Is This Fair and Equitable?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Which countries pay the most to the UN? 

The UN is funded in two ways—through mandatory payments and voluntary contributions. Each of the organization’s 193 members is required to pay a percentage of both the UN’s regular operating budget and the peacekeeping budget. These assessed contributions are determined through a complex formula that ultimately requires the United States to pay 22 percent of the general budget and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. These are the largest shares of any nation.
 

The civilian and military budget for 2019 is about €1.67bn (£1.43; $1.84bn), according to Natofigures. The US is currently paying for just over 22% of this, while Germany's contribution is 14.76%, and France and the UK just under 10.5% each.Dec 3, 2019.

OECD Member Countries' percentage shares of Part I budget contributions for 2019 United States - 20.5% United States (previous) funding for the World Health Organization - 22% And on and on it goes!

Edited April 18, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Yyy

[Marcin2 + 724]

Main seat of UN is in New York so a lot of a budget money is spent in    the United States. And UN activities in New York create a lot of related additional demand for services from foreign officials.

Just look at General Admiral Al Adeen he hired 20 Lamborginis and a floor in Waldorf Astoria. The same was with the King of Zamunda.

Last but not least the UN seat gives a lot of clout for the hosting country, treat it like hiring a very  good, very expensive PR firm.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

46 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Main seat of UN is in New York so a lot of a budget money is spent in    the United States. And UN activities in New York create a lot of related additional demand for services from foreign officials.

Just look at General Admiral Al Adeen he hired 20 Lamborginis and a floor in Waldorf Astoria. The same was with the King of Zamunda.

Last but not least the UN seat gives a lot of clout for the hosting country, treat it like hiring a very  good, very expensive PR firm.

So we get to front ~20% of the budget, give them a building, and admit jackholes like Al Adeen into the country simply so we can have a PR firm which generally obstructs any initiative beneficial to the US?

Enough is enough, we’ve put up with this nonsense for ~70 years. I think that it is time for some other country to take responsibility for not only taking possession of this shining example of corruption and ineffectiveness, and the 20% of funding it that comes with the honor.

Do you think that Poland is interested?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I am guessing, and hoping, that when Trump wins his second term, that he either stops funding these useless international organizations, and the ones which we choose to fund, the funding is at  more representative level.

How is it even reasonable that the US (that is, the US taxpayer) is billed for a good fifth of the budget of INTERNATIONAL organizations? Would the British or Polish taxpayers put up with this bullshit? And you wonder why the US wants to disconnect from this ‘globalism’!

[LiamP + 168]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Which countries pay the most to the UN? 

The UN is funded in two ways—through mandatory payments and voluntary contributions. Each of the organization’s 193 members is required to pay a percentage of both the UN’s regular operating budget and the peacekeeping budget. These assessed contributions are determined through a complex formula that ultimately requires the United States to pay 22 percent of the general budget and 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget. These are the largest shares of any nation.
 

The civilian and military budget for 2019 is about €1.67bn (£1.43; $1.84bn), according to Natofigures. The US is currently paying for just over 22% of this, while Germany's contribution is 14.76%, and France and the UK just under 10.5% each.Dec 3, 2019.

OECD Member Countries' percentage shares of Part I budget contributions for 2019 United States - 20.5% United States (previous) funding for the World Health Organization - 22% And on and on it goes!

Or to spin it another way, per capita, or as proportion of GDP, America is paying less! Why should every German, Frenchman, Brit, etc pay far more than any American for these institutions? Time for this era of Europe subsidising the US to come to an end, ra ra, or something.

And on and on it goes.

I feel like I'm fitting in better and better.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 minutes ago, LiamP said:

Or to spin it another way, per capita, or as proportion of GDP, America is paying less! Why should every German, Frenchman, Brit, etc pay far more than any American for these institutions? Time for this era of Europe subsidising the US to come to an end, ra ra, or something.

And on and on it goes.

I feel like I'm fitting in better and better.

So the US population is 4.2% (331 million/7.8 billion) of the global population, yet we pay 20% of all this nonsense?

The population of the EU is 5.7% of the global population (446 million/7.8 billion), by your metric the EU should be paying more than the US. Is that the case?

[LiamP + 168]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So the US population is 4.2% (331 million/7.8 billion) of the global population, yet we pay 20% of all this nonsense?

The population of the EU is 5.7% of the global population (446 million/7.8 billion), by your metric the EU should be paying more than the US. Is that the case?

