NationStates Jolt Archive

Furtherment of Democracy/Mild:

This Assembly,

Committed to providing for a stable, reliable source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations;

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

Disappointed by the past practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;

Concerned by the possibility of corruption and wasteful spending, and determined to prevent such practices in the establishment of WA funding,

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending;

8. Stipulates that voluntary contributions to the General Fund from governments, private citizens or organizations may be earmarked for a specific purpose; and,

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

9. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may affect international trade or include unfair discriminatory practices;

10. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.Comments welcome.

Well, we here at the High Council see nothing wrong with it. It's certainly better than its UN counterpart.

One thing, though: In clause 10 there is a mention of ''an appropriate degree''. As you'll probably be aware, the WA has some of the biggest nitpicks in the world, and I'm certain some nations will use that to vote against it or will abuse that piece of wording.

The word ''appropriate'' needs to be either defined or replaced.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 8:12

This seems to be a good resolution. Our government is likely to support it. We are interested in the nature of these "solicited donations" are they completely discretionary on the part of member nations ?

yours e.t.c. ,

One thing, though: In clause 10 there is a mention of ''an appropriate degree''. As you'll probably be aware, the WA has some of the biggest nitpicks in the world, and I'm certain some nations will use that to vote against it or will abuse that piece of wording.

The word ''appropriate'' needs to be either defined or replaced.Not when it's a "strongly encourages" clause. Why get nitpicky over the language when it's not mandatory?

This seems to be a good resolution. Our government is likely to support it. We are interested in the nature of these "solicited donations" are they completely discretionary on the part of member nations ?Why, yes. "Completely Discretionary" in the sense that you are completely free to leave the WA if you don't like it. :tongue:

Why get nitpicky over the language when it's not mandatory?

Well, why not? We're writing the law here, and we need it to be as clear, firm, and just as possible, even if it's not a clause that's mandatory.

Certainly, it's not a neccesity, but for the good of everyone we should try to make it as perfect as possible.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
10th of August, 17:00

Not when it's a "strongly encourages" clause. Why get nitpicky over the language when it's not mandatory?

Why, yes. "Completely Discretionary" is the sense that you are completely free to leave the WA if you don't like it. :tongue:


Khan Mongkha looks bemused and whispers something about mandatory W.A. Taxes to Tarmashirin who looks more nervous than ever.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks his excellency ambassador Batko-Yovino for that illucidating answer. So in essence these "solicited donations" are a euphemism for mandatory Fees for W.A. membership then?

Oh and clause 4, what formula will be used to generate the appropriate fee level for each member nation? That should really be made clear, vagueness about such fees being assesed on national wealth and ability to pay will lead more cynical nations to presume all kinds of strange things. The actual formula should appear in the resolution in our opinion.


yours e.t.c. ,

Khan Mongkha looks bemused and whispers something about mandatory W.A. Taxes to Tarmashirin who looks more nervous than ever.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks their excellency the ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny for that ilucidating contribution. So in essence these "solicited donations" are a euphemism for mandatory Fees for W.A. membership then?

Oh and clause 4, what formula will be used to generate the appropriate fee level for each member nation? That should really be made clear, vagueness about such fees being assesed on national wealth and ability to pay will lead more cynical nations to presume all kinds of strange things. The actual formula should appear in the resolution in our opinion.


yours e.t.c. ,

Read through the proposal again. Nowhere in the entire proposal does it even suggest that any kind of fees or taxes will be mandatory upon a member state. Nowhere. If you're that obsessed with your funds, you can keep them. Of course, in my opinion, you'd better also be voting against every single proposal that requires any kind of funding, too, if you're too cheap to be bothered to help fund it.

I think the proposal's fine, but I don't quite see the purpose of putting in clause 10 anyway. Seems a little bit of a tacked on way to 'encourage' nations to disclose their budgets for no good reason.

Read through the proposal again. Nowhere in the entire proposal does it even suggest that any kind of fees or taxes will be mandatory upon a member state. Nowhere. If you're that obsessed with your funds, you can keep them. Of course, in my opinion, you'd better also be voting against every single proposal that requires any kind of funding, too, if you're too cheap to be bothered to help fund it.

I think the proposal's fine, but I don't quite see the purpose of putting in clause 10 anyway. Seems a little bit of a tacked on way to 'encourage' nations to disclose their budgets for no good reason.

Please gracious ambassador would you read our submisions here before you start telling us what we should and should not be doing. We are extremely in favour of finding a secure source of funding for the W.A. and have said so on many occasions.

We were informed by the esteemed ambassador for Omigodtheykilledkenny who's region this resolution eminates from that the donations outlined in this resolution were non-optional for w.a. members, this means that these "donations" are really membership fees. We simply wanted this to be clear, and to establish how exactly these fees would be assesed on members.

If this angers you in some way, we apologise. We are only interested in having the funding system for the w.a. be as transparent and legally sound as possible.

yours e.t.c. ,

Shhhhh!

The Chancellor of the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes is pleased to decrease any amount of taxes levied on the people to fund World Assembly projects. We are prepared to vote Yes on the resolution as it currently stands, should it come to vote. Should the WA General Fund be passed, a portion of budget surpluses from Glen-Rhodes will be donated on a regular basis, given that these surpluses come on a regular basis; we are currently reforming our economic policy, which has been to tax the hell of out of businesses for rather useless programs proposed by special interest groups.

Though, we wonder... will Ambassadors just leave the funding clause "Funding for X proposal will come from the WA General Fund"? That doesn't really solve anything. Surely the General Fund won't be a bottomless pit. Perhaps a guideline for how to use the General Fund would be in order?

Dr. Bradford Castro
World Assembly Ambassador
The Commonwealth of Glen Rhodes

Oh and clause 4, what formula will be used to generate the appropriate fee level for each member nation? That should really be made clear, vagueness about such fees being assesed on national wealth and ability to pay will lead more cynical nations to presume all kinds of strange things. The actual formula should appear in the resolution in our opinion.A cap for donations was considered, but eventually rejected as impractical. Surely the requirement that assessments be based only upon a nation's wealth and ability to pay is enough of a buffer against discrimination or special treatment, as well as the mandate that excess funds be returned to member states in proportion to the amount given? We would appreciate additional suggestions in that regard.

Read through the proposal again. Nowhere in the entire proposal does it even suggest that any kind of fees or taxes will be mandatory upon a member state.Try reading Clause 4 again.

Well, why not? We're writing the law here, and we need it to be as clear, firm, and just as possible, even if it's not a clause that's mandatory.Language does not have to be so precise when it isn't mandatory. We're not aiming so much for perfection as pragmatism here, as is the case with any legislation.

Though, we wonder... will Ambassadors just leave the funding clause "Funding for X proposal will come from the WA General Fund"? That doesn't really solve anything. Surely the General Fund won't be a bottomless pit. Perhaps a guideline for how to use the General Fund would be in order?That's why the GAO is established in the proposal, to determine how the General Fund will be budgeted. We typically outsource the nitty-gritty details to commissions when it is unnecessary or impractical to do so in the proposal text itself.

Shhhhh!


Khan Mongkha looks non-plussed. He turns to his assistant and whispers " is this some barbaric tongue we are unfamiliar with?".

Honoured ambassador for Cobdenia, are you suggesting that someone be quiet or are you expressing yourself in a language we are ashamed to say we do not understand?

yours e.t.c. ,

Heilsland would be happy to provide funds for WA needs if deemed nessecary, such as an armed force for peace-keeping, funds for countries expierencing natural disastes, and well...you got the point Im sure.

My countries tax level is 5% last I checked and by our laws any pleads for a donation or fund can be ran by the Financing Department and will allow the commitee to decid whether it is nessecary, whether we can fund it with our money, or if we must raise tax for a while to get the money...all laid out in Article 17.

Esteemed ambassador Batko-Yovino, our concern is that the G.A.O. will be deciding "ability to pay" with out guidelines on what this means or what would be proportionate to levy. One way could be for nations to negotiate with the G.A.O. what would be an acceptable fee per year for them to pay.
Another would be a mathematical formula ( this being a funding proposal this would seem more appropriate ) which would factor in g.d.p. and available surpluses, and projected government spending requirements and size of economy e.t.c. to fairly arrive at a fee amount.

We are sorry to say that our mathematical skills are rather poor and our economics adviser is mountain climbing in the Hindu Kush at the moment so our formula is only notional. We do however feel such a system would be vital to ensure a fair levy and to dispel any possible opposition from nations who will claim that this resolution is unfair or over burdensome or that it gives to much power to W.A. economics wonks who will fleece them.

