NationStates Jolt Archive

Is requesting a monetary contribution to member countries - based on the country's economy - violating UN laws (or game mechanics)?

As a new country and even newer member to the UN, I have tried to find an answer to this but have failed. The UN taxation ban would not apply as the "tax" is paid by the state and not directly by citizens, yet I have also failed to find previous resolutions asking for such a contribution.

The money would go in its entirety to a UN project which would be subject to voting along with the request for a participation from member states - provided the resolution got the required support from delegates, obviously.

Would such a proposition be permitted? Thanks in advance.

You can request a monetary contribution. Sophista once worked on a United Nations Funding Act, which I unsuccessfully attempted to resurrect. If you want any input, I'd be more than glad to help.

Sophista's UNFA: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725

That's good to know, thank you for that information. Hopefully the proposal will not face technical problems.. Does that mean there is already a unified value for the different currencies?
The idea was to raise money depending on the salary gap (which the UN apparently can poll) and population of countries, to spend it on a measure to limit inequalities between countries (and inside countries themselves). The funding as proposed by Sophista might be an alternative, but would not be as effective for that particular measure.

The idea was to raise money depending on the salary gap (which the UN apparently can poll) and population of countries, to spend it on a measure to limit inequalities between countries (and inside countries themselves). The funding as proposed by Sophista might be an alternative, but would not be as effective for that particular measure.

Oh boy, is that going to get trashed by the rich & mighty crowd... I am on your side, for what it's worth. Just keep the numbers small.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

Oh boy, is that going to get trashed by the rich & mighty crowd... I am on your side, for what it's worth. Just keep the numbers small.
I'm afraid keeping the numbers small isn't an option with what our first secretary had in mind, though I'm not at discretion for saying any more, so as not to attract the rich and mighty crowd's attention.
Be sure that we shall spread the word to progressive forces of the world to the best of our ability as soon as the resolution will be written. Though our first secretary is better known for his laziness as for his vision, so don't hold your breath.

Citizen #452933
Factory worker, newly appointed UN ambassador for the week
United Socialist States of Lake Pahoe

a flat rate tax on a nations GDP is the easiest and most sensible way of doing this.

previous attempts on this have usually settled on a fraction of one percent as the rate. adding a clause in that once this 'annual membership fee' is paid they don't have to pay any more money into the UN would also help.

adding a clause in that once this 'annual membership fee' is paid they don't have to pay any more money into the UN would also help.

Hmmmm, wouldn't that prevent all future resolutions from raising funds? That would work if a general UN budget is created, not if the funds are ring-fenced to fighting inequality. But I may be wrong.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

a flat rate tax on a nations GDP is the easiest and most sensible way of doing this.

previous attempts on this have usually settled on a fraction of one percent as the rate. adding a clause in that once this 'annual membership fee' is paid they don't have to pay any more money into the UN would also help.

I'd prefer it was based on national income, rather than GDP.

the only way that the UN can raise money at present is by volentary donations or by including a fund raising scheme in a proposal.

wouldn't it be better and more sensible if every member state paid an annual tax (however its worked out) rather than paying out piece meal for every act that requires funding?

Note that the dues will possibly ruin the economy of the nation, as they take money from the economy and pay it to the UN, to do whatever it wants.

If we are going to do that, have a tax on nations, the propsal will need to
have the catorgery of Social Justice...because it 'reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.'

Shouldn't the UN not need money? I thought as a international organisation it didn't require money, and just stuck it's label onto every project it supported.
Of course, a entryfee should be enacted, but nothing that could be redefined as tax.
optischer

a flat rate tax on a nations GDP is the easiest and most sensible way of doing this.
A flat tax on GDP might work for the normal working budget of the UN, but it would not scale to more ambitious projects that require a serious investment in all member nations. Besides, one might argue that a flat tax is unfair to less-developped economies and would prefer a tax that scales depending on the economy or other considerations - I would for one. For instance, if the UN had to raise funds to fight pollution, it would be wiser to ask for more money to countries that unleash large amounts of pollution than to environmentally friendly nations.

Note that the dues will possibly ruin the economy of the nation, as they take money from the economy and pay it to the UN, to do whatever it wants.
In this case, the UN would not do whatever it wants with it, as the money collected is entirely given back to the countries based on their population, on the condition that they follow certain rules when it comes to spending it.

If we are going to do that, have a tax on nations, the propsal will need to have the catorgery of Social Justice...because it 'reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.'
That goes without saying.

Citizen #1983453
Plumber, newly appointed UN ambassador for the week
United Socialist States of Lake Pahoe

adding a clause in that once this 'annual membership fee' is paid they don't have to pay any more money into the UN would also help.
this would be very much illegal. firstly, as stated above, this prevents any future resolution from requesting funds, which is illegal. second, there are already resolutions that request funds anyway, and they would have to be repealed before this kind of clause could be implimented, and i doubt that they would be repealed on a mere technicality.

most resolutions i've seen don't have a way to fund them built in.

i do take your point about older resolutions and would suggest another approach.

a proposal that clearly defines how the UN gathers funds and how these are dealt with would be beneficial to everyone.

UNR #4 dosen't go into details on this issue and i think this is the only guide we have on this issue.

but then you have to deal with future resolutions too. the mods have ruled in the past that the clause is illegal because of both passed resolutions and future proposals. another thing is that a good deal of the resolutions that dont ask for money usually the nation has to impliment anyway, and that is where the cost is. also, its a game mechanics thing, for things get altered automatically when resolutions are passed, regardless of it asking for funding or not.

fair enough Lynx, i'm convinced.

at least we know we're heading into a games mechanics area which is good to know.

it also looks like we can't take this anyfurther.

fair enough Lynx, i'm convinced.

at least we know we're heading into a games mechanics area which is good to know.

it also looks like we can't take this anyfurther.

It looks to me that your idea of restricting further payments is illegal, but the original proposal, to raise funds and use them, can still work. We urge Lake Pahoe to put forth a proposal for discussion.

Shouldn't the UN not need money? I thought as a international organisation it didn't require money, and just stuck it's label onto every project it supported.
Of course, a entryfee should be enacted, but nothing that could be redefined as tax.
optischer

If you can name one International Organization in real life that doesn't need money, I will congratulate you for finding the mystical UN subcommittee that never existed.

We urge Lake Pahoe to put forth a proposal for discussion.

As suggested by the esteemed representative of Fonzoland, a draft proposal was published by our first secretary on the United Nations forum.
Draft proposal: Universal wage (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=456336)

We welcome feedback and opinions on the subject.

Citizen #239946
Retired bus driver, newly appointed UN ambassador for the week
United Socialist States of Lake Pahoe