NationStates Jolt Archive

So Quod's post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12671583&postcount=192) got the ball rolling, and I figured the ball needed its own space.

How should we fund the UN? Quod noted that a resubmission or something like that would probably not fare well.

Do new resolutions need to have their own funding requirements? Or does money mysteriously appear as it did in the past? Or do we need to hold quarterly funding drives?

Personally, I'm for a fund drive idea, and I think Flib is too, based on his post in the Funding Act proposal, though I can't speak for him and he's certainly not committed.

So, what should we do?

A fund drive is an interesting idea. (I volunteer to bake cakes and sell them in the Strangers' Bar!) But insisting that proposals specify their funding requirements is probably the most effective solution. If we all lobby the author of every new proposal to add a clause on funding, at least future proposals will be clear on this point.


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

If we all lobby the author of every new proposal to add a clause on funding, at least future proposals will be clear on this point.


Perhaps my complaint with that is the stigma that seems to now have been associated with funding on drafts. People are reluctant to pay for anything but their own ends, and I think that adding clauses for funding may seal a draft's fate.

Plus, some authors may refuse, and if we lobby everyone it'll look like we're trying to control them, and, after all, they are the author.

-Dr. Jules Hodz

If we can't get a resolution to pass that makes the funding available, I think that the next logical step would be having all future proposals with committees and the like make requirements for their own funding. Perhaps the nation of the author of the proposal can fund them? Or just the author themselves?

Seems silly, doesn't it?

I want to know how interested people are in another funding proposal. I have a new one typed up that closely resembles the first, however it includes the changes I suggested in the official discussion of the first proposal's voting. If people are willing to push for another funding proposal, I am more than willing to submit it.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

Refresh my memory. Are the changes that you're talking about include larger contributions?

If so, that's really a bad idea. If people didn't accept the minimal amount that I had proposed, what makes you think they'll accept making a larger contribution?

That is one of the things that was changed, although it has been rewritten so that if a nation fails to read the entire proposal, the amount of funding they are required to provide will appear smaller.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

Here's an idea: We already have a UN Building Mgmt that has semi-official status in taking care of the building. Could we have a puppet like "UN Accounting Dept" that would handle the funds?

That is one of the things that was changed, although it has been rewritten so that if a nation fails to read the entire proposal, the amount of funding they are required to provide will appear smaller.

The Empire of Jinau
UN Delegate of NeoPrussia

No offense, but I don't think that's going to work. Besides, having another funding proposal so soon, probably won't sit well with others.

Here's an idea: We already have a UN Building Mgmt that has semi-official status in taking care of the building. Could we have a puppet like "UN Accounting Dept" that would handle the funds?

Uh, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's against the rules......

Uh, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's against the rules......

Hmm.
Hmm.
Hmm.

I guess the UN is the going to be supported by the donations from member states. Hey where'd that pickel jar go?

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Building management actually brought us a barrel to put the donations in. I think it's set up in the corner somewhere.

It seems to me that some of the honourable members are trying to implement a resolution that "Taxes" member nations to fund the UN.

The Kingdom of Kitsunestan would like to point out that one of the first resolutions, number five, I believe, states that the UN may NOT tax member nations.

As said resolution has not been repealed, the Kingdom of Kitsunestan makes a motion to question the competency of those who wish to pass a "Taxation resolution"

-Sir Robert Banks,
Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan.

The Kingdom of Kitsunestan would like to point out that one of the first resolutions, number five, I believe, states that the UN may NOT tax member nations.

-Sir Robert Banks,
Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan.

I believe you are referring to resolution #4 UN Taxation Ban, which states quite specifically that the UN cannot tax a member nation's citizens directly. Charging the nation itself however is perfectly legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representation

In response to Bob Flibble:

Kitsunestan understands the difference in that aspect, but in what way is charging a nation different from charging its citizens? Either way, the money comes from one subject's pocket into their nation's treasury. Taxing a country simply takes this money.

Is it down to a question of where the money goes straight from the citizen? Whereas from a citizen to the UN is illegal but from a citizen to his nation, then to the UN is perfectly legal?

Sincerely,

-Sir Robert Banks,
Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan.

In response to Bob Flibble:

Kitsunestan understands the difference in that aspect, but in what way is charging a nation different from charging its citizens? Either way, the money comes from one subject's pocket into their nation's treasury. Taxing a country simply takes this money.

Is it down to a question of where the money goes straight from the citizen? Whereas from a citizen to the UN is illegal but from a citizen to his nation, then to the UN is perfectly legal?