We strongly urge you to consider including clear and fair gudelines in this matter to completely neuter possible opposition.

yours e.t.c. ,

We strongly urge the authors of this proposal to consider including clear and fair gudelines in this matter to completely neuter possible opposition.It is precisely the sort of system you advocate the felled the first funding act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527018). The more details you provide, the less people want to know -- and when you're considering a subject as controversial as funding, the situation becomes especially delicate. This is why we elected to outsource a lot of the specific details to the GAO, an office we feel can be trusted in such matters, especially considering that under the proposal it must disclose all expenditures, follow a previously outlined annual budget, return all surpluses and regularly submit to outside audits. The guidelines listed for calculating annual assessments -- national wealth and ability to pay -- are very similar to the GDP-based figure you requested, and nations' ability to plead their inability to pay a certain year gives state parties some of the negotiating powers you suggested prior to that. If you have more suggestions for baseline language to assure a fairer system, we'd love to hear them, but laying out the actual "tax" rate itself in the text is something we want to avoid.

Naturally we bow to your superior knowledge and experience in this matter. Obviously in a perfect world we would prefer to know on what basis our fee has been calculated but perhaps other nations are not so concerned. There does seem to need to be a lot which is not specifically voiced in this resolution. It reminds us of the spoon full of pomegranate molasses our nurse maids gave to us with our medicine when we were infants.



yours e.t.c. ,

Of course we have some quibbles about clause 9, we have had cause to ask this before and never received a satisfactory answer then, but why exactly is there a clause which manipulates international trade and taxation asociated with it in a statute covering w.a. funding?


yours e.t.c. ,

I do have an issue with mandating the return of surpluses, as it effectively prevents the fund from guaranteeing future solvency for projected shortfalls in funding, or unpredicted circumstances where the addition funding could ensure solvency. This resolution also does not stipulate whether the WA would be authorised to run at a deficit, which it presently does due to funding shortfalls. A WA debt fund is also necessary to cover this, with an approved cap, automatically adjusted to international inflation.

I do have an issue with mandating the return of surpluses, as it effectively prevents the fund from guaranteeing future solvency for projected shortfalls in funding, or unpredicted circumstances where the addition funding could ensure solvency.Returning surplus is a political bone to opposition that must be included. Without such a clause, the cries of the WA ripping off nations, hording money, and other such things will be deafening. With this clause, it will simply be a dull roar.


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

Yup. My thoughts exactly.

Of course we have some quibbles about clause 9, we have had cause to ask this before and never received a satisfactory answer then, but why exactly is there a clause which manipulates international trade and taxation asociated with it in a statute covering w.a. funding?It's an idea stolen from St Edmund's Ways and Means document. Naturally, member states are going to wonder, now that we're raiding their coffers, if we're going to start butting in on the way those coffers are filled. This is to assure them that we won't.

And it doesn't "manipulate" international trade one bit.

This resolution also does not stipulate whether the WA would be authorised to run at a deficit,...Sure it does. It says it can't. It's another way to reassure a wary public that the WA won't be delving into the practice of wasteful spending. See, they already hate the idea of funding the WA (and have rejected it twice before); we can't exactly be stepping on their toes when we're trying to make them go along with a funding measure. Give the people what they want.

May not be the wisest fiscal measure, but it is the smarter one. I hope you see the difference.

A WA debt fund is also necessary to cover this, with an approved cap, automatically adjusted to international inflation.Uhh, a debt fund, with an approved cap, automatically adjusted to international inflation, for an organization that's been in existence for only four months?

We can understand reassuring nations that the w.a. will not raise taxes on their people directly, and honouring their right to control their own taxation system. However having an operative clause (which is non-optional ) which undermines national power to tax trade of any kind completely undermines that affirmation.

Excepting taxes on international trade is anomalous in this context, why not simply "Recognise" taxation sovereignty, and leave out mention of trade?

Unless , of course, your desire is not to see to matters of w.a. funding at all with this statute.


yours e.t.c. ,

How about allowing the WA to accept donations directly from people/organizations?

How about allowing the WA to accept donations directly from people/organizations?There's nothing currently preventing that.

Excepting taxes on international trade is anomalous in this context, why not simply "Recognise" taxation sovereignty, and leave out mention of trade?Because if we allowed nations total tax sovereignty on everything, including tariffs, import fees and other protectionist devices, then the proposal would be illegal. Closing off an entire category (namely Free Trade) is generally frowned upon by the moderators.

Unless , of course, your desire is not to see to matters of w.a. funding at all with this statute.What does this mean?

Because if we allowed nations total tax sovereignty on everything, including tariffs, import fees and other protectionist devices, then the proposal would be illegal. Closing off an entire category (namely Free Trade) is generally frowned upon by the moderators.

What does this mean?

Very well then make this clause a non operative one, simply express the resolution's neutrality on the issue of taxation and that it will never directly tax member's populace.

It could read- " Confirms member nation's taxation autonomy, without prejudice. "

Or words to this effect, the last bit is a phrase we are sure you are aware of which is used in legal documents to indicate that previous statements will not effect future decisions.

yours e.t.c. ,

What would be the point to assuring nations of their autonomy over domestic taxation if the language doesn't mean anything?

I don't suppose it would hurt to ask why mentioning the WA's power over international trade offends you so? As we recall, you were "predisposed to be highly in favor" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13864330&postcount=19) of the WA Economic Union, which not only mentions the WA's power over international trade, it exercises it mightily.

I do have an issue with mandating the return of surpluses, as it effectively prevents the fund from guaranteeing future solvency for projected shortfalls in funding, or unpredicted circumstances where the addition funding could ensure solvency. This resolution also does not stipulate whether the WA would be authorised to run at a deficit, which it presently does due to funding shortfalls.

My dear sir, that is one of the best ways to keep such an international agency honest, and fiscally responcible.


A WA debt fund is also necessary to cover this, with an approved cap, automatically adjusted to international inflation.

It most certianly does not need to be introduced. That is the problems with too many governments and agencies. They run out of money and constantly go back to the public teat for more. This forces said agency to actually live with a budget, and once the money is gone, no more for next year. It also forces the agency not to spend projected surplus fubnds for next year.

The Palentine shall go on record for being for this legislation.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

What would be the point to assuring nations of their autonomy over domestic taxation if the language doesn't mean anything?

I don't suppose it would hurt to ask why mentioning the WA's power over international trade offends you so? As we recall, you were "predisposed to be highly in favor" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13864330&postcount=19) of the WA Economic Union, which not only mentions the WA's power over international trade, it exercises it mightily.


Indeed we are highly in favour of an economic union, which would have strong checks and balances on w.a. power and in which the principles of democracy and national consent were paramount.

We do not like the idea of of taxation policy being set in half a sentence of one clause of a statute which deals with W.A. funding.

Surely you have only included the bulk of clause 9 averring a w.a. tax system simply in order to dissipate oposition to the resolution, it need not be operative. Ignore our wording suggestion by all means, we are certain it is inadequate but we strongly suggest you re-word clause 9 to leave members to do as they wish ( for the time being anyway ) with taxation on trade.

yours e.t.c. ,

So, on the one hand, you favor "leaving members to do as they wish with taxation on trade," yet on the other hand, you support WA Economic Union, which does the precise opposite? Which is it?

Maybe it's just that you don't understand: if we revoke the WA's power to regulate taxes that affect trade, we wouldn't just be revoking it "for the time being," we'd be revoking it forever, at least until this is repealed. If this were passed without the proviso on international trade, WA Economic Union couldn't even be submitted as a legal proposal, since it would directly contradict Clause 9.

If this were passed without the proviso on international trade, WA Economic Union couldn't even be submitted as a legal proposal, since it would directly contradict Clause 9.
And that would enrage me to no end.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

We do not like the idea of of taxation policy being set in half a sentence of one clause of a statute which deals with W.A. funding.

Why not? Back in the UN it was set in a one sentence resolution that half the UN ambassadors misinterpreted.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

So, on the one hand, you favor "leaving members to do as they wish with taxation on trade," yet on the other hand, you support WA Economic Union, which does the precise opposite? Which is it?

Maybe it's just that you don't understand: if we revoke the WA's power to regulate taxes that affect trade, we wouldn't just be revoking it "for the time being," we'd be revoking it forever, at least until this is repealed. If this were passed without the proviso on international trade, WA Economic Union couldn't even be submitted as a legal proposal, since it would directly contradict Clause 9.

Esteemed ambassador Batko-Yovino, you pose your question as a choice, and doubtless you see it in that light. We have explained the circumstances under which we would favour w.a. involvement in taxation policy, these are not the circumstances laid out in your statute.


Of course our advice is meaningless, you are infinitely more experienced than we, and we will certainly bow to your superior wisdom. Please forgive our presumption in offering advice at all, we only wish to see your resolution pass and not face suspicion and cynicism.


yours e.t.c. ,

This ambassador has long favored the creation of a system of funding for World Assembly resolutions. The government of Puppetingness has expressed a tacit approval for this method of funding, particularly for its discreet nature. However, several clauses, particularly those relating to the World Assembly General Accounting Office, have elicited a degree of concern from individuals and nations.

Clause Three is the most egregious - thus it shall be addressed at a later point.

