[SUBMITTED] Repeal "WA General Fund"

[New Charlzilla]

The General Assembly,

NOTING the importance of continued funding for the World Assembly;

REALISING that “a stable, reliable source of funding” would be far more attainable through a method of public taxation rather than through the donations of “national and private benefactors” for the reasons that it

(a) provides a more sustained (stable and reliable) source of funding than that of donations, which fluctuates based on the whims and fancies of member nations.

(b) provides for greater transparency and accountability; all member nations can know the origins of all funding for the World Assembly

FURTHER REALISING that “the possibility of corruption and wasteful spending” will be greatly diminished with such a measure because

(a) it prevents donors from seeking to extract benefits and leverages via their donations, at the expense of non-donors, by virtue of their exclusivity, hence discouraging corruption

(b) it encourages member nations to be more alert and engaged with regard to the financial activity of the World Assembly, hence discouraging wasteful spending

UNDERSTANDING the concerns of taxation as a means of “coercion” by the World Assembly but

AFFIRMING that all World Assembly funds ultimately serve the needs and benefits of all member nations from which they originated;

COMMITTING to drafting further legislation for a system of reasoned taxation at a later date;

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution 17, WA General Fund.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Opposed.

[Tinfect]

REALISING that “a stable, reliable source of funding” would be far more attainable through a method of public taxation rather than through the donations of “national and private benefactors” for the reasons that it

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat interprets these so-called 'donations' to be mandatory, thus, removing your sole argument for repeal. Needless to say, we are opposed."

[Wallenburg]

Enter Ogenbond

Ogenbond: Opposed in every way imaginable.

Exit Ogenbond

[Kaiser Adolf]

Sorry but this seems to have no any real effect, opposed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: It is fundamentally and entirely politically impossible to pass a taxation regime on World Assembly member nations. It has been tried before, again and again. It has never succeeded. If you look back the proposal "Ways and Means", If I recall correctly, it was utterly annihilated. To solve the issue of a funding mechanism, 17 GA was passed. There are no better solutions, in our opinion, which should give at least some amount of feedback regarding our thoughts on this issue.

[Excidium Planetis]

REALISING that “a stable, reliable source of funding” would be far more attainable through a method of public taxation rather than through the donations of “national and private benefactors” for the reasons that it

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat interprets these so-called 'donations' to be mandatory, thus, removing your sole argument for repeal. Needless to say, we are opposed."

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat has not ruled in such a way. Miss Santos has argued for the mandatory donation interpretation, but I do not recall a Secretariat ruling ever being part of her argument."

[Araraukar]

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat has not ruled in such a way."

If my memory serves, it wasn't an official ruling but rather players' (OOC: some of whom were mods) rationalization of how it has to work to work the way it does.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

REALISING that “a stable, reliable source of funding” would be far more attainable through a method of public taxation rather than through the donations of “national and private benefactors” for the reasons that it

So, basically, you got to the first line of the resolution before going haywire with a kneejerk repeal? I can say with some authority that that preambulatory, nonbinding language is pure drivel, in the service of pandering to the dues-hating General Assemblyites of the time, assuring them that their fears of being "taxed" were groundless, and their complaints moronic.

If you read past the preamble, you'll notice that the "donations" mentioned are really more like "assessments" (i.e., charges), implying the GAO does a bit more than ask nicely when they actually collect the donations. It was the most legal way possible of making it appear as though the nations were not being taxed (even though they kinda were).

Your alternate method is inferior, in terms of not being all that much different than the current General Fund, and in terms of being far, far less likely to successfully pass. The thing currently on the books was an extremely hard sell -- and it never even told nations they were being taxed!

[Imperium Anglorum]

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat interprets these so-called 'donations' to be mandatory, thus, removing your sole argument for repeal. Needless to say, we are opposed."

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat has not ruled in such a way. Miss Santos has argued for the mandatory donation interpretation, but I do not recall a Secretariat ruling ever being part of her argument."

Also a Parsons argument too.

[Excidium Planetis]

"If I remember correctly, the Secretariat has not ruled in such a way. Miss Santos has argued for the mandatory donation interpretation, but I do not recall a Secretariat ruling ever being part of her argument."

Also a Parsons argument too.

And a Kenny argument. And many other GA regulars.

