NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN General Assemby…

ASSERTING that fiscal responsibility is critical for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of this body,

REAFFIRMING that donations, gifts, aid funding, etc. are legitimate means of funding for the UN, although taxation of member nations or their citizens by the UN is not,

hereby MANDATES that

The UN shall not have more expenditures than revenue for any fiscal year.

I have proposed this in an effort to make sure that the UN maintains its fiscal responsibility and remains an economically sound organization. Please support it. If not, why don't you support it? I'd like to improve on this if it is not adequate.

We like the idea

The UN shall not have more expenditures than revenue for any fiscal year.

Agreed, but why not also putting strong limits, as 2% for its budget and 10% for its debt, in order to cope with some exceptionnal events.



The UN General Assemby…

ASSERTING that fiscal responsibility is critical for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of this body,

Agreed

REAFFIRMING that donations, gifts, aid funding, etc. are legitimate means of funding for the UN, although taxation of member nations or their citizens by the UN is not,

It's seducing, but we fear it may not be realistic, the UN is not a NGO, it's a "GO", lol, and I don't think it's realistic as the UN need a non randomly budget.

What about members participating to the UN budget once a year at an amount equivalent to 0.01% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or more if they wish

0.01% is just a try, not sure about it

As the UN has around 30 000 members, and let say an average government spend 50% of a national GDP
0.01% will be equal to 3X the average nation GDP = 6X the average government spending


Also may we suggest the UN to commit itself to release every year, for its members, a detailed financial report, including all its revenue and spending

OOC: Agreed, but again, I don't think it's legal.

EDIT: And, as L&E points out, it could be a lot more comprehensive.

Drop the last line

1) There have been several attempts to implement a member dues system which would tax nations directly. Legality is questionable merely because of debates within the mod community about the effect of UNR #4. Humorously, we can't repeal #4 with the argument that we can't collect member dues because that's a false argument. Regardless, I would like it if we didn't block potential attempts to try again, especially with our costs continually increasing.

2) It reads as if you're trying to reaffirm UNR #4 yet UNR #4 only prohibits taxing citizens directly. It does little with taxing member nations directly.

Drop the last line
You mean the only line that actually does anything?

This doesn't limit the ability of the UN to collect other forms of revenue, hence the "etc.".

Emergency situations would need to be dealt with by raising revenue. The UN can't just borrow exorbitant amounts of money due to emergencies. I think it would have to resolve budget issues within a fiscal year.

This could be more comprehensive. Still, that would add controversy to what I think is a pretty basic proposal. Would another proposal be better to deal with things like disclosing finance information? I can see that being rolled into a more comprehensive bill on transparency in the UN.

Should this proposal be removed and replaced with something about disclosing finance information and requiring auditing?

How is this illegal? The UN can sets limits on itself, right?

You cannot directly limit future UN action. "The UN cannot/will never..." statements have generally been held to be illegal. You can affirm national rights - which implicitly accomplishes the former - but I don't see that as applicable here, because there is no way you can phrase the operative clause as a national right.

However, you'd need a mod ruling to be sure.

And you're probably right about the other bits being part of a transparency act. In fact, gives me an idea...

I am currently thinking about some quotes from certian beloved(by Me,anyway) American Conservative Statesmen right now. However I have decided to refrain from speaking out loud, and insted am going to go watch Ron White on TV.

Last I checked the UN doesn't have a budget, it just does what it does. I mean, we have entire nations carted from point A to point B? Who pays for THAT? The UN has no revenue, no budget, it exists outside the realm of currency, it is omnipotent and unstoppable...unless you resign. Any attempt to regulate UN expenditure is going to meet with utter faliure, not only because it is meaningless, but I'm pretty sure it's illigal.

On the flipside, if some sort of UN budget system is introduced in the future, I would think this a worthy things to consider, although this resolution in and of itself needs alot of work.

Any attempt to regulate UN expenditure is going to meet with utter faliure, not only because it is meaningless, but I'm pretty sure it's illigal.
Show me one ruling that has said that.

You got carried away with your hyperbole. I don't see anything wrong with this sort of measure - indeed, when I was trying out reviving Sophista's UN Funding Act, my version included a prohibition on deficit spending (I think his did as well, come to think of it).

It's all very well to say "it's all magic, it's all the gnomes", but to say that other players can't treat it more realistically is, to me, silly.

It's all very well to say "it's all magic, it's all the gnomes", but to say that other players can't treat it more realistically is, to me, silly.

