NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that I've found myself with the free-time necessary to visit these forums on a regular basis, I figured I'd drag up some old dirt to see if the prevailing attitude of the United Nations has changed in the months that I've been gone. With that in mind, I'd like to see where people line up with this previously-submitted proposal.


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.

Well, I'm still in support. But given that you are my regional delegate, I'm not sure there's a lot I can do.

Well, I'm still in support. But given that I'm no longer in the UN and my UN puppet suXx0rs, I'm not sure there's a lot I can do.

I like it, up until clause 5. This resolution effectively eliminates certain projects by banning both defecit spending and supplementary fund acquisition. Without clause 5, however, you've got my vote.

We are still against, foremost because of how our nation works - and secondly as there are better ways to accomplish this without yet another tax.

It looks good.

looks good.... up until point 5. then, it might be having some illegalities. if you remove that, it would be fine, because you would be able to say, in descussions about future resolutions, that this resolution is in effect, thus dont have to pay money. that being said, i dont know how much of a response you would get. whilst nations accept they need to pay for certain UN things, they might be a bit hostile towards a proposal that is seen to be direct taxing from the UN. granted that it does not violate the UN taxation ban, some will not take kindly to it

This proposal will have my government's support.

I'm not sure about article 5 (game mechanics? Possibly). If that is removed, I'll approve it.

I'm not sure about article 5 (game mechanics? Possibly). If that is removed, I'll approve it.

Actually I think you may be correct. I don't mind it, since that is the point behind this resolution ... but I'd hate to see Hack zing it on account of one line. My suggestion is bring the draft to the gnomes and ask for their advice.

Oh, it's a very good proposal, I'm not saying it isn't. Just article 5 is a bit dodgy!

The Nation States United Nations,

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

Ok...


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

Not sure if I find this particularly disturbing, since all acts in relation to programs initiated by resolution occur particularly at the national level. It could be said to be a mandated program upon states, funded by those states.


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

Ok...


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

I find this particularly redundant, as no definition is needed to apply to the self-evident Taxation Ban. Since the ban itself in its own words applies it to citizens and not nations.


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

Bureacracies always upset me, but ok...


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.

Don't necessarily agree with this one, the "GDP" exists as either a political entity or as a commercial entity independent of the applicable member-states government, depending on their format in accordance with the Rights & Duties protections to governing forms. A libertine state is likely to have little or no income from taxes, and as such would be unable to pay imposts upon the commercial assets of the nation, without altering their form of government (which is illegal under the R&D). A better aspects would be tax upon the member states income, and not upon the member states GDP. With are mutually exclusive aspects.


b. to ensure that all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the Secretariat and missions established by a vote of the General Assembly

This seems to negate the primary purpose, which is to ensure enactment funding. This clause limits funding to be applied towards internal housekeeping duties only.


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.

I'm in disagreement, if the UN suffers a "surplus" then it has aquired monies to which it has no use for its operation under Clause C.


d. to return monies to member nations should budgetary needs be met and the Trust Fund reach its maximum size.

This makes sense.


e. to limit each nation’s quota to no more than 0.005% of that nation’s GDP.


What is this "quota" I have not seen it elsewhere defined by this proposal?


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


Possibly illegal under pending proposal guidelines as regards "commitees".


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.


Agreed.


5. Prohibits any future resolution from requiring supplementary funding.


Agreed....

Though, this has not actuall applied funding to UN initiated programs (so I can't see how it would help from its root principles). As such, resolution enactments still exist at the voluntary level of contribution. And this merely addresses financial support of the UN administrative aspects.

I agree with Tekania that the government should be taxed based on its income, not the GDP.

I agree with several others that clause 5 is illegal.

Although I'm not certain, I have concerns that the part about selecting five UN nations at random for an oversight committee and giving them duties is illegal as well.

I think Sophista's intent to establish a funding framework for the UN is laudable and a "good idea" tm.

I also think that this resolution is a serious violation of national sovereignty. I would prefer to see a system of voluntary donations.

What happens if expenditures are greater then income, and taxation was based on income? Surely taxation in that case would plunge the nation further into deficit? Oh wait, do you mean gross or net income?

I like this one, though.

What happens if expenditures are greater then income, and taxation was based on income? Surely taxation in that case would plunge the nation further into deficit? Oh wait, do you mean gross or net income?

I like this one, though.

gross....

And I know their are nations which operate "deficit spending"... But that should not be an issue here... The nation would be put under more pressure to alter its budget, but such is what it shoud have done anyway being it is operating on deficit. Even a staunch libertine would not feel sympathy for a state operating a poor budget.

Good - check legality of the committee and future restrictions, though.

I disagree that the quota should be based on government budget. This could lead to the burden being weighted towards economically leftist nations, whereas it seems fairer to place it on the shoulders of those economies best able to bear it - i.e. the economically stronger nations, whatever their political leanings.

Yeah, that's the sort of point I was going to make. Some nations consider deficit spending (if only temporarily) a way of pulling out of recession. And I don't agree that they should neccessarily be forced to balance their budget. Happiness should not be stopped by the economy. (That's another debate methinks)