[Abandoned] Financial Transparency

[Karteria]

This proposal has been submitted.

[Kenmoria]

This proposal has been submitted.

(OOC: Good luck; it will be nice to see some more financially-specialised proposals.)

[Marxist Germany]

Support

[Karteria]

This proposal has been submitted.

(OOC: Good luck; it will be nice to see some more financially-specialised proposals.)

Thanks! I hope it goes well too. At this point, I'm just glad that (for my first proposal) I submitted one that's actually legal.
Even though some nations may view it as unnecessary, I don't think there's a lot of downside here.

[Cosmosplosion]

Stressing that financial transparency from national governments and organizations leads to a financially self-aware populace that can attain better economic success,

Yes.

Emphasizing that financial planning is a key component of sustained economic well-being for people of all socioeconomic classes,

I mean, yeah. The lower classes might still be screwed even with financial planning, but sure.

Understanding that economic prosperity for individuals substantially increases their well-being, which benefits their communities and their nations,

Also reaffirming the right of all WA citizens to be informed about financial concepts,

Yes

The World Assembly, therefore,

Defines “financial planning,” for the purposes of this resolution, as the process of analyzing necessary financial information, such as savings and investments, in order to achieve certain financial goals for individuals, such as retirement.

And this is where you lose a lot of people - many countries establish retirements for all of their citizens. On top of that, the private sector is nonexistent.

To allow for adequate financial planning,

Establishes the World Assembly Financial Planning Board, or WAFPB, that sets standards for and certifies professional practitioners of financial planning internationally, which both increases public confidence and protects consumers. The WAFPB certification framework includes competency and education requirements, ethical standards, and general practice standards.

This seems...unnecessary? Financial planning from a "professional" is something that is only accessible to the upper classes. The standards for being in a job like that are not going to be equal throughout the world either.

Mandates that World Assembly nations notify any citizens, where applicable, of necessary tax return information at least 60 days in advance of the completion deadline.

I mean, okay, but again, not as many countries have that type of system as you might think.

Mandates that World Assembly nations that control a portion of their respective credit system(s) make credit information that is owned by their national governments accessible to the public.

What if they control all of it? What if it's entirely private sector?

Mandates that World Assembly nations disseminate information to the public regarding aforementioned financial tools currently provided by their national governments, free or otherwise, and further encourages nations to share those resources with other nations.

What is a "financial tool"?

Encourages World Assembly nations to provide free financial tools and educational resources to the public, such as terminology, analytical methods, and mathematical concepts, among others.

I applaud the author for wanting to provide the public with life-saving information such as "terminology", but this proposal is incredibly vague and it doesn't do a whole lot. Where it does do something, it's lacking in definition and specificity, killing any level of effectiveness. Plus, it's useless to many countries.

AGAINST

[Karteria]

*snip*

Thanks for the input! I'll look over your suggestions in more detail when I redraft this. Obviously needs some work. But, for now, do you think that the mandates are on the right track (and just need to specify further), or that this proposal is unnecessary as a whole?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Thanks for the input! I'll look over your suggestions in more detail when I redraft this. Obviously needs some work. But, for now, do you think that the mandates are on the right track (and just need to specify further), or that this proposal is unnecessary as a whole?

OOC: As written, it appears pretty unnecessary, nor am I sure the category AoE matches the text. What are consumers protected from? Themselves?

[Karteria]

Thanks for the input! I'll look over your suggestions in more detail when I redraft this. Obviously needs some work. But, for now, do you think that the mandates are on the right track (and just need to specify further), or that this proposal is unnecessary as a whole?

OOC: As written, it appears pretty unnecessary, nor am I sure the category AoE matches the text. What are consumers protected from? Themselves?

The original overall intent was to protect consumers from financial planning businesses or individual professionals who may commit malpractice by utilizing customer data and information. The proposal would, in theory, screen professionals so that customers know which businesses are actually certified for the profession. In addition, there sections devoted to mandating dissemination of information from governments, because it seemed to fit at the time.

