Yet Another General Fund Is Mandatory Thread

[Jarish Inyo]

Let's play the synonym game:

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;

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

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

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

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

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

With any of those words, the clause still means that the payment is mandatory. In fact, let's try a nonsensical verb as well:

Actually, that's not correct. Being assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't make payment mandatory in any way. It does tell one what the amount that would be asked for if a nation chose to donate. Being charged or having it imposed would make it mandatory. Nice try though.

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

Even with the nonsensical verb, the sole reasonable interpretation of the clause is that donations are made according to donors' national wealth and ability to give, NOT according to donors' wishes.

Not so. One forgets the last part, the ability to give. That is not something that the GAO can determine. A nation tells the GAO what it's ability to pay is after determining their budget and seeing what the surplus is.

[Alqania]

Actually, that's not correct. Being assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't make payment mandatory in any way. It does tell one what the amount that would be asked for if a nation chose to donate. Being charged or having it imposed would make it mandatory. Nice try though.

You're making things up. Or you're seeing things in the clause that aren't there.

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

Even with the nonsensical verb, the sole reasonable interpretation of the clause is that donations are made according to donors' national wealth and ability to give, NOT according to donors' wishes.

Not so. One forgets the last part, the ability to give. That is not something that the GAO can determine. A nation tells the GAO what it's ability to pay is after determining their budget and seeing what the surplus is.

Of course the GAO can assess/estimate/value a member state's ability to pay. Let's say Mike applies for welfare, arguing that he is unable to pay his rent, food and other living expenses. Mike declares an income of 1,000 jigamahigs per month and no wealth at all. The government has set a limit of 800 jigamahigs per month, over which any person is deemed able to support themselves, so Mike is assessed to be able to pay his living expenses and his welfare application is denied. Mike doesn't decide himself whether he's able to pay or not, he says how much money he's got and the government assesses his ability.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, that's not correct. Being assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't make payment mandatory in any way. It does tell one what the amount that would be asked for if a nation chose to donate. Being charged or having it imposed would make it mandatory. Nice try though.

You're making things up. Or you're seeing things in the clause that aren't there.[/quote]

I'm not making anything. having something assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't imply that payment is mandatory. It is just having the worth of something establish. Nothing more. I'm not seeing anything that isn't in the clause. I'm just not applying the definitions that would make payment mandatory. Though I acknowledge that by other definition of the word, it could be.

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

Even with the nonsensical verb, the sole reasonable interpretation of the clause is that donations are made according to donors' national wealth and ability to give, NOT according to donors' wishes.

Not so. One forgets the last part, the ability to give. That is not something that the GAO can determine. A nation tells the GAO what it's ability to pay is after determining their budget and seeing what the surplus is.

Of course the GAO can assess/estimate/value a member state's ability to pay. Let's say Mike applies for welfare, arguing that he is unable to pay his rent, food and other living expenses. Mike declares an income of 1,000 jigamahigs per month and no wealth at all. The government has set a limit of 800 jigamahigs per month, over which any person is deemed able to support themselves, so Mike is assessed to be able to pay his living expenses and his welfare application is denied. Mike doesn't decide himself whether he's able to pay or not, he says how much money he's got and the government assesses his ability.[/quote]

Actually, the GAO can not assess/estimate/value a member state's ability to pay. A nation's ability is dependent on the budget they set up for the year with the knowledge that cost of certain programs expensive may grow throughout the year. Programs such as welfare, unemployment, universal health care (if they have it), Scientific/Medical/Military R&D, infrastructure, disaster relief and paying off a deficit. Only after the nation has set funding aside for all of that, then they can see what surplus is left and inform the GAO what their ability to pay is.

As for Mike, the welfare department is gonna ask him to fill out a form indicating where his funds are going. They'll figure out that he's living beyond his means and suggest that he cut back on a few thing.

[Alqania]

I'm not making anything. having something assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't imply that payment is mandatory. It is just having the worth of something establish. Nothing more. I'm not seeing anything that isn't in the clause. I'm just not applying the definitions that would make payment mandatory. Though I acknowledge that by other definition of the word, it could be.

My point was that the choice of verb doesn't really matter, because it's clear from the rest of the clause anyway what it does. You keep arguing about the differences between verbs.

Actually, that's not correct. Being assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't make payment mandatory in any way. It does tell one what the amount that would be asked for if a nation chose to donate. Being charged or having it imposed would make it mandatory. Nice try though.

(emphasis mine)

The underlined part can be found nowhere in the cited clause. That's your hallucination, invention, confusion or whatever.

