NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

Recognizing the need of the United Nations for a steady and reliable source of funding with which to conduct its appointed activities;

Also recognizing the inability of wholly voluntary contributions to meet this need;

1. Establishes a system of assessed contributions to the UN by member states on an annual basis;

2. Defines the assessed contribution as:
a. Being calculated as a percentage of the lesser of either Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) of each member state,
b. Not exceeding 0.00005% of the lesser of GDP or GNP for that state;

3. Establishes a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;
b. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
c. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below;
d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;
e. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;
f. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors;
b. Permitting the publication of the independent audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;
d. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
e. Reducing or deferring a member state's annual assessment, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote;

5. Prohibits the UN from engaging in deficit spending.

Now the hard part....

Looks reasonable enough. It's high time these United Nations had a secure source of funding.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I'm not sure about this at all, really. Usually, projects are undertaken at the expense of participant nations, and not the UN itself. Could you persuade me as to why we (the UN) need a bank account, and where the money will be kept?

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

It's hard to force a calendar on the member states. We didn't agree on the definitions of either "year" or "fiscal", so what do these terms mean within this resolution ?

We can see problems with "money" (whatever that be) being cut from our economy periodically, to have it returned at inexplicable intervals.
A sudden injection of this "surplus money" into our economy could vastly disrupt the -already struggling- business in Renssignol.

The percentage used to express the amounts due to UN funding looks low, but its arbitrary. Who knows how to calculate these "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP) " anyway? Is there some national statistics bureau ?
If so: please tell us under which rock we 'd find it.

This system is unfair against those nations with a hgiher income tax. Because they get more income per tax payer they have more money per citizen and therefore need to pay more. While nations that don't collect tax and leave everything to private industries wouldn't need to contribute anything at all to the UN.

The reasons given at the start of the resolution are reasonable enough.

(To the delegate of Renssignol, here are the rocks you seek: granite (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php), breccia (http://nsdossier.texasregion.net/main.aspx), marble (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/), limestone (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/stats.php), or dolomite. (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php) Under them rocks are what you are seeking.)

No, I don't think the resolution is construed to base the contribution to the amount or percentage of taxes. The contribution is based on an infinitesimal percentage of Gross Domestic Product or Gross National Product.

We are voting for the resolution. Thank you.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli
Permanent Representative of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations

PS. We are especially delighted at the resolution's section 5.

We support this proposal, assorted issues we raised in drafting having been dealt with. We are disheartened by the early vote tally, but hope things pick up as delegates begin to realize someone has to pay for all those committees.

-- Samantha Benson
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

For nations who are against, could you offer a fair alternative?

On the whole, I agree with this act, however it probably needs some adjusting and clarification.

The United Socialist States of Hoylake, albeit new to the United Nations, recognises the need for a uniform level of funding. This resolution will allow the United Nations to continue to operate and provides a fair method for the collection and disbursement of funds.

Comrades, we would urge all states to support this method to ensure the continuing operation of the United Nations.

Halfa Scargill
Ambassador

It is about time that the UN got a secure, dependable source of funding. Also the percentage of GDP/GNP required is small enough that it shouldn't be a problem to the vast majority of nations, and in the unlikely case that it is a problem the nation can apply for special dispensation anyway, so there are no problems with it that I can see.

This proposal has our full support

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Amassador to the UN

This system is unfair against those nations with a hgiher income tax. Because they get more income per tax payer they have more money per citizen and therefore need to pay more. While nations that don't collect tax and leave everything to private industries wouldn't need to contribute anything at all to the UN.

uhm... no. what you are thinking of is your budget. GDP (or GNP, I can never remember hwich is which) is the sum of all the products and services being produced in your country (well their prices really), and in taxless countries tends to be higher rather than lower (because in government funded projects price for the end user is usualy lower).
what bothers me is that we're only supposed to pay about 1/1'000'000 of our GDPs to the UN. I believe that a large part of that money would be spent enforcing the policy and will in effect give UN less money than we currently give it at more cost to us.

our proposal (as a nation oposed to the UNFA) is that the funds set asside for this be redirected to a better advertisement campaign, whic would both
a)rise the prestrige of UN
and
b) get you more money form private sources.

As much as my nation supports the United Nations and all the work that it does for these great NationStates, I had to pass my vote in against this resolution this morning. The United Nations has survived so far in terms of funding, and a vast, vast number of its nations currently have income tax rates at a whopping 100%. The United Nations does not need to take more money from its countries to survive, and I believe that funding will still continue to come from somewhere without this resolution. This almost makes the UN come with a registration fee, and that it should not.

I'm not sure about this at all, really. Usually, projects are undertaken at the expense of participant nations, and not the UN itself. Could you persuade me as to why we (the UN) need a bank account, and where the money will be kept?

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

As much as my nation supports the United Nations and all the work that it does for these great NationStates, I had to pass my vote in against this resolution this morning. The United Nations has survived so far in terms of funding, and a vast, vast number of its nations currently have income tax rates at a whopping 100%. The United Nations does not need to take more money from its countries to survive, and I believe that funding will still continue to come from somewhere without this resolution. This almost makes the UN come with a registration fee, and that it should not.

As a quick aside to the many nations who will have issues much like those above; there's a matter of perspective that needs to be worked out. The United Nations is not the entity separate from yourselves that you are making it out to be. The United Nations is us. We, the member nations of the United Nations, are entirely what the UN is. There is no extragovernmental organization that we are members of. It is just us. The UN consists entirely of the member nations. The legislation passed by the UN is law that the member nations pass within themselves. The UN has no government of it's own. It has no economy of its own. For that matter, the land that this building is on was donated to the UN for this purpose, I believe, as the UN has no sovereign territory of its own. The UN is not a nation, nor is it any form of entity independant of its members. It is its membership. All the UN is is a union of nations that have all decided to work together towards a number of common goals. This Funding Act is simply us, as the UN, deciding to each chip in a bit of cash to actually do all of the things that we, the United Nations, have decided as a group that we wish to see done. Saying you are opposed because you do not want to give the UN your money is like saying that you don't want to give money to your spouse so they can go pay the bills for you. Or, more aptly, having decided that you wish to have your house painted, you refuse to pay for the paint or the labour. Or, to simplify it right down, you do not want to set money aside for yourself to do the things you want to do.

To reiterate, the UN is us. We aren't giving money away to anyone. We're setting it aside to do the things that we want to do.

So the nations of the UN are supposed to fund this thingy.

Category: Political Stability Strength: Mild
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

How?
Never mind that, I want to know how giving a small amount of money to the UN is going to restrict the personal freedoms in my nation?

OOC: Under the current system money for UN projects is typically generated from the vaccuum of unknown doners, who like UN gnomes, appear out of nothing for the purposes of expediency. This system is no different as there is no economic stat wanking effects on a nation's budget or taxes or heck even the economy. The money is created from nothing and at the end of the fiscal year is returned back to the nothing. The resolution basically DOES NOTHING. (Except restrict the political freedoms of every nation in the UN.)

Votes For: 497
Votes Against: 1,169

So the nations of the UN are supposed to fund this thingy.

This thingy isn't what is being funded. This will help fund the UN. As the UN is simply a union of its member nations, this is the member nations funding the things that they wish to do in the world.

Category: Political Stability Strength: Mild
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

How?
Never mind that, I want to know how giving a small amount of money to the UN is going to restrict the personal freedoms in my nation?

It won't. The stat wank is that it will restrict political freedoms, but that is exactly what I just called it - a wank.

OOC: Under the current system money for UN projects is typically generated from the vaccuum of unknown doners, who like UN gnomes, appear out of nothing for the purposes of expediency. This system is no different as there is no economic stat wanking effects on a nation's budget or taxes or heck even the economy. The money is created from nothing and at the end of the fiscal year is returned back to the nothing. The resolution basically DOES NOTHING. (Except restrict the political freedoms of every nation in the UN.)

OOC: Under any system, there isn't a single resolution in the books that does a damn thing except for the stat wank listed at the top of it. That's why we tend to focus on the actual text of the bill. In this case, it's an IC way to make sense out of the fact that the UN functions at all without any form of budget. Yes, we could just accept that money comes out of nowhere to magically fulfill all of the UN's financial needs, but, realistically, that's silly. The money has to come from somewhere. The UN should be able to pay its own way without the use of magical money trees. So that's what this reso does. It sets up a system whereby we, the UN, will actually pay for the things that we, as the UN, want to accomplish.

Saying you are opposed because you do not want to give the UN your money is like saying that you don't want to give money to your spouse so they can go pay the bills for you.
quite the oposite. continuing the metaphor the act would make you apy your spouse a wage, istead of her just coming to you and asking for exactly as much money as he needs to pay your bills.

quite the oposite. continuing the metaphor the act would make you apy your spouse a wage, istead of her just coming to you and asking for exactly as much money as he needs to pay your bills.

Except that when the bills are paid, any leftover money gets returned to you. And you're entirely missing the point of the analogy. You're not being asked to give money away, here. You're being asked to put forth some of the cash to pay for the things that we wish to do as a whole. It's the partnership aspect that I was going for. In what you quoted, the money isn't leaving a member of your house.

New Leicestershire has voted for. The UN needs a stable, steady and predictable source of funding and the rate of 0.00005% is reasonable.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.

Time after time, in debate after debate, we've heard: "But how is the UN going to pay for this?" and "Where's the money for this committee supposed to come from?" This resolution prepositions the answer to those questions. The resolution's requirements are reasonable and its provisions realistic. We applaud the author's good work.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Its all good for the less wealthy nations in the UN but what about high income nations?

Um...what?

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

Member nations should not be required to contribute to the UN and my government expresses profound regret that this issue has come to vote in the General Assembly. The fact is, small nations like mine will see their budgets become even more restricted and strained, thanks to the United Nations, which does little in the way of actually helping member states.

I encourage all young and growing nations that are members of the UN to vote against this measure for the sake of your own government. We all know government waste is real, and it will be no different in the UN. Our taxpayer's dollars will be wasted in the bureaucracy that is the UN.

Sincerely,
Derek I
King of Addisumbria
Grand Duke in Right of Addenburg

Member nations should not be required to contribute to the UN and my government expresses profound regret that this issue has come to vote in the General Assembly. The fact is, small nations like mine will see their budgets become even more restricted and strained, thanks to the United Nations, which does little in the way of actually helping member states.

Pssst...I have news for you. We are the UN. As already stated, the money is being set aside to do the things that the UN does.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

While I agree with limiting deficit spending, it is not the place of the UN to essentially tax the member nations. Though my nation is small and would likely benefit from added UN aid, I cannot support a policy that will penalize those wealthier nations for being successful. Funds should be requested as they become necessary.

While I understand what your proposal is trying to enact, my government is vehemently against it.

We did not understand that the UN had membership dues. We believed that the UN was only a body in which to exchange ideals and settle disputes. By giving our money, we give our support for certain actions, that we may not agree with.
That does not sit well with us.

In addition, who would be in control of this money? With all the income from all member states, it would amount to billions of dollars. What safeguards would there be against corruption?

Respectfully,

The Honorable Wesley Blade, Ph.D.
Senior Ambassador
Delegate to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

The fact is, small nations like mine will see their budgets become even more restricted and strained, thanks to the United Nations ... .Your government can't afford to give $40,654.06? That's the maximum amount you'd be required to pay under this proposal. You currently have a budget surplus nearly $696 million, so I know that tiny amount won't break you.

... the United Nations, which does little in the way of actually helping member states.Well, there's the Microcredit Bazaar, the UN Demining Survey, the UN Free Trade Commission, the International Criminal Police Information Network, the UN Educational Advancement Fund, the UN Commission on Access for the Disabled, United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Executive, etc., etc. If you're using any of these services, then the UN actually is helping you, and you should be required to give a minimal amount to help continue funding these operations for other nations needing their services. And $40,000 really is minimal.

In addition, who would be in control of this money? With all the income from all member states, it would amount to billions of dollars. What safeguards would there be against corruption?

Did you not read the proposal?

3. Establishes a United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT) whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Determining, along with UN committees, what the assessed contribution shall be for the following fiscal year;
b. Acting as the sole agency for collections of assessed contributions from member states,
c. Holding UN monies in trust on behalf of member states for disbursement according to UN requirements, as stated below;
d. Ensuring all UN monies are spent only on maintaining the missions approved by a vote of the General Assembly;
e. Returning to member states all surplus UN funds at close of each fiscal year, determined according to each member state’s proportion of total contributions, or reducing each member state’s assessment for the following fiscal year by an equivalent amount;
f. Striving for maximum efficiency in disbursement of all UN monies;

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
a. Overseeing UNCT and its outside auditors;
b. Permitting the publication of the independent audits and financial reports and make them available to member nations every six months;
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;
d. Monitoring and adjusting assessment rates where economic change necessitates such measures, while maintaining compliance with section 2b of this resolution;
e. Reducing or deferring a member state's annual assessment, upon proof of need or hardship, and by majority vote;

We all know government waste is real, and it will be no different in the UN. Our taxpayer's dollars will be wasted in the bureaucracy that is the UN.


