Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Again Hoping To Reduce UN Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Again Hoping To Reduce UN Bill

    The U.S. is locked once again in a back-room struggle with developing nations over how much of the United Nations tab Washington will pick up over the next three years, especially the bill for peacekeeping activities.
    There is cautious hope among diplomats that the U.S. can chip away at least marginally at the U.N.’s “scale of assessments”-- a dues system loaded in favor of many poor and not-so-poor countries that pay less than their fair share, and saddle the small number of rich countries -- especially the U.S. -- with the difference.
    In broad terms, the bottom line will remain the same: the U.S. will continue to pay billions more than everyone else. Last year, the U.S. handed over $3 billion toward the U.N.’s so-called “regular” Secretariat budget and its peacekeeping forces, though the full amount of U.S. contributions to the U.N. system -- the Obama administration does not divulge them -- was much more.
    The last official tally of overall U.S. contributions, in 2010, was about $7.6 billion, and that was widely considered a low-ball figure.
    The basis of U.S. giving is the U.N. assessments scale -- currently set so that the U.S. pays 22 percent of the so-called “regular” U.N. Secretariat annual budget (about $2.8 billion in 2015), and 28.36 percent of its peacekeeping budget, which has ballooned in the past few years to $8.47 billion in 2014-2015.
    The bigger the overall bills, the bigger is the share in dollar terms the U.S. must pay because of its outsized dues percentages.
    The next-biggest percentage payee, Japan, forks over 10.83 percent of both the U.N.’s regular budget and peacekeeping spending, and as a result signed a check for about $1.23 billion -- about 40 percent of the U.S. total. Powerhouses like Germany fall even further behind.
    The U.S. peacekeeping tab is more than the tally for the other four veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council -- France, the United Kingdom, China and Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation --combined.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/12...?intcmp=hplnws
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

  • #2
    It seems like the other UN countries with veto power should be paying a little more into the pot. Everyone loves to point out that their education system is better than ours, or they have a shorter workweek, or a better quality of life, or their monetary unit is higher than the USD. We could probably spend the money to improve things domestically, but I'd vote for tax cuts! The government seems to waste more money than they actually get to the people who need it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agreed. Kind of hard to see how China pays so little, for instance. Or Russia.

      Never before have so few been screwed by so many.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
        It seems like the other UN countries with veto power should be paying a little more into the pot. Everyone loves to point out that their education system is better than ours, or they have a shorter workweek, or a better quality of life, or their monetary unit is higher than the USD. We could probably spend the money to improve things domestically, but I'd vote for tax cuts! The government seems to waste more money than they actually get to the people who need it.
        Honestly, I'd just be happy to see our allies reaching that 2% GDP goal for their military spending as a start.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Agreed. Kind of hard to see how China pays so little, for instance. Or Russia.

          Never before have so few been screwed by so many.
          I've come to the conclusion that its impossible to be truly equitable. The second time I read the article, I realized that Saudi Arabia really walked away as a winner. The idea that some countries get discounts seems to throw the entire multiplier system they use out of the very balance it was intended to create.

          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          Honestly, I'd just be happy to see our allies reaching that 2% GDP goal for their military spending as a start.
          I'm selfish - can we get both out of them?

          Comment


          • #6
            Personally, we should tell the UN "Up yours" and pull out saving the money and then tell them the lease on the land where it is in NY is up and the rent's gonna double or triple to pay for all those "diplomats" with bad behavior getting away with crap in NYC.

            Let's see who knuckles under first...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              Personally, we should tell the UN "Up yours" and pull out saving the money and then tell them the lease on the land where it is in NY is up and the rent's gonna double or triple to pay for all those "diplomats" with bad behavior getting away with crap in NYC.

              Let's see who knuckles under first...
              Who owns the land?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Who owns the land?
                It's in the continental US... So, it don't matter per se. The US can repossess it based on non-payment of something or another...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
                  It seems like the other UN countries with veto power should be paying a little more into the pot. Everyone loves to point out that their education system is better than ours, or they have a shorter workweek, or a better quality of life, or their monetary unit is higher than the USD. We could probably spend the money to improve things domestically, but I'd vote for tax cuts! The government seems to waste more money than they actually get to the people who need it.
                  I'd rather see some form of a "flat tax" assessed to members, with maybe a bump to those, like Saudi Arabia, whose internal laws and cultures violate the UN principles (why are they allowed to be member in the first place?) and standards of Human Rights.

                  The USA is being extorted here and there are many other developed nations whom should pay their fair share of the costs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Personally, we should tell the UN "Up yours" and pull out saving the money and then tell them the lease on the land where it is in NY is up and the rent's gonna double or triple to pay for all those "diplomats" with bad behavior getting away with crap in NYC.

                    Let's see who knuckles under first...
                    I've often thought that Jerusalem would be a more fitting location for the UN.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      It's in the continental US... So, it don't matter per se. The US can repossess it based on non-payment of something or another...
                      So the US only pays lip service to laws and agreements and concepts like private property so long as it suites them?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        So the US only pays lip service to laws and agreements and concepts like private property so long as it suites them?
                        That's what all of the other nations are doing, so your point is?
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          I've often thought that Jerusalem would be a more fitting location for the UN.
                          I think Bouvet Island is more appropriate. It is the most remote place on the planet, not all that hospitable, and the delegates can't be distracted from their work by local pleasures... as there are none.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            That's what all of the other nations are doing, so your point is?
                            No, it's just good to clarify that the US behaves like any other state.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              No, it's just good to clarify that the US behaves like any other state.
                              Why shouldn't we? We pay enough for the privilege.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X