Actually, the GAO can not assess/estimate/value a member state's ability to pay. A nation's ability is dependent on the budget they set up for the year with the knowledge that cost of certain programs expensive may grow throughout the year. Programs such as welfare, unemployment, universal health care (if they have it), Scientific/Medical/Military R&D, infrastructure, disaster relief and paying off a deficit. Only after the nation has set funding aside for all of that, then they can see what surplus is left and inform the GAO what their ability to pay is.

As for Mike, the welfare department is gonna ask him to fill out a form indicating where his funds are going. They'll figure out that he's living beyond his means and suggest that he cut back on a few thing.

The government in my example doesn't ask Mike what his expenses are; instead they have chosen to adopt a limit of 800 jigamahigs per month as the amount that one person needs to sustain themselves. If they asked for a detailed account of Mike's expenses, they would have no use for such a limit.

You have chosen one model of assessment that you seem to be arguing is the only one possible for the GAO to use when looking at a member state's finances. But the fact of the matter is that a member state's "ability to give" could be assessed by the GAO in more than one way, and it is possible for the GAO to adopt a system of assessment that does not rely on attaining information directly from the member state in question. More particularly, the GAO may choose to assess a member state's "ability to give" without caring about the national budget. You seem to be assuming that the national budget must be made before the GAO assessment and thus the "ability to give" be dependant on the member state's other expenses - this would in fact be a rather ineffective method. If Notpayingia has 1 billion jigamahigs that could be given to the General Fund, Notpayingia could simply decide that they need to exchange hospital equipment for 1 billion jigamahigs and add that to the national budget, rendering the nation unable to donate a single hoggysquatch (that's a 100th of a jigamahig, obviously) to the General Fund. If the GAO has any intelligence at all (which we should assume they do, since they're a bunch of infallible gnomes), they would probably make their assessment before/independent of the member state's budget, so the member state can't weasel their way out of paying by claiming they've already spent all their money on shiny new machines that go "bing".

Your "interpretation" of the clause in question and of the resolution at large presupposes stuff that isn't in the resolution. The opposite interpretation is based on what's in the resolution. Per GA practice, the latter is therefore valid.

[Jarish Inyo]

I'm not making anything. having something assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't imply that payment is mandatory. It is just having the worth of something establish. Nothing more. I'm not seeing anything that isn't in the clause. I'm just not applying the definitions that would make payment mandatory. Though I acknowledge that by other definition of the word, it could be.

My point was that the choice of verb doesn't really matter, because it's clear from the rest of the clause anyway what it does. You keep arguing about the differences between verbs.

Actually, that's not correct. Being assessed, estimated, judged, or valued doesn't make payment mandatory in any way. It does tell one what the amount that would be asked for if a nation chose to donate. Being charged or having it imposed would make it mandatory. Nice try though.

(emphasis mine)

The underlined part can be found nowhere in the cited clause. That's your hallucination, invention, confusion or whatever.[/quote]

Nor is a mandatory payment is in the clause. All it states is that the donation will be assessed by nation's wealth and ability to pay. I've not hallucinating, confused or whatever. I've used the some of the definitions of assess to form my statement.

Actually, the GAO can not assess/estimate/value a member state's ability to pay. A nation's ability is dependent on the budget they set up for the year with the knowledge that cost of certain programs expensive may grow throughout the year. Programs such as welfare, unemployment, universal health care (if they have it), Scientific/Medical/Military R&D, infrastructure, disaster relief and paying off a deficit. Only after the nation has set funding aside for all of that, then they can see what surplus is left and inform the GAO what their ability to pay is.

As for Mike, the welfare department is gonna ask him to fill out a form indicating where his funds are going. They'll figure out that he's living beyond his means and suggest that he cut back on a few thing.

The government in my example doesn't ask Mike what his expenses are; instead they have chosen to adopt a limit of 800 jigamahigs per month as the amount that one person needs to sustain themselves. If they asked for a detailed account of Mike's expenses, they would have no use for such a limit.

You have chosen one model of assessment that you seem to be arguing is the only one possible for the GAO to use when looking at a member state's finances. But the fact of the matter is that a member state's "ability to give" could be assessed by the GAO in more than one way, and it is possible for the GAO to adopt a system of assessment that does not rely on attaining information directly from the member state in question. More particularly, the GAO may choose to assess a member state's "ability to give" without caring about the national budget. You seem to be assuming that the national budget must be made before the GAO assessment and thus the "ability to give" be dependant on the member state's other expenses - this would in fact be a rather ineffective method. If Notpayingia has 1 billion jigamahigs that could be given to the General Fund, Notpayingia could simply decide that they need to exchange hospital equipment for 1 billion jigamahigs and add that to the national budget, rendering the nation unable to donate a single hoggysquatch (that's a 100th of a jigamahig, obviously) to the General Fund. If the GAO has any intelligence at all (which we should assume they do, since they're a bunch of infallible gnomes), they would probably make their assessment before/independent of the member state's budget, so the member state can't weasel their way out of paying by claiming they've already spent all their money on shiny new machines that go "bing".

