|
|
|
February
1, 2005 Left
Parties PROPOSALS
FOR BUDGET 2005-06 (Submitted to the UPA-Left Coordination Committee) 1.
The
first (interim) Budget of the UPA government had made an additional allocation
of Rs. 10,000 crore as a special budgetary support for the 10th Plan
in order to implement the commitments made in the Common Minimum Programme. This
amount was clearly inadequate to meet the commitments related to employment
generation, agriculture, education and health. The forthcoming Budget should
therefore make substantially increased allocations in the direction of
fulfilling the commitments made in the CMP. 2.
The
important commitments made in the CMP include the Employment Guarantee Act,
stepping up of public investment in agriculture in terms of rural infrastructure
and irrigation and phased increase in public spending on education and health in
order to meet the targeted 6% and 2-3% of GDP respectively in five years. The
Budget should make an additional allocation of Rs. 20,000 crore to support the
employment generation programme under the National Rural Employment Guarantee
(which is soon expected to become an Act). There should be additional
allocations of Rs. 8000 crore each for education and health. Total allocation
for agriculture, irrigation and rural infrastructure should be increased by Rs.
14,000 crore. In sum there should be an increase of Rs. 50,000 crore in the
Central Plan outlay in the Budget in order to meet the commitments made in the
CMP. 3.
The
resources required for the increased expenditure can be mobilized through
deficit financing, in view of the significant unutilised capacity existent in
various sectors of the economy. But the government has tied its hands as far as
running a budget deficit is concerned, by committing itself steadfastly to the
FRBM Act,
which has institutionalized conservatism in fiscal policymaking in India by
imposing unwarranted constraints on the capacity of the Central government to
run a budget deficit even when idle resources exist in the economy.
The Act should not be allowed to come in the way. Further, it is noteworthy that
the Gross Tax Revenue collection stood at only around 9.21% of the GDP in
2003-04 as suggested by the Budget figures, which is quite low even if compared
to other developing countries. Enough scope for resource mobilization through
taxation exists. There is a strong case therefore to increase the tax-GDP ratio
by around 1.5%, which should be sufficient to meet the additional development
expenditure that is being suggested, given the current level of India’s GDP.
4.
Expenditure
on Defence, which had witnessed a whopping Rs. 12,000 crore hike in the interim
Budget, can be brought down. However, the decision taken by the government on
the eve of the Budget, to set up a fund from disinvestment proceeds in order to
make investments in the social sector, lacks economic rationale. Public spending
in the social sector, or any other sector for that matter, should be financed by
raising resources through taxation or by running a budget deficit. Selling
off stakes in a profit making PSU is in effect equivalent to running a budget
deficit. While in the latter case interest payments have to be made by the
government in the future against a one-time borrowing, in the former future
streams of income from dividends are forgone against a one-time receipt from the
sale of stakes. In fact the latter is worse since it involves transferring
state-owned assets to private hands, which is not the case when the government
borrows from the market. 5.
It
is therefore important for the government to make a serious effort to mobilize
tax revenue. Additional tax revenue can be mobilized both by levying new
corporation taxes and customs duties as well as widening the tax net, focusing
upon the upper classes. The rate of wealth tax, which is currently very low and
yields annual resources to the tune of around Rs150 crore only, should be
increased. Corporate tax exemptions need to be done away with. Specific targets
for realization of tax arrears and recovery of the NPA of banks/FIS should be
fixed. A review of the whole gamut of export incentives/duty drawback should be
undertaken given the comfortable foreign exchange position with a view to
phasing out those which are no longer necessary. The salaried class should not
be subjected to any additional income tax burden. 6.
Tribulations
arising out of speculative activities in the Indian stock market once again came
to the fore in the recent past. In this context the capital gains tax need to be
reintroduced, given the fact that the turnover tax introduced in the last Budget
was eventually diluted. Besides, an ad valorem tax on all foreign exchange
outflows should be introduced, which would not only generate revenue but also
help to stabilize ‘hot’ money flows into our economy and provide some
protection against capital flight. Moreover, no foreign entity should be allowed
to hold rupee denominated sovereign debt, directly or indirectly. 7.
Rural
credit continues to be an area of grave concern. It needs to be underscored that
the primary focus of expansion of rural credit should be on agriculture and crop
related activities in the rural areas. The RBI directive on providing loans of
up to Rs. 1 lakh without collateral to small and marginal farmers has not been
implemented in most places. The Budget should make special allocations to
recapitalize the cooperative banks in keeping with the recommendations of the
Task
Force on Revival of Cooperative
Credit Institutions.
The aggregate liability to be borne by the Central government in order to
undertake the revival package has been estimated by the Task Force to be Rs.
10,839 crore (and another Rs. 4000 crore for contingency). To
begin with an amount of Rs. 5000 crore (from the Rs. 14000 crore suggested for
Agriculture) can be allocated for this purpose. Moreover, the Advisory Committee
on Flow of Credit to Agriculture and Related Activities from the Banking System
which was set up by the RBI had recommended the setting up of an Agri-Risk Fund
which would mitigate the risk of the banks lending to the agriculture sector, as
they can have recourse to the fund in the event of genuine default. Such a fund
should be created with allocations from the Central Budget. 8.
Farmers
in different parts of the country have suffered immensely due to the crash in
prices of their crops. A system of variable tariffs needs to be introduced in
order to protect the producers of such crops, which experience wide price
fluctuations, like cotton, groundnuts, soya bean, sugar etc. In case there is a
sharp fall in prices of any of these crops in the world market, the domestic
producers should be protected by raising the import tariffs, which can be
lowered once the prices stabilize. 9.
The
structure of customs duties on finished and intermediate goods and excise duties
in certain sectors result in discrimination against domestic industries. For
instance colour picture tubes (a finished product) can be imported from
Thailand, under the Free Trade Agreement, at 12.5% customs duty while the
customs duty on colour glass (intermediate good) is 20%. The domestic
Electronics and TV manufacturers are adversely affected since the cost of the
input is higher than the cost of importing the finished product from Thailand.
The customs duties levied in accordance with the Free Trade Agreement with
Thailand and the existing excise duties for the manufacturers who are affected
by the Trade Agreement should be thoroughly reviewed. Customs and excise duties
should be revised wherever such imbalances exist which put domestic
manufacturers in a disadvantageous position. 10.
The
recommendations of the Standing Committee on Petroleum, which has suggested
several measures to restructure the customs and excise duties of Petroleum
products, should be implemented.
This would help in bringing down the prices of petroleum products and provide
some relief to the people. The government should not stall this duty
restructuring on revenue considerations. 11.
The
existent structure of customs duties for Power projects, especially Mega Power
projects of 1000 MW and above which does not attract any customs duty,
discriminates against domestic industries like BHEL. There
are further moves to make the entire Power sector a virtually zero import duty
segment by bringing down the eligibility limit for Mega Power projects to 250
MW. This should not be done. 12.
The
government should honour the commitment made in the CMP that profit-making PSUs
will not be privatised. Keeping this in view there should be no disinvestments
of shares in such PSUs like BHEL. The government should not unilaterally proceed
with mergers in the nationalized banks and should discuss such issues with the
trade unions as stated in the CMP. The proposal for increasing the FDI to 74% in
the Indian private banks should not be proceeded with as it would mean handing
over control of funds to foreign banks. The public distribution
system
should be strengthened without resort to food coupons. |
|
|