Actually, while I'm sure there is at least one, at the moment I can't recall any other Ambassadors arguing for a voluntary interpretation (despite such an interpretation using the most common definition of assess and the only sensible definition of donation).

[Separatist Peoples]

"We may have to dust out our campaign office if this comes to vote. This travesty shouldn't ever pass."

[Araraukar]

I'm fairly sure that WAGF is mentioned by several existing resolutions, so even if this one was repealed, it wouldn't actually change anything. Even so, opposed.

[The Sheika]

"Opposed. The reasons why have already been stated several times over by other members of this Assembly."

[Shazbotdom]

"Why was this submitted without the drafting process?"

[Araraukar]

"Why was this submitted without the drafting process?"

OOC: Because it's a common newbie mistake. I think it comes very close to being an honest mistake of a repeal.

[New Charlzilla]

As of this post, 33 WA Delegates have approved this repeal - 81 more are required to send it to a vote by the WA. This repeal will fundamentally change the structure of the World Assembly and transform it for the better - for a better WA, I urge everyone to remind their region's WA delegates to approve this proposal.

[Araraukar]

As of this post, 33 WA Delegates have approved this repeal

OOC: Yeah, that's not far above the size of the NS Summer Rubber Stamp Squad this year. NSSRSS are the delegates who approve everything, even one-liners saying "Drugs are bad mmmm'kay" submitted in the gun control category. And then there's the Repeal Rubber Stamp Squad on top of that - people who approve any and every repeal without reading the text.

Although, interestingly, after looking at the submitted resolutions list, there apparently are some things even Vancouvia won't approve.

[The Sheika]

As of this post, 33 WA Delegates have approved this repeal - 81 more are required to send it to a vote by the WA. This repeal will fundamentally change the structure of the World Assembly and transform it for the better - for a better WA, I urge everyone to remind their region's WA delegates to approve this proposal.

"So...you are just going to take the ball and run with it without answering any kind of critique from other nations, some of whom happen to be delegates that you are hoping to seek approval from? Okay, well, good luck."

[Separatist Peoples]

As of this post, 33 WA Delegates have approved this repeal - 81 more are required to send it to a vote by the WA. This repeal will fundamentally change the structure of the World Assembly and transform it for the better - for a better WA, I urge everyone to remind their region's WA delegates to approve this proposal.

So...you are just going to take the ball and run with it without answering any kind of critique from other nations, some of whom happen to be delegates that you are hoping to seek approval from? Okay, well, good luck.

"The Charzillian delegation is not well-renowned for it's astute politicking, ambassador. As evidenced by the submission. This debacle is par for the course."

[The Sheika]

"The Charzillian delegation is not well-renowned for it's astute politicking, ambassador. As evidenced by the submission. This debacle is par for the course."

"Point taken."

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad believes this resolution constitutes an honest mistake violation and will forward our legal challenge to the secretariat."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Sciongrad believes this resolution constitutes an honest mistake violation and will forward our legal challenge to the secretariat."

"I believe it doesn't, and want the Secretariat to carefully consider before making a ruling, as I'm sure they are listening." Schultz looks at the hidden camera in the corner of the room.

"The question to be asked is: Is it more reasonable to conclude that WA General Fund has a mandatory taxation scheme despite decrying it in the preamble and using words with voluntary connotations like donations, or is it more reasonable to assume that the words have their common and ordinary meaning, including the word 'assess' which most commonly means to determine the quality or value of, and means 'to impose a fine' least commonly? I also encourage the Secretariat to look at past precedent concerning repeals, where if an interpretation of a resolution is valid, even if it is not the only one, the repeal is not an honest mistake."

[Mallorea and Riva]

"Sciongrad believes this resolution constitutes an honest mistake violation and will forward our legal challenge to the secretariat."

"I believe it doesn't, and want the Secretariat to carefully consider before making a ruling, as I'm sure they are listening." Schultz looks at the hidden camera in the corner of the room

*zooms the camera in*
On my phone right now but yes, the Secretariat is watching.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Sciongrad believes this resolution constitutes an honest mistake violation and will forward our legal challenge to the secretariat."

Oh, for God's sake, don't. I don't want the Secretariat tainting my resolution with a faulty ruling unless it's absolutely necessary. I'll repeal the damn resolution myself if they interpret it wrong (which is of course highly likely).