In addition, who would be in control of this money? With all the income from all member states, it would amount to billions of dollars. What safeguards would there be against corruption?


To both of these, I direct you towards one specific piece of the resolution.

4. Establishes a UNCT Oversight Board, whose powers and responsibilities shall be as follows:
...
c. Monitoring expenditures made by UN committees, in order to eliminate waste and corruption;

There goes the waste and the corruption. Thanks for coming out.

There were some other questions from The Genoshan Isles which should maybe be addressed.

We did not understand that the UN had membership dues.

We have not, in the past, had membership dues. This is our first real attempt at covering the costs that such a union accrues.

We believed that the UN was only a body in which to exchange ideals and settle disputes.

Some of that does occur within these chambers, but a great deal of time is spent on legislating ways in which we hope to improve the lot of the entire planet. Many of the methods that we are used can be costly, and we now seek ways to cover those costs by having all of the United Nations chip in some small part of them.

By giving our money, we give our support for certain actions, that we may not agree with.

By being a member, you are supporting every piece of legislation that this body has ever passed and kept on the books. If there is anything amongst those resolutions that you find distasteful, then there are options available to you. Compliance is not optional, however. As a member, you are considered to be in compliance with all of them. Some of them require funding to operate. This resolution currently at vote will provide that funding.

That does not sit well with us.

Some of the options available to you include repealing any existing legislation that you are not favourable towards, working to have those resolutions replaced with more appropriate legislation, and resigning your membership within the UN. I personally suggest the first two options. Improving the legislation by this body is more challenging and effective at improving the world. Resigning just shows that you do not have the determination, nor the skill, to actually improve the world with your fellow man.

"We can find absolutely no legitimate argument whatsoever against this piece. It carefully collects a relatively tiny amount from each member nation, making it so that we're actually able to pay for our activities. Well done."

The amount of money that member states would be required to contribute (0.00005% of the lesser of GDP or GNP) is hardly excessive or economically crippling to any nation, so the rhetoric about "poor nations who can't afford the cost" is patently ridiculous. And if you're going to be a member of the UN, contributing something towards funding the UN is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Altanar supports this legislation.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Being that the UN is just an entity that is its member states, this resolution is redundant in how the UN gets funding. All member states apply the funding to begin with for any combined UN efforts, so there is no point in making this resolution. As stated by another nation already, the UN is not a separate nation. There is no tangible nation called the UN. Therefore there is no purpose to this resolution what so ever. My vote will be against.

The New Cultural Revolution is content to place its vote in favour of this resolution.

Benedictions,

I've got news for all of you out there who are voting against this fine piece of legislation. We're keeping track of everyone who is voting against, and should this fail, I have instructed our Financial Security department to begin charging those nations rent on your offices. And believe me when I tell you that the amountof rent you'll be paying, make the amount you'd be paying under this look miniscule by comparison.

William Smithers
UN Building Management

Being that the UN is just an entity that is its member states, this resolution is redundant in how the UN gets funding. All member states apply the funding to begin with for any combined UN efforts, so there is no point in making this resolution. As stated by another nation already, the UN is not a separate nation. There is no tangible nation called the UN. Therefore there is no purpose to this resolution what so ever. My vote will be against.

True, the UN is not a nation. But nations aren't the only entities that require funding. It's an organization -- one which staffs and operates committees which provide a multitude of services to the member nations, as the distinguished representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny already pointed out. It needs funds to do this. Again and again, we've had questions raised in this forum about the source(s) of these funds. This resolution provides a mechanism for obtaining them. It deserves the support of all nations who believe in bearing their fair share of the burden.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

As stated by another nation already, the UN is not a separate nation. There is no tangible nation called the UN. Therefore there is no purpose to this resolution what so ever. My vote will be against.

You obviously missed their point, since the UN is not a tangible nation, it obviously doesn't have any imports or exports, no natural resources (except possibly hot air), basically no way of making money to fund all these thing that we the members have said that UN should do. Yes there will be a cost, but the benefit gained will far outweigh that cost.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

New Anonia will join with all the intelligent nations around in voting FOR this fine and dandy piece of legislation.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I've got news for all of you out there who are voting against this fine piece of legislation. We're keeping track of everyone who is voting against, and should this fail, I have instructed our Financial Security department to begin charging those nations rent on your offices. And believe me when I tell you that the amountof rent you'll be paying, make the amount you'd be paying under this look miniscule by comparison.

William Smithers
UN Building Management

What about those that don't have offices in the UN building? (or haven't bothered claiming one of those port-a-potty offices out back)

Jainey Slate
Mavenu UN Rep

I believe political freedoms should not be restricted for it gives people the chance to choose what they is just for the good of their country.

I, as the ambassador of Login Name, had voted against (if this wasn't apparent from my previous post), and I don't regret it. UN has a track record of being one of the most inefficient organizations in the world, and even if you claim that you will start a new department (that's more paperwork, more people and more expenditures on it's own BTW) to fight this, it still won't help that much. Up to now we have been supporting several UN programs with our money voluntarily so nobody had to watch over us, make sure we fill quotas, make sure we have exactly as much GDP as we claim and such. even though we had up to now only payed about 1 million Currency Units (approx. 500k $) annually towards this, we believe that the deserving projects we currently support would get less money this way than they do now (we care much more about cultural exchange and human rights in neighboring countries than we do about say whales, being landlocked and all).
I ask other nations that actually care about keeping UN the same problem solving organization it is now, to join us in voting "against".

What about those that don't have offices in the UN building? (or haven't bothered claiming one of those port-a-potty offices out back)

Jainey Slate
Mavenu UN Rep

I would then suggest to the UN Building Mgmt that they charge those nations admission to the GA.

I believe political freedoms should not be restricted for it gives people the chance to choose what they is just for the good of their country.

That's nice, but I don't think you actually read the proposal.

I, as the ambassador of Login Name, had voted against

Do you happen to have an office in the building?

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

The UN doesn't need money... ... right? Jeez I hope not. It's been free this long. I hate when free stuff suddenly decides to charge.

I would then suggest to the UN Building Mgmt that they charge those nations admission to the GA.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

Thank you for your suggestion Ms. Petrov, but we have that covered already. Any nation that opposes this resolution and doesn't have an office, well let me put it this way.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
We'll be charging you

John White
VP Financial Security
UN Building Management

Do you happen to have an office in the building?

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria
not at the moment, we're considering getting one by the time we reach 100 million citizens though...

P.S.

Thank you for your suggestion Ms. Petrov, but we have that covered already. Any nation that opposes this resolution and doesn't have an office, well let me put it this way.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
We'll be charging you

John White
VP Financial Security
UN Building Management
Mr. White, you do realize you're working for us? we will have you out of the office by the end of this decade if you don't start behaving responsibly.

yours truly, Logan Sunrnamson, ambassador to the UN from 'Land of do as you please' region.

not at the moment, we're considering getting one by the time we reach 100 million citizens though...

You better start filling out the paperwork now, you'll most likely have at least twice that before you're finished with it. And then you have to wait for it to be processed, and if the management finds even the slightest thing wrong, it's all rejected and you have to start all over again. Trust me, that's the reason I squatted in a boiler room down in the basement for over a year.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

not at the moment, we're considering getting one by the time we reach 100 million citizens though...

Well then, I direct you to this statement.

I've got news for all of you out there who are voting against this fine piece of legislation. We're keeping track of everyone who is voting against, and should this fail, I have instructed our Financial Security department to begin charging those nations rent on your offices. And believe me when I tell you that the amountof rent you'll be paying, make the amount you'd be paying under this look miniscule by comparison.

William Smithers
UN Building Management

I for one resent the implied, correction, explicit coercion of what will happen if you vote against this proposal. In truth, we are voting on taxation. Some members want to force others with threats. How civilized. How high minded.

With threats like this, it's no wonder most nation don't join the UN. In the RW it's an honor to be in the UN. If you don't like the results, rewrite it to where people accept it. That is the diplomat way.

Tact: the art of telling someone where to go without offending them.
Diplomacy: the art of making them look forward to the trip.

I'll dispense with the diplomacy this time. We vote NO.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

You are an idiot.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Maximus Libra;12658018']I for one resent the implied, correction, explicit coercion of what will happen if you vote against this proposal. In truth, we are voting on taxation. Some members want to force others with threats. How civilized. How high minded.

With threats like this, it's no wonder most nation don't join the UN. In the RW it's an honor to be in the UN. If you don't like the results, rewrite it to where people accept it. That is the diplomat way.

Tact: the art of telling someone where to go without offending them.
Diplomacy: the art of making them look forward to the trip.

I'll dispense with the diplomacy this time. We vote NO.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
Protectorate of Maximus Libra

If you're talking to me, I didn't make any threats.

You are an idiot.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Could we please not have that in this debate. Keep it civil, please.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

You are an idiot.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative
Maximus Libra;12658018']Tact: the art of telling someone where to go without offending them.
Diplomacy: the art of making them look forward to the trip.


edit: oops, I've reread your post, you don't actually claim to be a diplomat...
although I'm sure we would all prefer if New Anonia started making diplomats it's UN representatives, instead of just sending bad mannered aristocrats.:D

Note: I am not actually an aristocrat. I just have a big enough ego that I decided to declare myself a lord. Secondly, I try not to sling insults, but some people deserve it. Nonetheless, I apologize for me previous comment.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

This Issue Is A Tax. If Passed Then It Breaks Previously Un Backed Resoloutions. What Other Flood Gates Does That Open? If We Are Going To Pass It (not Likely Looking At The Votes) Then At Least Repeal The Un Taxation Ban.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.
1. Establishes a system of assessed contributions to the UN by member states on an annual basis;
I don't see any contradiction there.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

That's because there is no contradiction.

I've got news for all of you out there who are voting against this fine piece of legislation. We're keeping track of everyone who is voting against, and should this fail, I have instructed our Financial Security department to begin charging those nations rent on your offices. And believe me when I tell you that the amountof rent you'll be paying, make the amount you'd be paying under this look miniscule by comparison.

William Smithers
UN Building Management

*pokes head out of trashcan* To be honest, Mr Smithers, I don't think it would be fair to charge rent for the office I got put in. *goes back into trashcan and closes lid*

Grundy Goblin, UN Rep from the Community of Tired Goblins.

We vote in favour as this is a wonderfully crafted resolution that ensures that we shall continue to progress through unity.

Ithania chose to join therefore we chose to make ourselves subject to the obligatory compliance therefore we chose to use the services provided by the UN committees (etc) meaning we will gladly pay for them.

We would respectfully suggest that UN Building Mgmt convert the lower levels into debtor prisons. Unless they’re already present down there, our delegation tries not to think about what makes the cake display rotate.

Anravelle Kramer.

OOC: If it’s any consolation Karmi; my region’s 69-ish votes will be cast in favour (7 to 0), maybe things will improve once regions with regional polls get involved.

OOC: If it’s any consolation Karmi; my region’s 69-ish votes will be cast in favour (7 to 0), maybe things will improve once regions with regional polls get involved.


OOC: Thank you, sweetie. It is.

Maximus Libra;12658018']In the RW it's an honor to be in the UN.

In the RW, nations pay assessments to be members, whether they think it's an honor or not.
Originally posted by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)
The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their gross national income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.

Given that it's such an honor, don't you think you need to change your vote?

Maximus Libra;12658018']I'll dispense with the diplomacy this time. We vote NO.

Just to be clear, you're voting to keep sucking resources out of the UN without putting any in? Why are we allowing you to stay again?

I hate when free stuff suddenly decides to charge.

Who said it was free before? You think UN gnomes, who can effortlessly rewrite relevant laws in the seconds they take to notify you, would be put off by your nation vaults or treasuries? Not only can they simply take what they need, but they can adjust the audit trail to make it look like they were never there.

Let's just say that you shouldn't be surprised at the mild reduction in your inflation rate if this passes.

This Issue Is A Tax. If Passed Then It Breaks Previously Un Backed Resoloutions. What Other Flood Gates Does That Open? If We Are Going To Pass It (not Likely Looking At The Votes) Then At Least Repeal The Un Taxation Ban.

This resolution does NOT contradict NSUN Resolution #4, "UN taxation Ban". That resolution prohibits ONLY the direct taxation of member nations' citizens by the NSUN. This resolution establishes something completely different.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Mr. White, you do realize you're working for us? we will have you out of the office by the end of this decade if you don't start behaving responsibly.

yours truly, Logan Sunrnamson, ambassador to the UN from 'Land of do as you please' region.I beg to differ Mr. Sunrnamson, I am employed by the UN Building Management not the UN. As such the only way I could lose my job is if I get fired by our Human Resources department. Furthermore, my department's function is to insure that the UN Building Management has the funds to insure the continued operation of the UN Building. We obtain these funds from several sources, the primary one being a portion of the profits from the various business that operate within the building (e.g. The Stranger's Bar, the souvenir shops, etc.). Now we'd admittedly like the UN itself to help fund the day to day operations of the building (you are the primary tenant after all) however we've never asked before due to the UN's never having a steady source of funds. Now if you are unwilling to contribute a minuscule portion of you nation's GDP or GNP to insure that the UN has a steady source of funds with which to carry out it's work perhaps you should reconsider why you joined in the first place.

