NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a proposal I was considering submitting, and I was hoping for your input first:

THROUGHOUT THE UN's EXISTENCE, it has done many honorable and good things for all the citizens of our NationState world. Through the efforts of its many members, it has made this world a safer, better place to live in.

AS THE ROLE OF THE UN EXPANDS, one question is commonly asked: HOW SHOULD THE UN RAISE FUNDS?

RECALLING resolutions such as UN Resolution #4, The Empire of Cuba proposes A COMMON SENSE FUNDRAISING PROGRAM, so that the UN can keep doing its good work:

1. Recalling UN Resolution 4, the UN shall never be allowed to tax the citizens of a nation.

2. The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes upon the member states.

3. The United Nations shall collect money from nations in the FORM OF DUES. The amount of these dues shall be PROPORTIONAL TO THE GDP OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATE.

3. In the event of a national crisis, the United Nations shall have the right to temporarily increase the dues, in a manner that would never destroy the economy of the individual member state.

By accepting this resolution, we can have pride in knowing that the United Nations has taken one more step to being able to help every country in need, and we can have faith that the UN's fiscal responsibility will never jeopardize another nation in the process.

Other than semantics, how do taxes and dues differ? Also, I'm not a big fan of fluctuating dues based on "national crisis" - I'd rather know what I'm paying for up front. Ultimately, I'm just not convinced that this is either necessary or strongly beneficial.

we agree with Krioval. to us dues = tax, just spelt different. and in that respect, it makes this resolution very self-contradictory. at the moment, it is on a case to case, resolution to resolution basis anyway, so there is nothing new here, and the bits that are, are self-contradictory.

So, here it is again, only fixed to be more definintive. It clears up the issue between "tax" and "due", saying that the only "due" (or "tax", if you feel that they are synonymous) allowed is that which is referred to in my proposal:

"THROUGHOUT THE UN's EXISTENCE, it has done many honorable and good things for all the citizens of our NationState world. Through the efforts of its many members, it has made this world a safer, better place to live in.

AS THE ROLE OF THE UN EXPANDS, one question is commonly asked: HOW SHOULD THE UN RAISE FUNDS?

The Empire of Cuba proposes A COMMON SENSE FUNDRAISING PROGRAM, so that the UN can keep doing its good work.

MONEY FOR GOOD DEEDS would be collected in the form of dues. These dues would be a proportional percentage of how much money the nation makes. Countries with a higher GDP would have a higher proportional percentage rate than those of a lesser GDP.

RECALLLING UN Resolution 4, the UN shall never be allowed to tax the citizens of a nation. Also, the UN shall not levy any other sort of tax or due against member states.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE the option for a nation to charitably donate money to the United Nations, and all are encouraged to do so.

BY ACCEPTING THIS RESOLUTION, we can have pride in knowing that the United Nations has taken one more step to being able to help every country in need, and we can have faith that the UN's fiscal responsibility will never jeopardize another nation in the process."

again, this brings nothing new to the table, and what it does bring, nations will object to. we already pay out for various UN things, why should we give a certain amount of our GDP to the UN?

I have a question for the proposal author.

Why do you believe you know what the spirit of the Fourth Resolution was? I don't pretend to do that, I came far to late to know what the author's intention was, so all I have to go on is the actual text of the resolution. And all the resolution says is that the UN is not allowed to directly tax citizens of member states.

Note: This post is not so much a reply to this particular thread, rather a more general comment after seeing your posting in a number of threads.

again, this brings nothing new to the table, and what it does bring, nations will object to. we already pay out for various UN things, why should we give a certain amount of our GDP to the UN?

Reading the entire resolution would certainly have cleared up all of your questions:

-MONEY FOR GOOD DEEDS would be collected in the form of dues. These dues would be a proportional percentage of how much money the nation makes. Countries with a higher GDP would have a higher proportional percentage rate than those of a lesser GDP.

RECALLLING UN Resolution 4, the UN shall never be allowed to tax the citizens of a nation. Also, the UN shall not levy any other sort of tax or due against member states.

This specifies that, with the passage of this resolution, the only means of collecting money would be through the "dues".

So, clearly, all the funds we pay the UN already would be changed to be collected through this systematic, consistent way of collecting dues.

again, this brings nothing new to the table, and what it does bring, nations will object to. we already pay out for various UN things, why should we give a certain amount of our GDP to the UN?

Reading the entire resolution would certainly have cleared up all of your questions:

-MONEY FOR GOOD DEEDS would be collected in the form of dues. These dues would be a proportional percentage of how much money the nation makes. Countries with a higher GDP would have a higher proportional percentage rate than those of a lesser GDP.

RECALLLING UN Resolution 4, the UN shall never be allowed to tax the citizens of a nation. Also, the UN shall not levy any other sort of tax or due against member states.

This specifies that, with the passage of this resolution, the only means of collecting money would be through the "dues".

So, clearly, all the funds we pay the UN already would be changed to be collected through this systematic, consistent way of collecting dues.
that still doesnt explain why we have to give a certain percentage of the GDP to the UN. that percentage of GDP could be greater than the amount that we already pay, therefore putting us at a dissadvantage. also, various resolutions ask for different things when it comes to money. the smallpox one asks for various degrees of money, where as the ULC one asks for a flat rate. frankly, we dont want to pay any more than we have to, and also if we do, it is because we want to. not to mention, your explination at the end calls into question the legality of the proposal, as it affects passed resolutions, and future ones.