NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC:
April 10th: The language of this proposal has changed some since its introduction, and has been formally submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=WA%20Treasury%20of%20the%20States) for consideration by WA delegates. The current text (as of April 15th) is below:

WA Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:

1. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

2. CHARGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States with the responsibilities of assessing and projecting, respectively, the current and future budgetary needs of the World Assembly and all WA agencies, and of regularly publishing these assessments and projections not less than once per annum;

3. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances (such as, but not limited to, total and per capita GNP and GDP) in its apportionment of member dues, albeit with the understanding that the Treasury will apportion dues to every member nation;

4. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy regarding dues payments, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

5. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof;

6. GRANTS the World Assembly Treasury of the States the power, upon consideration of such appeals, to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations at the Treasury's discretion;

7. ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by the Treasury;

8. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States, upon accruing an excess surplus, to return the surplus to the member nations in an equitable fashion that is faithful to the proportions in which member nations paid dues;

8. FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.
__________
[OOC: This proposal spawned out of a discussion thread on the Suozziland proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553702), and I decided to create a separate page for this proposal after the flow of discussion shifted away from the Suozziland proposal and towards this one.]

A somewhat old man, clad conservatively in a tan-coloured business suit, approaches the podium. After a few gratuitous attempts to clear his throat, he begins to speak.

Greetings, my fellow representatives! It is with great pleasure that I, Erskine Chauncey, present before the World Assembly the following resolution, which will create a much-needed Treasury that would collect the member dues that would financially support the WA and its efforts to promote positive changes in the world.

This proposal is still in its infancy, so I would greatly appreciate any suggestions and constructive criticisms you would like to share. Thank you.

WA Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: Social Justice (?)
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:


ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances in its apportionment of member dues;

REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof, and to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations as it sees fit;

FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.


[OCC: As far as the classification goes, I do not know which category would be most appropriate for this proposal. "Social Justice" and "International Security" both seem like somewhat plausible candidates to me, but I would like to hear what others have to say on the matter, as well as (if necessary) what possible changes would have to be made to this resolution to make it work within the constructs of game code. Thanks. :)]

its an intriguing angle to the solution to this problem. on the one hand, i like that you have a committee do everything. a committee avoids infuriating a subset of nations, it just angers them all. on the other hand,

ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances in its apportionment of member dues;

first, i would switch 'allows and encourages' to 'requires' no point in not doing so, just stronger, clearer language and it makes sure people know that these circumstances are paid attention. id also list the circumstances, including GNP (although others would wish GDP...... but dammit, GNP is a better measure of aggregate wealth and income) population, etc.

which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

then id say make sure you make it known that every nation shall pay something, or you will piss off a whole subset.

ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals

requires again...... or some synonym. if im making an appeal, i sure as heck want to know it will be entertained.

to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations as it sees fit;

oh wow....... man. this angers me. wow. my nation works hard, makes its money, and some other lazy nation screws its economy up and it gets its dues forgotten? this just makes the diligent Decapodians work harder........

FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

does not actually do anything. perhaps it lets people know youre not directly taxing the populace. just feel i should make sure you know that anyone could easily create a committee with the power to directly tax. oh, and its illegal to say anyone cant do so.

with all that said, you may have the best legal solution to the problem. and with that said, ill just say that the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten opposes this resolution as it places a higher burden on the industrial nations of the WA, while allowing large non-developed nations to reap incredible benefit in services while paying the same as smaller, more developed nations. While we oppose any tax, this one seems unfair to us, and many nations.

{ooc: good luck to anybody who creates a tax that magically isnt unfair}

FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

If the resolutions passed by a certain unnamable august body still apply, then I think this part is unnecessary.


Oh, and I think it might be illegal... don't hold me to these, but I think it falls under "Creating Stuff" and "House of Cards" for the last part (mentioning other WA resolutions).
But, as I said, I could be wrong.

Pending responses from other members and further review, I believe this could be a good resolution.


