entirely elected, either by accolate (rank gained through prominence) or direct election.

Therefore, the "state" and local levels conform to the precepts of Resolution 8, as the people do have direct say over how they are governed on those levels. Is "every single aspect of policy" directly controlled? No. Are the federal levels controlled? To an extent. "state"? To an extent. Local? Slim to none.

However, none of it functions without the funding of the Sultan; this gives direct and constant control. The Sultan is the State, is the Treasury of the State, and the one with the international responsibilities for the State. Which only makes sense, as we are all responsible for our own bills.

As for the next question: the Sultanic Accountants and such work through letters of Power of Attorney, either limited or unlimited. As such, legally they are the Sultan, not separate individuals. This maintains direct control.

And I do hope no one plays games with the words State (as in "Nation") and "state" (as in province or divisional area) and makes silly comments.

From the office of the Dir. of Finance................

Our nation will not support a proposal just because it is well written and took the author a great deal of time. This proposal smacks of total lunacy. Irregardless of whether one nation is calling this tax indirect or not, our people would suffer from a tax increase to offset the penalties inposed from this proposal. New Californiajai continues to support the UN financially during operations and such. However to fully fund an organization this size should not be to its loyal supporters but perhaps we could impose fines (i think this is already in effect) for nations not following regulations. Perhaps the UN could bill nations that require assistance from the UN. Our Nation joined the UN to help form a greater bond between nations of the world. We did not join to cause undue stress on our people by raising thier taxes and giving it away. The monies raised here stay here. The monies that our government posses is derived from the citizens, only. We are sorry but at this time again i will stress that New Californiajai will not endorse or vote for but against this should it be proposed in the UN. Also we will rally supporters against this ideal.

Dir. of Finance
New Californiajai

You call this tactful?



You are "YELLING TO EVERYBODY" in the middle of a page 12 tread something that was already discussed on page 1 and telling them to review old resolutions ...

[Edit:
Look, this is all taking away from what is a really good proposal and a lot of hard work that others have done. I'm sorry I allowed you to drag me into this, but it is really bad form to:

(1) Yell at people (TYPE IN ALL CAPS),
(2) To imply that they are ignorant for not having read something, when it was addressed in the first post of a thread,
(3) To then act hurt when somebody flames you for flaming somebody else.

For what it is worth, I'm sorry that I've lowered myself to your level (twice now), and I'm going to stick to the issue at hand ... basically I recognize that the authors of this proposal have done a wonderful job and I think they need our support.

OCC: I did not yell. I wanted everyone to focus on the idea rather than the sentence. I did not imply anything rather i stated that i found a some information that after 12 pages could have been missed by new folks arriving on the thread. If you read it that is why there is the P.S. And to flame some one just because you think they flamed you is childish. (the he/she hit me first syndrome). My intentions where not to flame anyone just focus my opinion. I was respectfull and tactfull. If you would have taken a second and asked what my intentions were you might have learned something, but you rushed in and acted all cool for everyone to see. And even if i intended to flame the author of the thread(which i did not) who are you to go about flaming anyone, you didnt write this did you? Thank you for your time. And as for dragging you into this, its the other way around, you dragged me into this by flaming me(greiving).

This proposal smacks of total lunacy. Irregardless of whether one nation is calling this tax indirect or not, our people would suffer from a tax increase to offset the penalties inposed from this proposal. New Californiajai continues to support the UN financially during operations and such.
Of course, you are correct. The authors of this bill are in fact moon worshippers, so referring to us as lunatics would be entirely accurate.

As to your nation's financial impact, you are also correct. Were this to pass (and were someone to code the impact, which they won't, since it's game mechanics), a nation your size would feel an immediate impact.

