NationStates Jolt Archive

Introduction

The United Nations Funding Act was worked on last year by Sophista, with help from others (notably Frisbeeteria), but was dropped eventually. I think it's a wonderful idea - that I've no doubt egregiously butchered - and would appreciate comments on a resubmission.

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 believe this was the final draft that was ever worked up. However, there was a legality issue (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7001381&postcount=20) surrounding its third clause, somewhat similar to the ruling on Hersfold's Olympic Games proposal.

Having checked that it is allowable, in principle, to resubmit others' ideas so long as it does constitute textual plagiarism, and having been unable to contact Sophista, I have decided to at least pop a new version up over the parapets, if only the purposes of stimulating debate, but hopefully with a submittable proposal in mind.

I have, then, drawn up my own draft. As best as possible, it uses new language, and even incorporates new ideas, as well as dropping them. IMPORTANT: If anyone still feels their contributions are being plagiarised, I will immediately remove any offending references.

New Draft

Anyway, here it is:

The NationStates United Nations,

CONVINCED that the United Nations requires a regular and sustainable source of funding in order to continue to effectively enact legislation,

CONCERNED by the current dependence on voluntary contributions,

NOTING that assessing member nations for mandatory contributions has never been declared illegal by UN legislation:

1. DECLARES the establishment of a United Nations Accounting Department (UNAD);

2. AUTHORIZES the UNAD to institute a compulsory system of assessed contributions whereby all member nations shall contribute towards a collective fund to be used solely for the upkeep of the Secretariat and for administration and enactment of legislation;

3. DEFINES the assessed contribution as:

a. being calculated as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each member nation,
b. operating on a progressive scale,
and
c. not exceeding the sum of 0.005% of national GDP for that nation;

4. REQUESTS that the UNAD establish a United Nations Trust Fund (UNTF) solely for the holding of any surplus funds, where the annual budgetary requirements have been exceeded, to a limit of twice the annual total assessment;

5. FURTHER REQUESTS that the UNAD return all funds to member nations in the ratio of assessment where the annual budgetary requirements have been exceeded and where the UNTF has reached its maximum capacity;

6. CALLS FOR the creation of a UNAD Supervisory Committee (UNADSuC);

7. GRANTS the UNADSuC rights to:

a. commission and report on external audits of the UNAD,

b. monitor and adjust assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures,

and

c. in exceptional circumstances grant temporary exemption where nations can provide independently corroborated proof of inability to meet the lowest assessment level;

8. BANS the UN from engaging in deficit spending;

9. BANS requests for further compulsory contributions from any subsequent proposal.

Now, just to get all pre-emptive, let's go Forgottenlands on this thing's ass.

United Nations Maintenance Act

Title change partly out of respect, and partly because the word 'fund' scares the ever-living fund out of many members.

The NationStates United Nations,

Never been sure if there's a 'house style' for this. I favour this format, but have seen many variants.

CONVINCED that the United Nations requires a regular and sustainable source of funding in order to continue to effectively enact legislation,

Well, I am. Little bits here and there are not enough. Let's bear in mind:

we have several resolutions that call for UN funding but do not mention how such funds will be acquired;
we have many more resolutions that make no mention of funding, but clearly would need some, on however small a level;
as (I assume) we can no longer use the really, really big hall in Stephistan, we need somewhere to sit (with DLE's old office at the top and Yelda's bunker across the street);
we have a LOT of gnomes to feed. And they're getting hungry.


The mechanisms of the UN require funding. Whether it's more ink for the 'repeal' stamp on a DVD regional removal resolution, or funding for a new agency, there is no means to implement this at present. Furthermore, having each resolution ask for funding is not a long-term solution.

CONCERNED by the current dependence on voluntary contributions,

Shit happens. We have all seen that UN legislation can have a global economic impact. Were an even greater recession to occur, we could potentially have a lot of people shrugging, plucking empty pockets, and shuffling off in embarrassment, while the gnomes are left to feed the world with dry bread crusts.