Good day.
-Eros Tatriel

Thank you both for your remarks.

first, i would switch 'allows and encourages' to 'requires' no point in not doing so, just stronger, clearer language and it makes sure people know that these circumstances are paid attention. id also list the circumstances, including GNP (although others would wish GDP...... but dammit, GNP is a better measure of aggregate wealth and income) population, etc.

I used the phrase "allows and encourages" so as not to bind the Treasury into a policy straitjacket, but I will consider replacing it with "requires" if there is enough support for the change. And yes, a list of "national circumstances" of some sort probably is in order.

then id say make sure you make it known that every nation shall pay something, or you will piss off a whole subset.

I will have to consider it.

requires again...... or some synonym. if im making an appeal, i sure as heck want to know it will be entertained.

Noted.

oh wow....... man. this angers me. wow. my nation works hard, makes its money, and some other lazy nation screws its economy up and it gets its dues forgotten? this just makes the diligent Decapodians work harder........

Firstly, I must point out that, as presently written, the Treasury would be able to weigh these circumstances (of which an ailing economy is but one) on a case-by-case basis. I would be inclined to believe that in cases involving member nations with chronically weak economies, the Treasury would more likely implement a comprehensive payment plan than simply forgive their debt entirely.

Secondly, the World Assembly can consider proposals to, say, require economic reforms for debt relief as a matter of WATS policy, but I think this falls outside of the scope of the proposal at hand.

FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

does not actually do anything. perhaps it lets people know youre not directly taxing the populace. just feel i should make sure you know that anyone could easily create a committee with the power to directly tax. oh, and its illegal to say anyone cant do so.

I wrote this operative clause as it is both for what it does, and what it does not do. It prohibits the Treasury, as a general matter of policy, from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations; this prohibition is needed to allay the fears of member states that fear sovereignty infringements on national tax policy. Does this proposal does not ban direct taxation outright? Admittedly not, but it does require any proposed attempts to levy direct taxes be subject to a case-by-case consideration and a vote before the World Assembly. [OOC: This would allow some proposals to be legal, and thus able to be considered, in the World Assembly that were not legal and dismissed out-of-hand in the NS** because of the Taxation Ban.]

However, given the overwhelming unpopularity of direct taxation (and my nation shares this sentiment), I believe any proposals granting the Treasury (or any other institutional body) the power to directly levy taxes on the citizens of member nations would fail to pass.

with all that said, you may have the best legal solution to the problem. and with that said, ill just say that the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten opposes this resolution as it places a higher burden on the industrial nations of the WA, while allowing large non-developed nations to reap incredible benefit in services while paying the same as smaller, more developed nations. While we oppose any tax, this one seems unfair to us, and many nations.

I regret to hear that this proposal does not have the backing of Decapod Ten, but I thank your delegation for your constructive criticisms. :)

If the resolutions passed by a certain unnamable august body still apply, then I think this part is unnecessary

WA Resolution #1 (http://www.nationstates.net/02945/page=WA_past_resolutions) effectively wiped the slate clean, so it is necessary (if for no other reason than that its omission would probably put the proposal's future in peril).

Oh, and I think it might be illegal... don't hold me to these, but I think it falls under "Creating Stuff" and "House of Cards" for the last part (mentioning other WA resolutions).
But, as I said, I could be wrong.

[OOC: Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, I don't think this proposal violates either of this rules. The creation of the Treasury serves the primary purpose of the proposal: to authorize the collection of member dues. As for "House of Cards", this proposal does not reference or duplicate any resolution (of which there is only 1 right now anyway).

As far as legality issues are concerned, I'm most concerned about categorization and strength value.]

Pending responses from other members and further review, I believe this could be a good resolution.

