NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to redraft this into something that is closer to what people want to see.

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;

Reaffirms the promise of the UN taxation ban, that the UN shall never impose direct taxation upon the citizens of member nations;

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 three 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.

First off, I was thinking that a change of title may be needed. I am open to suggestions and any help that people are willing to offer.

"The only way the UN will ever work" as title? But seriously, just about any title that implies giving the UN money is going to get a ton of nay votes.

How about "UN Financial Assistance Program" ?

Heh.

"Future Security of the UN Act"?

because... that's what it is, but it makes it look like something different than funding?

Quite possibly. Of course, I think that more than just a title change it needed.

Baby steps, I suppose.

Another thing that might change a few votes is to mention in the proposal that the UN Taxation Ban only applies to direct taxation. I believe something akin to that was in the original UNFA, and just about every regional forum I looked at had at least one person thinking it contradicts UNTB.

Something along these lines?

Noting that the UN Taxation Ban applies only to direct taxation of a nation's citizens;


.....or something.

That would probably work perfectly

We have no suggestions to make. The previously considered proposal was quite satisfactory to us, as it was, we believe, to almost every nation that knows enough about the UN to understand it. This, we think, was glaringly obvious in the debate.

There were a few nations that voiced reasonable concerns about specific provisions and effects of the proposal. We hope they'll comment here, so their concerns can be considered and, if possible, accommodated.

We wish our distinguished colleague from Karmicaria the best of luck with this effort. It's reasonable, necessary, and long overdue. But we're not optimistic. The proposal will face an uphill battle against the whiny freeloaders who are simply too cheap, selfish, and narrow-minded to want to support the organization. We fear they'll be back in strength to defend their self-endowed right to a free lunch.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

I have a couple of suggestions:

(Please note, as it is written now, I agree with it, and have submitted the draft, along with my notes to my Sovereign)

The title could be: The UN Fiscal Security Act

Also, would it be possible for member nations to get a report every quarter? Does the UN have a fiscal calendar, and if not, can that be implemented in with this act?

Once again, I agree with it, so don't automatically jump down my throat, either explicitly or implicitly, like you did with my predecessor, Ambassador Blade.

Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Envoy Extraordinary
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations
The Federation of the Genoshan Isles

The title could be: The UN Fiscal Security Act

That could work as well.

Also, would it be possible for member nations to get a report every quarter? Does the UN have a fiscal calendar, and if not, can that be implemented in with this act?

Every six months isn't enough? I suppose that could be changed.

Once again, I agree with it, so don't automatically jump down my throat, either explicitly or implicitly, like you did with my predecessor, Ambassador Blade.

No worries there. You caught me in a good mood. ;)

Dahlia Dioce
Vice President
Harem of Karmicaria

The only reason I say quarterly, is to mirror how most corporations issue their fiscal reports to their current and future stockholders.

M. Diegaus III.

Fair enough. I'll change it to quarterly.

Dahlia Dioce

"UN Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The only reason I suggested the "Future Security of the UN Act" is because when people see money, they are probably going to vote no, as we have seen with the past two resolutions. Security however... well, just look at how big some defense budgets are.

"Futhering Universal Currency Kleptocracies"

Seriously though, short of "Approve This You Shitheads!", I think New Leicestershire's is the best so far.

"Furthering Universal Currency Kleptocracies"

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/Smile%20Emos/z7shysterical.gif

Seriously though, short of "Approve This You Shitheads!", I think New Leicestershire's is the best so far.

I think you're right. However, before I actually change the title, I'd like to see if anyone else comes up with something.

Prevention of Gnome Delinquency? Nah... New Leicestershire has hit the penny with the hammer.

A suggestion based on arguments I saw last time....

Despite the percentage of contribution being miniscule (and individual nation's contributions being reasonable), the aggregate collected appears to be huge. Certainly a figure the average NSer has trouble comprehending and thus the response, "they don't need all that dough". Rather than set a hard percentage in the resolution, I would suggest requiring the committee to formulate an annual budget consisting of the minimum amount needed to fully fund implementation of all current resolutions, as well as, general operating expenses of the UN. That figure is then used to set the % of GNP (or GDP, either should work) that each nation would contribute in order to fund the budget.

It has the advantage of flexibility from year to year (pass more resolutions, your contribution's going to go up; repeal duplicates and it'll go down) without having to refund any overages and without having to (theoretically) come back at some future time to repeal the resolution simply because the contribution percentage is no longer appropriate (either too high or too low).

The proposal was voted down 3:1. Yes, the people who Know Better can claim this was an act of unfathomable ignorance, but in the meantime, maybe the proposal needs a new spin? People clearly didn't like: 'let's fund the UN'. So instead you could place greater emphasis on eliminating corruption or on increasing accountability or in some other way, without losing the essentials.

If you did that, a title might come more easily.

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

I remember a lot of smaller nations saying that they couldn't "afford" the "tax" on their GPD, or GNP. Maybe an example of just how low 0.00005% really is. For example, Ambrose-Douglas is a nation with 29 million people, so relatively small. Our GDP (couldn't find our GNP) is $313,730,232,330. So, 0.00005% of that is $156,865.12, or, to put it by citizen, $0.0054, or just over half a cent per citizen.

I think an example such as this in the proposal will silence the naysayers when they see just how little they are actually paying.

OOC (and only semi-serious) suggestion: Call it 'TANSTAAFL', and include a clause that would withdraw the services of the UN's useful agencies from any member-nation that didn't pay up on time...

I meant to say this earlier, but forgot. I think you're missing a trick with your reference to the UN taxation ban. At the moment, it sounds like you're trying to find a way round it, but it would be much better if you could make it sound like you're steadfastly upholding it. So something like:

'Reaffirms the promise of the UN taxation ban, that the UN shall never impose direct taxation upon the citizens of member nations'.

