NationStates Jolt Archive

Taking note that the World Assembly has not yet passed a set of rules governing the taxation of member states, and believing that such rules are essential to the effective operation of the WA (its legions of apparently unpaid gnomes notwithstanding), I have decided to throw myself on the grenade of public opinion and submit the following draft, which I believe provides for funding that is both sufficient and equitable while closing potential loopholes in existing and future Resolutions related to member-manufactured financial constraints. Any input is welcomed, so long as it is in some way constructive.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Assembly Appropriations Act

Category: Furtherment of Democracy? | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Xanthal

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that a reliable source of income is essential to meet its overhead costs and support its administrative duties,

UNDERSTANDING that member states are reluctant to invest in an organization that does not always decide in their favor, and

COMMITTED to meet its financial needs as an evolving institution while imposing the minimum possible burden on its members, hereby

ADOPTS this World Assembly Appropriations Act:

1. All monetary and physical appropriations (Appropriations) made by the World Assembly or for use by the World Assembly, directly or through any entity operating under its supervision, are regulated by this Act.

2. No Appropriations shall be made that are not in explicit accordance with this act, unless obtained through donation from or contract with an entity that has given consent by all applicable laws.

3. From each World Assembly member state (Member), an annual Appropriation of $100,000 or 0.1% of its total government income in that period, whichever is lower, shall be collected for a World Assembly General Fund, which shall be used first to meet internal and overhead expenses, and then expenses arising directly from the enforcement of Resolutions. Excess money shall be refunded to Members according to the percentage of their government income paid, so that the highest percentage, as measured after the refund, is as low as possible.

4. The World Assembly may Appropriate additional funds from Members who participate in voluntary programs managed by the World Assembly to cover the cost of applying that program to the Member concerned.

5. The World Assembly may require individual Members to pay for implementation and maintenance of Resolutions within their legal and territorial jurisdiction, but may not require Members to pay World Assembly oversight costs beyond their obligations to the General Fund.

6. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to restrict the right of Members to Appropriate funds within the limits of international law.

Go and look at the many previous attempts to do this. That should give you some idea of why (3) is the wrong approach.

I don't think this is a bad or unworkable approach at all, but the "UN Funding Act" got 24%, and WA "Ways and Means" 22%. They got absolutely crushed. And there have been any number of admittedly completely ass-backwards attempts to reinstate the "UN Taxation Ban" since The Fall.

I think it needs to be significantly repackaged in order to be successful. There have been various perspectives on how to do that. One approach was to make it appear the contributions were 'donations', implicitly voluntary but in fact not. Another, that I once suggested, was to make the proposal about eliminating corruption. You could make it seem like the proposal's about development funding or investment. I don't know what approach would be the best: but I don't think this proposal, as written, would have a strong chance.

Well, let's talk about that. The legislation could be reworked to be a tax ban, leaving 4 and 5 to clear up other funding issues. Do you think that would improve the proposal's chances? My objective here isn't just to set clear restrictions on the WA's ability to tax, but also to define members' financial responsibility to fully implement resolutions.

We suspect this resolution will have to be both subtler and more opaque about its aims and powers if it is to pass. "Appropriations" is a word which will startle some and enrage others.

We like the term "remmitance" but that is coincidental. Including oversight on how this fund is spent is essential, but how that is acheived is dreadfully complex since forming a commitee is unfeasable. Setting out regulations on how this funding is to be spent would doubtless be too lengthy and detailed to be practical, and yet some penalty for over spend or missuse is vital in our eyes.

Defining who is atually the auditor and who the custodian of these funds would also seem to us to be very important too.

yours e.t.c. ,

Well, the WA rules essentially state that the WA only employs the infamous "gnomes," unaffiliated beings that spring into existence when they're created by resolutions and live only to serve the WA, so who's making the decisions is a moot point. We might be able to do something with the order of priorities and limits in terms of funding, though. What did you have in mind?

I respect Xanthal's intention to find a way and means of funding the already divided World Assembly, but one thing is very important: they should never be allowed to collect any taxes from ordinary citizens of member nations for any purpose.

Some other ideas: The fees they collect must respect the member nation's fortunes. The suggestion is that for every $1 of budget or trade surplus, something very small like 0.01 cent goes to the WA.

Or how about allowing nations to donate freely at will?

Just an idea.

"What are these '$' to which you refer?"


Borrin o Redwood.

Well, the WA rules essentially state that the WA only employs the infamous "gnomes," unaffiliated beings that spring into existence when they're created by resolutions and live only to serve the WA, so who's making the decisions is a moot point. We might be able to do something with the order of priorities and limits in terms of funding, though. What did you have in mind?