Thank you for your support! :)

Firstly, I must point out that, as presently written, the Treasury would be able to weigh these circumstances (of which an ailing economy is but one) on a case-by-case basis. I would be inclined to believe that in cases involving member nations with chronically weak economies, the Treasury would more likely implement a comprehensive payment plan than simply forgive their debt entirely.
You may be inclined to believe so, but seeing as you have no basis for this belief (the treasury has not even been established yet), well, so much for that. The treasury, if established, is just as likely to forgive a nation's debt because "that poor nation just couldn't afford it!" Perhaps you would like to explicitly state that the treasury would implement a payment plan, and, failing to keep up with this payment plan, they would be asked to leave the Assembly. After all, we cannot very well have an indefinite amount of moochers on the Assembly; the financial burden would be unfairly shifted to other nations.

In conclusion, I shall see this proposal die at my feet just because of clause 2 and 4. Of these two clauses, both the spirit of the words (payment to be adjusted by ability to pay) and the operation of the clauses (lax wording to the point of allowing a committee of people to forgive the debt of one or more nations and shifting the economic burden to those nations that produce more wealth). The Dominion would never stand for a proposal with those clauses in it, and my vote shall reflect its belief.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

Perhaps you would like to explicitly state that the treasury would implement a payment plan, and, failing to keep up with this payment plan, they would be asked to leave the Assembly.

Resolutions couldn't legally require the expulsion of nations from the NSUN, so I rather doubt that they could require expulsions from the WA...

You may be inclined to believe so, but seeing as you have no basis for this belief (the treasury has not even been established yet), well, so much for that. The treasury, if established, is just as likely to forgive a nation's debt because "that poor nation just couldn't afford it!" Perhaps you would like to explicitly state that the treasury would implement a payment plan, and, failing to keep up with this payment plan, they would be asked to leave the Assembly. After all, we cannot very well have an indefinite amount of moochers on the Assembly; the financial burden would be unfairly shifted to other nations.

The Treasury could also turn around and say "Tough luck!" There is an entire spectrum of actions the WATS could take in such cases, but not so much in what the WATS realistically would take. After all, the Treasury, as an institutional body for the WA, has an interest in seeing member dues paid.

Perhaps an independant appellate body should be established to which member nations can submit appeals if they suspect that the Treasury is treating a nation too leniently (or too harshly, for that matter), and that body should have the ability to overrule WATS decisions regarding member appeals. However, I believe the Treasury needs the flexibility to handle different circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and this sort of flexibility cannot exist if this proposal binds the Treasury into a policy straitjacket.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

Over some tea and biscuits, I drafted some edits to this proposal, which are written in green. Please peruse them and leave your comments and constructive criticism. Thank you.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

WA Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: Free Trade (?)
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:


ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances (such as, but not limited to, total and per capita GNP and GDP) in its apportionment of member dues, albeit with the understanding that the Treasury will apportion dues to every member nation;

REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy regarding dues payments, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof, and to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations at the Treasury's discretion;

ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by the Treasury;

FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.


[OOC: I am still uncertain about classification for this proposal. With the new operative clause V, I think this could arguably (if not somewhat paradoxically) fall under Free Trade, but any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks. :)]

I agree with the Decapod Ten ambassador (and I'm going to need a really stiff drink after saying that), wimping out with "ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES" instead of "REQUIRES" for something as essential as WA dues being progressive not regressive is not a good thing. It's pretty close to a deal-breaker for me, though I dare say you could get it past the Ambassador by saying "economics" loudly and confidently enough.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I agree with the Decapod Ten ambassador (and I'm going to need a really stiff drink after saying that), wimping out with "ALLOWS and ENCOURAGES" instead of "REQUIRES" for something as essential as WA dues being progressive not regressive is not a good thing. It's pretty close to a deal-breaker for me, though I dare say you could get it past the Ambassador by saying "economics" loudly and confidently enough.

Consider it done. *wiggles nose* :P --EC

OOC: Given the general lack of discussion on this proposal in the past 20 hours or so, I may proceed to submit this proposal officially later tonight should there be no more discussion. Thank you for your helpful critiques.