John White
VP Financial Security
UN Building Management

*pokes head out of trashcan* To be honest, Mr Smithers, I don't think it would be fair to charge rent for the office I got put in. *goes back into trashcan and closes lid*

Grundy Goblin, UN Rep from the Community of Tired Goblins.
Well, according to the UN Building Directory (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Headquarters) you don't have an office and you're not on the waiting list fopr office space, so you must be a squatter. And personally, if I were you, I'd find a new place to squat as our garbage goes into an incenerator in the basement and I can't guarentee that our janitorial staff wouldn't dump you into it along with the trash.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

I am STRONGLY against this proposal. Who is the UN to decide how much I should give it? I have never given any to the UN and it seems to be doing just fine. My nation is small and can not afford to give away what little it has to support the UN. If the UN wants money I offer a fair alternative. Every delegate is allowed to have unlimited endorsements. This makes up for unlimited voting power. This seems quite unfair for smaller nations without such power. I say that delegates are allowed to have only 25 endorsements without penalty. After 25 however, each additional endorsement will cost the delegate a fee. This fee would pay for the UN. Delegates with with say 100 endorsements would be taxed to the point that they would began to support other nations in their regions in order to lesson the amount of endorsements that they would have. This would result in more competition amongst regions for delegates, pay for the UN, and stop unlimited voting power in some regions. I urge you to think about this.
Respectively submitted,
CarolinaGamecocks

I must say that as a new member to the game, and to the UN, I have not had much time to review these proceedings. However, as a member of student government in RL, I must vote FOR this proposal.

The fact is this. All governing bodies need funding. Whether it be a student senate on a college campus, a national government like all of ours, or a world governing body. We all need funding. And really, even as a small, developing nation, I think this fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our GDP or GNP (whichever is less) is hardly anything to ask of all of us.

Premier Christopher Benson
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

The Liberal Unitary Republic is proud to cast its vote FOR this resolution, although it fears it will be in the minority here. The resolution before the United Nations is well-written and appears to limit conceivable forms of abuse, and will provide this organization with the funds it needs to continue its work.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I say that delegates are allowed to have only 25 endorsements without penalty. After 25 however, each additional endorsement will cost the delegate a fee. This fee would pay for the UN. Delegates with with say 100 endorsements would be taxed to the point that they would began to support other nations in their regions in order to lesson the amount of endorsements that they would have.
That is an interesting proposal, however what about the poorer nations who use their endorsements as part of negotiations? Giving, or withholding an endorsement is a powerful bargaining chip, the richer nations would have the money to broker more deals. Where as poorer nations would be limited by how many deals they can afford to make, limiting their growth.

The Eastern Territory and the 2 U.N. members in my Region approve this measure. If, of course, it does not go further to restrict political freedoms.

The USC votes FOR UN Funding Act. The UN can't do all the things these proposals promise without money and since it doensn't look like the gnomes will be sharing their treasure with us anytime soon, we the nations of the UN should help pay for its needs.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

How could any member nation object to a contribution of 0.00005% of their GN/GDP? A miniscule sum by any standard. The money means nothing to the contributor but (with many other similar contributions) everything to the recipient. The UN could function far better with a constant source of income.

How could any member nation object to a contribution of 0.00005% of their GN/GDP? A miniscule sum by any standard. The money means nothing to the contributor but (with many other similar contributions) everything to the recipient. The UN could function far better with a constant source of income.

I'm inclined to agree with you ideologically, but there are huge gaping loopholes in the language of this resolution that make it a bad idea. First of all it calls for the creation of two separate entities, who will ultimately, of course, battle over how this money is spent. There is no mention of the method by which these individuals are chosen, how many or from where they are chosen or to whom they are ultimately accountable. Are they elected? Are they appointed? Who decides? This is language that needs to be there.

Also, a flat percentage of GDP from all member nations is a terrible and ineffective way of establishing how much member nations should be expected to owe. The nations who will need this money shouldn't be expected to pay into it at all. It costs less to move resources straight out to the people who need help than to filter it through the UN first. The wealthiest 5% of member nations should be responsible for such a funding operation, and only if they should so choose to participate. The UN is not in the business of forcibly extracting money from its members like the mob. Speaking of which, if one really did want to forcibly charge member nations, it might also be good to include language concerning the consequences of refusing to pay up.

Maybe that isn't perfect, but when it comes to spending other people's money, re-working where the money comes from and exactly who gets to spend it must be clarified before this resolution should be passed. Komasi will vote AGAINST.

Cheers,
Komasi State Dept.

I believe they would be staffed by gnomes, as are all other entities this body creates. They just spontaneously exist in NS.


Sorry about the drive-by post, I'm in a hurry today... sigh...

How could any member nation object to a contribution of 0.00005% of their GN/GDP? A miniscule sum by any standard. The money means nothing to the contributor but (with many other similar contributions) everything to the recipient. The UN could function far better with a constant source of income.

such as?



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

such as?
Just a note: they're voting for the resolution. You both agree.

I'm inclined to agree with you ideologically, but there are huge gaping loopholes in the language of this resolution that make it a bad idea. First of all it calls for the creation of two separate entities, who will ultimately, of course, battle over how this money is spent.No, there's one entity that collects and disburses funds, and another that assures the money they're appropriating is being done so properly.

There is no mention of the method by which these individuals are chosen, how many or from where they are chosen or to whom they are ultimately accountable. Are they elected? Are they appointed? Who decides? This is language that needs to be there.No, it doesn't, because according to UN rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465), committees are automatically staffed by mystical beings who immediately spring into existence for the sole purpose of staffing a committee. It's done this way so legislators don't have to waste time and space dithering over the details you're asking about, and so they won't inadvertently break other rules governing UN legislation.

Also, a flat percentage of GDP from all member nations is a terrible and ineffective way of establishing how much member nations should be expected to owe. The nations who will need this money shouldn't be expected to pay into it at all.Which is why the Oversight Board is empowered to to defer or reduce the contributions needy nations are expected to pay.

It costs less to move resources straight out to the people who need help than to filter it through the UN first. The wealthiest 5% of member nations should be responsible for such a funding operation, and only if they should so choose to participate.UN rules clearly state that resolutions must apply equally to all member states. Such a provision would be illegal.

The UN is not in the business of forcibly extracting money from its members like the mob.I see in your nation, citizens pay a flat income tax of 25%. (How deliciously ironic for someone who barges into these halls to claim that a flat rate is terrible and ineffective!) Are taxes mandatory in your nation, or do you only expect the top 5% to pay up, and only if they're willing? I'd really care to know how your government can collect any kind of revenue if the latter is the case. You voluntarily belong to an organization, you vote to approve countless unfunded mandates and committees created by its resolutions, you may even take advantage of the services these UN commissions provide -- yet you're unwilling to pay your fair share to assure these vital international services continue to operate? I am so glad UN Building Management is slapping nations who think this way with punitive rental fees.

Speaking of which, if one really did want to forcibly charge member nations, it might also be good to include language concerning the consequences of refusing to pay up.Not necessary, since compliance with all UN resolutions is mandatory. Another little rule we at the UN have instituted.

Also, a flat percentage of GDP from all member nations is a terrible and ineffective way of establishing how much member nations should be expected to owe. The nations who will need this money shouldn't be expected to pay into it at all. It costs less to move resources straight out to the people who need help than to filter it through the UN first. The wealthiest 5% of member nations should be responsible for such a funding operation, and only if they should so choose to participate. The UN is not in the business of forcibly extracting money from its members like the mob. Speaking of which, if one really did want to forcibly charge member nations, it might also be good to include language concerning the consequences of refusing to pay up.
The NS United Nations is not a wealth redistribution organization. Rather, it implements programs and resolutions (as passed by us) that would 'help' everybody. I think it is more unfair if only a few would provide for a trough that all of us feed on.

(And of course, the poorer you are, the smaller would be your assessed contribution, as your GDP would be smaller.)

Incidentally present on the General Assembly's floor when this was heard,
Captain Bruno Morcone (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bruno_Morcone)
Military Attaché for the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation to the United Nations

I'm not sure where to begin in a rebuttal, suffice it to say that you clearly don't understand my position, though much of that is because I, admittedly, used unclear language. My apologies.

I couldn't agree more that all nations should all pay their fair share to support UN projects and activities. I completely agree with the idea this resolution stands for, but I am not in favor of it's methods.

What this resolution proposes is essentially a flat tax on member nations. The taxation should AT LEAST be progressively indexed so rich nations pay more than poor ones do. It is insulting to smaller nations like Komasi that huge nations like yours should expect us to blindly accept a flat tax because you have more power. Flat taxes only benefit the already-rich and powerful.

Komasi will oppose any attempt from any member nation to impose a non-progressive tax to fund it's activities.

In regards to commentary about committee rules, I am aware of the technical realities of the system. My commentary was not meant to be taken literally. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of creating one fictional committee to regulate everything, and another fictional committee to oversee them. Just to point out absurdity.

This resolution was not well conceived. Lets try again. With a reasonable tax, and better oversight solution.

General Secretary,
Komasi State Department

Generally, rich nations have a higher GNP/GDP, and as such 0.00005% of it would be larger and therefore rich nations would pay more. As such, you are wrong, so please shut up.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

P.S.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bar.jpg

To the Honorable Delegate from Karmicaria:
I read your proposal, and while it is well-written (as most are), I will not budget from my decision. Oversight means absolutely nothing, especially when we are dealing with trillions of dollars. One or more people on the Oversight Board can be swayed by NGOs or MNCs who wield the monetary power of a medium-sized country. No matter what loopholes are put in place, you will not guarantee against corruption.

To the Honorable Delegate from Kivisto:
In the options you've offered to me, you have forgotten one important one: the vote in opposition. It seems to you, there can only be one vote, the one in favor. And then, in order to make my request heard, I'd have to go through the repeal process. I'd much rather stop it here, and save the time and energy we can all use elsewhere. Thank you for your seemingly "helpful" options, but I'll ask you for your opinion when I want it.

To Mr. Smithers:
To threaten office fees in order to coerce delegates to vote in favor is outrageous. Such action is not becoming of a member of the UN.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Wesley Blade, Ph.D.
Senior Ambassador
Delegate to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Well, I'm not wrong that this is a flat tax, I'm not wrong that it benefits the rich over the poor, and 4100 votes to 1400 votes tells me that it is you who are wrong, so please shut up.

I apologize for Edward's actions. He is in a very bad mood at the moment, and as such is being a bit of a jerk. Nonetheless, the amount being charged by this resolution is miniscule, and it will allow the UN to do much more meaningful work. It is not unlikely that some of the money gained by this resolution will be used to help the poorer nations of the world, and as scuh you are benefitting yourself if you vote for this resolution.

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Expert on Environmental Issues

P.S. I realize that this is not really my field, but nonetheless I'm the only qualified person around aside from Edward. We are currently looking into hiring a proper assistant for Edward, but we have not yet found one.

Well, I'm not wrong that this is a flat tax, I'm not wrong that it benefits the rich over the poor, and 4100 votes to 1400 votes tells me that it is you who are wrong, so please shut up.

But you did misrepresent the effect of the resolution by suggesting that rich nations would not be paying more than poor ones. We certainly wouldn't tell you to "shut up". That's not our way. But we would respectfully ask you to stop muddying the waters and confusing the issue by misleading statements.

You would prefer a graduated tax rate. Fair enough. You're entitled to your position. We disagree. We believe a "flat" rate, indexed by national wealth, is perfectly appropriate, as provided in the resolution. It divides the burden according to ability to pay, without penalizing those who have struggled to become successful. We believe in the principle of "fair share", and we think the resolution provides for just that.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Akimonad votes FOR. We don't see this as having any potentially bad impact on us, and if we lose money, we'll just tax more. Or just steal. Whatever. On a personal note, I've wished to see something like this come around. It is disheartening to me to see gnomes standing around the lobby holding an empty soup can and looking somber.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

P.S.: Anyone caught mentioning "taxation" will be forcibly defenestrated. With the window half-open.

Who is the UN to decide how much I should give it? I have never given any to the UN and it seems to be doing just fine. My nation is small and can not afford to give away what little it has to support the UN. If the UN wants money I offer a fair alternative. Every delegate is allowed to have unlimited endorsements. This makes up for unlimited voting power. This seems quite unfair for smaller nations without such power. I say that delegates are allowed to have only 25 endorsements without penalty. After 25 however, each additional endorsement will cost the delegate a fee.