The government of Puppetingness reflects that the method of collection stated in Clause Four is relatively simple to calculate and assess, though "ability to give" is a highly subjective guideline. However, this ambassador would like to point out the Marxian inferences in this statement - which assures that the World Assembly General Accounting Office shall abide by the principle "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This principle has no place in the World Assembly.

Such a guideline for donation collection will reward economically stagnant and fiscally imprudent nations. If nations with budget surpluses are subject to additional donations, then this will act as a disincentive to generate a surplus - which is a possible contradiction to the sentiment expressed in Clause Ten. The same disincentive applies to economic growth. Though this argument may appear absurd to more principled nations, these principled nations are not the marginal case. It is a basic axiom that creating incentives for a certain activity will encourage more of that activity - in this case, fiscal deficits and economic recessions.

Moreover, the government of Puppetingness presumes that the World Assembly currently prioritizes its limited resources by the need for particular programs; and that funding is prioritized within programs for areas where those resources are needed most. This obviously indicates that some nations receive disproportionate amounts of funds relative to their World Assembly vote.

As an example, this ambassador points to the International Coordinated Relief Committee, implemented on May 1st, 2008. In the experience of this ambassador, it is accurate to assume that the World Assembly did not raise sufficient funds under the current system. In such a budgeting year, suppose a weather phenomenon manifested in such a way that it caused great devastation to the nation of Puppetingness, as its position in the clouds exacerbated the destruction. Noting the need for relief in Puppetingness and in other nations, the World Assembly presumably authorizes a large share of its funds for the International Coordinated Relief Committee. This committee, noting that the devastation in Puppetingness far exceeds that in other nations, prioritizes the majority of its funds toward its operations in Puppetingness. By positioning itself in a way that makes it vulnerable to weather patterns, the nation of Puppetingness has been rewarded by receiving increased funds from the World Assembly.

Obviously, this pattern gives nations an incentive to vote in such a way that they are rewarded for their decisions - in this case, the decision to position the nation on a floating landmass in the clouds. This is a problem in the existing World Assembly funding structure, however, nations who take this path only receive a disproportionate amount of voluntary donors money. The problem becomes vastly exacerbated when the funds are drawn from solicited national donors.

This externality can be remedied. By basing the collection of donations on the existing and future reception of World Assembly funds by that nation, the externality is removed. Nations are made to reimburse much of the funds that they receive. They receive a disproportionate share of private donor funds to a lesser degree and their share of collected national donor funds is proportionate to the amount of funds they receive - which encourages transparency and efficiency in their use of World Assembly funds. At the same time, this gives these nations access to experienced international organizations, who can often use funds more efficiently and to a greater effect than their national counterparts.

For these reasons, the government of Puppetingness would like a propose an amendment to Clause Four of this yet-to-be-proposed resolution. This ambassador is of the opinion that this amendment will increase support for this resolution among skeptical nations within the World Assembly, as it no longer references the infamous Karl Marx and it appeals to those who value fiscal conservatism and national sovereignty.
4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' current and future reception of World Assembly funds;

The argument presented in regards to Clause Four has supplied the support necessary for the government of Puppetingness' conclusions regarding Clause Three. This ambassador has no objections to any section of Clause Three, however, he has entertained suggestions from others that would do much to assure a "responsible manner" in the management of the World Assembly General Accounting Office. If this proposal is implemented, even assuming the amendment proposed by the government of Puppetingness is approved, the General Accounting Office will have incentives to depart from the "responsible manner" mentioned in the Clause.

It is the nature of bureaucratic institutions, whether privately or publicly managed, that they seek to expand the revenue that they have access to. In private institutions, this is normally done by expanding the business or by receiving capital from investors. In public institutions, this can only be done by appealing for more funding. Thus all the public institutions created by World Assembly resolutions will seek to expand their revenue by appealing for greater funding. As a public institution within the World Assembly, the General Accounting Office will be under pressure from every other institution, all of which will seek additional funding and will oppose cuts in funding. Indeed, even the General Accounting Office is vulnerable to this phenomenon, as it has the incentive to assign a larger budget for its own administration needs. Since the General Accounting Office has complete control over the collection of funds, there are few repercussions for advising larger collections than are responsible, in order to pay for politically beneficial increases in funding for programs.

This situation creates a spiral in which the General Accounting Office is pushed to increase funding for programs regardless of whether that funding is necessary or efficient. This cost will be borne out by the member nations, whose collected donations will increase to pay for the irresponsible funding of World Assembly programs. Thus it must be a priority of the resolution to create incentives for prudent fiscal policy in the General Accounting Office. Unfortunately, this ambassador cannot think of a complete solution to this issue under the current framework of the World Assembly. The most reliable method of ensuring fiscal responsibility would be to require any institutions that are implemented through World Assembly resolutions to be renewed by World Assembly vote of some sort on a yearly basis. This vote would include the General Accounting Office's projected funding for the year, as well as any possible reports on the effectiveness of the institutions in question.

Barring that, the resolution could seek to ensure that the General Accounting Office is politically independent or fiscally conservative. For instance, members of the General Accounting Office could include persons from nations that are not part of the World Assembly as these persons are isolated from the various World Assembly member nations and programs. As such, the government of Puppetingness would like to volunteer the services of a neighboring nation; one that is not a member of the World Assembly and one that has a stark record of fiscal responsibility. It should be noted that this responsibility does not extend to the government of this nation as a whole, which still suffers from corruption stemming from a former political leaders' programs. However, the men of the current government's task force has been instrumental in fighting bureaucratic corruption and irresponsibility - being responsible for lowering the government's World Assembly Corruption rating from 32nd most Corrupt nation in the world to the 13000th most Corrupt nation in the space of two months (as of July).

This ambassador applauds Clause Five and sees this as a vital measure to ensure efficient management of the World Assembly General Fund. However, the government of Puppetingness would like to reflect the sentiments of private individuals regarding this Clause. Private donations will undoubtedly remain a substantial portion of the World Assembly General Fund. However, there is no provision for the return of surplus funds to private donors in proportion to their contribution - only to national donors. Obviously, the private donors have not been subject to coercion of any sort and thus it may no seem appropriate to reimburse these donors in any manner. However, this once again creates a negative disincentive. Since the World Assembly will be appropriately forbidden from the use of deficit spending, there will assuredly be a surplus in funds. This means that private donors will always shoulder a disproportionate amount of the funding burden. This makes private donors less likely to continue contributing, as part of their funds are simply used to disproportionately lower the collection burden of member nations. Private donors should be encouraged to continue donating and thus they should be treated equally to national donors in regards to reimbursement.

Once again, the government of Puppetingness would like to propose an amendment to the proposal. This ambassador feels that this will not negatively impact the resolution's chance of being adopted. Fiscal conservative voters will certainly not be repulsed by an equal distribution of a surplus-refund.
5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to all donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

This ambassador has been slightly confounded by the language of Clause Eight. Does this Clause pertain to collected national donations or the more traditional sort of donations?

In conclusion, the government of Puppetingness tentatively supports this resolution, but believes that it should be revised to avoid creating the negative incentives described. This ambassador feels that revision of these clauses will make this proposal more palatable to proponents of fiscal conservatism and national sovereignty.

Regards - WA Ambassador of the nation of Puppetingness

Why not? Back in the UN it was set in a one sentence resolution that half the UN ambassadors misinterpreted.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


The old U.N. is ashes, it's taxation policies are moot, but if they were as flimsy as you suggest noble ambassador Flibble then we are glad there is an oportunity to supercede them with more sensible statutes.

yours e.t.c. ,

The old U.N. is ashes, it's taxation policies are moot, but if they were as flimsy as you suggest noble ambassador Flibble then we are glad there is an oportunity to supercede them with more sensible statutes.

yours e.t.c. ,

Actually, they were pithy, yet quite specific. They stated
The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.
The problem was most people didn't take the time to actually read and correctly interpret the resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Actually, they were pithy, yet quite specific. They stated

The problem was most people didn't take the time to actually read and correctly interpret the resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


Very well honoured ambassador Flibble we concede that it may well be possible to effectively enshrine certain principles on taxation in an entire sentence, but in the instance your referring to the context is one of a Taxation Ban, not of a w.a. funding statute. In any case the actuall intent of the clause we were questioning has been made clear to us, and we see now it's utility and how it's inclusion is a necessity.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The Fat Bakers Parliament believes that this resolution would solve the WA fund problem. However we have some doubts regarding Article 8, it is our understanding that this Article could easily be used by richer nations to guarantee that only programs that are favorable to them receive suitable funds.