How will WATS actually determine how much it will need? Perhaps it should be included that WATS is to assess the need of the WA and its agencies. This would prevent a situation where it collected too much or too little.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of UN Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Thank you for your suggestion, Ms. Benson. I agree that such a clause should be added. Would something to the effect of the following (written in green) satisfy the concern you raised? --EC:


ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;
CHARGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States with the responsibilities of assessing and projecting, respectively, the current and future budgetary needs of the World Assembly and all WA agencies, and of regularly publishing these assessments and projections not less than once per annum;
REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay. . . .

I intend to formally submit this proposal in a few moments. I have made the following changes to the prior draft:

*Added a clause regarding WA needs assessments, etc., per the recommendation of Ms. Benson of QoD;

*Split the clause regarding WATS considerations of member appeals, since changing "allows" to "requires" seemed to imply that the Treasury must either forgive debts or negotiate payment plans, powers of which the Treasury are not required to exercise;

*Added "or inhabitants" to the final clause regarding direct taxation.

Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

I'll approve it.

Thank you for your support! :)

The proposal has been formally submitted. It is currently on Page 6 of the WA Proposals (http://www.nationstates.net/95788/page=UN_proposal) seeking quorum. Please vote to ensure that this Treasury proposal reaches quorum!

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

[OOC and slightly OT: How can I change the thread title for this page? I tried edited the title of the first post, but that didn't change the entire thread's title. Thanks for helping.]

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht would be unable to support this proposal in its current form, were it to come to a vote. The Empire's primary objection is that the proposal, as drafted, authorises the WATS to collect dues from member.states. There is no limitation on this power. Were the WATS to collect an agreed WA budget, with liability apportioned on the basis of a nation's wealth, our nation would have no objection.

However the power as drafted would allow the WATS to take as much money as it saw fit from WA members, with no chance for the WA membership to determine what level of spending they were willing to approve. The Holy Empire of Bakamyht cannot and will not support such a blank cheque.

Sincerely,

Markus Berens
Foreign Minister, Holy Empire of Bakamyht

I would like to thank the Foreign Minister of Bakamyht for his remarks.

Prior to submitting the proposal, I had mulled over the possibility of adding a clause that would forbid the Treasury from accruing an excessive surplus, but had decided against it. While there is no explicit clause confining the Treasury to a WA budget, I believe that pressure from the international community, empowered by the regular publication of WA budgetary needs assessments, should be sufficient in keeping the Treasury's powers in check.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

If it fails to reach quorum, you could a line stipulating that the WA will return in the proportion collected any surplus funds.

[OOC and slightly OT: How can I change the thread title for this page? I tried edited the title of the first post, but that didn't change the entire thread's title. Thanks for helping.]

OOC: Ask the mods nicely, they'll do it for you.

If it fails to reach quorum, you could a line stipulating that the WA will return in the proportion collected any surplus funds.

I will consider adding such a clause, although I am hoping the current version will reach quorum.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

As I am skeptical that the WATS proposal will gain 60+ more approval votes within the next few hours, I will consider adding the following clause (highlighted in green) before resubmitting it:

7. ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by the Treasury;

8. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States, upon accruing an excess surplus, to return the surplus to the member nations in an equitable fashion that is faithful to the proportions in which member dues were accrued;

9. FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

It is a bit wordy, to be sure, but I think it gets the point across. (The placing of the clause may also be subject to change.) Any last minute suggestions, etc., are welcome as always.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

This proposal has been resubmitted with the surplus stipulation (albeit worded a little differently). The proposal can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=WA%20Treasury%20of%20the%20States), and the text of the proposal can also be found below.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

WA Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:

1. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

2. CHARGES the World Assembly Treasury of the States with the responsibilities of assessing and projecting, respectively, the current and future budgetary needs of the World Assembly and all WA agencies, and of regularly publishing these assessments and projections not less than once per annum;

3. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances (such as, but not limited to, total and per capita GNP and GDP) in its apportionment of member dues, albeit with the understanding that the Treasury will apportion dues to every member nation;

4. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy regarding dues payments, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to the World Assembly Treasury of the States;

5. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof;

6. GRANTS the World Assembly Treasury of the States the power, upon consideration of such appeals, to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations at the Treasury's discretion;

7. ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by the Treasury;

8. REQUIRES the World Assembly Treasury of the States, upon accruing an excess surplus, to return the surplus to the member nations in an equitable fashion that is faithful to the proportions in which member nations paid dues;

9. FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

Please, umm, vote for this proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=WA%20Treasury%20of%20the%20States) to reach, umm, what's it called? Oh, right: quorum!