NOTING that assessing member nations for mandatory contributions has never been declared illegal by UN legislation:

This is re Resolution #4, but I didn't want an admittedly small HoC on my hands. UN Taxation Ban does not prohibit the levying of taxes on a national level and, arguably, even on an individual, indirect level. The latter matters not: this is a national tax, and not a direct one on citizens. (And if I'm wrong, then I apologise for my presumptions. I'm not declaring that I can decide legality: this is just my opinion.)

1. DECLARES the establishment of a United Nations Accounting Department (UNAD);

I know, committee, committee. It does more than this, though. So bear with me. Anyway, I can't find reference to any division like this, so I think we still need one.

2. AUTHORIZES the UNAD to institute a compulsory system of assessed contributions whereby all member nations shall contribute towards a collective fund to be used solely for the upkeep of the Secretariat and for administration and enactment of legislation;

Yes, you have to pay. No, that money won't be used to line corporate pockets. I hope this is specific enough. If, in the future, someone feels that this allows scope for Secretariat abuse, they may feel free to write a resolution restricting gnome pay-scales and so on. (Actually, that'd be pretty awesome.)

3. DEFINES the assessed contribution as:

a. being calculated as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each member nation,
b. operating on a progressive scale,
and
c. not exceeding the sum of 0.005% of national GDP for that nation;

So it's based on your GDP. The reason I didn't say 'exclusively' is that there could be extenuating circumstances, as in complete fiscal meltdown, where other factors would have to be taken into consideration. That said, having a GDP of seven peanuts would be enough, probably.

Not a progressive tax man myself (Gruenberg has a regressive tax system), but on a national level, this only seems fair. I am not going to allocate what these brackets are, as I do not see that of direct relevance, given how small they are.

0.005% is not a not a not a lot. I'm not going to rob you and leave you in a ditch. (Well, ok. The UN isn't. I might. Aha. Aha. Ha.) I would hope that this would also be sufficiently small that no coding change would be needed, and that as such this would not constitute a mechanics violation.

4. REQUESTS that the UNAD establish a United Nations Trust Fund (UNTF) solely for the holding of any surplus funds, where the annual budgetary requirements have been exceeded, to a limit of twice the annual total assessment;

5. FURTHER REQUESTS that the UNAD return all funds to member nations in the ratio of assessment where the annual budgetary requirements have been exceeded and where the UNTF has reached its maximum capacity;

This is, obviously, because whatever Gordon Brown says, the penny comes around. A good year, where budgetary requirements are met, might be followed by a tightening of the purse-strings. Saving up some for such eventualities would be a good idea. Clearly, though, creating a massive stockpile would be seen as wasteful: hence the redistribution.

6. CALLS FOR the creation of a UNAD Supervisory Committee (UNADSuC);

I promise, there's more here than committees. I've dropped the ideas about '5 nations' or whatever. I personally would love to RP this; others involved in its genesis were less keen. The fact that I have not specified appointment procedures should in no way proclude the possibility of further RP. I just want to avoid MetaGaming.

7. GRANTS the UNADSuC rights to:

a. commission and report on external audits of the UNAD,

b. monitor and adjust assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures,

and

c. in exceptional circumstances grant temporary exemption where nations can provide independently corroborated proof of inability to meet the lowest assessment level;

This could be assumed, so if people think it's messy I'm willing to drop it. I just wanted to make it clear that this will be fair: fairly monitored, and fairly eenforced. This is not an optionality clause: we are talking ubercollapse, not panicking stockbrokers.

8. BANS the UN from engaging in deficit spending;

I would hope this is simple enough. Not a good idea, and there would be no need anyway.

9. BANS requests for further compulsory contributions from any subsequent proposal.

This will, I suspect, be a trickier part. Cog had once declared a similar sentence to be dubious, then changing to allowing it: however, that decision is over a year old, is not being quoted entirely in context, and may be subject to reconsideration. Most importantly, though, it doesn't apply to this specific wording. So I do need to know if this is illegal. I think it's allowed, because clearly it's within a resolution's scope to outlaw future legislation without repeal. I included compulsory as a wuss-out: if needed, I will drop either it or the whole clause, depending which way the pendulum swings.

Other considerations

1. Category. There was much discussion of this, but I really would like new input. Some suggested 'Furtherment of Democracy', as this was something that allowed the (inherently democratic) UN to go about its business more effectively.