Well if you said the US pays 22% and Germany 15%, UK and France 10% each, then just on those numbers alone which doesnt even include most of the EU, yes, that is the case - Germany and France alone pay more than the US.

Edited April 18, 2020 by LiamP

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Okay, your right and I must be delusional. The US should definitely fund all of the organizations at the 20% level or higher. What was I thinking?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Or, just get out of them entirely as they are of zero benefit to the American taxpayer.

[Marcin2 + 724]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So we get to front ~20% of the budget, give them a building, and admit jackholes like Al Adeen into the country simply so we can have a PR firm which generally obstructs any initiative beneficial to the US?

Enough is enough, we’ve put up with this nonsense for ~70 years. I think that it is time for some other country to take responsibility for not only taking possession of this shining example of corruption and ineffectiveness, and the 20% of funding it that comes with the honor.

Do you think that Poland is interested?

1.The Mayor’s Office for International Affairs cites some of the benefits.

Our analysis has found that the United Nations has a significant, positive impact year round, with $3.6 billion in total output to the local economy in 2014. Some of the benefits include foot traffic for local merchants and thousands of jobs in employment at the United Nations and businesses supported by its presence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/letters/united-nations-new-york-city.html

So US is making a significant net profit on hosting UN in New York, it is a good deal both for the city and the country.?

Maybe US should pay 40-50% to make it even ?

2. Who would want to take over the hosting of UN ?

The answer is obvious: Beiijng would love to.

I think that such fantastic opportunity is not even appearing in Xi Jinpings dreams of grandeur, not yet at least.

Whatever Trump administration is saying about hosting UN ( I deduct that it was apart from sheer curiosity the reason you started the thread) for the domestic audience in election year, this is the great privilege that US cherishes a lot.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So New York City is making money off the UN, then fine, they can fund the organization. What about the rest of the US taxpayers?

If it is such a money maker, move it to Warsaw! Why aren’t other cities/counties biding for this useless institution?

[RSD + 41]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So New York City is making money off the UN, then fine, they can fund the organization. What about the rest of the US taxpayers?

If it is such a money maker, move it to Warsaw! Why aren’t other cities/counties biding for this useless institution?

The reason is that the UN building wasn't built for a five year lease deal - there is a deal to keep the UN headquatered in New York for a long time and the benefits to the U.S. aren't just economic - the U.N. security council meets there too whenever there is a global flair up somewhere, and given DT's ability to piss off just about any other country on the planet it isn't save to move it to anywhere else - you can't vote if you aren't there...

[Ernst Reim + 33]

According to worldometer, the US GDP is 24% of the World GDP, Germany has 4.6% and France 3.2%. Thus if you consider it an income-adjusted tax system, yeah, Germany is contributing more to NATO than the US. And France and England slightly more than their share.

But definitely, get rid of all these international organizations which achieved that much of the world is shaped in America's image. Get rid of all international standards and regulations, which do not at all benefit the US. Whatever organization will follow will not dare to make decision which would not benefit the US. Let's close the borders and regulate trade. I am sure that Europe will nevertheless continue to let Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc. operate in Europe.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[pisstol + 48]

It would make things a lot harder and more expensive for America's spy agencies if the UN moved to another country. 

[surrept33 + 609]

Historically, the UN is a cheap way for the US to promote the US's own interests via the promotion of multilateralism. In an event of any power vacuum left by the US, it would absolutely be countries like China taking advantage to further their interests.

Edited April 19, 2020 by surrept33

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Historically, the UN is a cheap way for the US to promote the US's own interests via the promotion of multilaterism. In an event of any power vacuum left by the US, it would absolutely be countries like China taking advantage to further their interests.

We would have the option of starting our own organization of free states that met our standards of conduct. To me that would include democracy, constitutional rights that are real, freedom of religion, privacy rights, etc. It would be a pretty small group compared to the United Nations though. Many Muslim nations, communist nations and other dictatorships, etc. would not qualify,  We might have a minority organization so would have to cajole India into meeting the requirements.

Edited April 20, 2020 by ronwagn
error

[Ernst Reim + 33]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We would have the option of starting our an organization of free states that met our standards of conduct.

That would be the best-case scenario. It of course assume that all "free states that met our standards of conduct" would join the new club, which was started because the last one did not benefit the US enough.