Sincerely,

-Sir Robert Banks,
Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan.

It just is a way of preventing the UN from becoming too overbearing and bypassing the laws of a nation. So nobody wants to lets the UN get too powerful.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

but in what way is charging a nation different from charging its citizens?
It's different in that taxing a nation's citizens directly is illegal whereas taxing their government isn't.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Is it down to a question of where the money goes straight from the citizen? Whereas from a citizen to the UN is illegal but from a citizen to his nation, then to the UN is perfectly legal?

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.

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

I think we may be coming at this from the wrong end. I have been wondering if this would give the UN a second bite at the cherry:

We know the UN has funds, because it's been operating and continues to operate.

At the moment, thanks to the pledges, it would appear to have funds surplus to its immediate operating requirements.

I would suggest that this is not a new situation. Such occasions must have arisen before (via donations, UN cake drives, bequests, etc).

The Gnomes know that a responsible non-profit public body does not simply hoard any spare cash. It has a duty to put it to work.

Therefore they invested it. And the UN has been operating on the income from those wise investments.

But now we have an unusually large amount to invest on the UN's behalf. They are, of course, incorruptible and ethical, but we owe them some clear guidelines.

Therefore the UN needs a proposal on the (establishment and) operation of the UN Investment Trust. (or BOARD, or COMMISSION, or whatever).

If it were possible, in a preamble, to get past the point about where the money comes from, then we could set conditions about oversight, ethical investment, auditing, reporting. transparency, avoidance of risk, etc.

The point would be to establish that we know there is a source for funds and we want rules governing it.

It wouldn't be saying where the money comes from, just acknowledging that it exists.

The back-story is that this has always been the case, and that the Gnomes have been doing this all along. The recent influx of donations is just the trigger that has prompted concerned nations to look at how it is done.

I'm not suggesting what follows as the terms of a proposal, I'm just trying to pin the idea down:

NOTING that the operations of the United Nations (may?) on occasion result in the accumulation of funds surplus to immediate requirements, and

NOTING that the UN has a responsibility to administer wisely all funds in its possession, and

NOTING that this responsibility may on occasion be met (is met?) by increasing (husbanding?) said funds through judicious investment, and

STILL FURTHER NOTING that such investment must be ethically applied and scrupulously administered,

The UN hereby establishes the UN Investment Trust and charges it with ...

etc, etc.

If this could be got past the first hurdle (I see that as being opposition to what is, essentially, an RPd concept: that there ever is, or was, money available to invest), then the UN could be said to be operating/always have operated on the income from its investments, and the new Trust now administers them.

So, in general, proposal writers would have proof that there's money available, someone to keep an eye on how it's spent, and relief from the need to include funding details in every proposal.

Okay, there's the idea. Go for it. (But I won't be commenting, because I've got to go do some drive-by mothering.)

I like the idea of an aggressive hedge fund that takes over the assets of businesses in non-participating nations and breaks them up for sale.

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

I like the idea of an aggressive hedge fund that takes over the assets of businesses in non-participating nations and breaks them up for sale.

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

"United Nations: Everyone else can bugger off"

I like it. Seriously.

I think the best idea would be to resubmit UN Funding Act and run a planned campaign for it, beginning it early on. There are enough UN contributors who support it that we could organize such a campaign here, settling this issue once and for all.

Kitsune thanks those who helped to correct the minor confusion, and sends its wishes that a good resolution to fund the UN can be created in the near future.

-Sir Robert Banks,
Royal Embassador to the King
Kingdom of Kitsunestan.

If I may, I have a suggestion that would increase the funds of the United Nations manifold times. All we need is that pickle jar of coins, a time machine, and the world's oldest bank. Convert the coinage in the pickle jar to gold, use the time machine to go back to the founding of the world's oldest surviving bank, deposit money, go back to now, et voila! More money then the Un could ever need.

Although somehow I don't think one could proposalise this idea of mine.

Of course, we could go back to the time honoured method of pimping the female UN gnomes.

And pillaging Chechnya

I think the best idea would be to resubmit UN Funding Act and run a planned campaign for it, beginning it early on. There are enough UN contributors who support it that we could organize such a campaign here, settling this issue once and for all.
Fat chance. Those sort of campaigns almost never change the vote - I can't think of a single example of them working - and you'd need a lot of TGs to overturn a 75% majority. Bear in mind also, some people here are very keen on talking, but less willing to send telegrams: just because they say it's time for action, doesn't mean they intend on effecting it themselves.