I refer you to one of the many financial calculators available to NationStates nations. Using this Economy Statistics (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php) predictor, the following stats may be observed:The Republic of New Californiajai

"Liberty First"

Vital Statistics
------------------------------------------------
Population: 20,000,000
Civil Rights: Some
Economy: Weak
Political Freedoms: Good
Tax Rate: 52%
Government Budget: $55,010,188,368
Administration: $12,272,773,025
Welfare Spending: $3,735,191,790
Healthcare: $3,201,592,963
Education: $3,735,191,790
Spirituality: $5,869,587,099
Defence: $9,604,778,889
Law and Order: $5,869,587,099
Commerce: $2,134,395,309
Public Transport: $0
Envirnment: $6,936,784,753
Social Equality: $0
Government Waste: $1,650,305,651
------------------------------------------------

Economy Statistics
------------------------------------------------
GDP Per Capita: $4,350
Total Output: $86996094349
Private Consumption: $33,636,211,632
Black Market Economy (Estimated): 0%
Black Market Product (Estimated): $0
Black Market Breakdown:
Basic Necessities: 0%
Healthcare: 0%
Education: 0%
Transportation: 0%
Luxuries: 0%
Recovered: $0
Worker Enthusiasm: 66%
Government Efficiency: 97%
Consumer Confidence: 52%
Unemployment: 18.59%
Exchange Rate: 1 bit = $0.24Assuming the suggested minimums for a nation of your size, your current tax assessment rate would be the lowest offered, or 0.00025% of GDP. This calculates to a grand total of $217,490 per annum, or approximately $0.0187 per capita. Almost 2 cents per person! Quick, call out the National Guard to prevent riots!

Let's go whole hog here and assume that the greedy UN decides to assess the maximum permitted contribution from your nation, and goes for the full 0.005% of GNP. That comes to a grand total of $4,349,804, which raises the per capita assessment to a whopping $0.2174. Damn near a quarter (but still less than a New Californiajai bit, currently trading at $0.24 on the international money market).

Now let's have a look at your government waste figures. At the suggested assessment, your figure comes in at .01318% of waste. Maximum assessment: .2636% of waste. No matter how you calculate it, the overall assessment is less than a quarter of a percentage point of your overall government waste. Probably about the total value of switching from single-sided to double-sided copies for internal government memos, I'd wager. From that perspective (approximate waste level of $82.51, or almost 344 bits), it is your government that is stealing from your citizens.

Now that you're armed with real figures based on your actual economic statisitics, can you honestly state that this is outrageous lunacy and will somehow deprive your citizens of much-needed tax monies?

One last set of numbers, just to be fair to the opposite end of the spectrum. Here are the totals for quite possibly the largest nation in NationStates, one with a Frightening economy, a genuine powerhouse (and not currently a UN nation, as it happens.)

------------------------
The Holy Order of Sketch
------------------------
Population: 4,084,000,000
Civil Rights: Rare
Economy: Frightening
Political Freedoms: Outlawed
Tax Rate: 100%
Government Budget: $47,559,144,478,152
GDP Per Capita: $10,648
Total Output: $43,484,766,243,830

Maximum UN Assessment rate: 0.005%
Maximum UN Assessment: $2,174,238,312.19
Maximum UN Assessment per capita: $0.53

As you can clearly see, even the largest and most efficient nations still have a maximum assessment of under half a buck per capita. While the raw numbers are rather large on an annualized per capita basis, they are still less than a cup of coffee. Note also that these figures are based on the worst possible estimate permitted under the proposal.

Then take note of all the passed Resolutions that incorporate UN assistance, and see how much bang your nation gets for its buck.

Of course, you are correct. The authors of this bill are in fact moon worshippers, so referring to us as lunatics would be entirely accurate.

:)

That is a beautiful way to respond to "respectful" and "tactful" opinions.

OOC:Please refer to world fact book entry of New Californiajai located in the Nation states forum. There you will find the actual (what i am using for my nation) stats of the nation. There is a difference between IC and OOC. ------------Frisbee, i thought sophista was the author not you?

OOC:Please refer to world fact book entry of New Californiajai located in the Nation states forum. There you will find the actual (what i am using for my nation) stats of the nation. There is a difference between IC and OOC. ------------Frisbee, i thought sophista was the author not you?
Since the only in-game effects are based on a nation's in-game statistics, your RP stats are completely meaningless in this context.

It is customary to grant joint ownership of a proposal to the various forum contributors to said proposal, even though its primary author is the only one listed in the final version. Had you read this entire thread, you would have seen several critical elements came from my nation.