The UN is the international body you chose to join, and which you extract services from (as every member does), without currently paying for them. That's who the UN is to decide how much you should pay, unless you like being on a form of international-relations welfare. And as I (and others) have pointed out, the amount being asked for is too minuscule for any nation to really say they can't afford it. It sounds more like many nations debating against this resolution would rather get something for nothing, which is unfortunate. As for your suggestion about delegates, though it is a laudable one, I feel that it may be illegal as it would require a change to the game (although I am not the authority on that, to be sure).

Well, I'm not wrong that this is a flat tax, I'm not wrong that it benefits the rich over the poor, and 4100 votes to 1400 votes tells me that it is you who are wrong, so please shut up.

Funding the UN properly benefits all nations, whether rich or poor, as it enables the UN to perform its activities and functions better. And, I would argue, funding the UN properly would actually benefit poorer nations more, as they are more likely to need assistance from outside parties in times of need than are rich nations, which can fund their own needs in times of trouble. I would also like to point out that just because a resolution is losing the vote doesn't mean the people voting against it are right, or vice-versa.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I'm not sure where to begin in a rebuttal, suffice it to say that you clearly don't understand my position, though much of that is because I, admittedly, used unclear language. My apologies.I never said you think there should be no funding system. I was responding to your assertion that you and other like you shouldn't be the ones to foot the bill, since you're not in the top 5% of member states.

It is insulting to smaller nations like Komasi that huge nations like yours should expect us to blindly accept a flat tax because you have more power."More power"? Our weight in this organization is just the same as yours: one vote. And believe you us, if we wanted to bully you and push you around like that, we wouldn't need a UN resolution to do so.

Flat taxes only benefit the already-rich and powerful.Better start by repealing the flat tax in your own nation, then.

In regards to commentary about committee rules, I am aware of the technical realities of the system. My commentary was not meant to be taken literally. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of creating one fictional committee to regulate everything, and another fictional committee to oversee them. Just to point out absurdity.Ah, the absurdity of simplifying the legislative process?

This resolution was not well conceived. Lets try again. With a reasonable tax ....As has already been pointed out, this is not a wealth-redistribution scheme. This is an international organization considering a resolution requiring its membership to pay dues. I really don't see why this is so unreasonable, or why it requires a graduated scale. Your poor, starving, impoverished people are not expected to pay the fee; your corrupt, overbearing government is. If you really wanted to make this about punishing the wealthy, you could simply force all the greedy corporations in your nation to pony up your measly $3 million share of the annual contributions. Nothing in UN mandates is preventing you from doing so.

Well, I'm not wrong that this is a flat tax, I'm not wrong that it benefits the rich over the poor, and 4100 votes to 1400 votes tells me that it is you who are wrong, so please shut up.http://www.galai.com/noam/army/all-the-tanks.jpg

Make us. :p

I'm inclined to agree with you ideologically, but there are huge gaping loopholes in the language of this resolution that make it a bad idea. First of all it calls for the creation of two separate entities, who will ultimately, of course, battle over how this money is spent. There is no mention of the method by which these individuals are chosen, how many or from where they are chosen or to whom they are ultimately accountable. Are they elected? Are they appointed? Who decides? This is language that needs to be there.

Also, a flat percentage of GDP from all member nations is a terrible and ineffective way of establishing how much member nations should be expected to owe. The nations who will need this money shouldn't be expected to pay into it at all. It costs less to move resources straight out to the people who need help than to filter it through the UN first. The wealthiest 5% of member nations should be responsible for such a funding operation, and only if they should so choose to participate. The UN is not in the business of forcibly extracting money from its members like the mob. Speaking of which, if one really did want to forcibly charge member nations, it might also be good to include language concerning the consequences of refusing to pay up.

Maybe that isn't perfect, but when it comes to spending other people's money, re-working where the money comes from and exactly who gets to spend it must be clarified before this resolution should be passed. Komasi will vote AGAINST.

Cheers,
Komasi State Dept.

You make a valid point. I believe in this bill, but the issues of practicality, especially regarding flat tax, you've discussed would have to be drastically altered. Unfortunately, we're too late for the stage where proposals can be modified, so I'll switch my vote to NO and hope the proposer comes up with a revised edition.

And as I (and others) have pointed out, the amount being asked for is too minuscule for any nation to really say they can't afford it.
even though it is minuscule it does require that the UN check all sorts of statistical data about nations, as well as oversee the transfer of money.
The United Nations has 26,134 member nations and 1,866 Regional Delegates.
it's also about 50 trillion people (give or take 50%). care to give me an estimate on how much this will cost?

Just a note: they're voting for the resolution. You both agree.

oops

We were considering abstaining on this issue for various reasons. However, this ...Also, a flat percentage of GDP from all member nations is a terrible and ineffective way of establishing how much member nations should be expected to owe. The nations who will need this money shouldn't be expected to pay into it at all. It costs less to move resources straight out to the people who need help than to filter it through the UN first. changed our mind. A flat % of GDP is a practical way of determining contribution to an institution that has voluntary membership. We are not talking of food, water or daily necessities that require progressive indexing for fairness.

As for your "those needing the aid shouldn't have to pay" stance, horse feathers. One, there is a mechanism for whose who can truly not afford to contribute to be excused from doing so. Secondly, having a "buy-in" minimal as it is, makes every nation a contributing member rather than just a have-not with their hand out. We are also not talking of an aid-distributing organization, thus your reference to distribution economies is irrelevant.


Better start by repealing the flat tax in your own nation, then.Although it's a great poke, we believe the gods have predetermined that all nations have flat taxes and not given us a hella lot of ways to change that, no?

even though it is minuscule it does require that the UN check all sorts of statistical data about nationsLuckily the UN has its nifty HALl2055 (unless they've upgraded recently) and lots of accounting gnomes.

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador to the UN

even though it is minuscule it does require that the UN check all sorts of statistical data about nations, as well as oversee the transfer of money.

The UN (as well as other, non-UN sources) already does that. What's your point?

it's also about 50 trillion people (give or take 50%). care to give me an estimate on how much this will cost?

No, I don't, frankly, because it's irrelevant how much in aggregate this will cost ALL states. As OMGTKK cited in their example earlier, an objecting nation with a budget surplus of $696 million would only need to pay $40,654.06 under this proposal. If such a tiny amount of an overall budget is really going to break a nation's back economically, that nation has far bigger problems than anything related to this resolution.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The UN (as well as other, non-UN sources) already does that. What's your point?
ahem. what kind of money transfers does UN oversee? more to the point the current system of keeping track is not very good (how else would you explain the differences between different sources? ;) ), nor does it need to be. if this act was to pass, gathering extremely accurate statistical data would become a necessity just to calculate the contributions.

No, I don't, frankly, because it's irrelevant how much in aggregate this will cost ALL states. As OMGTKK cited in their example earlier, an objecting nation with a budget surplus of $696 million would only need to pay $40,654.06 under this proposal. If such a tiny amount of an overall budget is really going to break a nation's back economically, that nation has far bigger problems than anything related to this resolution.
- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador I never claimed it was relevant how much it costs us (1/10^6 or 5/10^7 of GNP makes completely no difference to me), what is important is that of the money UN will get this way (purely by my estimate!!!) at least 15% would go into checks and control over the money flow itself. considering that UN works as it is (on donations, I presume) I believe that this would be a terribly inefficient proposal.

and to all who are going to cry "but we have teh gn0mes!!!": yes we do, but we still pay the salaries, or did you think they were slave gnomes?

Although it's a great poke, we believe the gods have predetermined that all nations have flat taxes and not given us a hella lot of ways to change that, no?
Whaddya call this then:
The average income tax rate is 37%, but much higher for the wealthy.

ahem. what kind of money transfers does UN oversee? more to the point the current system of keeping track is not very good (how else would you explain the differences between different sources? ;) ), nor does it need to be. if this act was to pass, gathering extremely accurate statistical data would become a necessity just to calculate the contributions.
I never claimed it was relevant how much it costs us (1/10^6 or 5/10^7 of GNP makes completely no difference to me), what is important is that of the money UN will get this way (purely by my estimate!!!) at least 15% would go into checks and control over the money flow itself. considering that UN works as it is (on donations, I presume) I believe that this would be a terribly inefficient proposal.

and to all who are going to cry "but we have teh gn0mes!!!": yes we do, but we still pay the salaries, or did you think they were slave gnomes?

The discrepancy in tracking between different sources can be explained by the fact that multiple entities do this tracking, not all of which use the same methods, and therefore come up with different conclusions as to a nation's fiscal numbers. As far as the question of transfers, any time a nation gives something (whatever it may be) to the UN, the UN would be transferring it. And I still don't understand what your objection is, as far as having someone in the UN tracking statistical data, since multiple entities track it already.

More to the point, if you really think this resolution is so inefficient, do you have a better suggestion? I won't hold my breath waiting.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I'm thinking about it.

I'm thinking about it.

Good luck with that.


Tana Petrov
stuff -

thank you.:D

We have an interesting observation here:

We have computed the contribution assessments of the nations who had made their positions in this Assembly, and tallied it with their votes. (Arranged from highest projected contribution to the lowest.) The GDP figures are from here (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=Brutland+and+Norden).

Nation Assessment Position
Flibbleites $137,757,319 FOR
Frisbeeteria $117,233,489 FOR
Omigodtheykilledkenny $103,751,316 FOR
Mavenu $77,746,690 FOR
Retired WerePenguins $38,891,208 AGAINST
Dashanzi $30,262,544 FOR
Ithania $24,457,312 FOR
Rubina $23,460,011 FOR
Kivisto $18,967,105 FOR
Ausserland $14,453,856 FOR
Goobergunchia $10,242,614 FOR
Karmicaria $10,158,745 FOR
Cookesland $9,289,664 FOR
Brutland and Norden $6,973,163 FOR
Quintessence of Dust $5,598,411 FOR
Sanguinex $5,149,728 FOR
New Leicestershire $4,451,276 FOR
The Wolf Guardians $4,250,552 FOR
Ariddia $3,947,639 FOR
Komasi $3,632,235 AGAINST
Akimonad $3,354,698 FOR
Altanar $3,024,301 FOR
The Genoshan Isles $1,983,204 AGAINST
Renssignol $1,799,731 AGAINST
New Anonia $1,383,359 FOR
Damanucus $1,350,275 AGAINST
Maximus Libra $1,286,390 AGAINST
The Arkbird $768,314 AGAINST
Gobbannium $619,236 FOR
Marith $585,638 AGAINST
Login Name $456,363 AGAINST
Teoghlach $293,682 AGAINST
The Phoenix Risen $145,522 AGAINST
Damisar $64,055 FOR
Addisumbria $51,905 AGAINST
DRASANGA $47,039 AGAINST
CarolinaGamecocks $41,544 AGAINST
Ambrose-Douglas $36,383 FOR
M-dan $18,116 FOR
Urkadurkadurka $6,710 AGAINST

(Figures are being updated every time someone speaks for or against.)


We see a trend here, huh?

Caterina Fracangole
Number Cruncher for the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation to the UN

Delegates in favor of said proposal:

Pretty much, you're saying that unless we have a different plan, we should just vote for the proposal, and let it stand until better legislation arrives?

I find that unacceptable.

While some still do not have any good plans for funding of UN missions, the current state of affairs has worked since the inception of the governing body.

By the way, there are over five thousand member nations that feel the same way.

Respectfully,
W. Blade

If the creator of this resolution would read he'd realize that any taxation of UN member nations is against UN Resolution #4. #4!

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4,511
Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003

Learn your UN history!

If the creator of this resolution would read he'd realize that any taxation of UN member nations is against UN Resolution #4. #4!

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4,511
Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003

Learn your UN history!

She knows her UN history quite well and also knows how to read. UNR #4 says that we can't directly tax the citizens of member states. If we have the need to, we could tax the Nations all we wanted.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

I concede the fact of gender to you jeune dame.

However, the point of the matter is that right now, you're splitting hairs.

By taxing nations, you tax their people. And yes, the language of the resolution is far too constricting. Much like the Texas Constitution and Bill of Rights.

However, it is my belief that the writer intended it to be in a far more general sense.

I concede the fact of gender to you jeune dame.

However, the point of the matter is that right now, you're splitting hairs.

By taxing nations, you tax their people. And yes, the language of the resolution is far too constricting. Much like the Texas Constitution and Bill of Rights.

However, it is my belief that the writer intended it to be in a far more general sense.
If this resolution really contradicts Res#4, this would have been declared illegal a long time ago and moved to the thread for silly and/or illegal proposals.

But the fact that we are voting on this, means that it is legal. Point moot.

If this resolution really contradicts Res#4, this would have been declared illegal a long time ago and moved to the thread for silly and/or illegal proposals.

But the fact that we are voting on this, means that it is legal. Point moot.

Please read the above post.

Case in point,
this proposal has three days to pass.

There is no sense to argue a proposal when the gears have been set in motion.
Cast your vote, let your voice be heard through your vote, and be done with it.