The AoE was the best one I could find, based on what I looked at.

Hopefully I cleared it up. If this proposal is unnecessary, I am willing to focus on other endeavors.

[Araraukar]

The AoE was the best one I could find, based on what I looked at.

OOC: Not everything can be written up in a GA proposal, because the topics don't fit into the categories/AoEs. That I think is the problem here too. If you wanted to emphasize the whole "professionals doing financial planning" thing as a business, you could even switch categories into advancement of industry (or whatever it's called these days), but you'd have to do a complete rewrite and intentionally write it to fit the Category-AoE combo chosen.

Right now it feels like you're offering a solution to something that isn't a problem. Or at least isn't a problem so large that it needs international law to deal with it.

[Karteria]

OOC: Not everything can be written up in a GA proposal, because the topics don't fit into the categories/AoEs. That I think is the problem here too. If you wanted to emphasize the whole "professionals doing financial planning" thing as a business, you could even switch categories into advancement of industry (or whatever it's called these days), but you'd have to do a complete rewrite and intentionally write it to fit the Category-AoE combo chosen.

Right now it feels like you're offering a solution to something that isn't a problem. Or at least isn't a problem so large that it needs international law to deal with it.

Very well. I will let my proposal play out in committee (even though it is highly unlikely to be approved), but I will most likely drop it. I’ll focus on something else in the future and look at categories first and start there, rather than trying to make something fit.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Apologies for overlooking this in the submission but I think that clause 2(II) is an illegal contradiction of clause 8 of GAR#17 which states that member nations "maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies". If you redraft you might consider changing this.

[Karteria]

OOC: Apologies for overlooking this in the submission but I think that clause 2(II) is an illegal contradiction of clause 8 of GAR#17 which states that member nations "maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies". If you redraft you might consider changing this.

My thought process when writing was that my proposal is not illegal due to the latter part of clause 8 – “barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices.”

[Karteria]

After pondering the somewhat considerable approval I received in committee and my somewhat illogical desire to have my first proposal go to a vote, I have decided to redraft this. I've spoilered the submitted draft and outlined the other edits below.

OOC: Apologies for overlooking this in the submission but I think that clause 2(II) is an illegal contradiction of clause 8 of GAR#17 which states that member nations "maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies". If you redraft you might consider changing this.

I have decided to scrap the clause in question to avoid any legality trouble.

The AoE was the best one I could find, based on what I looked at.

OOC: Not everything can be written up in a GA proposal, because the topics don't fit into the categories/AoEs. That I think is the problem here too. If you wanted to emphasize the whole "professionals doing financial planning" thing as a business, you could even switch categories into advancement of industry (or whatever it's called these days), but you'd have to do a complete rewrite and intentionally write it to fit the Category-AoE combo chosen.

Right now it feels like you're offering a solution to something that isn't a problem. Or at least isn't a problem so large that it needs international law to deal with it.

I attempted to emphasize in the preamble how this is, in fact, an international issue. I've also updated the draft, especially in section 3, to focus more on the certification side to fit the category.

Emphasizing that financial planning is a key component of sustained economic well-being for people of all socioeconomic classes,

I mean, yeah. The lower classes might still be screwed even with financial planning, but sure.

I understand (and tend to agree with) this claim, and added a section that encourages nations to provide free public sector financial planners.

The World Assembly, therefore,

Defines “financial planning,” for the purposes of this resolution, as the process of analyzing necessary financial information, such as savings and investments, in order to achieve certain financial goals for individuals, such as retirement.

And this is where you lose a lot of people - many countries establish retirements for all of their citizens. On top of that, the private sector is nonexistent.

I addressed this issue by adding a section that forces nations to disseminate information regarding pre-established retirement plans. The intent of this proposal was not significantly involve nations whose financial planning is already conducted entirely by their governments.