The point is, respected Ambassador, that many many nations will not consent to having their tax payers money spent by gnomes or faceless w.a. beaurocrats, they will want only national control of such committees which is illegal ergo not moot.

This is not our position but respected Ambassador you will find that it is the stance frimly held of many nations.

yours e.t.c ,

Charlotte Ryberg: the way the resolution is currently written, Section 2 effectively forbids taxation of member citizens. Your second suggestion is basically what Section 3 says: 0.1 cents of every dollar of government revenue, up to a total of $100,000, goes to the WA. In effect, 0.1% of the government budget is the maximum the WA could require any country to pay. Your third suggestion is already incorporated into Section 2, which explicitly allows donations.

Bears Armed: The Universal Standard Dollar; probably the most widely used exchange currency in NS. I considered allowing equivalents in other currencies, but it seemed like that would just make things really complicated, what with varying levels of inflation and sorting out what currencies the WA could use where. If you have an idea for some alternative, please let me know.

Urgench: I know what you mean, I just don't see what we can do about it; the rules say it's the way it has to be. I can see sidestepping the issue by adding more details about spending priorities and limits, or eliminating Section 3 altogether.

On that note, I'm still looking for guidance about the best way to go with Section 3; is a resolution that includes a tax, even such a small one, on member governments passable, or should that just be eliminated from the resolution completely?

We would suggest that the w.a. should come before the membership each year with a budget for approval ( in the form of a list of all current statutory expenditures as per the list of resolutions ) and request approval of this list, on approval all nations would then be required to pay their dues, in the act of doing so in fact.

This may be too complicated or too liable to cause upheaval but we feel it might be a fair solution.

yours e.t.c. ,

Bears Armed: The Universal Standard Dollar; probably the most widely used exchange currency in NS.MetaGaming. It cannot be used in a WA proposal.

Funny sense of timing you have. I was just planning on putting together a tg campaign for my own funding proposal.

Urgench: An admirably democratic idea, but I don't see any way we could put it into practice. First, who's going to write the budgets? Second, how are we going to get all 15,000+ WA nations to read and vote on it? Third, how do we do that without breaking the metagaming rule?

Omigodtheykilledkenny: I guess I can see how that would violate that rule. But how would I go about setting a ceiling for contributions without referring to some sort of currency? I don't suppose someone of your esteem would care to let a newcomer like me in on your proposal, no doubt negotiated with an exclusive offsite group, but giving me more information might allow us to collaborate rather than compete.

the forms and rules of a resolution would probably cover the practicalities of our suggestion but no matter, try to bring in a tax if you are set on it.

yours e.t.c.,

Well, that's the thing; I'm interested in a more specific idea of the "forms and rules" you're suggesting.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: I guess I can see how that would violate that rule. But how would I go about setting a ceiling for contributions without referring to some sort of currency?
Percentage of GDP or GNP seems to be the preferred way. It's still a mistake, because you're still presuming that you know in advance how much the WA will spend. Whatever budget you set, some idiot will manage to blow it.

I don't suppose someone of your esteem would care to let a newcomer like me in on your proposal, no doubt negotiated with an exclusive offsite group, but giving me more information might allow us to collaborate rather than compete.
Being polite about it helps too. In fact a sizeable chunk of the discussion happened in this chamber. Since you're being snippy, I'll leaving finding the minutes of that debate to you.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: I guess I can see how that would violate that rule. But how would I go about setting a ceiling for contributions without referring to some sort of currency? I don't suppose someone of your esteem would care to let a newcomer like me in on your proposal, no doubt negotiated with an exclusive offsite group, but giving me more information might allow us to collaborate rather than compete.The thread is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562693), but please don't bump it. I intend on starting a new topic in short order.

Gobbannaen WA Mission: You call it being snippy, I call it a friendly jab. The point here is to give the WA any budget at all beyond donations. Additional funds are sort of provided for as regards resolutions, up to a limit. No doubt the gnomes would love more money, but wouldn't we all?

Omigodtheykilledkenny: Ten-four no bumpage. On a side note, am I missing something in that this and other resolutions I've seen proposed restrict levying taxes on citizens of WA members, but remain silent about taxing WA members themselves? After all, a government could be taxed without taxing its citizens. Import duties come to mind.

Sorry, Xanthal, I wasn't trying to be unhelpful; I was just a bit unsure what to suggest given I knew of OMGTKK's version, and thus I couldn't really tell you to do it the same way as them.

Well, that's the thing; I'm interested in a more specific idea of the "forms and rules" you're suggesting.