Respectfully,
W.Blade
Genoshan Senior Ambassador

actually Mr. Blade might be right, the proposal is losing 3:1 as it is, there's no point rubbing it in, Arkbird...;)

If you don't see the point in debating, the door is over there. Please use it.


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

If you don't see the point in debating, the door is over there. Please use it.


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

What she said.

By taxing nations, you tax their people.

This point has been raised and deprecated by the official authorities of this game, the Game Mods. Resolution #4 addresses only DIRECT taxation, and specifically excludes INDIRECT taxation.

This was settled officially several years ago. The proposal is legal. Drop the argument.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

We see a trend here, huh?

Yes, those expecting to pay more are, by and large, actually prepared to do so. Congratulations, fellow delegates, on your public-spiritedness. Those expecting to pay less, by and large, aren't. The door is over there.

(OOC: not even as much as I was expecting. Gobbannium's assessment could come out of the budget of one medium-sized UK city (like the one I live in) with only medium degrees of screaming.)

To Mr. Smithers:
To threaten office fees in order to coerce delegates to vote in favor is outrageous. Such action is not becoming of a member of the UN.

Well then Mr. Blade, it's a good thing that we're not UN members (http://www.nationstates.net/un_building_mgmt).

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

Nation Assessment Position
Flibbleites $137,757,319 FOR


We see a trend here, huh?

Caterina Fracangole
Number Cruncher for the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation to the UN

Damn, we'll be paying the most?:eek:

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites (who still hasn't left from the last debate)

Whaddya call this then:The average income tax rate is 37%, but much higher for the wealthy.Oh snap. In our defense, we'll point out that a tax rate of 100% doesn't engender much variation. Carry on; we'll be over here worried about the bees.


--L.T.

"$4,250,552 is all, eh?" Wolfgang pulls out his pocketbook. "Do you require checks or do you take CommonWealth?"

OOC: I do find the trend in the numbers very interesting. Thanks for crunching that for us.

I am saddened, and a bit surprised, that the vote on this much needed Resolution is going so poorly. When our delegation arrived here, we expected that this body would be comprised of wise and thoughtful diplomats who would be capable of putting aside self-interest over what amounts to a pittance in monetary terms.

New Leicestershire $4,451,276 FOR

$4,451,276 a year.

That's about one-eighth the cost of one new jet fighter aircraft. Like I said, a pittance. A small price to pay for the funding of projects which will do so much for the common good.

We are sorely disappointed.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We are sorely disappointed.


“We would encourage the representative to remain positive; as long as there are nations dedicated to ensuring that this union makes its mandates reality then there is always hope,” Anravelle pauses to give a reassuring smile.

Ithania | $24,457,312 | FOR

“Incidentally, we pledge that we shall provide our annual donation, with appropriate adaptation for economic progress, irrespective of whether the resolution succeeds or fails in the name of cooperation. The figure presented by Ms. Fracangole shall be considered the minimum possible contribution.

However, if our delegation were to coincidentally be allocated very modest office space then we wouldn’t object,” she concluded with a delightful sense of moral superiority.

Anravelle Kramer.

Ambrose-Douglas $36,383 FOR


I know that we are one of the smallest nations, but even this is a pittiance compared to our overall budget. This is then than the annual income of one of our regular citizens. One citizen!

I am proud to say that the Federation of Ambrose-Douglas remains in support of this resolution.

Damn, we'll be paying the most?:eek:Well, we're for it. If we'd be paying, we'd have to shell out $193,008,220.65

Wow. That's a couple pennies. Suppose we could take it out of the 992 billion we waste annually. Then again, since that's where my salary comes from...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We have an interesting observation here:
Fantastic work, Ms Fracangole!

-- Samantha Benson

We see a trend here, huh?

Yes you do, most nations that don't desire a strong mothery UN tend to create puppets for the painful duty of representing them in the UN. Aside from the major nation not being bound by the vile UN it also means that they have a lesser burden to pay to the UN because their UN puppet is younger, thus smaller, and thus has a vastly smaller GDP/GNP.

RWP's founding nation, Tzorsland has a GDP of 266,140,907,885,508
so we would be looking at a tax of 133,070,453. On the other hand, we could had over our UN duties to another recent puppet which has a GDP of 1,161,664,101,072 and thus a tax of 580,832.

Trans Regional Puppet Unions make this game FUN! :D

And now for a random quote that I thought would be well random.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Cookesland $9,289,664 FOR

phft, my tab at the bar is more than that...

Fantastic work, Ms Fracangole!

-- Samantha Benson

a very large thank you to Ms Fracangole from everyone in Cookesland

Yes you do, most nations that don't desire a strong mothery UN tend to create puppets for the painful duty of representing them in the UN. Aside from the major nation not being bound by the vile UN it also means that they have a lesser burden to pay to the UN because their UN puppet is younger, thus smaller, and thus has a vastly smaller GDP/GNP.

ooc: i got lucky on this one cuz its the exact opposite for me :p

And now for a random quote that I thought would be well random.

"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

ic: Huzzah! but despite the UN's assembly support of this proposal it seems to be losing at 1:4 last time i checked. However, it still has two days from a miracle.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

As the delegate of the great nation of Solenoidovokia I hereby formally announce my peoples decision of 'no' to this resolution. We did not join the U.N. to be unfairly taxed.

Joe,
U.N. Delegate for the
Oppressed Peoples of Solenoidovokia

I'm not sure about this at all, really. Usually, projects are undertaken at the expense of participant nations, and not the UN itself. Could you persuade me as to why we (the UN) need a bank account, and where the money will be kept?

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

well, the reson is that each time Un is undertaking another project that the money wouldn't come from nations pokets but rather from Un account, there fore UN will be more considered with the project cost, before approving it. so ech time Un needs estabilish another agency, member nations will not have to rase taxes to supply it.

I see that many nations want to pass this proposal just to create some sort of steady funding, whether the funding is adequate or not. I won't vote against every proposal to collect fees from nations, but seeing as how it is so hard to repeal some resolutions even to make way for replacement legislation, I won't vote for any proposal that I do not think properly funds the UN.

As many have said before, the amount funds taken from nations by this proposal is inconsiderable, thus making the sum of the funds inconsiderable on such a scale as the UN needs. Increase the amount of required funding.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

The amount of funding is not going to be increased. That would get even less support.

Well, at the current levels of funding, I see this as nothing more than feel good legislation, the rates are too low to provide any significant income to the UN. Passing the current proposal would accomplish nothing except making it harder to pass any future proposal that may actually address the funding issue.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of Neoprussia

What we are trying to do is take only what is needed, nothing more. There is no need to up the raise the contribution amount.

People don't seem to understand how much this proposal is needed. It would put an end to people asking "But who's going to pay for this?" or "And where is this money going to come from?" (Yes, I know. The same question, just asked differently).

However, seeing as this won't be on the books, the next time someone proposes something that involves a committee, we will hear the same questions over and over again and there will probably be people saying that the UNFA should have been passed. Problems would have been solved.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

As the delegate of the great nation of Solenoidovokia I hereby formally announce my peoples decision of 'no' to this resolution. We did not join the U.N. to be unfairly taxed.

What did you join the UN for, if I may ask? To get something for nothing, like a good number of other nations, apparently?

Well, at the current levels of funding, I see this as nothing more than feel good legislation, the rates are too low to provide any significant income to the UN. Passing the current proposal would accomplish nothing except making it harder to pass any future proposal that may actually address the funding issue.

So, you apparently prefer "zero" to "a small amount" as far as funding for the UN goes? Have you noticed how hard a time this resolution is having, even with the extremely low amount of money it's asking for? Asking for a higher amount would have as much chance of success as fighting a bear with a teaspoon. A plastic teaspoon.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

"I'll have you know that the Commonwealth Bearfighting Champion's life was saved by a plastic teaspoon he had on his person. I think it also involved chopsticks.

"So... for remotely legitimate arguments against, we've got "It's not enough money," "It's too much money," puppet wank... is that all? Well, as to the first one, it's better than nothing and probably the most we could ever get, especially with the ReadNothings. The second, no, it's not. It's numerically insignificant. As to the third, in-character beings such as myself aren't even supposed to be aware of such things, by and large."

Wolfgang looks thoughtful for a minute before whimpering, "I wish more naysayers would make sense."

As the delegate of the great nation of Solenoidovokia I hereby formally announce my peoples decision of 'no' to this resolution. We did not join the U.N. to be unfairly taxed.

Joe,
U.N. Delegate for the
Oppressed Peoples of Solenoidovokia

May we ask why you think you're being taxed unfairly?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

So, you apparently prefer "zero" to "a small amount" as far as funding for the UN goes? Have you noticed how hard a time this resolution is having, even with the extremely low amount of money it's asking for? Asking for a higher amount would have as much chance of success as fighting a bear with a teaspoon. A plastic teaspoon.

I do prefer that the ability to pass sensible legislation for funding be clear, if you want to look at it as me preferring zero direct funding over inadequate direct funding, than so be it. I would rather not have useless legislation slowing down the system to get a future proposal passed that actually provides for adequate funding.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

Inadequate? We're talking trillions of dollars here. If anything, it's too much. Remember this is a body that has been able to operate for years on no budget at all.

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Expert on Environmental Issues

I would rather not have useless legislation slowing down the system to get a future proposal passed that actually provides for adequate funding.

"We would like to ask the representative to expand upon what qualifies inadequate and whether he has any basis for the assertion that this is useless.

We would suggest that the resolution ensures maximum efficiency by providing a system that allows for expenditure to be monitored and adjusted in the most effective way possible.

Time and time again organisations and businesses adapt to achieve goals with their available funds therefore we are confident that the United Nations Trust will be no different. In fact, we’re convinced that it will excel due to the diligent nature of the gnomes."

Anravelle Kramer.

I do prefer that the ability to pass sensible legislation for funding be clear, if you want to look at it as me preferring zero direct funding over inadequate direct funding, than so be it. I would rather not have useless legislation slowing down the system to get a future proposal passed that actually provides for adequate funding.

Well, this resolution is unlikely to pass, so that's a moot concern. However, in a debate that has been littered with ridiculous sentiments in opposition, the idea that we're better off passing nothing at all than something that might actually help really takes the cake.

And on that note, as someone said earlier, sod this, I'm off to the Strangers' Bar. My deputy can argue any points worth arguing from here on.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

With the extreme amounts of organizations and committees established under the UN even a few trillion dollars is insignificant. There are many organizations or committees that provide high grade equipment and services to all nations, over 26,000 nations. There are many oversight committees that ensure that resolutions are followed through fully and properly. The funding provided by the current proposal divided into all of the needs of every nation in the UN and the UN itself doesn't even begin to properly fund the organization.

Well, this resolution is unlikely to pass, so that's a moot concern. However, in a debate that has been littered with ridiculous sentiments in opposition, the idea that we're better off passing nothing at all than something that might actually help really takes the cake.

If it was possible to amend resolutions, instead of being required to repeal them and pass new legislation, I would not have a problem voting for a funding measure however inadequate it is. However, the fact that current resolutions cannot be amended all but guarantees the passing of this resolution would be the last we heard from funding of the UN, and in my opinion, leaving the door open for effective legislation is more important than shutting the door and implementing feel good legislation.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

There are many organizations or committees that provide high grade equipment and services to all nations, over 26,000 nations.

Care to give an example?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

P.S. Yeah, I'm back. Devon apparently has a headache from listening to you people, and I believe I've calmed down enough to debate reasonably.

However, the fact that current resolutions cannot be amended all but guarantees the passing of this resolution would be the last we heard from funding of the UN

With all due respect, it does nothing of the sort. Nations offer repeals for legislation, and new and improved resolutions to address those issues, quite frequently here.

and in my opinion, leaving the door open for effective legislation is more important than shutting the door and implementing feel good legislation

Perhaps, but leaving the door open to nothing at all accomplishes what, exactly?

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Care to give an example?

The International Red Cross Organization which I would imagine demands a large budget (and could probably go through a few trillion dollars alone in far less than one year) to provide it's many services to 26,000+. There are multiple resolutions that use the UN to provide funding for medical uses, especially in relation to AIDS funding. Then there are organizations such as the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center that require many locations globally with up to date technology at each center to help ensure public safety. Along with more organizations and countless committees used to oversee the implementation of resolutions.

With all due respect, it does nothing of the sort. Nations offer repeals for legislation, and new and improved resolutions to address those issues, quite frequently here.

The fact that the UN nations won't repeal resolution #6 'End slavery' for a more comprehensive resolution on the matter doesn't exactly make me trust that route.

Perhaps, but leaving the door open to nothing at all accomplishes what, exactly?