To allow for adequate financial planning,

Establishes the World Assembly Financial Planning Board, or WAFPB, that sets standards for and certifies professional practitioners of financial planning internationally, which both increases public confidence and protects consumers. The WAFPB certification framework includes competency and education requirements, ethical standards, and general practice standards.

This seems...unnecessary? Financial planning from a "professional" is something that is only accessible to the upper classes. The standards for being in a job like that are not going to be equal throughout the world either.

The intent of this proposal was to establish international standards for the practice so that the public can expect about the same professionalism no matter to where they reside, travel, or move.

Mandates that World Assembly nations notify any citizens, where applicable, of necessary tax return information at least 60 days in advance of the completion deadline.

I mean, okay, but again, not as many countries have that type of system as you might think.

This clause has been deleted.

Mandates that World Assembly nations that control a portion of their respective credit system(s) make credit information that is owned by their national governments accessible to the public.

What if they control all of it? What if it's entirely private sector?

Fixed.

Mandates that World Assembly nations disseminate information to the public regarding aforementioned financial tools currently provided by their national governments, free or otherwise, and further encourages nations to share those resources with other nations.

What is a "financial tool"?

I added a definition for financial tools in a new section (#2).

Encourages World Assembly nations to provide free financial tools and educational resources to the public, such as terminology, analytical methods, and mathematical concepts, among others.

I applaud the author for wanting to provide the public with life-saving information such as "terminology", but this proposal is incredibly vague and it doesn't do a whole lot. Where it does do something, it's lacking in definition and specificity, killing any level of effectiveness. Plus, it's useless to many countries.

I believe there are a significant number of nations where financial planning is conducted by for-profit institutions. I attempted to specify as I stated above. This information IS life-saving – bad retirement, personal finance, and investment advice does more than kill profits; it can devastate people's livelihoods.

[Karteria]

Bump.

Looking for suggestions regarding the new edits.

[Araraukar]

Looking for suggestions regarding the new edits.

OOC: Some problems that glared at me on a quick read.

Retirement is not a financial goal. Having money after retirement might be, but retirement itself, no.

Also, "conceptual methods and or mathematical calculations utilized for financial analysis" doesn't actually mean anything. Like, are we talking about computer programs or calculators or a database for looking things up or what? I'm looking for an actual definition, not more jargon.

Why is the committee necessary at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for each nation to establish their own certifications, considering that the conditions (all national legislation on top of WA resolutions) vary wildly from nation to nation?

Also, you don't actually use "certified professionals" anywhere else but in that clause. Why make something if you're not going to use it?

Wouldn't it make more sense to make the info about retirements easily accessible, rather than forcibly disseminate it to everyone, whether they need the info or not?

My credit info is no business of yours, unless we actually do business. So why mandating that nations let anyone look anyone else up? Bank account matters of private persons should remain private (only accessible to authorities as necessary, such as for taxation purposes).

The mandate about the financial tools currently reads as allowing a nation to send someone the information and then demand payment for sending the information, even if the person didn't want or need the information.

"Lower classes" sounds really icky (like, I literally shuddered when I realized I had actually read that correctly), also, what makes "upper classes" immune to being stupid with their money?

I still fail to see how this fits the Category and AoE. It reads more like Social Justice except that it doesn't actually do anything.

[Karteria]

Looking for suggestions regarding the new edits.

OOC: Some problems that glared at me on a quick read.

*snip*

I still fail to see how this fits the Category and AoE. It reads more like Social Justice except that it doesn't actually do anything.

I am abandoning this proposal. While some of the problems you bring up can be easily fixed, there are clearly some systemic issues that would take a clear rewrite; it seems that, even doing that, there isn't a lot of basis. I'll make sure to keep your general concerns in mind in my next proposal, whenever that will be.

Additionally, I have been recently focusing on helping to build up my region rather than WA stuff, so I cannot adequately address this anyway.