Yet Another General Fund Is Mandatory Thread

[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?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And just to put things in perspective, both the US and France owe more than $300 million to the RL UN. The donations NS nations have to pay the WA are likely chump change by comparison.

[Jarish Inyo]

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.

I've not ignored the context. It doesn't read to me as making donations mandatory. It may read that way to you.

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.

No, it doesn't. The context of clause 4 does not make it clear that assess means bill. I would hazard to say that many wouldn't have associated assess with bill. The GAO would be assessing a members donation if it was purely voluntary. Organizations do do assessments of people, businesses and countries they wish to solicit donations from.

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?

It was a response to a statement to that it was irrelevant how the GAO funded itself and the WA.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, it doesn't. The context of clause 4 does not make it clear that assess means bill. I would hazard to say that many wouldn't have associated assess with bill. The GAO would be assessing a members donation if it was purely voluntary. Organizations do do assessments of people, businesses and countries they wish to solicit donations from.

Which, applied to this situation, makes no sense whatsoever. The GAO is actually assessing the amount owed, based on the criteria previously cited - it is not merely assessing a potential donor. A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

[Ainocra]

As a slightly off topic, this is why I wanted the replacement for 92 funded out of the general fund.
I figured that there would be a huge pool of untapped income there and that in no way could WASP make a sizable dent in it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The WA's expenses are vastly higher than those of the NSUN, so I'm not sure the specifics of Sophista's funding calculations carry over, but the general point is probably true. The WA funds several expensive programs whereas the NSUN generally expected individual nations to source funding on their own.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

... having something assessed, ... doesn't imply that payment is mandatory.

Tell that to my f#$%ing property taxes. I'm sure the town will be happy to give me my money back, since it was merely "assessed" and not "collected from my person by a couple of guys wielding baseball bats and butterfly knives."

[The Eternal Kawaii]

A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

[Sciongrad]

A member nation already is a donor by virtue of being a member nation. The first clause makes that clear.

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That sentence wasn't even supposed to be worded that way. It was a remnant from an early draft that also included "solicited" private donations as well as assessed national donations. I eventually scrubbed the private donations and forgot to fix the preamble. Still, it's preambulatory language, and the effects of the operative section decidedly outweigh it.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Hate to break it to you, Kenny, but the preamble to the resolution makes it clear that donations are assumed to be voluntary:

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;

If the donations weren't voluntary, then there would be no difference between "solicited donations" and "coerced taxation", and this sentence would make no sense. Since we have to assume that you meant for it to make sense, we must then assume that you meant for the donations to be voluntary.

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

Preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with this resolution is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. As has been pointed out earlier, "assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context that the word is being used in. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

[Jarish Inyo]

Those that argue that the donations are mandatory ignores the preamble and states that it has no bearing on the resolution at all. Even though the preamble states there purpose and arguments for the law to begin with. I've already stated that the context to me doesn't make GAR#17 require mandatory donations.

Everyone arguing that it mandates payment always points to clause 4 and states that asses means to bill. In fact, it doesn't automatically means that at all.

[Separatist Peoples]

Those that argue that the donations are mandatory ignores the preamble and states that it has no bearing on the resolution at all. Even though the preamble states there purpose and arguments for the law to begin with. I've already stated that the context to me doesn't make GAR#17 require mandatory donations.

Everyone arguing that it mandates payment always points to clause 4 and states that asses means to bill. In fact, it doesn't automatically means that at all.

Preambulatory clauses have literally never been binding. They are introductory fluff, and the reason why nobody has serious issues with them. Players often don't bother with them until later in drafting.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Preambulatory clauses have literally never been binding. They are introductory fluff, and the reason why nobody has serious issues with them. Players often don't bother with them until later in drafting.

Not that I want to feed the argument, but that's not really true. Preambles actually have been binding: for example, before years of precedent were casually overturned with - to this day - no explanation, "extreme hazard" was cited in preambles to avoid contradiction of National Economic Freedoms. And at least one of the mods has stated that the player view of preambles as non-binding isn't one shared by them (I don't have a post to specifically cite to hand, though, unfortunately).

[Railana]

OOC: Preambulatory clauses have no bearing on the operative section of the resolution, and because the operative section of the resolution makes it reasonably clear that "donations" are mandatory, the preamble could be the lyrics to "the Edge of Seventeen" translated into Latin and it wouldn't make a difference.

Preambulatory clauses establish the context by which the operative clauses can be understood. The problem with this resolution is the word "assessed" in Clause 4. As has been pointed out earlier, "assess" can have two meanings: "to calculate the value or worth of something", or "to impose a charge". To resolve this ambiguity, we have to determine the context that the word is being used in. And, based on the preamble, the context implies that it is the former, not the latter meaning that should be used.

I find this argument persuasive.

[Flibbleites]

This was in response to people posting idiotic proposals suggesting that the fund be in the neighborhood of 1%-5% of GDP.

Could be worse.