2. Branding. My thought was 'based on the work of Sophista'/'inspired by Sophista'/'dedicated to Sophista'. Nonetheless, others (again, Fris mainly) contributed - and I have kept some of their contributions - so this might not be fair. (Incidentally, if anyone knows Sophista OOC and is still in touch, anything you could do would be most helpful.)

Final thoughts

I'm a busy, busy bee these days, and I don't like submitting proposals for the heck of it. This is something I genuinely feel needs addressing. Above all else, it is so fucking annoying to have to debate ridiculous budget suggestions, which usually detract from the main effect of the legislation.

NatSov: Last time, a prominent NatSover supported this, and a prominent one opposed it on NatSov grounds. I am an NSO member, and I believe in sovereignty within the UN. I am not representing the NSO with this: in fact, it's a breach of sovereignty. I'm not asking you to keep NatSov arguments out of the thread; I am asking you to keep them relevant.

Comments, please. Sophista asked (figuratively, I hope) to be ripped apart. Do the same to me. This is an important proposal, and it needs to be right. It will be wildly unpopular and, should it survive the Mod Gauntlet of Doom and other considerations, still may not pass. As such, we need to nail this.

That's a lot of arrogance from me, to which I hope you've grown accustomed. So here's the important modesty bit: this is, and this ain't, my proposal. I cannot claim credit for its origin or much of the research that went into it. When I joined, I had ideas similar to this, but they ran parallel to, and did not coincide with, Sophista's proposal. As such, there may still be bits here that some people regard as being ripped from them. That is sincerely not my intention. Tell me now, and it shall be struck from the proposal.

Now, let's back to UN debating: what's right, and what's wrong?

lets get down to brass tacks.

firstly is there an existing UN resolution that covers this? It will be pointless to duplicate resolutions although that hasn't stopped some delegates in the past.

secondly the idea of funds and paying out money already scares a lot of nations. even such a small part of the GDP would be enough to shoot this idea down.

thirdly with some of the idotic proposals that have passed recently i'm beginning to think that we need to get back to reality and concentrate on social issues. i don't think that harmonising media such as dvd and cd's is worthy of the UN. thats what governments are for.

fourthly if this is accepted somewhere down the line i would like to see very tight controls on any fund created so the money is kept track off and not nibbled away by corruption. It should only be used for food aid and other social aid programmes.

Sorry Gruenberg ill read the rest tomorrow lol there is way more than i expected there to be.

lets get down to brass tacks.

A wonderful metaphor for the sort of administrative cut backs that would be needed to pay for this. Use cheap plastic ones, and you've probably got it covered.

firstly is there an existing UN resolution that covers this? It will be pointless to duplicate resolutions although that hasn't stopped some delegates in the past.

It would be pointless and illegal. However, I don't believe there is such a resolution. (Why are you asking, though? Komo's thread is stickied an inch of mouse-click above this thread.)

Also, I am not looking to retroactively declare illegal past resolutions that have had funding requirements.

secondly the idea of funds and paying out money already scares a lot of nations. even such a small part of the GDP would be enough to shoot this idea down.

On what are you basing this? I haven't seen any evidence either way. And the 0.005% is a top-range figure. In the old discussion thread, Fris posted some examples, which I won't requote without his permission. We are talking about nothing, on a fiscal level.

thirdly with some of the idotic proposals that have passed recently i'm beginning to think that we need to get back to reality and concentrate on social issues. i don't think that harmonising media such as dvd and cd's is worthy of the UN. thats what governments are for.

Nor do I. I also think the UN is free to legislate as its voters choose. This proposal would enable it to pursue social action programmes more effectively.

fourthly if this is accepted somewhere down the line i would like to see very tight controls on any fund created so the money is kept track off and not nibbled away by corruption. It should only be used for food aid and other social aid programmes.

Um, sorry, but you don't get to mandate that. Did you read the proposal?

2. AUTHORIZES the UNAD to institute a compulsory system of assessed contributions whereby all member nations shall contribute towards a collective fund to be used solely for the upkeep of the Secretariat and for administration and enactment of legislation;

I'm sorry, but if someone wants to use it as part of a DVD-related programme, then it's up to the GA to shoot it down. We can't base legislation on what individuals want, but rather on courses of action chosen by electoral majority.