Honored Puppetingness ambassador we strongly oppose your view of this resolution, the beginning of your intervention seems to imply that riche nations would prefer to be poor and give less donations, and that poor nations would gladly stay poor as long as they would give small donations.(to give an example of what your suggestion implies, a man o wins 10000 flour pounds(The Fat Bakers currency) and pays 1000 flour of taxes, would prefer to only win 1000 flour if it only pay 100 flour of taxes) that is absurd.
The respectable ambassador also seems to confuse tax policies, whit Karl Marx theories, taxation has no place in communist societies since taxes are applied over private property, and if the term “ability to give” offends your Excellency so much maybe it could be replace by "gross domestic product"

Also regarding your Excellency ambassador of Puppetingness, suggestion for article 4
The Fat Bakers Parliament must oppose, to use an example given by the ambassador
The poorest nations are the ones that would require biggest founds in case of a catastrophe and are also the ones that cant afford to replace that money, as so the suggestion of the ambassador would forever put an end to international aid.

However we do recognize merit in the ambassador proposal to article 5

In a side note we advise your Excellency to further study the political economic theories before making a reference to them.

The Fat Bakers Parliament believes that this resolution would solve the WA fund problem. However we have some doubts regarding Article 8, it is our understanding that this Article could easily be used by richer nations to guarantee that only programs that are favorable to them receive suitable funds. We're afraid you misread this clause. It only pertains to voluntary contributions by governments, organizations or individuals. They can earmark their own contributed funds. But the assessed (read: mandatory) national donations go into the General Fund like all other non-earmarked monies. It's the same story with Clause 5. That only applies to assessed national donations.

However, this ambassador would like to point out the Marxian inferences in this statement - which assures that the World Assembly General Accounting Office shall abide by the principle "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This principle has no place in the World Assembly.

We read no Marxian philosophy in this proposal, your supplying the needed language notwithstanding. It is rather foolish to levy a tax against a nation that cannot pay it, no? If nothing else, it will certainly play hell with the budget.

Such a guideline for donation collection will reward economically stagnant and fiscally imprudent nations. If nations with budget surpluses are subject to additional donations, then this will act as a disincentive to generate a surplus - which is a possible contradiction to the sentiment expressed in Clause Ten. The same disincentive applies to economic growth. Though this argument may appear absurd to more principled nations, these principled nations are not the marginal case. It is a basic axiom that creating incentives for a certain activity will encourage more of that activity - in this case, fiscal deficits and economic recessions.

So.... nations are going to make devastating decisions with regard to their economy so they can avoid paying a WA tax? Umm.... right. And it has been our experience that those with more money generally pay more taxes. That's just... usually how it works. Mainly because if you tax someone who cannot pay it, you get no money. Doh.

Moreover, the government of Puppetingness presumes that the World Assembly currently prioritizes its limited resources by the need for particular programs; and that funding is prioritized within programs for areas where those resources are needed most. This obviously indicates that some nations receive disproportionate amounts of funds relative to their World Assembly vote.

I'm sorry. Could you explain this, please? Some nations receive disproportionate amounts of funds relative to their World Assembly vote. rustles through papers. Where exactly does it say that expenditures have anything whatsoever to do with a nation's World Assembly vote? Or that this should even be considered when funding WA committees/agencies/whathaveyou created by passed resolutions? And just out of curiousity... isn't it the delegates who vote, not the nations?

As an example, this ambassador points to the International Coordinated Relief Committee, implemented on May 1st, 2008. In the experience of this ambassador, it is accurate to assume that the World Assembly did not raise sufficient funds under the current system. In such a budgeting year, suppose a weather phenomenon manifested in such a way that it caused great devastation to the nation of Puppetingness, as its position in the clouds exacerbated the destruction. Noting the need for relief in Puppetingness and in other nations, the World Assembly presumably authorizes a large share of its funds for the International Coordinated Relief Committee. This committee, noting that the devastation in Puppetingness far exceeds that in other nations, prioritizes the majority of its funds toward its operations in Puppetingness. By positioning itself in a way that makes it vulnerable to weather patterns, the nation of Puppetingness has been rewarded by receiving increased funds from the World Assembly.

Yes, and any other nation that has some sort of horrific weather pattern or other natural disaster shouldn't receive funds because after all they chose to build their nation there. From this perspective, one wonders about the purpose of the ICRC at all, since all those nations are simply being irresponsible in their choices and should have to solve the problems caused by said irresponsibility without help of any kind from outside themselves. Social Darwinism, anyone?

Obviously, this pattern gives nations an incentive to vote in such a way that they are rewarded for their decisions - in this case, the decision to position the nation on a floating landmass in the clouds. This is a problem in the existing World Assembly funding structure, however, nations who take this path only receive a disproportionate amount of voluntary donors money. The problem becomes vastly exacerbated when the funds are drawn from solicited national donors.

Obviously, voting on ANYTHING gives every nation the incentive to be rewarded for their actions.

This externality can be remedied. By basing the collection of donations on the existing and future reception of World Assembly funds by that nation, the externality is removed. Nations are made to reimburse much of the funds that they receive. They receive a disproportionate share of private donor funds to a lesser degree and their share of collected national donor funds is proportionate to the amount of funds they receive - which encourages transparency and efficiency in their use of World Assembly funds. At the same time, this gives these nations access to experienced international organizations, who can often use funds more efficiently and to a greater effect than their national counterparts.

This might work if funding only applied to the ICRC. It's my understanding that the purpose of this proposal is to fund any and all WA resolutions that require agencies/committess/whathaveyou. Unless you are saying that all WA resolutions that require funding are soley concerned with doling out money to member nations for their irresponsible choices, in which case we fail to see why this proposal has your tacit agreement at all.

For these reasons, the government of Puppetingness would like a propose an amendment to Clause Four of this yet-to-be-proposed resolution. This ambassador is of the opinion that this amendment will increase support for this resolution among skeptical nations within the World Assembly, as it no longer references the infamous Karl Marx and it appeals to those who value fiscal conservatism and national sovereignty.

This proposal didn't reference Karl Marx (whomever that may be); YOU did. And those who hold national sovereignty so dearly probably aren't WA members.

Since the General Accounting Office has complete control over the collection of funds, there are few repercussions for advising larger collections than are responsible, in order to pay for politically beneficial increases in funding for programs.

This proposal does not anticipate an autonomous agency which does whatever it wants to do and continually expands its budget. Funds are returned at the end of the year (oops, no expanding budget), oversight is provided for in the form of audits. What are you talking about?

The most reliable method of ensuring fiscal responsibility would be to require any institutions that are implemented through World Assembly resolutions to be renewed by World Assembly vote of some sort on a yearly basis. This vote would include the General Accounting Office's projected funding for the year, as well as any possible reports on the effectiveness of the institutions in question.

No. Either the institutions exist and function or they don't. Next you'll be wanting to renew resolutions every year. Gods... could you imagine what a mess THAT would be? Talk about turning something into a mindless bureaucracy....

Barring that, the resolution could seek to ensure that the General Accounting Office is politically independent or fiscally conservative. For instance, members of the General Accounting Office could include persons from nations that are not part of the World Assembly as these persons are isolated from the various World Assembly member nations and programs. As such, the government of Puppetingness would like to volunteer the services of a neighboring nation; one that is not a member of the World Assembly and one that has a stark record of fiscal responsibility. It should be noted that this responsibility does not extend to the government of this nation as a whole, which still suffers from corruption stemming from a former political leaders' programs. However, the men of the current government's task force has been instrumental in fighting bureaucratic corruption and irresponsibility - being responsible for lowering the government's World Assembly Corruption rating from 32nd most Corrupt nation in the world to the 13000th most Corrupt nation in the space of two months (as of July).

All right Kenny, is that you? I'm all for puppets, but this has gone too far!! A non-WA nation is going to oversee and decide how WA funds are allocated?? Any chance this fiscally responsible nation is from AO? You're funny.

Since the World Assembly will be appropriately forbidden from the use of deficit spending, there will assuredly be a surplus in funds.

Just a paragraph or two ago you were going on and on about how irresposible government spending is. That being the case, how could there possibly be a surplus??? Pick one side of the fence or the other, please.

This means that private donors will always shoulder a disproportionate amount of the funding burden. This makes private donors less likely to continue contributing, as part of their funds are simply used to disproportionately lower the collection burden of member nations. Private donors should be encouraged to continue donating and thus they should be treated equally to national donors in regards to reimbursement.

Before going down this road, we would like to see projections indicating that private donations will exceed mandated contributions. Your underlying premise isn't correct or supported by any documented facts. Further, since the calculation is based on a nation's wealth, how do private donations lower the collection burden? I see no language stating donations will be calculated based on projected spending for the year, which is the only way one would offset the other.

Maggie Carlisle
UN Representative

The government of Puppetingness reflects that the method of collection stated in Clause Four is relatively simple to calculate and assess, though "ability to give" is a highly subjective guideline. However, this ambassador would like to point out the Marxian inferences in this statement - which assures that the World Assembly General Accounting Office shall abide by the principle "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This principle has no place in the World Assembly.