We will be clearer so as to avoid your misunderstanding us again. The list of budgetry commitments which the w.a. would present for approval could be constituted in a resolution outlining by name each commitment. This budget list could be presented at appropriate intervals, with a specification of the funding needed to discharge these commitments either attached to the resolution or outlined in the official topic debate. Of course if the list exceeded the word limit of a reesolution then more than one resolution would have to be presented. The membership would then vote upon this resolution. How this could be called meta-gaming or how it could be otherwise illegal we do not know.

Of course there is always the possibility that every resolution which outlined any outlay of funds by the w.a. could be required to contain a monetary clause which would define its cost to members, who would take this into account when deciding whether to vote for it or not.

yours e.t.c. ,

The list of budgetry commitments which the w.a. would present for approval could be constituted in a resolution outlining by name each commitment. This budget list could be presented at appropriate intervals, with a specification of the funding needed to discharge these commitments either attached to the resolution or outlined in the official topic debate. Of course if the list exceeded the word limit of a reesolution then more than one resolution would have to be presented. The membership would then vote upon this resolution. How this could be called meta-gaming or how it could be otherwise illegal we do not know.

Any resolution that requires activity by the players, mods, or admins, would necessarily be metagaming. What you're saying is that we'd have to ...
Draft an administrative resolution, for which we have no provision
The proposal cannot have a category, of course, since this resolution covers the effect
Guarantee that it get enough approvals
Require that it pass
Do it again every <set period>

None of the above steps can be mandated in game terms, as none of those activities are under game control. It requires specific actions from the meta-game, i.e. players and staff. That's why we stick with fictional committees manned by "unspecified members".

Any resolution that requires activity by the players, mods, or admins, would necessarily be metagaming. What you're saying is that we'd have to ...
Draft an administrative resolution, for which we have no provision
The proposal cannot have a category, of course, since this resolution covers the effect
Guarantee that it get enough approvals
Require that it pass
Do it again every <set period>

None of the above steps can be mandated in game terms, as none of those activities are under game control. It requires specific actions from the meta-game, i.e. players and staff. That's why we stick with fictional committees manned by "unspecified members".



Thank you Frisbeeteria, that is what we meant by not knowing, you have cleared that up for us very nicely. By the by we never envisaged any moderators having to do this work, we thought that perhaps the membership could generate the required statute on its own, perhaps that is too optimistic though. And we suppose a calendrical cycle might have to be set for this to work which might well be a meta-gamming violation.

yours e.t.c. ,

Yeah, a general apology for the confusion resulting from me having missed Kenny's draft; I've only been posting regularly here for a week or two, and I didn't look past the first page of threads. Nevertheless, I'm still looking for input on this resolution, and if I'm really lucky, maybe Kenny will think my ideas are decent enough to consider them in regards to its own proposal, which simply by virtue of the player's reputation, not to imply a lack of merit, has a much better chance of getting anywhere than mine.

Having now seen both drafts, I think you're in a well enough position to suggest which specific components of your draft should be incorporated into mine. Having given your proposal another read-through, I don't see anything that's not already covered in mine, aside from the cap, which I deliberately left out because it's sort of a strategy to fool voters into thinking they're authorizing voluntary "donations" when in fact they're not. They've rejected funding twice before, so it requires a little sneakiness getting something like this past them. :p

I'm submitting probably either Wednesday or Thursday, so speak up before then, or TG me if you don't like your thread being hijacked.

Percentage of GDP or GNP seems to be the preferred way.... although my government would prefer "percentage of national government budget" instead.
It's still a mistake, because you're still presuming that you know in advance how much the WA will spend. Whatever budget you set, some idiot will manage to blow it.
Probably true, alas...


Borrin o Redwood
Regional Delegate to the World Assembly,
International Democratic Union
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed

Fair enough; since you're going first and I don't really have anything to hide, I'll just post my ideas here. Take or leave them as you wish.

First off, however you want to deceptively word it, a de facto cap of some sort is essential in my mind. Otherwise the WA has carte blanche to take whatever amount it wants for its "maintenance" and "missions." This may not be a problem OOC, considering the reality of the WA viewed from a RL perspective, but it's sure as h-e double hockey sticks a problem from the perspective of the Xanthalian government, and I'd venture most others who see past your smokescreen; potentially even those who support, as I do, some sort of tax.

Second, I interpret Section 9 as having the potential to be read to endorse outlawing protectionist tax mechanisms. I oppose that, Xanthal opposes that, and if the dismal failure of free trade resolutions in the past is any indication, it's potentially enough to torpedo your resolution, even if it's not your intention that it be read that way (an explanation of which I am not convinced).

There are other, more minor gripes, but those two are dealbreakers for me personally. As for the general assembly, you might be able to get away with the lack of a cap if you succeed in obfuscating the true effect of the resolution, but I think many of your opponents are going to sieze on Section 9, even though it doesn't restrict tariffs in and of itself.