Your "interpretation" of the clause in question and of the resolution at large presupposes stuff that isn't in the resolution. The opposite interpretation is based on what's in the resolution. Per GA practice, the latter is therefore valid.

My interpretation of the clause in question and the entire resolution is taken from the exactly what's in the resolution it's self. I've not changed a word from any part of the resolution to make my argument. The difference being is that I'm using what Kenny calls common definitions of words. The differences in a words meaning makes the donations either voluntary or mandatory.

The GAO can not determine the ability to pay the way you described. If it did it the way you describe, it would force nations to have to cut back on public health, public safety, welfare and unemployment to name a few programs if the GAO decided that the nation's ability to pay was based what it thought the nation could pay and not on what the nations can actually pay. At that point the WA would be doing more harm to the populace then good. Why would any nation want to remain part of an international organization that is putting such a burden on their economy that they can not take care of the needs of its citizens?

[Separatist Peoples]

Why would any nation want to remain part of an international organization that is putting such a burden on their economy that they can not take care of the needs of its citizens?

Why or why not is entirely irrelevant. That you have to resort to that question tells me plenty about the intellectual defensibility of your position.

[Alqania]

My interpretation of the clause in question and the entire resolution is taken from the exactly what's in the resolution it's self. The difference being is that I'm using what Kenny calls common definitions of words. The differences in a words meaning makes the donations either voluntary or mandatory.

(emphasis mine)

No. They. Do. Not. The meaning of the word "assess" has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the donations are voluntary or mandatory.

The GAO can not determine the ability to pay the way you described. If it did it the way you describe, it would force nations to have to cut back on public health, public safety, welfare and unemployment to name a few programs if the GAO decided that the nation's ability to pay was based what it thought the nation could pay and not on what the nations can actually pay.

Yes. So? If a nation funds space research, it has to cut back on public health. Ergo, a nation must not fund space research. That's basically what your logic amounts to.

If Mike spends 10 jigamahigs on beer, he will have 10 jigamahigs less to spend on food. Ergo, Mike has no money to spend on beer.

At that point the WA would be doing more harm to the populace then good. Why would any nation want to remain part of an international organization that is putting such a burden on their economy that they can not take care of the needs of its citizens?

If Mike wants to spend 10 jigamahigs on beer because he likes beer, even if that means that he will have to buy a cheaper brand of cheese than his favourite one, that's his choice to make. The government can keep its noses out of how he prioritises and instead set a general amount of how much money he should be able to get by on.

If a member state wants to spend 10 billion jigamahigs on WA membership, even if that means that it will have to buy pre-owned machines that go "bing", that's its choice to make. The GAO can keep its noses out of how the member state prioritises and instead assess its "ability to give" based on other factors.

[Jarish Inyo]

Why would any nation want to remain part of an international organization that is putting such a burden on their economy that they can not take care of the needs of its citizens?

Why or why not is entirely irrelevant. That you have to resort to that question tells me plenty about the intellectual defensibility of your position.

Why or why is relevant. The WA is suppose to make the world or worlds a better place. If it's policies of one of it's departments are harming or risking the health and safety of the people it's suppose to be helping and not making the world a better place, what's the point then?

[Separatist Peoples]

Why or why not is entirely irrelevant. That you have to resort to that question tells me plenty about the intellectual defensibility of your position.

Why or why is relevant. The WA is suppose to make the world or worlds a better place. If it's policies of one of it's departments are harming or risking the health and safety of the people it's suppose to be helping and not making the world a better place, what's the point then?

The point of the game has no relevance on how the GAO funds itself. Try again.

[Jarish Inyo]

The GAO placing financial burdens on nations to fund itself and the WAGF has no relevance to the WA member nations whats so ever?

[Sciongrad]

The GAO placing financial burdens on nations to fund itself and the WAGF has no relevance to the WA member nations whats so ever?

OOC: The point is that whether or not the GAO's collection of mandatory "donations" from its member nations is good policy is irrelevant to the fact that it is, definitely, the current policy. The fact that you've resorted to this type of argument suggests that you've at least realized that much.

[Jarish Inyo]

The GAO placing financial burdens on nations to fund itself and the WAGF has no relevance to the WA member nations whats so ever?