Such a guideline for donation collection will reward economically stagnant and fiscally imprudent nations. If nations with budget surpluses are subject to additional donations, then this will act as a disincentive to generate a surplus - which is a possible contradiction to the sentiment expressed in Clause Ten. The same disincentive applies to economic growth. Though this argument may appear absurd to more principled nations, these principled nations are not the marginal case. It is a basic axiom that creating incentives for a certain activity will encourage more of that activity - in this case, fiscal deficits and economic recessions.

Moreover, the government of Puppetingness presumes that the World Assembly currently prioritizes its limited resources by the need for particular programs; and that funding is prioritized within programs for areas where those resources are needed most. This obviously indicates that some nations receive disproportionate amounts of funds relative to their World Assembly vote.

My government has asked me to suggest basing the levels of the individual nations' "donations" on the sizes of their governments' own budgets: This would still tend to have the richer and more popuous nations paying more than the poorer and smaller ones, but would make those who favour "big government" pay more than those (with comparable national wealth) who favour "small government", which my government sees as appropriate because we think that "big government" regimes are both more likely to support the passage of proposals that require WA funding of activities and probably more likely than "small government" ones to call for aid from WA agencies.


Borrin o Redwood,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for
High Council of Clans,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed.

All right Kenny, is that you? I'm all for puppets, but this has gone too far!! A non-WA nation is going to oversee and decide how WA funds are allocated?? Any chance this fiscally responsible nation is from AO? You're funny.I must have missed the joke. What the hell are you going on about?

I must have missed the joke. What the hell are you going on about?

He appears to be under the impression that WA nation "Puppetingness" is in fact a puppet of yours. Suffice to say that my modly tools indicate a high probability that this is not the case.

It could have been a joke, of course. Not a good joke, mind you, but a joke nonetheless.

At 3:30 this morning it was amusing to entertain the idea that someone in the AO had gone to the trouble to post that bombast in order to slip in that a non-WA member would be controlling the funds. Perhaps not so amusing in the bold light of day. At least not to the AO.

We're afraid you misread this clause. It only pertains to voluntary contributions by governments, organizations or individuals. They can earmark their own contributed funds. But the assessed (read: mandatory) national donations go into the General Fund like all other non-earmarked monies. It's the same story with Clause 5. That only applies to assessed national donations.
This answer has clarified the issue to this ambassador and has alleviated all concerns regarding Clause Eight. However, as stated above, Clause Five discourages voluntary donations, as they will never be reimbursed. The government of Puppetingness urges the Representative of Kenny to consider the amendment to this Clause proposed below.
5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to all donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

This ambassador encourages the Representative of Kenny to study the reasoning behind this amendment in the earlier speech by this ambassador on this topic.

Honored Puppetingness ambassador we strongly oppose your view of this resolution, the beginning of your intervention seems to imply that riche nations would prefer to be poor and give less donations, and that poor nations would gladly stay poor as long as they would give small donations.(to give an example of what your suggestion implies, a man o wins 10000 flour pounds(The Fat Bakers currency) and pays 1000 flour of taxes, would prefer to only win 1000 flour if it only pay 100 flour of taxes) that is absurd.
So.... nations are going to make devastating decisions with regard to their economy so they can avoid paying a WA tax? Umm.... right.
The government of Puppetingness respects the opposition of the Representative of The Fat Baker and the sentiment behind it. However, this ambassador wishes to implore the Representatives of The Fat Bakers and Confused Technocrats to re-evaluate this ambassador’s earlier speech.

Such a guideline for donation collection will reward economically stagnant and fiscally imprudent nations. If nations with budget surpluses are subject to additional donations, then this will act as a disincentive to generate a surplus - which is a possible contradiction to the sentiment expressed in Clause Ten. The same disincentive applies to economic growth. Though this argument may appear absurd to more principled nations, these principled nations are not the marginal case. It is a basic axiom that creating incentives for a certain activity will encourage more of that activity - in this case, fiscal deficits and economic recessions.
As this ambassador has noted, it may appear unrealistic to assert that nations would be pushed to fiscal and economic imprudence. However, by creating incentives for imprudent activities, it will encourage more of these activities. Once again, this ambassador will use an example.

A developed nation is possessed of a financial industry that has recently been exposed in several scandals. Corporations within this industry have engaged in activity of dubious legality and the population has made numerous calls for extensive regulation of this industry. The leaders of this nation realize that such regulation would greatly hamper the profitability of this industry, ultimately weakening the economy. However, the leaders also realize that if their economy declines due to the regulations, their tax burden in the World Assembly will be lowered. Alone, this is not a sufficient incentive to produce action, but in the marginal case where public opinion and populist politicians press for onerous regulation, this incentive can be enough to push their leaders to pursue the path of economic imprudence.

However, the government of Puppetingness acknowledges that this Clause will not create many incentives to pursue economic stagnancy – unless World Assembly donations become a very significant portion of the nation’s budget, which is a possibility. On the other hand, this Clause will assuredly create incentives to engage in fiscal irresponsibility. Representatives such as those from Urgench and Glen-Rhodes have suggested that governments with budgetary surpluses have their donations increased. Such nations would be obviously be compelled to lower their taxes or raise their spending in order to eliminate the presence of such a surplus. The first solution is obviously more preferable, but it cannot be enacted in a short period of time unless the government partakes in tax rebates. However, politicians can easily foresee a budgetary surplus close to the end of the fiscal year and increase spending according, as they are inclined to do. Moreover, if budgetary deficits decrease the donations to the World Assembly, budgetary deficits will become even more attractive to politicians than they already are. This proposal should include measures that prevent the creation of these negative incentives.

The respectable ambassador also seems to confuse tax policies, whit Karl Marx theories, taxation has no place in communist societies since taxes are applied over private property, and if the term “ability to give” offends your Excellency so much maybe it could be replace by "gross domestic product"

We read no Marxian philosophy in this proposal, your supplying the needed language notwithstanding. It is rather foolish to levy a tax against a nation that cannot pay it, no? If nothing else, it will certainly play hell with the budget.
*snip*
This proposal didn't reference Karl Marx (whomever that may be); YOU did. And those who hold national sovereignty so dearly probably aren't WA members.
The government of Puppetingness acknowledges that the relation of Clause Four to Marx’s statement “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is somewhat loose. Marxian policies would adhere to such a statement to the fullest degree in an egalitarian society devoid of private property. Obviously, this Clause is not Marxian in nature. However, this ambassador stands by his assertion that the Clause does contain inferences to Marx’s theory. The Clause would abide by this statement to a far lesser extent and would resemble a quote such as this “A portion from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The government of Puppetingness does note that this ambassador’s stance relies upon an assumption regarding the likely spending habits of the World Assembly. This ambassador assumes that the World Assembly spends its limited funds where they are most needed. If a nation is devastated by a natural disaster, the International Coordinated Relief Committee is likely to devote its funds to that nation. If the World Assembly Headquarters has been subject to many terrorist attacks in recent times, the World Assembly is more likely to allocate funds to the Office of Building Management rather than other programs. Since no other programs exist in the World Assembly at this time, it is difficult to reference any other example without sacrificing any tie to realism or accuracy. However, if these two examples are true, as they likely are, this would indicate that this ambassador’s assumption is true.

If the limited resources of the World Assembly are allocated to those who most need them, that clearly fulfills the last segment of Karl Marx’s statement. One need only read the “ability to give” in the Clause to recognize that this fulfills the first segment of Karl Marx’s statement. This clearly demonstrates a tie between the donation policies of the World Assembly under this resolution and Karl Marx’s quote. This ambassador assures his fellow Representatives that some members nations will recognize this connection, especially due to the use of the words “ability to give” in the Clause. Changing these words to a line such as “gross domestic product” as suggested by the Representative of The Fat Bakers, would only obscure this reference. Some would be fooled, but many wealthy nations would recognize that they are being forced to shoulder most of the burden while poor nations receive most of the benefits. They will vote against this bill unless they can be assured that their burden will not be overtly disproportionate to the benefits that they receive. At this time, the government of Puppetingness would like to note that there clearly are members of the World Assembly that value national sovereignty – they have defeated two taxation resolutions in the past by large margins.

This ambassador is tempted to insist that governments should only receive services that they should pay for. However, the government of Puppetingness is more sympathetic to the plights of the unfortunate. The government of Puppetingness would first like to note that private donations will not be subject to this method of apportionment, though they can be earmarked by the donor. Under the proposed amendment, private donations can still be directed exclusively to poor nations, which increases the importance of the amendment to Clause Five. Moreover, the government of Puppetingness would consider mild concessions such as allowing gross domestic product to play a small consideration in the collection process. Another possible concession is to create a delayed collection mechanism – where nations can opt to pay a part of their collected donations at a later date, with some preconditions. However, the government of Puppetingness is adamant that the majority of the collected funds directed to a country should be paid for with collected donations by that country. This ensures that poor nations have incentives to use the received funds efficiently, as they will be required to pay for much of these services.