Candi, the secretary

I don't think it's in the right category.

OOC: It is in the right category, per Clause 7: "ALLOWS the World Assembly Treasury of the States to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by the Treasury. . . ."

Perhaps in the Bookkeeping category?

Over the past two cycles this proposal has journeyed through, it has obtained a total of 81 unique signatures. At some point and time in the not-so-distant future, I hope to resubmit this proposal and heavily campaign for it (I hardly did any campaigning during the 2nd cycle).

Before I do so, though, I will have to leave for a couple of days on a diplomatic business trip. In the meantime, you may leave messages regarding the WATS proposal with my secretary, Candance Melrose, and she will kindly give them to me posthaste.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

We have a few questions on this, a couple minor, one less so:

1. Where does the name World Assembly Treasury of the States come from? Is it based on an RL body with a similar name?

2. Why do you identify an abbreviation for WATS in the text, then never use the abbreviation anywhere in your proposal? Replacing some of the superfluous "World Assembly Treasury of the States" references with simply "WATS" would make it slightly less tedious reading.

3. The last clause does not actually do anything, and regretfully we cannot support this proposal (our errant poll vote notwithstanding) unless it is removed, or altered to state that the WA shall not levy taxes on private citizens, ever.

Jimmy Baca
Ambassador to the World Assembly

I echo the sentiments of Mister Baca, and congratulate him on his elevation to the role of Ambassador. Mister Susa was starting to freak me out.

8. FORBIDS the World Assembly Treasury of the States from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions.

This clause, contains a very specific and ultimately unneeded bit, with "without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions". As a matter of fact, a proper rewording would be to say:

9. FORBIDS the World Assembly from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations.

Oh and changing the number to 9, since you have two 8's apparently.

You're going to find alot of support among the most vocal of nations with that line of logic, and I suggest that is the way you tack.

Edit: Using the acronym in the place of the words or removing the reference to the acronym is probably a solid idea as well(preferably the former).

I have returned from my diplomatic business trip, and by Jove, how many queens it does take to screw in a--umm...that microphone is not on yet...right? :cool:

*clears throat* Having since returned, I would like to address the concerns raised by Amb. Baca and the delegation for the Dorian Embassy.

1. Where does the name World Assembly Treasury of the States come from? Is it based on an RL body with a similar name?
The Treasury has no parallel in the "RL", as the language of the Yoo-En Taxation Ban prevented the organization from considering anything along the lines of a Treasury having the ability to collect member dues.

As for the name, it arose informally in my deliberations with my country's Executive Council and it just...stuck.

[OOC: My conception of the Treasury is roughly based off of my admittedly limited understanding of how the "RL" Yoo-En apportions and collects member dues (although without the "well the US can get away with not paying a penny" part).

The name was a sort of backronym, because I'm a dork who found it funny imagining some higher-level politician telling somebody, "Wire the money to WATS!"...WATS rhyming with yachts and knots, not bats and hats.]

2. Why do you identify an abbreviation for WATS in the text, then never use the abbreviation anywhere in your proposal? Replacing some of the superfluous "World Assembly Treasury of the States" references with simply "WATS" would make it slightly less tedious reading.
Noted.

3. The last clause does not actually do anything, and regretfully we cannot support this proposal (our errant poll vote notwithstanding) unless it is removed, or altered to state that the WA shall not levy taxes on private citizens, ever.

