Why doesn't the US pays its debts ?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by MagiK: Azred, I was with ya all the way to the last line [img]smile.gif[/img] As has been pointed out, the USA is the LARGEST contributing nation bar none, and that it does pay it's dues, only the payments seem to be out of sync due to a Fiscal Year differential. Someone else noted that between the USA and Japan you account for nearly 50% of the operating cost....now that sounds real fair.... Edit: Someone should bring up the NATO costs and who pays those as well...

It doesn't sound fair at all. The way it is set up countries with the so called veto right should have to pay more than other countries as having a veto right, so when the lesser countries turn rolls around to have a veto right thay should have to pay their fair share that year as well.

Japan normally has no veto right why is it paying such a large chunk?

[Azred]

That's all-right, MagiK...I can sometimes be a little inscrutable.
I think the US should pull out of the UN altogether. Too much of the time many other nations don't like us anyway, so why stay in a group where we're pretty much not wanted? I wonder what they'll do for money then? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] This is not a childish case of "do it my way or else"; rather, it is a statement of "don't insult me then ask me for money".

[pritchke]

This kind of explains who pays what although I was begining to get a headache.

http://www.library.yale.edu/un/burdnshar/b-V.htm

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by pritchke: It doesn't sound fair at all. The way it is set up countries with the so called veto right should have to pay more than other countries as having a veto right, so when the lesser countries turn rolls around to have a veto right thay should have to pay their fair share that year as well. Japan normally has no veto right why is it paying such a large chunk?

A. It is not based on veto rights. The veto rights are China, US, France, UK, and Russia. These are the 5 permanent members of the security counsel.

B. Re Japan: see "A".

[Wutang]

The US should still stay in the UN even though the UN has basically become an anti-US platform for years since the Vietnam era.

What I still don't understand is how countries like Libya can be chairing Human Rights?

You would think a nation like Sweden or Denmark would be more suitable.

[Spelca]

But don't countries pay according to their economy and how much money they make in a year? I've compared the numbers in that chart, and the numbers in the economy section in the World Factbook, and the numbers seem okay. The US 'makes' around 6 times more money than France, yet they pay only 4 times as much to the UN as France does. And the same goes for other countries. Sometimes the numbers are a tad higher or lower, but the numbers match. [img]smile.gif[/img] Maybe somebody else should look at these things a bit more, since I was never that good at Maths, but I guess comparing 'purchasing power parity' is okay. Or maybe not. [img]tongue.gif[/img] But the numbers matched, so it probably is.
I don't think that paying like this is bad. Developing countries don't have as much money, and the US has one of the richest economies, right? So I think that paying 'according to your strengths' is a good thing for the UN. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-04-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Wutang]

But hasn't the US also forgiven a lot of debts to many developing nations.

How does that figure into the costs?

Also I'm wondering how come with all the US spending billions on aid, why are some countries still as bad off as they were 50-60 years ago?

I'm figuring that a lot of aid money is in Swiss bank accounts, keeping these leaders happy

But it's sad to see some developing nations will never really become fully developed.

[ 03-04-2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Wutang: But hasn't the US also forgiven a lot of debts to many developing nations. How does that figure into the costs?

Mmm, as good work?

Edit --- When you do charity you usually ask for nothing in return, right? So that also makes sense in this way. The forgiving of a lot of debts to certain countries is between those countries (or isn't it?). [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-04-2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Well, we have just entered an international welfare debate - which is what this all really is anyway. And, to be sure, the US pays more in welfare *and* contributes more to charity than any other nation. Sure, we've got the money, but does that give us the moral imperative? What about translating that moral imperative to a legal one?

Bill Gates is the US's largest charity contributor (he became #1 shortly after the anti-trust action was begun - knee-jerk reaction). Does that mean we should make it law that he ALWAYS give that much? Nope. It flip-flopped his image in a very positive way to some degree.

This is not true with the USA. The more we give, the more hands there are sticking out.

I went looking briefly for this info and found out two things:
1. The US and Japan are the #1 and 2 donators of money worldwide by HUGE margins. I'll note that the UN budget is not a drop in the bucket when a quick search will give you 250+ US foreign aid *projects* each with their own budget.
2. The US and Japan donate the lowest percentage of the GDP among OECD countries.

What do these tea leaves mean? I don't know. I'm sure you can argue both ways.

[Wutang]

True but when a country is asked to pay debts....you have to figure in costs of that country in forgiving its debts as well.

It justs doesn't seem right to pay for debts while other countries are being forgiven. It's like the US is adding their debts to our debts.

Maybe the US should be forgiven in it's debts too

[ 03-04-2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]