My government has asked me to suggest basing the levels of the individual nations' "donations" on the sizes of their governments' own budgets: This would still tend to have the richer and more popuous nations paying more than the poorer and smaller ones, but would make those who favour "big government" pay more than those (with comparable national wealth) who favour "small government", which my government sees as appropriate because we think that "big government" regimes are both more likely to support the passage of proposals that require WA funding of activities and probably more likely than "small government" ones to call for aid from WA agencies.
The government of Puppetingness could reluctantly concede to such a proposal. However, this ambassador still feels that this solution still exposes nations to negative incentives that the proposal should account for.

And it has been our experience that those with more money generally pay more taxes. That's just... usually how it works. Mainly because if you tax someone who cannot pay it, you get no money. Doh.
This ambassador would like to note that it has been the experience of many nations in this world that wealthy pay equal taxes as the poor – if they pay any income tax at all. While progressive tax policies may be the norm for nations such as Confused Technocrats, many economically vibrant nations have no such policies.

Yes, and any other nation that has some sort of horrific weather pattern or other natural disaster shouldn't receive funds because after all they chose to build their nation there. From this perspective, one wonders about the purpose of the ICRC at all, since all those nations are simply being irresponsible in their choices and should have to solve the problems caused by said irresponsibility without help of any kind from outside themselves. Social Darwinism, anyone?
This ambassador congratulates the Representative of Confused Technocrats’ sentiment. This ambassador has been advised by leading economists that such funding would encourage irresponsibility and agrees with the Representative’s statement. However, the government of Puppetingness doubts that the World Assembly would in fact refuse to provide aid to a devastated nation in such a circumstance.

This ambassador can propose a solution. At an appropriate time, the nation of Puppetingness will be struck by such a weather pattern. They will appeal for aid from the World Assembly and from fellow nations. The Representative of Confused Technocrats may assist the nation of Puppetingness in crafting this initial statement and may publicly argue against sending aid. The reaction of the nations to this announcement will serve to answer this question. If the Representative wishes to agree to this experiment, this ambassador urges the Representative to engage in private correspondence with this ambassador.

I'm sorry. Could you explain this, please? Some nations receive disproportionate amounts of funds relative to their World Assembly vote. rustles through papers. Where exactly does it say that expenditures have anything whatsoever to do with a nation's World Assembly vote? Or that this should even be considered when funding WA committees/agencies/whathaveyou created by passed resolutions? And just out of curiousity... isn't it the delegates who vote, not the nations?
*snip*
Obviously, voting on ANYTHING gives every nation the incentive to be rewarded for their actions.
The government of Puppetingness agrees that no resolution or policy states that expenditures should have a relation to the vote of a nation. This ambassador is drawing attention to this discrepancy because of the effect it has on a nation’s incentives and to show how this results in the rise of powerful special interests who have an incentive to push for resolutions that may not be necessary or efficient for the World Assembly as a whole. As this ambassador has stated, this effect will be exacerbated if funds are drawn from collected donations.

In addition, the government of Puppetingness would like to note that delegates are not to the only nations that vote. Member nations possess one vote in the general voting, while Delegates possess one vote for every endorsement. However, Delegates are the only members that can vote on Proposals.

This might work if funding only applied to the ICRC. It's my understanding that the purpose of this proposal is to fund any and all WA resolutions that require agencies/committess/whathaveyou. Unless you are saying that all WA resolutions that require funding are soley concerned with doling out money to member nations for their irresponsible choices, in which case we fail to see why this proposal has your tacit agreement at all.
This ambassador would like to note that the government of Puppetingness has made no such statements. The government of Puppetingness has stated that the General Accounting Office will have incentives to reward nations for irresponsible choices, though that is obviously not the purpose of the resolutions that called for this funding. Thus the government of Puppetingness wishes to explore ways to ameliorate these incentives, to ensure that the collected donations are used in an efficient way.

This proposal does not anticipate an autonomous agency which does whatever it wants to do and continually expands its budget. Funds are returned at the end of the year (oops, no expanding budget), oversight is provided for in the form of audits. What are you talking about?
This ambassador feels that the proposal places overmuch faith in this mysterious autonomous agency. The government of Puppetingness would like to go further and insist that there be precautions against abuse by this autonomous agency. This would include ensuring political independence, oversight against corruption, and mechanisms to prevent fiscal imprudence. This ambassador notes that the proposing nation has taken some of these necessary precautions with Clauses Five, Six, Seven, and Nine.

However, the government of Puppetingness emphatically feels that these precautions to do go far enough. Auditing is a reliable bulwark against corruption and spending; however, auditing is purely a process of testing financial rigor. Audits do not reliably judge the efficiency of the General Accounting Office’s spending or the necessity of funding for any given activity. If audits can be specified for those exact goals, then perhaps that would suffice, though it would be undoubtedly expensive and greater specification might be needed as far as “outside agencies”.

In addition, steps should be taken to ensure political independence and to prevent the General Accounting Office from expanding the budget by increasing collections from all nations. Audits could possibly work for the second activity, but as stated above, there should be audits with that explicit goal in mind. Other solutions are possible, such as giving seats to non-World Assembly members who would be politically independent or to cap collections in some manner.

No. Either the institutions exist and function or they don't. Next you'll be wanting to renew resolutions every year. Gods... could you imagine what a mess THAT would be? Talk about turning something into a mindless bureaucracy....
This ambassador is in agreement with the Representative from Confused Technocrats that such a solution would be a disaster. It would simply be impossible without a radical redesign of the resolution process. The government of Puppetingness concedes that such a redesign is most likely infeasible, though it would be the optimal solution. Hence, the government of Puppetingness suggested other approaches to ensure that the General Accounting Office remains fiscally responsible.

Just a paragraph or two ago you were going on and on about how irresposible government spending is. That being the case, how could there possibly be a surplus??? Pick one side of the fence or the other, please.
This ambassador notes that there is a surplus simply because deficit spending is not allowed. Therefore, the only possible results are a budget that uses every part of its funds or a budget that has a surplus. However, due to the political pressure from the other institutions and from member states, the General Accounting Office will be pushed to find ways to allocate more funds to all programs. This will lead to it increase the collected donations from all nations. Unless the projections for funding for all programs are reliably sent to the member nations, it will be very difficult for the fiscally conservative nations to assemble a credible opposition to an increase in collections. However, if these nations have a presence on the General Accounting Office, they would be far more capable of fulfilling this role.

Before going down this road, we would like to see projections indicating that private donations will exceed mandated contributions. Your underlying premise isn't correct or supported by any documented facts. Further, since the calculation is based on a nation's wealth, how do private donations lower the collection burden? I see no language stating donations will be calculated based on projected spending for the year, which is the only way one would offset the other.
This ambassador notes that the government of Puppetingness has never stated that private donations to the World Assembly General Fund would exceed collected donations. However, considering the fact that only two programs currently exist in the World Assembly, the International Coordinated Relief Committee and the Office of Building Management, the World Assembly is not in need of a great amount of funds. Thus, even if these programs were to be brought up to full funding, the existing rate of private donations would likely remain a substantial part of the World Assembly General Fund.

For clarification, the government of Puppetingness will once again provide an example. Let private donations make up 10% of the General Fund, which is a substantial amount. In the proposed year, 5% of the General Fund went unspent and was distributed to the various nations in proportion to their collected donations. Since 90% of the General Fund was made up of collected donations, the return of the 5% surplus would amount to a return of 5.56% of the collected donations from each nation. That means that only 94.44% of the collected donations were spent while 100% of the private donations were spent. This is clearly unfair to the private donors, since their contribution only serves to increase the surplus, which is distributed to all the member nations and not the private donor.

This ambassador would like to note that this assumes that the General Accounting Office is unable to gauge the rate of private donations, as it is notoriously fickle. Therefore, they would have to plan entirely using collected donations. However, if all private donations during a given fiscal year were set aside for the next fiscal year, the General Accounting Office would know exactly how much money private donations would account for. This could result in situations where both the private donors and the collected donors have 100% of their money spent; when no deficit or surplus exists. However, the return to private donors as well as collected donors will guarantee that private donation to the World Assembly is properly encouraged.

All right Kenny, is that you? I'm all for puppets, but this has gone too far!! A non-WA nation is going to oversee and decide how WA funds are allocated?? Any chance this fiscally responsible nation is from AO? You're funny.
This ambassador and the government of Puppetingness are adamant in denouncing any implications of manipulative ties with any other nation. Though the name of this esteemed nation may indicate otherwise, the nation of Puppetingness is proudly independent from any overt foreign influence. The reference to advisers stems only from the government of Puppetingness’s ties to capable international groups and its desire to voice their sensible concerns. This ambassador offered the services of the aforementioned non-World Assembly member because this ambassador would feel impolite to offer such a radical solution without openly offering a plausible plan for implementation of this radical solution.