It is also customary to refer to a nation by either its full name or its UN delegate. You may refer to me as CEO Donovan or my nation as Frisbeeteria. We find your use of 'Frisbee' disrespectful.

OOC: please in the future if you are going to critique me do so with accuracy, EX: i did not refer to you or anyone for that matter as a lunitic, however i did truthfully spaeking refer to the proposal as such:smacks of lunicy, meaning that the proposal was crazy not those who wrote it!!! Thank you and have a nice day too.

It is customary to grant joint ownership of a proposal to the various forum contributors to said proposal, even though its primary author is the only one listed in the final version. Had you read this entire thread, you would have seen several critical elements came from my nation.

For whatever this is worth, I'm completely convinced that he didn't join the discussion until around page 12 of the current debate.

I'm not surprised that he missed the 11 pages of your nation proposing amendements and suggested language for the proposal. :rolleyes

My nation certainly acknowledges your joint ownership to the idea presented here. And this brings up a useful question ... should the UNA archives make record of co-authors? The process used to do this would be have the original resolution author be the one to nominate a single co-author. I can easily add this to the resolutions in the pdf archives and it would be interesting. :)

should the UNA archives make record of co-authors? The process used to do this would be have the original resolution author be the one to nominate a single co-author. I can easily add this to the resolutions in the pdf archives and it would be interesting.
Bring it up in that thread, and let's let this one get back to Funding issues.

Ladies and gentleman, with all due respect, the Democratic Republic of Nexum cannot support this proposal, whatsoever. I must reiterate that such a plan would ensure that the United Nations will in and of itself usurp the rights of all nation states in existance. As it stands today the United Nations already exerts a critical amount of undue and unnecessary restriction on the livelihood and economic well-being of every nation state in existance. The United Nations has passed hundreds of resolutions that do not protect, but severely restrict, the basic tenants of democracy by destroying national sovereignty.

Now you are asking for nations like the Democratic Republic of Nexum, which remain in the UN under the ideals of mutual understanding and political stability, to fit the bill for these costly policies. To pour money into an organization where a law ensuring the right of every bodily function is to be passed.

I implore you all to end these policies of destruction.

Now you are asking for nations like the Democratic Republic of Nexum, which remain in the UN under the ideals of mutual understanding and political stability, to fit the bill for these costly policies.Right.

-----------------------------
"Give us the protection and benefits of being in the UN, but only the parts we like. Thanks. Can we get that to go, please?"

"What's that? Pay for what we get? Don't be ridiculous! You should be honored that we consent to shop here at all."
-----------------------------

Your argument holds no water, Nexum. And go read Rights and Duties of UN States before you bring up sovereignty again. Ii's been defined and dealt with.

Once again the unfortunate price of debating in the real world has taken me away from debate in this world. I appreciate the footsoldiering that Mikitivity and Frisbeeteria are doing on my behalf, as I'm sure many other nations have when they found themselves in similar positions.

I agree with the sentiment expressed towards the newcomers to this disucssion: your objections are not new, special, unique, fresh, inventive, original, or any other synonym that means "it hasn't been done before." The issue of sovereignty, along with a discussion on the legitimacy of taxing for UN mandates, has already been resolved. If you dig back through the thread, you'll find plenty of other people raising the same objections. This proposal has passed through the queue once without deletion, so the moderating staff similarly approves of our right to do this.

The UNFA will be submitted again this Friday.

Honorable members pardon me for joining the debate so late and I hope that my comment or rather question is of value here. It is always a risk making comments when a debate has been going for so long, therefore my apologies in advance if I am stating something that has already been covered.

Reading through the draft text and various comments from members I do wonder how this proposal deals with inflation? As time passes the contributions made by member states will become less and less in real terms and since the current text as I understand it will prevent increases in funding, this will become a problem for the body in later life. May I suggest that instead of a blanket ban the General Assembly will have the right to review mandatory contributions at certain intervals, perhaps every 5 or 10 years? Also if you agree, the GA should only be able to affect increases in line with the average say, global inflation rate of all UN members?

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations
HM Government of Telidia

For general reference, here's a copy of the proposal text.

