NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree with those who say we need a return of the ol' Taxation Ban (only this time with the proper category). Two things I'm not really sure about is the strength... do you think it should be "sweeping"? And also, can that last clause be included ("prohibits any subsequent WA resolution from imposing such taxes unless this resolution first be repealed") or is that considered "forbidding WA action at a future point in time" and therefore illegal?

WA Tax Restriction
A resolution to establish administrative parameters.
Category: Bookkeeping
Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING the necessity to fund certain measures called for by World Assembly resolutions;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the World Assembly is not necessarily representative of the citizens of member nations;

OBSERVING the temptation to utilize the World Assembly as a medium for unnecessary, unproductive, or harmful interference with the citizens of member nations;

DESIRING to increase international human rights without imposing unrequested or unfair burden on the citizens of member nations;

The World Assembly hereby declares that its measures shall not be supported through direct taxation of the citizens of member states, and further prohibits any subsequent WA resolution from imposing such taxes unless this resolution first be repealed.

Book-keeping is not a valid category, and the mods have asked that we refrain from using it until they can work out the final details for it.

The language in the operative clause ("...further prohibits any subsequent WA resolution from imposing such taxes unless this resolution first be repealed") is completely unnecessary. That resolutions cannot be contradicted without repeal is a given.

IC: My government would oppose this measure as a matter of practicality. We are essentially forbidding a source of funding without really providing any alternatives for a WA in desperate need of financial security.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

So would you suggest "Human Rights" be the category? Bookkeeping actually fits in this case, as the measure is about setting boundaries for the WA's authority, rather than initiating actual involvement.

Historically, the UN/WA operated on donations, and member states could theoretically be charged fees as well (taxing states is not the same as taxing individuals as far as this resolution would be concerned).

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield, Twafflonia

and member states could theoretically be charged fees as well (taxing states is not the same as taxing individuals as far as this resolution would be concerned).



Though the General Assembly obviously disagrees with that assessment, having defeated ways and means....

Hold off the draft from uploading now but keep developing it until everyone's happy.

Basically, funding is essential for the WA to survive reasonably. It should be funded in two ways: donations and contributions. Donations come from anybody who wishes to support the WA. Contributions come from Nations governments BUT this is where the sensitive bit comes in, and many nations have all sorts of ideas.

My idea, is that poorer nations are required to contribute less than the contributions of richer nations. My suggestions also covers the fact that the poorest nations or nations in state of crisis may not even need to contribute at all.

There should be a wee interest as a penalty (up to 0.01% per year only) for non-payment, and just a small department to direct the money to the most important parts of the WA.

So would you suggest "Human Rights" be the category? Bookkeeping actually fits in this case, as the measure is about setting boundaries for the WA's authority, rather than initiating actual involvement.You seem to have missed my point. The use of the Book-keeping category is forbidden until the modmins announce otherwise.

Historically, the UN/WA operated on donations, and member states could theoretically be charged fees as well (taxing states is not the same as taxing individuals as far as this resolution would be concerned).Yes, but this document contains nothing like that. If you're going to forbid a source of funding, provide for an alternative source the WA can use.

"Historically," the UN/WA has operated on nothing -- except maybe for some change in a pickle jar on some ambassador's desk (forgot who), and whatever the gnomes could snake out of the Strangers' Bar cash-register. And since the UN/WA keeps defeating resolutions providing for their own funding, we will need to find a stable source of revenue somewhere. Sadly, a blocker resolution doesn't solve this problem, it only complicates it.

And the correct category would be Social Justice, Mild.

So perhaps the best way to address funding would be to combine the individual tax ban with a request for contributions and donations, perhaps creating a WA organisation to receive and record such contributions. The only way it would get passed would be if contributions were voluntary (or at least not specifically required). It would of course leave the door open for future resolutions to fund themselves through mandatory contributions from member states, though such resolutions might be difficult to pass (Twafflonia, for instance, would vote against such a resolution).

I'll hold off on actually proposing it until the Book-keeping discussion settles. But in the meantime, how does this look?

WA Tax Restriction
A resolution to ???
Category: ???
Strength: ???

RECOGNIZING the necessity to fund certain measures called for by World Assembly resolutions;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the World Assembly is not necessarily representative of the citizens of member nations;

OBSERVING the temptation to utilize the World Assembly as a medium for unnecessary, unproductive, or harmful interference with the citizens of member nations;

DESIRING to increase international human rights without imposing unrequested or unfair burden on the citizens of member nations;

The World Assembly hereby :

DECLARES that its measures shall not be supported through direct taxation of the citizens of member states;

REQUESTS and APPLAUDS voluntary monetary and material contributions from member states and the citizens thereof;

AUTHORISES the formation of the World Assembly Capital Contribution Organisation (WACCO) to receive and record contributions and donations for the World Assembly, as well as any stipulations endowed upon the contributions for their use.

It's not that simple. You can't just tack on a few clauses, brush your hands and declare, "Problem solved." You still have to protect against waste, fraud and abuse, which will require a fair amount of work. You can't just say, "Your support is greatly appreciated; we accept cash, gifts and all major credit cards," or better yet, "We regret to announce the death of fiscal solvency in the WA; in lieu of funding, please send donations to WACCO, c/o WA HQ, 1683 Clueless Blvd., etc." The funding resolution that was just defeated contained numerous provisions assuring that the monies collected were spent properly and responsibly; this contains none of those. It just seems like a cop-out, really -- and I am very much surprised that you are introducing a topic so relevant to our current political climate, and yet seem so disconnected from the fact that intimately related legislation just failed.

And please, could we control the urge to use the letters "WA" to prefix terrible acronyms? WAAT, WACCO, WANG, WANK, etc., etc.? We get it, OK? It's not funny.

I apologize for the seemingly hostile tone. I'm not trying to be a pill on this. Really, I'm not. This issue is just terribly frustrating for me.

No worries (hostility in global politics [OOC: or on the Internet] shouldn't bother anyone these days).

But I posit that the Ways and Means act failed precisely because of the excess provisions. I feel quite certain that a clearer, simpler version would pass without problem. Besides, the thrust of the tax restriction--as with the original Tax Ban--is not to fund the WA, but to prevent unnecessary interference from the WA with the citizenry of member nations, thereby settling isolationist fears and encouraging membership among the nations of the world. Including the call for donations addresses the problem you perceived in the lack of provision for funding the WA while at once preventing a means of taxation.

This Tax Restriction measure is not meant to be a replacement for the Ways and Means act, no matter its timeliness.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield,
Twafflonia