As with all large organizations, reforms can be considered. However, the "zero benefit to the American taxpayer" argument cannot be used for an organization which provides mostly non-tangible benefits and spends nearly 70% of its money on humanitarian and development work.

The UN exists for the same reasons as social aid and other measures exists: partly to address a perceived imbalance of advantage, but mostly because the status quo benefits the ones who pay the bills.

10 billion per year for the UN is a lot. It's less than the cost of an aircraft carrier though.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Ernst Reim

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/18/2020 at 6:16 AM, LiamP said:

Or to spin it another way, per capita, or as proportion of GDP, America is paying less! Why should every German, Frenchman, Brit, etc pay far more than any American for these institutions? Time for this era of Europe subsidising the US to come to an end, ra ra, or something.

And on and on it goes.

I feel like I'm fitting in better and better.

The way I look at it America, Germany, France, and Britain are paying 47% of the bill. The rest of Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, South America, the rest of Asia are paying 53%. We are the benefactors while the rest are taking advantage of us. We need to lower our contribution since we have nations with slavery heading the human rights department, and the WHO following China's bidding. Trump is doing the right thing once again. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 4/18/2020 at 1:36 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

The population of the EU is 5.7% of the global population (446 million/7.8 billion), by your metric the EU should be paying more than the US. Is that the case?

yes. using your own numbers

On 4/18/2020 at 5:29 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

The civilian and military budget for 2019 is about €1.67bn (£1.43; $1.84bn), according to Natofigures. The US is currently paying for just over 22% of this, while Germany's contribution is 14.76%, and France and the UK just under 10.5% each.Dec 3, 2019.

OECD Member Countries' percentage shares of Part I budget contributions for 2019 United States - 20.5%

 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Trump is doing the right thing once again. 

Trump cannot do anything wrong in oilprice.com land.... 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

yes. using your own numbers

 

So why are the German, French and UK percentages less than the US?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Trump cannot do anything wrong in oilprice.com land.... 

True....you are not forced to participate in any discussion which may offend you.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

38 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So why are the German, French and UK percentages less than the US?

you said EU; did not specify a country. In total UK and France and less than half of the US population, but pay more... 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So you are saying that the contribution to NATO should be based on population!

How about we base it on who the hell the organization is defending! I don’t see many NATO bases or assets in Virginia.

The Soviet Union is no more. No need for any Americans defending the Fulda Gap.

You do not like Yanks.

The solution is blindingly obvious! Kick out the damn Yanks and provide your own  damn security!

Why hasn’t the EU already done this and organize their own European Defense Force? I would really like an explanation for this last item.

[Ernst Reim + 33]

Douglas: Aehm... honestly, what would actually the reaction be in the US, if Germany would announce that it would start its own long-range missile nuclear weapons program? Relief? Thankfulness?

The NATO is communal defense pact. The fact that Europeans profit from the US presence does not mean that the US does not benefit from it too.

But let's talk about who is paying. Let's look first at the relatively small direct budget of the NATO. The US used to pay 20% and Germany 14%. After Trump's protest both now pay 14%. The US GDP is around 5 times that of Germany. The US population is around 4 times that of Germany. So, compared to the US, Germany used to pay 2.5 times more per capita and a 3.5-times higher percentage of GDP to NATO. After Trumps complaints, it now pays 4 times more per capita and a 5-times higher percentage of their GDP than the US. Now the direct budget is peanuts compared to direct military expenses. But you can see how the principle here stinks.

The real money goes of course to the actual defense costs. And here the US pay **way more**. $650 billion (3.2% of GDP), while Germany invests 50 billion (1.2% of GDP). (Those are slightly dated numbers.) But... Germany does not have any military interests outside of NATO. We normally do not have any presence outside of Germany. Well, apart from some of our guys dying in Afghanistan, but you know how we came to be there.

You can claim only that the US "is paying for Europe's security" if you assume that all (or at least the majority) of the US defense investment is used towards a common goal... and this is just not true.

Btw: in particular Germany and France have been pushing for years for an European security force. One of the bigger roadblocks there... the US. Bush spoke against it and also Trump in 2008. (To be fair to him: he reacted to a mistranslation of the Macron's proposal in a newspaper in which the security force was intended to protect against the US.)

Whether the European countries need to pay more for defense or the US need to invest less there, is of course a hot discussion, heavily influenced by political leaning and personal philosophy. But the "we are paying for their security"-argument is, at best, grossly oversimplified.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Ernst Reim