United Nations Funding Act
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sophista

Description: The Nation States United Nations,

Recognizing the financial needs of the United Nations and its chartered missions,

Disturbed by the implications of relying entirely upon voluntary contributions to ensure the proper execution of all United Nations programs,

Seeking to make permanent the United Nation’s ability to bring about meaningful and positive change in the global community,

1. Defines the United Nations Taxation Ban, passed on 13 January 2003, as applying only to individual citizens and not to member states,

2. Establishes the United Nations General Accounting Office (UNGAO), and bestows upon it the following powers and responsibilities:

a. to asses upon all member nations a funding quota for all member nations, based on that nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), with the understanding that this assessment will be progressive, as well as guarantee transparency, and horizontal equity for all member states.
b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly
c. to establish a United Nations Trust Fund for the safe keeping of all surplus monies brought about by assessments, to a maximum limit of two times the annual aggregate assessment.
d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.
e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.

3. Establishes the UNGAO Oversight Committee, to be composed of five random UN member nations, selected annually, from each assessment bracket.

a. this committee will oversee the UNGAO and its outside auditors, as well as provide regular reports to the General Assembly for their approval.
b. this committee may, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote, reduce, defer, or waive a nation’s annual assessment.
c. nations presenting a petition of hardship shall be ineligible for selection as a random member of the committee.

4. Prohibits the United Nations from engaging in deficit spending.

5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding

As to the question raised by my esteemed colleague from Telidia, I am wary of introducing any element into the legislation that would allow any committee to reset the limits of the resolution. The limits were placed within the resolution to take the ammunition away from those who fear the United Nations running away with all of their money.

It is my understanding, though, that inflation occurs when a government adds more currency into circulation and lowers the value of existing money. If I add 50% more menks into the M1 category, a hot dog that previously cost M1.00 would now cost M1.50. This increase would be felt throughout the economy, though. If everything costs 50% more, then their GDP would grow by that respective amount. As their GDP grew, so would the amount of money they need to submit.

May I suggest that the strength of the resolution ought to be 'mild', rather than significant? This proposal is essentially administration, after all.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Agreed. Best to make this as innocous as possible if there's to be any hope of acceptance or passage.

True, it is administration, but this is a pretty monumental chunk of bureaucracy we're establishing. We're adding a "branch" to the Secretariat that will hold jurisdiction and make a tangible impact upon every UN member nation. It would be different if we were forming just an oversight device for the space consortium or something lik that, but given the magnitude of what' we're doing, I think it's justified.

Yeah, but is it "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare"? It doesn't do that in a Significant way. Mild would allow you to submit, while having a less significant effect on the internal economies of UN nations

I could make a better case for Furtherment of Democracy, "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms." The UN is all about promoting freedoms, right? So anything that allows it to operate better would be 'Furtherment of Democracy'.



* see this post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6980340&postcount=27) for a full explanation of Frisbeeteria's position

I could make a better case for Furtherment of Democracy, "A resolution to increase democratic freedoms." The UN is all about promoting freedoms, right? So anything that allows it to operate better would be 'Furtherment of Democracy'.

You don't have to ... yet ... as I agree.

Environmental resolutions typically say, "By planting trees we will save the Earth!" They are assuming a course of action will also improve the environment.

By saying, "A well funded UN can promote freedom and international cooperation" you'd fit the category, and the text would be telling us how we plan to do that.

Rules for taxation or rules for planting trees ... both are guidelines to reach a final result.

This isn't to say that I disagree with the current category either, but Frisbeeteria is right, there is some wiggle room here.

It comes down to how you view the resolution. If you see it solely as a mechanism to fund programs that the UN creates, thus giving the UN the ability to actually promote an agenda, or if you see the it as a device to build up poorer nations via UN programs paid for by wealthy nations. Both are accurate, one just takes the argument another step.

I don't think the United Nations, at least by the resolutions that have been passed in the status quo, specifically promots democracy. The only resolution to advance that agenda is Citizen Rule Required, while a large number more are pointed towards socialism (Free Health Care, Free Education). Similarly, a number of resolutions advocate human rights (Gay Rights, Religious Tolerance, Due Process), but that isn't a uniquely democratic agenda.