I would love to treat it realistically, but last time I checked everybody (the old-timers who know more than I do) was saying that the UN receives no funding, and simply does what it does, and I could swear somewhere I heard funding-based proposals wher illigal...bah...faulty memory if I'm wrong then I apologize. Anyway, the point being that if we could establish a base of funding for the UN that would be great, but until then any regulation of it's spending is futile...if there is no revenue their can be no defecit spending.

let say an average government spend 50% of a national GDP

Let's not: Maybe your government does so, but that's not neccesarily typical and some of us manage quite nicely at far lower levels of official expenditure...

Let's not: Maybe your government does so, but that's not neccesarily typical and some of us manage quite nicely at far lower levels of official expenditure...

I agree with your statement

I was just trying to compare to something concret

I observed that many nations have very sadly an administration budget = 100% of their GDP, and observed that many nations have very sadly an administrations budget = 0% of their GDP.

I supposed that the average was 50%, but if you have any stats, I will be very grateful if you can provide them, it's pretty interesting

What category would something like this fall under? "Political stability" was seen as a branding problem, so the proposal has been removed for now.

Of course the UN has a budget. It's banned slavery, so the gnomes have to get something for their trouble. Also, other resolutions have dealt with committees, initiatives and other stuff that costs cash.

I'll add to the proposal, now that it's down. Please comment on the draft below.

The UN General Assemby…

ASSERTING that fiscal responsibility is critical for maintaining the legitimacy and integrity of this body,

REAFFIRMING that donations, gifts, aid funding, etc. are legitimate means of funding for the UN, although taxation of member nations or their citizens is not,

hereby MANDATES that

1)The UN shall not have more expenditures than revenue for any fiscal year;

2) The UN shall compile comprehensive financial records on all of its transactions, and that these records shall be made available to the public;

3) The UN shall be audited by independent financial experts, who shall ascertain the fiscal health of the organization and make recommendations as needed;

4) The UN shall keep its funds only in reputable, regularly audited and financially sound institutions

and ENCOURAGES the UN to set aside a considerable amount of its revenue as surplus resources, to be available in times of emergency.

Well, after the comment earlier, I was thinking up a "Transparency and Accountability" proposal, which I would have pegged as Furtherment of Democracy - because by making the UN more fair/efficient, you're aiding the political process.

So I would go for Furtherment of Democracy, but check with the mods first.

OK. I'd love to hear about your proposal. Maybe we can just roll them together, although I really want something about a balanced budget.

OK. I'd love to hear about your proposal. Maybe we can just roll them together, although I really want something about a balanced budget.
Well, yes. I thought the idea of a transparency proposal would be a separate issue to your proposal.

If your original proposal, in post 1, is legal, then I would use that. Prohibiting the UN from amassing a deficit is all that is required, so it should be quite simple. But I hope a mod will drop by at some stage and say whether it is legal or not, and if it is, which category it would fit into.

The administrators said that "while the intentions of your bill may be good...", so I'm guessing for the moment that the balanced budget thing is legal.

I'd like to keep them as two separate proposals, especially as mine is now longer. I'll send it to the administrators whenever discussion here seems to hit a snag.

I think that the revised version deals with more things. Can anyone please comment on it?

I'm just saying that I'd like to take a look at your proposal on transparency. I'm supportive of that sort of thing and would like to help if I can.

What category would something like this fall under? "Political stability" was seen as a branding problem, so the proposal has been removed for now.

Of course the UN has a budget. It's banned slavery, so the gnomes have to get something for their trouble. Also, other resolutions have dealt with committees, initiatives and other stuff that costs cash.

I'll add to the proposal, now that it's down. Please comment on the draft below.
Supplying food, clothes and housing etc. can technically be seen as payment. BUt then, it's usually when the person is living in a commune.

The administrators said that "while the intentions of your bill may be good...", so I'm guessing for the moment that the balanced budget thing is legal.
You're going to have to take some time and make it fit one of the exisiting resolution categories first. I don't see anything suitable off the top of my head, but I wouldn't rule out a persuasive argument.
I'll send it to the administrators
Do it here. The regulars have more time for this sort of argument than we do.

OK. How about something like Advancement of Industry: tort reform? It's a stretch. How about the furtherment of democracy?

Would moral decency work, because it limits idiotic spending?

Don't just look at the name of the category, look at the description line. Frankly, I don't think you'll find anything that fits ... but you can still try.