It accomplishes nothing in the short term, but passing the current proposal accomplishes nothing in the long term, which in my opinion is far more important.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

The International Red Cross Organization which I would imagine demands a large budget (and could probably go through a few trillion dollars alone in far less than one year) to provide it's many services to 26,000+.
Reading is fun:
This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule. It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need. They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens. May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.
And:
There are multiple resolutions that use the UN to provide funding for medical uses, especially in relation to AIDS funding. Then there are organizations such as the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center that require many locations globally with up to date technology at each center to help ensure public safety. Along with more organizations and countless committees used to oversee the implementation of resolutions
All of these are already being paid for by member nations. If the UNFA were to pass, all it would do would be make it easier for the gnomes. Won't somebody think of the gnomes!?

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

The International Red Cross Organization which I would imagine demands a large budget (and could probably go through a few trillion dollars alone in far less than one year) to provide it's many services to 26,000+.
It can demand all it likes, it gets exactly nothing from the UN at the moment. It's also misleading to claim that it provides "many services to 26,000+". Most of those nations don't in fact require constant emergency medical relief.

There are multiple resolutions that use the UN to provide funding for medical uses, especially in relation to AIDS funding.
In relation to AIDS funding, we've created a fund to which nations are requested to contribute, and we've requested additional funding for the UN AIDS committee. Neither are exactly binding commitments. The first wouldn't be affected by the Funding Act at all (it's a separate fund), only the second one. Which is good, because since the UN doesn't have a funding stream beyond the gift shop profits, I don't imagine that the current additional funding has bought more than a few paperclips.

Then there are organizations such as the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center that require many locations globally with up to date technology at each center to help ensure public safety.
Yes, funding that would be a good idea. It might be able to roll out its network of sensors on a timescale of years rather than centuries that way.

Along with more organizations and countless committees used to oversee the implementation of resolutions.
Most of which cost peanuts to run, or are explicitly funded through voluntary donations.

The fact that the UN nations won't repeal resolution #6 'End slavery' for a more comprehensive resolution on the matter doesn't exactly make me trust that route.
The fact that the UN nations won't repeal 'End Slavery' based on specious arguments is a good thing. I look forward to the formal run of the most recent draft, since it talks sense.


It accomplishes nothing in the short term, but passing the current proposal accomplishes nothing in the long term, which in my opinion is far more important.
Not passing it accomplishes nothing in the long term either, since upping the contribution level has no hope of passing.

Reading is fun:

Only reading what you want to see is fun.

"On donations AND grants," which I assume would include funds specifically given to the IRCO from the UN since it is after all a part of the UN.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

As Devon would say, don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me. Perhaps some of the money made by the UNFA would go to the IRCO, but certainly not to the order of trillions. And speaking of reading only what you want to see, I notice you haven't touched the other, more important, half of my previous post.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

“As no financing option presently exists, both sides of the debate are speculating as to whether the level of funding required in UNFA is sufficient. Without an assessment there is no way of knowing what level of finance is required, it is subjective.

However, we believe each delegation finds itself with two distinct options. They could choose good means to a bad end or bad means to a good end.

The former would result in delegations voting for this resolution in the name of at least providing something over nothing in the present with the possibility of discovering that this legislation doesn’t provide adequate funds in the future (or that it achieves its aims). The latter would see delegations vote against so that we may provide nothing over something in the name of assessing a more appropriate level of funding for a resolution in the future (or the resolution will be rejected).

In such an instance we would implore the representative from Jinau to choose the good means to a bad end. The “end” is based on speculation in the present therefore the outcome of the means cannot be guaranteed, it is very likely that a resolution with an increased level of funding would meet with greater opposition in the future.

Our conclusion is that the Jinaun* ambassador is presently advocating we choose bad means to a bad end which is wholly unacceptable,” Anravelle fumbles for her next points card.

*OOC: Is that anywhere near correct dear?

The fact that the UN nations won't repeal resolution #6 'End slavery' for a more comprehensive resolution on the matter doesn't exactly make me trust that route.

“Our concerns with regard to the content of the repeal you cite have been addressed by the representative from Gobbannium.

As a more general point; we would suggest that the sometimes emotive responses of national governments would aid any repeal effort, not hinder it.

It is our opinion that the General Assembly would be willing to repeal a resolution that they perceive as a “tax” should the content of the repeal be powerful enough. We point to the embedded nature of UNR #4 as evidence of the general disdain for "taxes."

Should the need arise then the window of opportunity is there.”

Anravelle Kramer.

The fact that the UN nations won't repeal resolution #6 'End slavery' for a more comprehensive resolution on the matter doesn't exactly make me trust that route.

That argument does not change the fact that the repeal/replace method remains available. The only nations that, in our opinion need fear using that method are the ones that doubt their own abilities to write competent repeal or replacement legislation.

It accomplishes nothing in the short term, but passing the current proposal accomplishes nothing in the long term, which in my opinion is far more important.

Passing the current resolution accomplishes a lot more than passing nothing will, either short or long-term, since zero still equals zero either way. And the fact still remains that legislation can always be replaced, rendering your fears unfounded.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

would include funds specifically given to the IRCO from the UN since it is after all a part of the UN.

If it's not in the passed legislation, the UN hasn't approved it. It's not in the passed legislation. Therefore, the UN has no income with which to make grants.

How do we fund the UN, then? Simple. Remember those UN gnomes who sneak into your Archives, Libraries, and Halls of Records; and change all your legislation, never leaving a trace that they were even there? How much trouble would it be for them to do the same at your Treasury, your vaults, and your banks? Not only can they enter and exit at will, they can do so tracelessly, even so far as editing your audit trails so you never even know to look for their presence.

The small losses in your money supply are typically written off as hoarding, and simply add a small fraction to inflation. Of course, there have been a few nations whose leadership was blamed for the missing money (can you say 'suitcases being loaded onto small private jets, headed for the Islands?') Sometimes the phrase 'Heads will ROLL for this" can be quite literal.

Now, you have a choice. You can provide a legal avenue, with oversight and a legitimate audit trail ... or we can steal what we want, when we want. Your call.

Only reading what you want to see is fun.

"On donations AND grants," which I assume would include funds specifically given to the IRCO from the UN since it is after all a part of the UN.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

And assumptions are always dangerous. There is nothing that indicates, or even suggests, that the grants mentioned are made by the NSUN.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambasador to the United Nations

this is a good idea vote yes:headbang: :sniper:

What did you join the UN for, if I may ask? To get something for nothing, like a good number of other nations, apparently?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The Great Leader of Solenoidovokia strongly urged my government to jon the U.N. to help ensure the safety and freedom of all oppressed peoples throught the world. We have no qualms with supplying aid to any people wo require it, be it military, medical, or food. However, we feel that such decisions must be decided on a case by case basis by the entirety of this esteemed assembly. The Great Leader of Solenoidovokia does not feel that this resolution places enough control into the hands of those know how the money is best used. Perhaps if, after this resolution fails to pass, it is rewritten to address this concern, striking out the United Nations Contributions Trust (UNCT), we will vote for this resolution.

May we ask why you think you're being taxed unfairly?

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The establishment of the UNCT concerns my Great Leader very much. Who, he wonders, would sit on this UNCT? Would this UNCT be overseen by the people who best know how to handle the enourmous amounts of monies that would pass through it? What about cluases 4.a and 4.b? Why must we turn to ouside auditors, and how can we ensure that the information collected will not be given or sold to the enemies of freedom and Solenoidovokia throughout the world?

Until these questions are answered my Great Leader deems this tax unfair and will vote against this resolution.

Joe,
U.N. Delegate for the
Oppressed Peoples of Solenoidovokia

Now, you have a choice. You can provide a legal avenue, with oversight and a legitimate audit trail ... or we can steal what we want, when we want. Your call.

Except that this either doesn't actually happen (in an IC sense, since none of the resolutions actually have provision for funding through thieving gnomes), or will continue to happen anyway (in an OOC sense, since this resolution won't prevent future ones from smacking the economy/inflation rate).

The establishment of the UNCT concerns my Great Leader very much. Who, he wonders, would sit on this UNCT?

The gnomes will.
Would this UNCT be overseen by the people who best know how to handle the enourmous amounts of monies that would pass through it?

Yes, the gnomes. It's what they already do.
What about cluases 4.a and 4.b? Why must we turn to ouside auditors, and how can we ensure that the information collected will not be given or sold to the enemies of freedom and Solenoidovokia throughout the world?
Because the gnomes, being not of any nation, will have no reason to do anything wrong with our money, especially now that we'd be freely giving them money to use. If this is a reference to having other people do it besides the gnomes, this is a check that goes on all the time in the private sector. Always have a third-party check your work.

"The money will be collected fairly. It will not be usurped by those not entitled to it. It will only be used to support passed Resolutions, past and future. Do you expect us to outline to the letter specific security means that are actually unnecessary, in our case? In that funny RL dimension I've visited, legislation is inconceivably long, and makes one want to blow their brains out. But, that's in part because they don't have the bureaucratically perfect gnomes, complete with regulation long-wait-times to get an office, to carry out their wishes. For them, mere mortal humans," Wolfgang jokingly sticks out his tongue at the word, "have to do so. It is part of this simplicity that allows us to function, even with such incredibly short legislation."

OOC: For all intensive purposes, we must assume, in this game, that our legislation will be carried out exactly and to the letter, with no corruption or stupidity. We simply do not have the character count or time to write real-life legislation that outlines such things, nor would anyone want to be part of the UN, because everything would be a hundred pages long. EVERYONE would be a ReadNothing, instead of just most people.

Why is it important that the UN to take money from other nations. I believe that the UN should try to find a better way of funding or make it more fair for members that must give money to them.

"Like bloody how? Should we have a bloody bake sale? It's not like we're slicing off your nations arms. This proposal asks for a pittance. A pittance! Practically nothing in the grand scheme of any nation. Argument: We need money. Lots of money. Efficient solution: we take a little from each member nation and pool it together to make lots of money. Q.E.D. Your nation's GDP is two digits shorter than the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is only paying four and a half million dollars. Our bureaucracy can sneeze to generate so little money, and you're going to pay a few magnitudes of ten less. You're not willing to donate the cost of a bloody luxury sedan?"

OOC: Your GDP: $49,303,793,356
Mine:...........$8,570,379,706,907
My assessed contribution: $4,250,552.

http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php?nation=The_Wolf_Guardians


(If I understood the numbers properly. And even if the exchange rates have anything to do with it, ours are similar, making it still proportionately correct.)

Why is it important that the UN to take money from other nations. I believe that the UN should try to find a better way of funding or make it more fair for members that must give money to them.

The UN needs money to help implement the resolutions as well as pay for the upkeep of the building. Plus, the amount being asked for is pitifully tiny and so really, we're the winners here.

The Wolf Guardians] ]Like bloody how? Should we have a bloody bake sale?

well, the way it looks like this proposal's going i'll get started on the cookies and you make a cake or some brownies


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Delegates:
Disturbed by what I've seen here, I've reported to the leader of my country, His Serene Majesty King Michael Aurelius. What follows are his sentiments.

W.Blade

Ladies, Gentlemen, Gnomes, etc.

What kind of demented place is this?
Where the Powers that Be coerce to implement their own ideas?
Threatening to tamper with a sovereign nation, if a resolution is not passed?

On the advice of my ministers, I led our country to the UN. My Parliament believed that it would be useful to join such an organization and that by working together, we would be able to solve problems and work towards a better solution.

However, what we've seen here, is bullying. Childish games played by grown men and women. Are these the actions of learned ambassadors? Since when is COERCION a proper form of diplomacy? Isn't the UN a place where ideals and benign influences flourish? Isn't this where democracy is supposed at its best? Surely, this isn't where these United Nations should be.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, my Parliament believes this still to be an honorable organization, and this country will not cease to work inside it. However, we need to change how we associate with each other.

Respectfully,
Michael Aurelius
15th King of the Genoshans

well, the way it looks like this proposal's going i'll get started on the cookies and you make a cake or some brownies

Where's Chef Sven from Flibbleites when you need him? Or Chef Ito?

Delegates:
Disturbed by what I've seen here, I've reported to the leader of my country, His Serene Majesty King Michael Aurelius. What follows are his sentiments.

W.Blade

Ladies, Gentlemen, Gnomes, etc.

What kind of demented place is this?
Where the Powers that Be coerce to implement their own ideas?
Threatening to tamper with a sovereign nation, if a resolution is not passed?

On the advice of my ministers, I led our country to the UN. My Parliament believed that it would be useful to join such an organization and that by working together, we would be able to solve problems and work towards a better solution.

However, what we've seen here, is bullying. Childish games played by grown men and women. Are these the actions of learned ambassadors? Since when is COERCION a proper form of diplomacy? Isn't the UN a place where ideals and benign influences flourish? Isn't this where democracy is supposed at its best? Surely, this isn't where these United Nations should be.

Ladies and gentlemen, once again, my Parliament believes this still to be an honorable organization, and this country will not cease to work inside it. However, we need to change how we associate with each other.

Respectfully,
Michael Aurelius
15th King of the Genoshans

So... how are you voting?

And, if you don't like our corruption, you had best leave now, while you still can. It just gets worse.