On the other hand, the United Nations does make a point of improving the quality of life for less-advanced nations and their citizens, which usually requires help from nations like my own.

Why not make it a free trade resolution?

By creating a simply, unified system of getting funds you reduce bureaucracy. Or something. It deals with financial/economic issues anyways and it does not have much to do with democracy.

It seems a bit disingenuous to call a resolution "free trade" when the only thing they get for their funding is the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with knowing you're making the world a better place. Then again, if the UN passes a free trade resolution before the UNFA hits the floor . . . .

UNFA is in the queue again.

... and we have a ruling (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6998415&postcount=16).

... and we have a ruling (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6998415&postcount=16).

I saw that first. I hope that the mods recognize that we brought the proposal to them, but I am both surprised by and appreciate the throughness that Cog put into his decision.

We need to start getting the Criminology people to start saving these rules, since they are one of many world courts. :) (Naturally I'm hoping the ruling is changed a bit.)

I have asked that the proposal be removed from the queue until such a time that the dispute over certain articles has been resolved. That debate will be taking place in the Moderation forum. Until then, UNFA will remain frozen as a piece of legislation, and I ask that we keep new arguments to a minimum in this thread.

Feel free to ask for a temp lock, if that's what you wish.

I don't think that'll be necessary. We can discuss old arguments all day long, but I don't want to talk about things that might change in the future because of moderation decisions. If it gets out of hand, we can go ahead and lock it down.

In celebration of my 10,000th post, I've decided to gravedig this old chestnut from the lost annals of 2004.

This is not an idle or casual choice. I think the UN has matured enough to handle this proposal as it should be handled, and I further think that the research, effort, and moderator review that went into this 2004 effort will be essential in the success of a 2007 effort.

As an original proponent of this proposal, I must recuse myself from making any rulings on the legality of any new drafts. However, I've reviewed Cogitation's ruling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6998415&postcount=16), and I find that his thoughts are totally within the bounds of today's ruleset, Hack's revision nonwithstanding.

I'm looking for a nation or group to take over the re-authoring and resubmission of this proposal. Sophista, bless his heart, came back almost a year ago, but lapsed into apathetic slumber a few months later. I would ask that anyone tackling this project include Sophista as the sole co-author.

So, anyone up for the challenge?

I'm always up for a challenge. I'll see what I can come up with.


Edit: The link to Cogitation's ruling isn't working, Fris.

Karmi, these might also be of help. They might equally lead you down a blind alley.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449005
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451284
http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=512

Thank you, Quod.

I'll have some free time soon (within the next hour or so), so I'll read over this thread and the three links that you've provided.

Edit: The link to Cogitation's ruling isn't working, Fris.

It is now.

This was an issue brought up on one of the off-site forums and I agree that it is something that needs to be addressed.

Would future proposals have to include funding from now on, if this passes; and would a repeal of any past resolutions be acceptable if it were based on a resolution's lack of funding?

Since all funding is handled through invisible game mechanics, and attempts to define how they work are often deleted as game mechanics violations, I'd answer your question with a 'no'. We've always proceeded under the assumption that passed resolutions were unfunded mandates to member nations. The existence of this resolution doesn't necessarily change that, and certainly not retroactively.

If in future somebody creates a resolution that states "The UN and member nations will pay for every citizen to attend grad school, splitting the costs 50/50", I think you'd be justified in pointing to this resolution and saying "... how?". Apart from that sort of thing, I can't imagine any real effect.

Gnomes are excellent interdimensional miners, they have more gold and gems than we can imagine. The UN is their hobby. They are funding the UN out of a sense of higher purpose. Giving taxes to the equivalent of a gnome 4-H or Rotary Club would be a bad idea.

Gnomes are excellent interdimensional miners, they have more gold and gems than we can imagine. The UN is their hobby. They are funding the UN out of a sense of higher purpose.

Now, if only they would see fit to share the wealth with the UN Building Management, then maybe HR would finally release the hiring freeze.

John White
VP, Financial Security
UN Building Management



Don't hold your breath.

Natasha Smith
Director of Human Resources
UN Building Management