NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that nations should give money to the UN for being in it so it can support programs?

I think it should be up to the individual nations.

I think it should be up to the individual nations.
Why?

I believe each individual program should be treated independantly. Another words, if a specific resolution for a program needs money, then countries could decide to give money for it. It needs to be voluntary because why should a country be forced to give money for a resolution if they don't agree with it? The UN itself doesn't need a lot of money to run. If the money would be taken from the countries soley for the purpose of supporting the programs it's easier anyway to treat each program seperately anyway.

Do you think that nations should give money to the UN for being in it so it can support programs?
Please go right ahead.

Don't make me do it, though.

Why?

So I don't have to pay for programs I neither support or get benefit from.

So I don't have to pay for programs I neither support or get benefit from.

Thank You Very Very Much. You have given me and idea that I will put into a draft right away. I am sure we can all agree on it.

Sophista and I (and others) had an extremely extensive discussion of the actual financial needs of the UN, along with a methodology to recoup such needs through graduated UN dues. The amounts involved (based on RL UN needs and an extensive assessment of UN requirements) were miniscule. On the order of five ten-thousandths of one percent of GDP, actually.

Read the United Nations Funding Act (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725&page=3&pp=40), starting around post 91 (to avoid a nasty argument that didn't advance the topic) if you want to see how it was tried.


By the way, you can always expect a knee-jerk negative response to anything that raises taxes. Despite that, UN voters jump at the chance to inflict unfunded mandates upon themselves. Go figure.

Do you think that nations should give money to the UN for being in it so it can support programs?

No.

Do you think that nations should give money to the UN for being in it so it can support programs?

I think it would significantly weaken this union. Members would drop out in large numbers. The UN already does what it's supposed to do. Aside from the effect the resolutions have on our nations, it's FREE.

Like hell its free. Watch your tax rate after a significant resolution passes.

True.

Oh, Vastiva, thread in NS that might interest you.

I not only think the UN should force UN members to pay him for their right to be in the UN, I think he can't:
----------------------------------------------------------------
UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.
-------------------------------------------------------------
if every nation will be forced to pay for UN membership, and the incomes of govrment come directly from the citizens, passing some amount of money directly from the citizens to the UN, will be UN taxation (even if the UN take is taxes, by the taxing system of the countrey).
I don't believe the UN has the right to force his members pay him for his resolutions for some others reasons:
1- It could force the low incomes countries get out from the UN. (or anarchies that have no goverment incomes)
2- the UN already harm the economies. now we had to pay him for it?
3- if I take as example Great Agnostica last proposal "the
great library", force the UN members pay for that could easily ruin the countries.
even if he want to make that proposal, he had to put limits (as max amount of money the UN allowed to take).

True.

Oh, Vastiva, thread in NS that might interest you.

:rolleyes:

You know, a link might be good. Or a title.

:rolleyes:

You know, a link might be good. Or a title.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381523&page=1&pp=15

Meh. My laziness kicked in.

Like hell its free. Watch your tax rate after a significant resolution passes.

Then, indeed, I see no reason to donate further.

So I don't have to pay for programs I neither support or get benefit from.

But if people were only allowed to support stuff they approved of or they got something from, most charities would go bankrupt and the army would collapse due to lack of funding.

But if people were only allowed to support stuff they approved of or they got something from, most charities would go bankrupt and the army would collapse due to lack of funding.

Most charities only get money from people who approve of them. And the military is a necessity.

Most charities only get money from people who approve of them. And the military is a necessity.

But I gain no personal benifit from the military, and I think wars are a waste of time. So why should I pay to support it?

And all these charities for AIDS victims - they brought it upon themselves for being sinners in the eyes of God don't you know. Why should I help them?


(There is maybe a touch of Lucy's advocate going on here, as I don't really believe either of these. My only point was that sometimes you don't get a choice where your money goes, because some things need funding come what may)

But I gain no personal benifit from the military, and I think wars are a waste of time. So why should I pay to support it?

And all these charities for AIDS victims - they brought it upon themselves for being sinners in the eyes of God don't you know. Why should I help them?


(There is maybe a touch of Lucy's advocate going on here, as I don't really believe either of these. My only point was that sometimes you don't get a choice where your money goes, because some things need funding come what may)

*arranges for bombing raid over TilEnca* Now does your military give you a personal benefit?

*arranges for bombing raid over TilEnca* Now does your military give you a personal benefit?

As I said - a touch of Lucy's advocate.

Plus it depends on how acurate your bombers are :}

For a start I am fully against the UN taking money away from my hard working citizen's pockets. It is, after all, their money not the governments

Secondly, as pointed out resolution #4 would need to be repealed before you do anything, very unlikely to happen.

Thridly, the UN is controlled by somewhat liberal nations. These nations generally have poorer economies than the capitalist nations (which are in the minority in the UN). As a result if the level of funding is calculated as a % of GDP you would actually find the nations most against this proposal stumping up the most money for it!

I strongly believe my people should spend their money as they see fit and not to have my government tell them how to spend it, let alone another one.

As I said - a touch of Lucy's advocate.

Plus it depends on how acurate your bombers are :}

If you have nothing to shoot at them with, no it doesn't. Eventually, I'll have bombed everything by sheer act of numbers.

For a start I am fully against the UN taking money away from my hard working citizen's pockets. It is, after all, their money not the governments

Secondly, as pointed out resolution #4 would need to be repealed before you do anything, very unlikely to happen.

Thridly, the UN is controlled by somewhat liberal nations. These nations generally have poorer economies than the capitalist nations (which are in the minority in the UN). As a result if the level of funding is calculated as a % of GDP you would actually find the nations most against this proposal stumping up the most money for it!

I strongly believe my people should spend their money as they see fit and not to have my government tell them how to spend it, let alone another one.

So... you don't collect taxes? Your government doesn't direct spending?

Just asking, I want to be clear on this.