OOC: The point is that whether or not the GAO's collection of mandatory "donations" from its member nations is good policy is irrelevant to the fact that it is, definitely, the current policy. The fact that you've resorted to this type of argument suggests that you've at least realized that much.

I don't agree that mandatory donations is definitely the current policy. Just because many individuals states it is doesn't make it fact. There is no clear statement in GAR#17 that donations are mandatory. We can and will keep going around on which definition of assess is in use. The fact is that there is no operational clause stating that any nation must donate to the WAGF.

I did not resort to what you refer to this type of argument. I asked questions, which a few assumed was part of my argument. The questions were not answered.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The point is that whether or not the GAO's collection of mandatory "donations" from its member nations is good policy is irrelevant to the fact that it is, definitely, the current policy. The fact that you've resorted to this type of argument suggests that you've at least realized that much.

I don't agree that mandatory donations is definitely the current policy. Just because many individuals states it is doesn't make it fact. There is no clear statement in GAR#17 that donations are mandatory. We can and will keep going around on which definition of assess is in use. The fact is that there is no operational clause stating that any nation must donate to the WAGF.

I did not resort to what you refer to this type of argument. I asked questions, which a few assumed was part of my argument. The questions were not answered.

If you want to debate the merits of the law, you can do so in a separate discussion thread or a repeal thread. The discussion is about the mandatory nature about the WAGF donations. That is all. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

[Jarish Inyo]

This thread is about if the donations are voluntary or mandatory. That has been the discussion all along. This thread was started because of a debate that Kenny and I was having. It was moved here so the debate wouldn't thread jack the thread it was started in. I have not 'moved the goalpost'. And I've stuck to my argument that donations are not mandatory as stated by others.

[Separatist Peoples]

This thread is about if the donations are voluntary or mandatory. That has been the discussion all along. This thread was started because of a debate that Kenny and I was having. It was moved here so the debate wouldn't thread jack the thread it was started in. I have not 'moved the goalpost'. And I've stuck to my argument that donations are not mandatory as stated by others.

Uh huh. Because this never happened at all:

The GAO placing financial burdens on nations to fund itself and the WAGF has no relevance to the WA member nations whats so ever?

Why or why is relevant. The WA is suppose to make the world or worlds a better place. If it's policies of one of it's departments are harming or risking the health and safety of the people it's suppose to be helping and not making the world a better place, what's the point then?

Looks like a moved goalpost to me. At least try to stay on topic.

[Frisbeeteria]

Just as an FYI:

Back in 2005 or so, a few of us got together and tried to estimate the necessary "contribution" to properly fund the UN/WA. This was in response to people posting idiotic proposals suggesting that the fund be in the neighborhood of 1%-5% of GDP. People just don't realize what a huge chunk of change that would be.

I don't remember the specifics, but we ended up with a progressive tax rate that was significantly less than 1% ... as in 0.0000015% of a nation with ~200 million people (a standard, year old nation), ramping up to perhaps 0.0000025% for older, more successful nations. That generated a few tens of millions of %currency% from each member nation, while still providing hundreds of trillions in cash from the then 12,000 member nations. Given that virtually all of the WA's financial obligations are in the form of unfunded mandates, that was way more money than would be necessary to maintain the buildings, grounds, committee formations and expenses, and the various oversight bureaus that have been defined by WA law.

We currently have nearly 18,000 WA members. An average of $NSD 10 million from each member nation yields $NSD 180 trillion. In other words, mandatory or voluntary, the sums necessary to fund the WA are absolutely TRIVIAL in terms of percentage of GNP. Why does anyone care?

[Jarish Inyo]

I've stayed on topic. I've responded to comments. That's all. I have not tried to change the topic at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

I've stayed on topic. I've responded to comments. That's all. I have not tried to change the topic at all.

"Then don't bring up anything relating to how the WAGF or the GAO is hurting nations rather than helping them. Stick to whether or not donations are mandatory.

Just as an FYI:

Back in 2005 or so, a few of us got together and tried to estimate the necessary "contribution" to properly fund the UN/WA. This was in response to people posting idiotic proposals suggesting that the fund be in the neighborhood of 1%-5% of GDP. People just don't realize what a huge chunk of change that would be.

I don't remember the specifics, but we ended up with a progressive tax rate that was significantly less than 1% ... as in 0.0000015% of a nation with ~200 million people (a standard, year old nation), ramping up to perhaps 0.0000025% for older, more successful nations. That generated a few tens of millions of %currency% from each member nation, while still providing hundreds of trillions in cash from the then 12,000 member nations. Given that virtually all of the WA's financial obligations are in the form of unfunded mandates, that was way more money than would be necessary to maintain the buildings, grounds, committee formations and expenses, and the various oversight bureaus that have been defined by WA law.