SNLA']Sorry Gruenberg ill read the rest tomorrow lol there is way more than i expected there to be.

Yeah, I know. Sorry about that. It's just there's a lot of pages to the old threads, and I couldn't expect everyone to read them all, so I tried to whack it all in.

well the honourable delegate did ask for opinions.

my nation has only been in the UN a short while and we've been arguing against stupid and impractical resolutions since we were admitted. However we have also contributed towards proposals by stating ideas and trying to work with proposers.

if we can agree fully with a future proposal you will have our vote.

Oh, no, sorry, I didn't mean to snap: I was just defending against the first wave. Your comments were very welcome: the last is certainly something that will need attention if others raise concerns.

In the old discussion thread, Fris posted some examples, which I won't requote without his permission. We are talking about nothing, on a fiscal level.
You have my blanket permission to quote anything of mine from the old thread, with one qualifier. When I wrote those posts, I was not a moderator. Thus, any opinions expressed therein MUST NOT be considered Official NationStates policy. In fact, I'm of the opinion now that naming specific numbers comes awfully close to a Game Mechanics violation, though Sophista and I specifically chose numbers small enough to be statistcally insigificant.

I'll look over the rest of your post later.

Once more, thank you so much. I'd forgotten, actually, that you weren't a mod back then, so your reminder was very useful. I will make it abundantly clear if I do post anything you wrote that it was not official mod policy.

The game mechanics question is one I am in no way qualified to respond to. If more experienced posters wish to, they may, of course.

Thanks for offering to look over it: I appreciate it's very long, and there's really no rush. I'd rather get it done right than rush through something that will be plucked from queue, however long that takes.

And, for the record, Fris not acting in an official mod capacity as he was not then modded, using stats that are now out of date nonetheless still made a beautiful point here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6912341&postcount=141). I recommend the thread as a whole.

As I've stated in other threads, I like the idea of a fair and equal scheme whereby all UN nations contribute to and fund all UN programs.

Everything I'm about to say from now is only my opinion.

In your draft however I see a possible problem. Its much the same as the one I had in my now dumped ADCAP draft.

Its the committees. This draft creates two of them and relies heavily on them. Without the committees you don't have a proposal. I read in the rules thread that committees can add to a proposal, but can't be all it does. I think in this case, like my draft, while the committees do have a function, creating them and defining their roles is pretty much all the proposal does.

Don't take my word for this though. I could be, and probably are, completly wrong.

Ok, I did consider this. There are is a clause banning deficit spending. Also, OC3 could, I suppose, be instituted without the committee. Finally, the original resolution wasn't flagged on this count.

I agree you may be right. I was one of the people dogging you over ADCAP, if I remember rightly. My feeling, though, is that here is an action - UN funding - that due to its complexity requires some administration. As such, I am satisfied with it. I will of course respect any mods who see differently.

Gruenberg, I will vote for this propsal if it comes to a vote. And I will do whatever it takes to help it come to a vote.

You have my support.

Thank you very much SLI Sector. There is still work to be done though (suggestions welcome!), and I still am not sure about legality.

OOC: As I suggested, the tax can be handled as a "leakage" in goverment, basically, the tax will bring down the economies of all UN members.

The problem is, of course, that nobody would vote for this anyway...since nobody wants their ecomony to go down.

Guess it looks like everybody will get a free lunch.

I am highly impressed by the obviously extraordinary effort that has gone into this resolution, in form, concept, and concern for legality. I will support it fully if you can get it to a vote. Best of luck.

I am highly impressed by the obviously extraordinary effort that has gone into this resolution, in form, concept, and concern for legality. I will support it fully if you can get it to a vote. Best of luck.

As yet, the vast majority of that effort was on the part of Sophista and Frisbeeteria, and also the likes of Mikitivity and Hersfold, along with mod guidance from Cogitation. I too was highly impressed at all of this, and thought it a shame to let something like it go to waste. I thank you nonetheless for your support, on their behalf.