- Ambassador of the nation of Puppetingness

Suffice to say that my modly tools indicate a high probability that this is not the case.
((OOC: Awww, why’d you have to ruin the suspense… I wasn’t trying to be cast as Kenny’s puppet, but I was more than willing to take advantage of a little misdirection ;).

Yeah. I am a puppet (Obviously). It's not very hard to figure out who I'm puppeting for, though you won't know the nation (I haven't been very active on the NS forums till now). I’ll probably end up outing myself at some point, depending on how my faceless Ambassador and government develop…

And yes, I am prolific in my output. A: It fits my ambassador and B: I'm a damn wordy guy. I firmly adhere to the ideal of "There's no reason to write a concise post if a long one will suffice". And writing seven pages of stuff is fun.))

This answer has clarified the issue to this ambassador and has alleviated all concerns regarding Clause Eight. However, as stated above, Clause Five discourages voluntary donations, as they will never be reimbursed. The government of Puppetingness urges the Representative of Kenny to consider the amendment to this Clause proposed below.

This ambassador encourages the Representative of Kenny to study the reasoning behind this amendment in the earlier speech by this ambassador on this topic.All concerns, I think, will be alleviated simply by omitting Clause 8 altogether. Earmarking voluntary contributions is a minor issue and it needn't distract and confuse the central issue of national donations. Since the proposal chiefly regards the mandatory donations, it need only address the fate of those funds. Besides, as a general rule, voluntary contributions are not returned unless they are collected unethically or illegally. There is no reason to mandate the return of funds that were given voluntarily; mandatory donations are obviously a different story. If voluntary contributors really want their share of the surplus back, they need only ask. Though it's kind of rude to freely give and then demand part of it back when there's a surplus, no?

Since the proposal chiefly regards the mandatory donations, it need only address the fate of those funds. Besides, as a general rule, voluntary contributions are not returned unless they are collected unethically or illegally. There is no reason to mandate the return of funds that were given voluntarily; mandatory donations are obviously a different story. If voluntary contributors really want their share of the surplus back, they need only ask. Though it's kind of rude to freely give and then demand part of it back when there's a surplus, no?
This ambassador agrees that such a demand would be rude. This ambassador postulates that these private donors would not take such action. Instead, they would likely decrease the amount that they will donate, knowing that part of it will simply go towards refunding the collected donations of members states. It is simply the intention of the government of Puppetingness to maximize the rate of private donations by treating them in a way equal to collected donations. This eliminates any disincentive to donate privately, especially since the Representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny already has suggested removing the Eighth Clause, which encourages private donation - albeit in a complex and not necessarily beneficial way.

As this ambassador has noted, it may appear unrealistic to assert that nations would be pushed to fiscal and economic imprudence. However, by creating incentives for imprudent activities, it will encourage more of these activities. Once again, this ambassador will use an example.

A developed nation is possessed of a financial industry that has recently been exposed in several scandals. Corporations within this industry have engaged in activity of dubious legality and the population has made numerous calls for extensive regulation of this industry. The leaders of this nation realize that such regulation would greatly hamper the profitability of this industry, ultimately weakening the economy. However, the leaders also realize that if their economy declines due to the regulations, their tax burden in the World Assembly will be lowered. Alone, this is not a sufficient incentive to produce action, but in the marginal case where public opinion and populist politicians press for onerous regulation, this incentive can be enough to push their leaders to pursue the path of economic imprudence.

However, the government of Puppetingness acknowledges that this Clause will not create many incentives to pursue economic stagnancy – unless World Assembly donations become a very significant portion of the nation’s budget, which is a possibility. On the other hand, this Clause will assuredly create incentives to engage in fiscal irresponsibility. Representatives such as those from Urgench and Glen-Rhodes have suggested that governments with budgetary surpluses have their donations increased. Such nations would be obviously be compelled to lower their taxes or raise their spending in order to eliminate the presence of such a surplus. The first solution is obviously more preferable, but it cannot be enacted in a short period of time unless the government partakes in tax rebates. However, politicians can easily foresee a budgetary surplus close to the end of the fiscal year and increase spending according, as they are inclined to do. Moreover, if budgetary deficits decrease the donations to the World Assembly, budgetary deficits will become even more attractive to politicians than they already are. This proposal should include measures that prevent the creation of these negative incentives.

We agree whit the respectable ambassador of Puppetingness when he says that the budgetary surplus should not count to calculate the donations the nations would pay, however we still disagree with the ambassador in what regards your first point, we thing that the ambassador fails to understand that the nations would only pay less while their economy was weak, this would mean that the status quo in what regards the nations economic sovereignty would be kept. In a previous example that we gave, a hypothetical 10% fixed tax was applied this means that the burden in the nations economy was the same regardless of the size of the same, the difference would be in the final value, that would change according to the size of the same(ecomony). The non-application of this principle would create a problem that your Excellency seems to ignore, to use your previous example:

A developed nation is possessed of a financial industry that has recently been exposed in several scandals. Corporations within this industry have engaged in activity of dubious legality and the population has made numerous calls for extensive regulation of this industry. The leaders of this nation realize that such regulation would greatly hamper the profitability of this industry, ultimately weakening the economy. However, the leaders also realize that if their economy declines due to the regulations, their tax burden in the World Assembly will be lowered. Alone, this is not a sufficient incentive to produce action, but in the marginal case where public opinion and populist politicians press for onerous regulation, this incentive can be enough to push their leaders to pursue the path of economic imprudence.

in this case if a high fixed nominal value (or any other means to ensure that pressure was made in order to compel the government concerned to not regulate the industry) was applied the result would be that the government would use this as a public excuse to not regulate the industry and this would result in a growing resentment by public opinion on the WA possibly leading that nation to abandon the WA.

rhtcvcfdgfdgf


Are you having a stroke honoured ambassador?

yours e.t.c.,

The government of Puppetingness acknowledges that the relation of Clause Four to Marx’s statement “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is somewhat loose. Marxian policies would adhere to such a statement to the fullest degree in an egalitarian society devoid of private property. Obviously, this Clause is not Marxian in nature. However, this ambassador stands by his assertion that the Clause does contain inferences to Marx’s theory. The Clause would abide by this statement to a far lesser extent and would resemble a quote such as this “A portion from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The government of Puppetingness does note that this ambassador’s stance relies upon an assumption regarding the likely spending habits of the World Assembly. This ambassador assumes that the World Assembly spends its limited funds where they are most needed. If a nation is devastated by a natural disaster, the International Coordinated Relief Committee is likely to devote its funds to that nation. If the World Assembly Headquarters has been subject to many terrorist attacks in recent times, the World Assembly is more likely to allocate funds to the Office of Building Management rather than other programs. Since no other programs exist in the World Assembly at this time, it is difficult to reference any other example without sacrificing any tie to realism or accuracy. However, if these two examples are true, as they likely are, this would indicate that this ambassador’s assumption is true.

If the limited resources of the World Assembly are allocated to those who most need them, that clearly fulfills the last segment of Karl Marx’s statement. One need only read the “ability to give” in the Clause to recognize that this fulfills the first segment of Karl Marx’s statement. This clearly demonstrates a tie between the donation policies of the World Assembly under this resolution and Karl Marx’s quote. This ambassador assures his fellow Representatives that some members nations will recognize this connection, especially due to the use of the words “ability to give” in the Clause. Changing these words to a line such as “gross domestic product” as suggested by the Representative of The Fat Bakers, would only obscure this reference. Some would be fooled, but many wealthy nations would recognize that they are being forced to shoulder most of the burden while poor nations receive most of the benefits. They will vote against this bill unless they can be assured that their burden will not be overtly disproportionate to the benefits that they receive. At this time, the government of Puppetingness would like to note that there clearly are members of the World Assembly that value national sovereignty – they have defeated two taxation resolutions in the past by large margins.

Again the respectable ambassador of Puppetingness seems to be confused in what regards political and economical theories. All governments including the capitalist ones allocate founds according to their current needs for example if a country needs more highways them more money will be given to highway construction (they are not free), other example is war if a country enters in a war them more money will be given to the army etc. The same applies whit the ability to give (money is finite) so a government can only finance a program to a certain level, the same apply to the ability of citizens to pay taxes, in communist societies there is no ability to give issue since everything is of the state and citizens have nothing to give (in terns of material goods).

The problem seems to be that your Excellency resumes a whole political theory to a single phrase that naturally creates confusion and distortion.

to give an example if one resumes the liberal theory (the academic definition not the current American definition of the term) to its Slogan "To everyone according to is merit" one could easily distort the theory and say that it endorses fascism and nazi theories (both believed that its people where the strongest and so should rule the world, and that their leaders where the best of their people and as so should rule their countries whit a despotic hand),
But we both know that it is not true and liberalism is one of the political and economic theories that gives more freedoms to its citizens and defends a minimal intervention of the State.

Are you having a stroke honoured ambassador?

yours e.t.c.,

We appreciate the Ambassador of Urgench concern whit our wealth it wasn’t a stroke but something far worse the butter delivery boy was late again, how can we have bread without butter HOW!?!