So... how are you voting?

And, if you don't like our corruption, you had best leave now, while you still can. It just gets worse.

I have instructed my Ambassador to keep the vote in opposition.

M.A. Rex

I'll give you a hint: if you want the UN to be a better place, it needs money.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Sadly, at this point it doesn't really matter how someone votes. The voting ends tomorrow. Unless there's a micacle worker among us, this has failed.

Right now, I just want to thank all those who supported the proposal. To all those in opposition, I'm not going to say anything to you, since I don't really have anything nice to say.

Stranger's bar, here I come!


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

Stranger's bar, here I come!
She's got the right idea.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

This Federation did not join the United Nations for its services. It honestly could care less. His Serene Majesty, HSM's Parliament, and the region of Cpixelia wanted their voices heard, pure and simple.

We did not agree with everything in this proposal, therefore we voted against it. We make no apologies.

There will be no celebration at the dissolution of the proposal, however. The alcohol can flow where its needed for those who cannot function without it. Our number crunchers, though, will retreat to their Fortress of Solitude and Numerical Singularities to look for a solution.

His Serene Majesty and HSM's Parliament, and I wish to thank you all for hearing our arguments. We hope to work with you all again in the future.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Wesley Blade, Ph.D., KCMC
Senior Ambassador
Delegate to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

Where's Chef Sven from Flibbleites when you need him?

Vell, I'm nut mooch ooff a pestry cheff, boot I'll see-a vhet I cun vheep up. Bork Bork Bork!

http://www.thenest.nu/archive/scam_letters/swedish_chef_02.jpg
Sven
Bob Flibble's personal chef

Wolfgang sighed, and placed an order for a metric assload of brownies. "Really, I've as yet to see a good argument against this. It's all too apparent that the ReadNothings are the ones in control."

His computer pinged, giving him a message. "It appears that the Commonwealth government has taken up a collection among our citizens for the UN. Now, if only there was an actual body of some kind to control the money..."

Well, Funding Act or not, my government has instructed me to donate 3 billion MUAs to the UN.

I ask that other members join me in my campaign.

*pulls out checkbook*

Three... billion... and... 3... pence. There.

*holds up check*

Here it is, three billion, going to the UN.

I implore every respectable nation to also donate as I and, apparently, Wolf Guardians have done!

-Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Man w/ da money

Altanar will happily join the responsible nations who choose to fund the UN. After consultations with our government, in his infinite wisdom and generosity, our ruler, King Aelkyn, has pledged to donate the $3,024,301 which would have been Altanar's assessment under this resolution to the UN, directly from the coffers of our own Royal House Aranathas. This way, Altanar can meet its obligations to the UN without having to take that money from the pockets of our taxpayers.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Altanar will happily join the responsible nations who choose to fund the UN. After consultations with our government, in his infinite wisdom and generosity, our ruler, King Aelkyn, has pledged to donate the $3,024,301 which would have been Altanar's assessment under this resolution to the UN, directly from the coffers of our own Royal House Aranathas. This way, Altanar can meet its obligations to the UN without having to take that money from the pockets of our taxpayers.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

*happy honking and whistling*

-Harpo
Akimonad UN Deputy Delegate

Oh, and normally I'd have just electronically transferred the money, but I like the permanence of a cheque. Or check. Whatev.

So total, we have:
Akimonad ¤3,000,000,000
Altanar ¤3,024,301

Bringing it to ¤3,003,024,301.

The gnomes will be upgrading their dens soon.

Dr. Jules Hodz

OOC: ¤ is the symbol for "currency".

Oh, and normally I'd have just electronically transferred the money, but I like the permanence of a cheque. Or check. Whatev.
It's cheque. I have contacted my government concerning this matter and New Leicestershire will donate $4,451,276.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

“We have already pledged (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12663314&postcount=113) to provide the UN with our annual donation. However, our government is planning a competition named UNvision in the hope that we can accrue at least an additional one hundred million in funds from the public.

We have been informed that our government is considering expanding this to song entries from other member nations next year. All funds from the public vote shall go to the UN.”

Anravelle Kramer

"Hell, with such generous people, it's clear that we didn't need this resolution after all. Now I don't feel bad about voting against it.

...not that I would have anyway, you understand."

With respect,
Duke Halys Mattan III, Acting UN Ambassador
Dominion of New Manth

It's just too bad that there isn't an organization to keep track of all this money coming in and to make sure that it's spent properly.

At any rate, Karmicarian President, Isabella Bathory has informed me that we will also donate at least $10,000,000 to start.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

It's just too bad that there isn't an organization to keep track of all this money coming in and to make sure that it's spent properly.
Yes. A United Nations Contributions Trust or something.

Yes, something like that. I guess we'll just have to find a large, empty pickle jar to keep it all in. I'm sure the Gnomes will take good care of it.

"CommonWealth, our foremost banking and finance system, have offered to match and triple the government's collection (in a massive media feel-good mood, no doubt, the grubby bastards), bringing our total to about 17 million ¢redits. Unfortunately, the ¢redit's only worth about a third of a dollar-thingy, so about five and two-thirds million. Ahem: 'CommonWealth: Finance for all.'"

Total donations are up to ¤3,041,932,889.

I'll be the supervising body.

-Dr. Jules Hodz

I'm sure I can get a few bucks to donate.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

I'm sure I can get a few bucks to donate.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

Better spent on another Wild Turkey, methinks.

This resolution is CRIMINAL.

My nation is new to the UN. In fact, we have not even been recognized yet. But... I have begun reading past resolutions.

United Nations Resolution #4:
"UN taxation ban


A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003"

This resolution currently being voted on IS a direct tax, and is therefore ILLEGAL according to this resolution. Luckily, the new resolution looks set to fail, so there is no danger.

That's resolution #4. The fourth resolution. You might say a founding tenet, wouldn't you?

This resolution is CRIMINAL.

My nation is new to the UN. In fact, we have not even been recognized yet. But... I have begun reading past resolutions.

United Nations Resolution #4:
"UN taxation ban


A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4511

Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003"

This resolution currently being voted on IS a direct tax, and is therefore ILLEGAL according to this resolution. Luckily, the new resolution looks set to fail, so there is no danger.

That's resolution #4. The fourth resolution. You might say a founding tenet, wouldn't you?

*defenestrate Irombro*

Okay, reading is fun.

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

UN Taxation Ban applies only to citizens. This resolution deals with the government. You could say they're getting the money from taxpayers, but that's an indirect tax.

You might say a founding tenet, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. Thanks for asking.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Still waiting for more donations

We refuse to give one red cent to this body as long as the Akimonadans are supervising the drive. They did try to kill our president, after all.

~Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United etc.

I stand corrected.

We refuse to give one red cent to this body as long as the Akimonadans are supervising the drive. They did try to kill our president, after all.

~Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United etc.

Shut up and put some pants on. You know that was an accident. Besides, the guy's dead now.

*mutters something about stupid college kids*

-Dr. Jules Hodz

I don't care what anyone says, giving money to the UN is one of the very last things I would even think about doing.

I ask that other members join me in my campaign.



Through some creative bookkeeping it seems that the government has somewhat of a surplus in its yearly budget. The empire will donate $100,000,000 to your campaign. Not because we necessarily care about the UN, but more because we want to stick it to everyone who voted against this proposal.

Guthrum Ragnar
U.N. Ambassador
Empire of Complete Malevolence

I stand corrected.

It sure is nice to see a new member who has the sense and the guts to admit he was wrong. Wish there were more people around like you. Our hats are off to the representative of Irombro.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Aww i think the bake sale would have been more fun but, what can you do?

The empire will donate $100,000,000 to your campaign. Not because we necessarily care about the UN, but more because we want to stick it to everyone who voted against this proposal.

Guthrum Ragnar
U.N. Ambassador
Empire of Complete Malevolence

and that is getting back at everyone who voted "FOR" how?

Anyways, The United States of Cookesland would like to donate 725,000,000 Pieroes (C₣) to The United Nations which at current exchange is 500,000,000 Universal Standard Dollars.
Cookesland has also decided to donate the C₣9,289,664 to the UN per annum anyways.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

On behalf of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites I present the UN with a oversize check for the amount of $137,757,319 and my sincere hope that this money will be spent wisely.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I'll be the supervising body.

-Dr. Jules Hodz
And I'll help. It's not that I don't trust you Dr. Hodz... Well, OK, it is that I don't trust you to be in charge of it. But hell, I wouldn't trust my own brother to be in charge of all that money.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I heard that Bob.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Geez. Anyone find that pickle jar yet?

I think the gnomes may have found the first one, but i'll run up to the bar and see if Neville has a spare.

oh and the total donations are up to:

¤3,779,690,208

Don't worry, we've got it covered.
*rolls an empty pickle barrel into the GA*
I figured with the amounts you guys were getting, you could probably use something a little bigger than a pickle jar.

James Gould
VP, Supplies & Logistics
UN Building Management

Don't worry, we've got it covered.
*rolls an empty pickle barrel into the GA*
I figured with the amounts you guys were getting, you could probably use something a little bigger than a pickle jar.

James Gould
VP, Supplies & Logistics
UN Building Management

Well, thank you Mr. Gould.


Tana Petrov
UN Rep, Karmicaria

Ardchoille is undergoing some domestic disturbance at the moment, but is nonetheless pledged to support the United Nations, its ideals and its operations.

Unfortunately, higher mathematics is not my forte, even if I take my shoes and stockings off. Rather than name a sum, therefore, I have forwarded the security codes to our treasury to the Building Management, for transmission as appropriate. I would urge the UN Gnomes to follow the policy we employ in our government: from each, according to their labour; to each, according to their needs.

Has any consideration been given to payment in kind, when payment in cash is difficult? We would be happy, for example, to do a deal on an animation spell for all mops and buckets in the UN building, thus contributing to cleanliess and -- where possible -- godliness among delegations.

We're absolutely sure this can be done, and done properly. We saw a picture of something like it somewhere once. We've just got to reverse-engineer a little. We'll include all sorts of fail-safes. It's quite within our technical capabilities. Not in the least experimental.

-- Dicey Riley, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

[looks surprised at the amount of money made available to the UN] Well, even if the resolution doesn't go through, at least the UN will have a decent amount of cash to use for its various projects.

But just the same, the resolution makes the money available to the general community, which, as I see it, may not be too good an idea, because some member nations may only want their money used in projects they are involved in, or other specific projects. But still, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

(P.S. If you are able to bring the total donations up to 4 thousand million, I will reward all representatives who donate with one week's holiday at Triolin Towers (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sun_over_Damanucus#Triolin_Towers), at my expense.)

"Wouldn't four thousand million be four billion? 4 * 1,000 * 1,000,000 = 4,000,000,000. I think we've already almost gotten that."

Ardchoille is undergoing some domestic disturbance at the momentI wasn't even in town that week. I swear.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

With no offence to those still bravely defending this proposal, it's dead.

My question is: what next? Given the staggering and incomprehensible degree of rejection, it seems unlikely a similar proposal would fare much better. So from now on, should every UN proposal make its own funding requirements? Or should we continue to assume some mystical funding in the background/that the gnomes take what they like/that a funding proposal will come along at some later stage anyway?

Before, we could reject arguments about funding on the basis: 'the UN Funding Act will deal with that'. (I think I used those words exactly in the debate on Establishment of ICPIN...um, sorry if that jinxed it.) The UN has clearly decided that no, it won't. Which arguably makes funding arguments something that do have to be addressed.

-- Samantha Benson

Sorry if this is considered a hijack, but it seemed the logical place to discuss it.

With no offence to those still bravely defending this proposal, it's dead.

*cinematic voice and effects* NO! NO! That's not true! IT'S NOT TRUE!!


My question is: what next? Given the staggering and incomprehensible degree of rejection, it seems unlikely a similar proposal would fare much better. So from now on, should every UN proposal make its own funding requirements? Or should we continue to assume some mystical funding in the background/that the gnomes take what they like/that a funding proposal will come along at some later stage anyway?
All the funding will come from a quarterly fund drive. I'll set it up, and Bob Flibble can help since he volunteered.


Before, we could reject arguments about funding on the basis: 'the UN Funding Act will deal with that'. (I think I used those words exactly in the debate on Establishment of ICPIN...um, sorry if that jinxed it.) The UN has clearly decided that no, it won't. Which arguably makes funding arguments something that do have to be addressed.

-- Samantha Benson


"The money from the fund drive will deal with that."

-Dr. jules Hodz

OOC: Cookesland, thanks for the calculations. I needed sleep.

I think it would be correct to assume that the majority of the nations voting for or against proposals do not read the forums or maybe even the entire proposals. Therefore, I believe that a new UNFA proposal should be made, only worded differently. Take funds quarterly, or even monthly, so that the taxed percentage nations see at first glance is smaller than 0.00005%. Perhaps include a little more information at the top to bore some nations out of reading the entire proposal so that they do not catch the part where the funds are being taken more than once a year, and hide the quarterly (monthly, whatever) talk in with something other than the calculation for each nation's funding.