-- Samantha Benson

"Perhaps the preamble could be expanded to make the current funding crisis more evident to readers? There are many member nations whose representatives do not participate in General Assembly debate despite being members, after all."

~ Margaret Andrea Morgan Cheltenham
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Librarians

I meant to say this earlier, but forgot. I think you're missing a trick with your reference to the UN taxation ban. At the moment, it sounds like you're trying to find a way round it, but it would be much better if you could make it sound like you're steadfastly upholding it. So something like:

'Reaffirms the promise of the UN taxation ban, that the UN shall never impose direct taxation upon the citizens of member nations'.

-- Samantha Benson

Thank you, Ms. Benson. Your wording is much better and works well.

Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the UN taxation ban? Or can we not do that?

Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the UN taxation ban? Or can we not do that?

The UN Taxation Ban isn't the problem here, we're trying to get funding via the Member Nations who won't support anything that has the word UN Tax in it. So the thing is to find a way that the silent majority of the UN agrees with.

Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the UN taxation ban? Or can we not do that?
We don't need to repeale the UNTB because this doesn't violate it in any way, we're just pointing out to the Semi-ReadNothings that it doesn't violate it.

(Apologies for deleting my previous message - I hit the wrong button. :rolleyes:)

1. The UNSC of Bautizar is concerned with the lack of details concerning the makeup of the proposed United Nations Contribution Trust and the U.N.C.T. oversight board. In particular we would like to see more detailed language concerning (1) qualifications for representation on the two respective panels, (2) enforcement clauses for removal from representative status, and (3), limits on the number of terms that a nation-state can have representative status on the Contribution Trust and its oversight board.

2. Some nation-states already contribute more than 0.00005% of their GDP or GNP. The UNSC of Bautizar is concerned that operative clause 2, subsection b, could be taken as an escape clause for the member nation-states that have served to prop up the organization for so long. This could therefore backfire and monetarily cripple the organization, rather than alleviating its continuing financial problems.

3. Operative clause 3, subsections c and e are conflicting. How can U.N. money be held "in trust" when it is scheduled to be returned to member nations at the end of every fiscal year? (This is more of a question about what nation-state is going to entrust the U.N. with its money for a short-term period. It's like converting your money in a bank account to a certification of deposit for a 60-day period.)

The same two subsections also raise another point: if the U.N. is holding money for a member nation-state, will that state receive all of its money back at the end of the fiscal year, or will that money be included in the surplus funds to be distributed at the close of the fiscal year?

4. Preambulatory clause 3 undercuts the entire document. Taxation imposed by a system of mandatory monetary collections from member nation-states is a form of direct taxation on the citizens of member nation-states, considering that the money coming from the member nation-states has no doubt been raised at least in part from taxation of its citizens.

The problem is, "tax" is a four letter word. "UN tax" is at least two four-letter words. Many nations prefer the status quo, which, AFAICT, is for the UN to pull the funding from its butt. Unfortunately, that means pulling it out of its member nations butts, and that isn't very sanitary. It would probably be better to fund it openly, from where the sun DOES shine. Not to mention, a lot less gross!

1. The UNSC of Bautizar is concerned with the lack of details concerning the makeup of the proposed United Nations Contribution Trust and the U.N.C.T. oversight board. In particular we would like to see more detailed language concerning (1) qualifications for representation on the two respective panels, (2) enforcement clauses for removal from representative status, and (3), limits on the number of terms that a nation-state can have representative status on the Contribution Trust and its oversight board.
From the UN rules:
Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

The ambassador of New Anonia has covered point 1 quite adequately.

2. Some nation-states already contribute more than 0.00005% of their GDP or GNP. The UNSC of Bautizar is concerned that operative clause 2, subsection b, could be taken as an escape clause for the member nation-states that have served to prop up the organization for so long. This could therefore backfire and monetarily cripple the organization, rather than alleviating its continuing financial problems.
How do you monetarily cripple something that's monetarily crippled? Almost all nations that contribute anything contribute more than 0.00005% of their GDP or GNP. That's still less that 0.1% of member nations. Basic maths doesn't support your assertion.

3. Operative clause 3, subsections c and e are conflicting. How can U.N. money be held "in trust" when it is scheduled to be returned to member nations at the end of every fiscal year? (This is more of a question about what nation-state is going to entrust the U.N. with its money for a short-term period. It's like converting your money in a bank account to a certification of deposit for a 60-day period.)
I dislike this way of pretending that the money isn't really the UN's too, but the more business inclined nations here seem to think that this will make people feel more comfortable with the idea. Personally, I think it makes things worse.

The same two subsections also raise another point: if the U.N. is holding money for a member nation-state, will that state receive all of its money back at the end of the fiscal year, or will that money be included in the surplus funds to be distributed at the close of the fiscal year?
Uh, what? The only money that gets returned (or offset) is the surplus that isn't spent by the end of the financial year.

4. Preambulatory clause 3 undercuts the entire document. Taxation imposed by a system of mandatory monetary collections from member nation-states is a form of direct taxation on the citizens of member nation-states, considering that the money coming from the member nation-states has no doubt been raised at least in part from taxation of its citizens.
No.
(OOC: or in other words, we have had definitive mod rulings that this argument is inapplicable, always has been inapplicable, and always will be inapplicable. Fris has reposted the ruling verbatim at least once already in recent discussion. UNR#4 definitely does not apply to this type of proposal.)

Wow. Sorry that I've let this go. I'll read over the thread and see what I can come up with.

So much to do, so little time. Sigh.

I think QuoD's idea to shift the focus a little towards more accountability would help.

Other than that, I think that a well-planned campaign once it gets to quorum would be our best shot at making this pass.