(I will delete the post, I had a problem while posting)

Sweet Jesus jumping on a pogo stick! Now we're arguing about possible marxist semantics in a funding bill?:eek: Do wonders ever cease? I wonder if the sun is over the yardam yet, because I think I'm going to need a drink.

Exceslior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

I agree with Sen Sulla, completely. Soliciting donations is nowhere near socialist ideology. Churches across Glen-Rhodes -- conglomerates across Glen-Rhodes -- solicit donations from the rich and the poor. This proposal would be a product of socialism if it forcefully took money from wealthy nations and gave them to poorer nations; also known as wealth redistribution. However, there's no such thing as a World Assembly forceful proposal. If a nation doesn't like the idea of "donating" for their membership (I have been away for a few days, but I believe there was talk about this proposal being a membership fee, essentially), then they should be reminded that membership is voluntary.

Dr. Bradford Castro
World Assembly Ambassador
The Commonwealth of Glen Rhodes

Sweet Jesus jumping on a pogo stick! Now we're arguing about possible marxist semantics in a funding bill?:eek: Do wonders ever cease? I wonder if the sun is over the yardam yet, because I think I'm going to need a drink.

Exceslior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Since when has the sun not being over the yardam ever stopped you?:D

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Just so everyone knows, I'm going to ignore any further comments on how much Karl Marx would have loved or hated this proposal. If you want an ideological discussion, try General. It is not the intent of this legislation or this discussion either to promote Marxism or EXTERMINATE ANNIHILATE DESTROY!!!! it, so just drop it altogether.

You are right and I am sorry for it, I just got caught in the moment.

Just so everyone knows, I'm going to ignore any further comments on how much Karl Marx would have loved or hated this proposal.

Yes the real question is how Groucho Marx would have loved or hated this proposal. I think he would have loved it. :p

In any event it matters now how eitehr Karl or Groucho would love the resoltuon; they aren't representatives or delegates in the WA. What matters is how the mindless fluffies and the frustrated feeders think of it. I think this has a good shot towars their approval. For what it's worth you already have mine. (Of course that could in and of itself be more of a curse than a good thing.)

I wonder if the sun is over the yardam yet, because I think I'm going to need a drink.It's noon somewhere...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the WA
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

All concerns, I think, will be alleviated simply by omitting Clause 8 altogether. Earmarking voluntary contributions is a minor issue and it needn't distract and confuse the central issue of national donations. Since the proposal chiefly regards the mandatory donations, it need only address the fate of those funds. Besides, as a general rule, voluntary contributions are not returned unless they are collected unethically or illegally. There is no reason to mandate the return of funds that were given voluntarily; mandatory donations are obviously a different story. If voluntary contributors really want their share of the surplus back, they need only ask. Though it's kind of rude to freely give and then demand part of it back when there's a surplus, no?


In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Could the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny explain the difference between a "mandatory donation" and a "tax"? Unless our understanding of the proposal is mistaken, aren't all moneys to be collected by the WA here to be "voluntary donations"? After all, if the WA is forbidden from taxing nations according to Clause 1, then what else is there?

We suggest that Clause 8 be stricken, otherwise likely there would be no WA general fund at all, only a collection of individual earmarked funds. In fact, it may be prudent to go the other direction and specifically forbid nations from earmarking their voluntary contributions. WA bureaucrats need something to occupy their time with, after all.

Could the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny explain the difference between a "manditory donation" and a "tax"? Unless our understanding of the proposal is mistaken, aren't all moneys to be collected by the WA here to be "voluntary donations"? After all, if the WA is forbidden from taxing nations according to Clause 1, then what else is there?Where does it say that donations collected from nations are "voluntary"? I would remind you, only taxes on citizens of member states are prohibited under this proposal. National donations are a primary and essential source of revenue under this mandate, and nowhere does it specify these donations as voluntary.

We suggest that Clause 8 be stricken, otherwise likely there would be no WA general fund at all, only a collection of individual earmarked funds. In fact, it may be prudent to go the other direction and specifically forbid nations from earmarking their voluntary contributions. WA bureaucrats need something to occupy their time with, after all.We've already suggested the same, but for different reasons: voters are likely to confuse actual "voluntary contributions" with the "donations" collected from nationstates, and assume they are the same thing. They're not.

Where does it say that donations collected from nations are "voluntary"? I would remind you, only taxes on citizens of member states are prohibited under this proposal. National donations are a primary and essential source of revenue under this mandate, and nowhere does it specify these donations as voluntary.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny, is this proposal not using a...creative...definition of the word "donation"? It is our experience that "donations" of this kind are usually asked for by questionable-looking people carrying large blunt objects.

If it is the intent of this proposal to create a WA fund based on taxing national treasuries, why not be open about it and call it that?

If it is the intent of this proposal to create a WA fund based on taxing national treasuries, why not be open about it and call it that?For the same reason your own fine proposal addressing "personhood" is not similarly blunt about its nature as a sapience-recognition law.

For the same reason your own fine proposal addressing "personhood" is not similarly blunt about its nature as a sapience-recognition law.

Point taken. Still, in the interest of semantic honesty, perhaps it should be called a "membership fee", instead?

Point taken. Still, in the interest of semantic honesty, perhaps it should be called a "membership fee", instead?

Off the record: "membership fees" would turn more nations off than "solicited donations". The more weasel words included, the more likelihood of the proposal to be passed. We're playing a dirty game, here.

Dr. Bradford Castro
World Assembly Ambassador
The Commonwealth of Glen Rhodes

For the same reason your own fine proposal addressing "personhood" is not similarly blunt about its nature as a sapience-recognition law.

I can see the why, but I'm going to need some convincing that your interpretation of the wording is reasonable and binding. Otherwise we end up with a bit of a lemon on our hands, and I don't think any of us want that.

(OOC: Ha! A use for Reasonable Nation Theory at last!)

It's pretty pointless trying to convince you of anything unless you give specifics.

Solvency is an issue that been majorly overlooked in past resolutions, and without a funding clause they remain effectively meaningless.

We need to be brave enough to make the politically unpopular decision to allow this body to function.

Lord Arthur Ouvette
Baron of Raymondton
Acting Ambassador to UN

Um, OK. Thanks for your support ... ?

OK, the specific problem is the word "donations". Unqualified, I would expect that donations would be voluntary, and come without any promise of repeats. As such, I could quite easily see member nations receiving their GAO assessment, saying "That's nice" and moving on to more profitable business without paying a ceiniog. I need convincing that you can reasonably argue that the unqualified use of "donations" in this resolution means "mandatory donations", and that you can make that stick against expensive lawyers saying that it doesn't.

Without blowing up the lawyers, Susa!

do�na�tion

NOUN:

1. The act of giving to a fund or cause.
2. A gift or grant.Show me where it says it's "voluntary."

Also, Clause 4 says donations are assessed annually from each nation by the GAO. Had you read that far?

Show me where it says it's "voluntary."
Show me where it says "mandatory".

Also, Clause 4 says donations are assessed annually from each nation by the GAO. Had you read that far?
Yes. Unfortunately I know voluntary donation systems that work like that, so it's not a clincher.

(OOC: the Church of England (or at least Ely Diocise) works like this: the diocise figures out at the start of the year how much it needs to operate, and splits this up between the various deaneries. Cambridge Deanery performs some complicated mathemagics, then turns round to the individual parishes and says "We'd like you to donate such-and-such amount to keep the church running." Not all parishes pay the whole amount (including one or two that could easily afford it, and who are constantly surprised at how little support they get from other churches for their pet projects), but somehow the whole thing keeps limping on on a voluntary basis.)

Understand that I'm in favour of this in general, I just need convincing that it's watertight.

Um, "assess" means "to bill" or "to charge." You know, the first funding act never said taxes or dues or mandatory payments; it annually "assessed" "contributions" from member states. I don't recall anyone complaining about fuzzy language then; in fact, the readers must have understood that the payments were mandatory because they defeated the bill by over 75% of the vote.

"Assess" also commonly means "to evaluate". I'd be happier with "contributions" rather than "donations", since it doesn't have such a strong implication of being voluntary.

"Assess" also commonly means "to evaluate". I'd be happier with "contributions" rather than "donations", since it doesn't have such a strong implication of being voluntary.

Are we really going to play this game? Really?

I suppose we can argue about what "enjoin" means again, since we're nitpicking over the meaning of words.

I'm not sure, with all due respect, the vote of the Gobbannean delegation is worth this much dictionary-haggling. Maybe it's worth agreeing to disagree and moving on? Because they seem to be the only people who give a flying fuck about using 'donation'.

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.

Then we're in agreement, the language will not be changed. No offense, Your Gobbannaenness? :p

None taken, your Kenniness :-p Just don't come running to me when the expensive lawyers of the people who do care say the same things.