Just a suggestion.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

Though the proposal was interesting, we, Autoctonia, have to disagree with it. There are several reasons to choose this decision, that has been taken after severe revision:
1.- A tax? Needed?: you assume it is a tax, which it isn't, because a tax should be a counterpart to a given service, which in this case, it is unclear. It only refers to "future projects". And I ask, how "past projects" were funded? Has any project been closed because of lack of funds? If not, then this resolution is pointless.

2.- Flat tax: Ok, let's imagine it is a tax. A flat tax is unfair, completely. Why? Because small countries need those resources more than big ones, what mades "each dollar" sent to the UN more expensive to small countries than bigger ones. Even if those countries were later had the benefit of receiving their money back through UN Programs (what it is not said in the Resolution text, by the way), money now is more expensive than money later, not to be said that good or services, because money it's always more desiderable than goods or services to small countries.

3.- Unclear funding organization. The creation of the trust that will take care of the funds it's not in the text. This is a mislead, I'm afraid, but it is big enough to encourage us to vote against. Unless a new resolution is passed where it is clearly adressed how this trust is built and managed, we will be against any funding resolution.

To end with, I just want to put relevance on the fact that we find the resolution attractive even if we vote against, and if the points adressed are arranged on a future resolution, we will honorably change our mind.

Johannes Kepler, Ambassador of Autoctonia

ooc: No prob Akimonad

Though the proposal was interesting, we, Autoctonia, have to disagree with it. There are several reasons to choose this decision, that has been taken after severe revision:


1.- A tax? Needed?: you assume it is a tax, which it isn't, because a tax should be a counterpart to a given service, which in this case, it is unclear. It only refers to "future projects". And I ask, how "past projects" were funded? Has any project been closed because of lack of funds? If not, then this resolution is pointless.

The money wouldn't be used just for implementing proposals, the UN building, the management staff, and supplies are all where the money is going.

2.- Flat tax: Ok, let's imagine it is a tax. A flat tax is unfair, completely. Why? Because small countries need those resources more than big ones, what mades "each dollar" sent to the UN more expensive to small countries than bigger ones. Even if those countries were later had the benefit of receiving their money back through UN Programs (what it is not said in the Resolution text, by the way), money now is more expensive than money later, not to be said that good or services, because money it's always more desiderable than goods or services to small countries.

it's not like the UN asking for an arm and a leg here, e.g. Cookesland's total GDP is $19,059,128,291,043 and we would only have to pay $9,289,664.

3.- Unclear funding organization. The creation of the trust that will take care of the funds it's not in the text. This is a mislead, I'm afraid, but it is big enough to encourage us to vote against. Unless a new resolution is passed where it is clearly adressed how this trust is built and managed, we will be against any funding resolution.

It would have been managed by the UN Gnomes, who not having a nation, would have made it neutral. This was answered previously as well:

Because the gnomes, being not of any nation, will have no reason to do anything wrong with our money, especially now that we'd be freely giving them money to use. If this is a reference to having other people do it besides the gnomes, this is a check that goes on all the time in the private sector. Always have a third-party check your work.

"The money will be collected fairly. It will not be usurped by those not entitled to it. It will only be used to support passed Resolutions, past and future. Do you expect us to outline to the letter specific security means that are actually unnecessary, in our case? In that funny RL dimension I've visited, legislation is inconceivably long, and makes one want to blow their brains out. But, that's in part because they don't have the bureaucratically perfect gnomes, complete with regulation long-wait-times to get an office, to carry out their wishes. For them, mere mortal humans," Wolfgang jokingly sticks out his tongue at the word, "have to do so. It is part of this simplicity that allows us to function, even with such incredibly short legislation."

OOC: For all intensive purposes, we must assume, in this game, that our legislation will be carried out exactly and to the letter, with no corruption or stupidity. We simply do not have the character count or time to write real-life legislation that outlines such things, nor would anyone want to be part of the UN, because everything would be a hundred pages long. EVERYONE would be a ReadNothing, instead of just most people.



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Well, it has now officially failed. Sigh.


Again, I would like to thank that everyone who gave their support.

The resolution "UN Funding Act" was defeated 8,497 votes to 2,744.We really don't understand the behavior of this Assembly, which is only too willing to endorse countless unfunded mandates in UN resolutions, establish all sorts of committees for conducting UN business, defeat proposals forbidding a UN military (which if possible would cost billions of dollars to maintain), even refuse to axe ridiculously wasteful commissions -- yet when they're given the opportunity to fund these operations, they say no. Sophista must be spinning in its grave.

The ReadNothings/Don'tActuallyGiveItAnyThoughts win again. I wish more people would communicate there reasons on here. While opposition is almost always present here, it's usually very light, regardless of who's on what side and who's winning. Perhaps we should entitle the official threads "FREE SEX!" just to get people's attention.

The Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss supported this piece of legislation and it saddened by its defeat.

We propose a a resounding call to action! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527472) for fiscally responsible legislation.

I think it would be correct to assume that the majority of the nations voting for or against proposals do not read the forums or maybe even the entire proposals. Therefore, I believe that a new UNFA proposal should be made, only worded differently.
If they didn't read this one, why would they read a different version?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If they didn't read this one, why would they read a different version?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

They wouldn't, which is the point I was trying to make. While they might not read the entire proposal, I would imagine they'd at least skim over it, looking at the proposed numbers. So if you make the numbers in the calculation smaller, by establishing more payments (buried deep in the proposal), you may be able to win over some votes.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

They wouldn't, which is the point I was trying to make. While they might not read the entire proposal, I would imagine they'd at least skim over it, looking at the proposed numbers. So if you make the numbers in the calculation smaller, by establishing more payments (buried deep in the proposal), you may be able to win over some votes.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

Nah, its fate would be the same as this one.

I think the problem is inherent in the UN members: they're selfish about giving their money to the UN.

'Nuff said. It'll be hard to change the underlying reality that the UN is full of corrupt, selfish people trying to pervert the UN to their own ends.

This is the reality, good luck escaping from it.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

I'm ready to submit a new proposal for funding, though similar to the first, it is different and I have implemented my suggestions I've made in this discussion into it. I don't know how much support it would receive or whether people in here would even approve of it seeing as how I voted against the first, but if I think it has a chance, I will gladly propose it.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

We really don't understand the behavior of this Assembly, which is only too willing to endorse countless unfunded mandates in UN resolutions, establish all sorts of committees for conducting UN business, defeat proposals forbidding a UN military (which if possible would cost billions of dollars to maintain), even refuse to axe ridiculously wasteful commissions -- yet when they're given the opportunity to fund these operations, they say no. Sophista must be spinning in its grave.

I'm afraid my distinguished Kennyite colleague is looking for logic and reasoning where there is none to be found. This Assembly has cast lasting shame upon itself with this deplorable result.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Your best bet would be to post it here (in it's own thread) first. In case you didn't see the two original drafting threads for the UNFA, there were a lot of problems with legality.

Run it by your colleagues first.

I'm ready to submit a new proposal for funding, though similar to the first, it is different and I have implemented my suggestions I've made in this discussion into it. I don't know how much support it would receive or whether people in here would even approve of it seeing as how I voted against the first, but if I think it has a chance, I will gladly propose it.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

We don't care how you voted on the just-failed resolution. If your proposal is sound and promises to be effective, we'll ask our regional delegate for an approval and do what we can to support it. Unfortunately, we think you'll run afoul of the same mindless freeloaders who voted against this one because they want to have a say in the organization but don't want to cough up their fair share to support it.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

*sigh* Guess this proves the readnothings really do control the UN..

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It's the sad truth. I've seen many proposals fail because people just didn't read the proposal. The saw the title and had the instant knee-jerk reaction of "OMG!!! Noes!!!!11"

*sigh* Guess this proves the readnothings really do control the UN..

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland
A coalition of readnothings, leeches and freeloaders.

I am dismayed by the defeat of this resolution, but would remind everyone not to give up hope. There is the possibility that this or some other funding resolution may be passed at a later date. In the meantime, I would encourage all prospective resolution authors to write funding provisions into their drafts. If the parasites refuse to fund the UN under a sensible, comprehensive plan, then make them fund it one resolution at a time.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I'm sorry, Fris. I tried.

I'm sorry, Fris. I tried.

I really hated changing that "AT VOTE" to "FAILED". Had the final tally been even close, I'd have had some hope for this institution. As it is, I may even resign my UN puppet.

Koopman (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527472) nailed it in his address, and I'm sure all the thoughtful and serious ambassadors here are going to agree. I was about to say "Pity about the rest of them," but they really don't deserve my pity.

TAANSTAFL isn't the law, but it ought to be. Guess we'll have to beat that concept into them by taking away the buffet and making them pay for everything they get.

Fees. n_n

I'm getting a little upset, that you people classify everyone who voted in opposition as read-nothings.

If it's that important, it would be brought up again, with more aggressive diplomacy, instead of the "if you don't do it, we'll force it outta you" approach, or the "you must be three types of stupid to vote against" outlook.

Quit crying like a bunch of children, buck up, and give it another go.

W. Blade

And how would you propose to convince people they need to pay for stuff, instead of clinging to the illusion of a free ride?

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

I'm getting a little upset, that you people classify everyone who voted in opposition as read-nothings.
We are generalizing; what else can we do? We can only understand what we observe, and that's apparently been a lot of people who look at the title and say "OMG NOES!!!!1111 Money not being given to me!!!"


If it's that important, it would be brought up again, with more aggressive diplomacy, instead of the "if you don't do it, we'll force it outta you" approach, or the "you must be three types of stupid to vote against" outlook.
Mr. Koopman asks the right sort of question. This isn't meant to be a free ride. You can't get on the bus without fare.


Quit crying like a bunch of children, buck up, and give it another go.
We're not crying, we're just disappointed by the majority of insolent people in this assembly who refuse to take responsibility.

-Dr. Jules Hodz

And how would you propose to convince people they need to pay for stuff, instead of clinging to the illusion of a free ride?

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

Ambassador Koopman,

I don't look for a free ride.
Since joining this establishment, my wallet has been stolen on numerous occasions, and my government card has been used without authorization to help pay for things. No matter what I do, this has always been done, so what is the bloody difference? The UN will be funded through force, farce, or fees, so what difference does one act make?

How about we end the widespread corruption in the UN, before I agree to a fee. Show me, that the UN is worth trusting, before I hand over monies.

W. Blade, KCMC
The Genoshan Isles

The Wolf Guardians;12671512']"Wouldn't four thousand million be four billion? 4 * 1,000 * 1,000,000 = 4,000,000,000. I think we've already almost gotten that."

My apologies; I still work off the old British system, where 1 n-illion = (1 million)^n.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

How about we end the widespread corruption in the UN, before I agree to a fee. Show me, that the UN is worth trusting, before I hand over monies.
If all the safeguards built into the resolution didn't convince you (you did read them, didn't you?), together with the massed support of every last nation in this assembly that's ever given a damn about anything, then nothing is going to take you mind off your missing wallet.

Actually, I think I see your wallet on top of the defenestrator over there...

IActually, I think I see your wallet on top of the defenestrator over there...

I wouldn't bother looking in it, I saw someone from Building Management going through it earlier.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wouldn't bother looking in it, I saw someone from Building Management going through it earlier.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wasn't even gonna try.
Oh well.
I'm moving back to my homeland for summer holiday. My deputy will be on his way, shortly. I hope you all show him more respect than you showed me.


W. Blade

Oy gevalt.

It's been a while since a Resolution has had overwhelming support in this General Assembly and yet failed the vote by so much.

It's depressing.

*alarm clock rings*
*everybody wakes up*

"What happened to the resolution??"
"I don't know. I'd fallen asleep computing the figures for Jinau and Autoctonia - "
"Caterina... the resolution did not pass."
"That wasn't unexpected."
"But still... it was a good piece of legislation."
"Ambassador Lambourne over at The South Pacific told me he wasn't able to get enough support from the region and the resolution failed 3-9."
"Guess folks won't give what they are supposed to give."
"And they have organized a funding drive for the UN."
"I see. I'll tell Prime Minister Cortanella about it."

My apologies; I still work off the old British system, where 1 n-illion = (1 million)^n.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

OOC: That's a British thing? I didn't know that. I learned something!

As to the corruption in the UN thing expressed by some, delegates can be as bloody corrupt as they want. The actual bureaucracy is perfect. This is a necessary assumption for the game to function without being a complete and total hassle that no-one would bother to play. Everything we pass is automatically and completely carried out. If you don't like the kinds of legislation we pass, then try harder to lobby against it, or withdraw from the UN. If you're going to be part of this, you've got to live with it.

To recap... The NSUN Bureaucracy is infallibly perfect. The gnomes will never cheat, steal, or lie in a meaningful way. They will execute the wishes of the UN perfectly, to the letter. I've said this before, and, if prompted, I'll say it again.