We currently have nearly 18,000 WA members. An average of $NSD 10 million from each member nation yields $NSD 180 trillion. In other words, mandatory or voluntary, the sums necessary to fund the WA are absolutely TRIVIAL in terms of percentage of GNP. Why does anyone care?

I happen to agree, though its nice to have these numbers handy the next time somebody tries. Thanks!

[Frisbeeteria]

We currently have nearly 18,000 WA members

Trivial mistake, but we currently have 19,799 member nations. Damn! I think all the recent Reddit nations joined the WA. That's a ton of donations.

[Jarish Inyo]

That was a response to a comment made in which the person described a way the GOA could supposedly determine a nation's ability to pay without getting information from nation about its budget. It was part of a larger statement. Someone just that one line and decided that was the one thing they wanted to comment on. I responded. That is all.

The numbers are great to see.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Alright, just for fun, let's try calculating what each nation in this thread's donation would be assuming everyone paid a flat $.000002% rate, with GDP stats ripped from NSEconomy:

• Alqania - $3,446,280
• Ardchoille - $38,844.20
• The Dark Star Republic - $2,455,120
• Defwa - $1,167,686
• Frisbeeteria - $23,659,410
• Jarish Inyo - $1,859,868
• Omigodtheykilledkenny - $19,963,360
• The Republic of Lanos - $10,954,960
• Sciongrad - $1,411,740
• Separatist Peoples - $5,994,600

One of the observations made during one of the failed funding debates was that nations more likely to complain about the new system were less likely to have to pay much into it. And whaddya know? The same holds true here!

As to Jarish's points, I really don't know what I'm supposed to be responding to: that the donations are voluntary, that the donations might be mandatory but nations can get out of it by withholding information, or that the donations are contrary to the GA's purpose as an organization. Like others have already pointed out: moving goalposts.

For now, let's all just point and laugh and Artichokeville, for having 24 billion people and yet such a piddling economy that yields not even a $40,000 donation. Hahahaha!!

[Jarish Inyo]

Let's start with donations are voluntary. As written, using the most common definition of the words, donations are voluntary. Then we can move onto the fact that GAR#17 has no obligation clauses for nations.

Now, I don't recall stating that a donations are contrary to the GA's purpose as an organization.

[Frisbeeteria]

The third party tool, NSEconomy, generates some arbitrary numbers based on assumptions I haven't tested. That said, my nation's NSEconomy page shows Frisbeeteria GDP to be on the order of ℱ1.01 quadrillion (FrisBs). Assuming our "donation" was based on the 0.0000015% estimate, we would be paying ℱ15,134,537.36. Since we're an older, established nation with an excellent economy, we'd probably be in a higher contribution bracket.

Let's try a simpler model. Assume that every citizen of every WA nation paid a minimum of one cent USD ($.01, or 1¢). We could add a multiplier based on economic strength if we wanted to, making the wealthiest nations pay as much as 15¢ per capita ... but that seems excessive. Even so ...

• A nation established today starts with 5 million citizens. A penny from each yields starting WA dues of $50,000.00. That sounds affordable.
• An established nation like mine pays $2,331,100.00 at the one cent rate, or $3,496,650,000.00 at the 15¢ rate based on our Frightening economy. Since our per-capita income is on the order of $43,282.96, our citizens can easily withstand an annual payment of the cost of a less than a single gumball from a supermarket dispenser.
• Assuming the median nation is exactly halfway between these two extremes, that gives us a WA budget of $34,629,568,450,000.00

That seems like enough money to operate the WA at this point. Any questions?

[Ardchoille]

For now, let's all just point and laugh and Artichokeville, for having 24 billion people and yet such a piddling economy that yields not even a $40,000 donation. Hahahaha!!

*preens* Best damn accountants in the Multiverse!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Let's start with donations are voluntary. As written, using the most common definition of the words, donations are voluntary.

Only if you ignore the context, which you seem bound and determined to ignore, even though it is context that gives meaning to words - not arbitrarily chosen dictionary definitions.

Then we can move onto the fact that GAR#17 has no obligation clauses for nations.

Yes it does. The GAO sends each nation an annual assessment (read: bill). That assessment in and of itself is a mandatory due. The context makes it so. The GAO wouldn't even be assessing members' donations if they were purely voluntary.

Now, I don't recall stating that a donations are contrary to the GA's purpose as an organization.

Then what does this mean, exactly?:

Why or why [not] is relevant. The WA is suppose to make the world or worlds a better place. If it's policies of one of it's departments are harming or risking the health and safety of the people it's suppose to be helping and not making the world a better place, what's the point then?