[also]

This clause, contains a very specific and ultimately unneeded bit, with "without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions". As a matter of fact, a proper rewording would be to say:

9. FORBIDS the World Assembly from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations.
Before I respond, I would like to recall my previous comments regarding this clause:

I wrote this operative clause as it is both for what it does, and what it does not do. It prohibits the Treasury, as a general matter of policy, from directly levying taxes on the citizens of member nations; this prohibition is needed to allay the fears of member states that fear sovereignty infringements on national tax policy. Does this proposal does not ban direct taxation outright? Admittedly not, but it does require any proposed attempts to levy direct taxes be subject to a case-by-case consideration and a vote before the World Assembly. [OOC: This would allow some proposals to be legal, and thus able to be considered, in the World Assembly that were not legal and dismissed out-of-hand in the NS** because of the Taxation Ban.]

However, given the overwhelming unpopularity of direct taxation (and my nation shares this sentiment), I believe any proposals granting the Treasury (or any other institutional body) the power to directly levy taxes on the citizens of member nations would fail to pass.
I suppose the language "without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions" could be scrapped, although I really don't feel it necessary, given the widespread unpopularity of the mere idea of direct taxation by any WA agency.

[OOC: The language is also a safeguard against those silly geese that fly up north honking things to the effect of "Well, because the government is simply representing the people (and because the government's revenues are collected from the people), and any fee forcifully levied against the people amount to a tax, the WA cannot levy member dues." But I suppose that's a minor concern that might not be worth worrying over.]

As for banning direct taxation across the board, I think that would exceed the scope of this proposal; but suffice it to say that I seriously doubt any proposal containing a direct tax on the people of any nation would even succeed in reaching quorum. In any event, I do not believe this proposal (if passed) would prevent the WA from considering and passing a more general direct taxation ban, should it be deemed necessary.


In light of these remarks, I am considering the following changes to the WATS proposal (marked in green, below). As always, comments and constructive criticisms are welcome and encouraged. Thank you.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

WA Treasury of the States Resolution

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cartographic Boxes

The World Assembly,

NOTING that the World Assembly is not a mere thought experiment, but an actual international body designed to effect positive change in the world;

OBSERVING that the World Assembly cannot function without the financial backing of its member nations;

FURTHER OBSERVING that, since membership in the World Assembly is voluntary, member nations that refuse to financially support the World Assembly may simply withdraw their membership;

Hereby:

1. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Treasury of the States (WATS), which will have the authority to apportion dues to all member nations and to collect these dues;

2. CHARGES WATS with the responsibilities of assessing and projecting, respectively, the current and future budgetary needs of the World Assembly and all WA agencies, and of regularly publishing these assessments and projections not less than once per annum;

3. REQUIRES WATS to consider member nations' ability to pay and other national circumstances (such as, but not limited to, total and per capita GNP and GDP) in its apportionment of member dues, albeit with the understanding that WATS will apportion dues to every member nation;

4. REQUIRES all member nations to pay these dues in a regular and timely fashion and in compliance with WATS policy regarding dues payments, excepting those circumstances during which a member nation finds itself unable to pay its dues, in which the member nation should make an appeal to WATS;

5. REQUIRES WATS to entertain appeals made by member nations regarding dues and payments thereof;

6. GRANTS WATS the power, upon consideration of such appeals, to forgive dues (partially or wholly) or to otherwise negotiate payment plans with member nations at WATS's discretion;

7. ALLOWS WATS to make such negotiations and acts of forgiveness contingent on a member nation's implementation of economic reforms prescribed by WATS;

8. REQUIRES WATS, upon accruing an excess surplus, to return the surplus to the member nations in an equitable fashion that is faithful to the proportions in which member nations paid dues;

9. FORBIDS WATS from directly levying taxes on the citizens or inhabitants of member nations <strikeout>without the explicit blessing of WA resolutions</strikeout>.

OOC: Given the lack of comments regarding the proposed changes, I will likely resubmit this proposal within the next couple of days (perhaps sometime Tuesday, EST).

I will probably keep "Treasury of the States" to "WATS" edits, but I am still hesitant to delete the "without the explicit blessings of WA resolutions" clause, for the reasons I gave IC.

OOC: Good luck! If you need help with TGing, I can probably do a small amount.