Coal auction: Seven reasons why Vinod Rai was right about Coalgate

Inclusive Governance: Enabling Capability, Disabling ResistanceLawyers who become politicians are very good at giving things a good spin.
The Congress led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) was full of such individuals, who could provide a good spin 24/7 to various things that were going wrong during the regime.
The biggest spin came when the Comptroller and Auditor General(CAG) Vinod Rai exposed the coalgate scam and estimated that the losses to the nation were around Rs 1,86,000 crore. (You can read how the number was arrived at here).
Various Congress politicians worked overtime to suggest that there were no losses. The then finance minister P. Chidambaram had said: “If coal is not mined, where is the loss? The loss will only occur if coal is sold at a certain price or undervalued.” Other leaders suggested that the CAG Rai(who former bureaucrat turned politician N.K.Singh labelled as the bhumihar from Ghazipur) had political ambitions.
Manish Tewari, the Congress leader who during his heydays could have an opinion on anything and everything, had said: “R-virus has infected the Indian growth story. The R-virus stands for a phenomenon were responsible individuals decide to become loose cannons.”
On another occasion, Tewari had commented that: “When individuals decide to go rogue, institutions suffer. That possibly has the most detrimental effect on the India growth story.” Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the former deputy chairman of the now defunct Planning Commission, had claimed that “untrained staff [is] auditing CAG reports.”
Long story short—the official propaganda machinery worked overtime to discredit Rai. They told us time and again that giving away coal free was not leading to any losses. Even without getting into any technicalities, how can giving away something ‘free’ not lead to losses is not something that any of these politicians bothered to explain.
In the early 1990s, the government realized that enough coal was not being produced to meet the demand. Hence, it decided to amend the the Coal Mines(Nationalisation) Act with effect from June 9, 1993. This was done largely on account of the inability of Coal India Ltd (CIL), which produces most of India’s coal, to produce enough coal.
The idea, as the Economic Survey of 1994-1995 pointed out, was to “encourage private sector investment in the coal sector, the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, was amended with effect from June 9, 1993, for operation of captive coal mines by companies engaged in the production of iron and steel, power generation and washing of coal in the private sector.”
The amendment allowed companies which were in the business of producing power and iron and steel, to own coal mines for their captive use. Any excess coal that was produced had to handed over to the local subsidiary of CIL.
Using this amendment, the government gave away 204 coal blocks for free over nearly two decades. Most of these free coal blocks were given away between 2004 and 2011, when the Congress led UPA was in power (and that explains why the businessman turned Congress politician Naveen Jindal was the biggest beneficiary with nine coal blocks allotted to him). Nevertheless even by 2011-2012, these coal blocks produced only 36.9 million tonnes of coal. This amounted to around 6.8% of the total production of 539.94 million tonnes during the course of that year.
In August 2014, the Supreme Court cancelled the allocation of these blocks. The Screening Committee method used to allot blocks was not up to the mark, it suggested in the judgement. The coal blocks were allocated based on the recommendations of an inter ministerial screening committee.
As Rai writes in Not Just an Accountant—The Diary of the Nation’s Conscience Keeper “This committee was to scrutinize applications for captive mining and allocate coal blocks for development, subject to statutes governing coal mining, following which the coal minister would approve the allotment…The screening committee is expected to asses applications based on parameters such as the techno-economic feasibility of the end-use project, status of preparedness to set up the end-use project, past track record in executing projects, financial and technical capabilities of applicant companies and the recommendations of the concerned state governments and ministries.”
The Supreme Court judgement dated August 25, 2014, did not find this approach up to the mark. It pointed out that: “the entire exercise of allocation through Screening Committee route thus appears to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and not following any objective criteria in determining as to who is to be selected or who is not to be selected.” The judgement further pointed out that “there is no evaluation of merit and no inter se comparison of the applicants.”
After the cancellation, the government decided to auction the coal mines. Over the last few days the government has been auctioning the first lot of these coal blocks. Fourteen out of the 19 blocks that are on auction have been sold till now, for a whopping Rs 80,000 crore.
What this clearly shows is that Vinod Rai was right about the losses all along. And it wasn’t just about the money. Here are seven reasons that justify that:

a) All the zero loss theories offered by the various Congress politicians were bogus. The government has already earned close to Rs 80,000 crore, which will be paid by winning companies over the years.
It needs to be mentioned that more than 200 coal blocks will be eventually auctioned. Imagine the kind of money we are talking about here.
A report in the Business Line points out that “according to government estimates, from the entire 204 blocks to be allocated/auctioned in phases, over Rs 15-lakh crore was expected to be garnered over the lifetime of the mines.” “But now we see this number could be higher,” a Coal Ministry official told the newspaper.
Interestingly, the CAG had said in its report that:  “A part of this financial gain could have been tapped by the government by taking timely decision on competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks.”
b) Vinod Rai and the loss estimate of Rs 1.86 lakh crore made by the CAG, was very conservative at best. But accountants are expected to be conservative. The CAG worked with fairly conservative estimates on this front as well.
Typically extractable reserves are around 80-95% of the geological reserves of coal. The portion of the geological reserves that can be extracted are referred to as extractable reserves. As Rai writes in his book: “Audit based its computation on [the] conservative estimate of 73 million tonnes for every 100 million tonnes given in the GR [geological reserve]…Can audit be faulted if its computation was based on a conservative estimate of 73 per cent?…The extractable reserves…based on the aforementioned method, was found by the CAG to be 6282.5 million tonnes, which is mentioned in the report.”
Hence, only 6.28 billion tonnes of the 44.8 billion tonnes of geological reserves was assumed as extractable reserves while calculating the losses of the government. You can’t hold that against Rai. c) The ‘auction’ is a very clean way of doing things unlike the ‘behind the doors’ screening committee method. Further, there was no ‘fair’ way of going about allocation of coal blocks through the screening committee method. It went against the basic principle of equity.
Former coal secretary P C Parakh explains this in 
Crusader or Conspirator—Coalgate and Other Truths: “By the time I took charge of the ministry, the number of applicants for each block had increased considerably although still in single digits. I found a number of applicants fulfilling the criteria specified for allocation of each block on offer. This made objective selection extremely difficult.”
In fact in the years to come the situation became significantly worse. As Parakh writes: “According to CAG’s report, 108 applications were received for Rampia and Dip Side of Rampia Block [names of two coal blocks]. I found it difficult to make an objective selection when the number of applicants was in single digits. How could the Screening Committee take objective decisions when the number of applicants per block had run into three digits?”
Allocating blocks through an auction takes care of such issues.
d) By attaching a certain price to the coal block the government should be able to keep the non-serious players out. Take the case of the Rampia coal block mentioned earlier, where 108 applications were received. When something is available for free everybody wants it.
e) Also, once companies have to pay for a block, the chances are that they will try and ensure that they start producing coal as soon as possible. This was something that was not happening earlier. As per the 11th five year plan, which started in 2007-08, the production from the captive coal blocks was to expected to touch 111 million tonnes of coal per year by 2011-12. The captive coal blocks produced 36.2 million tonnes of coal during the course of that year. By 2016-17, the production of coal from these blocks was expected to touch 330 million tonnes. In 2013-2014, these blocks produced only 39 million tonnes. What this tells us is that many non-serious players had got the blocks as well.
f) Indian businesses have for too long been used to getting things for free, including coal. This has led to the misconception that thermal power is cheap, which is not. Once, the right price of coal is taken into account, other forms of generating electricity might start to look viable. And that will be good for the environment.
g) And finally, transparency is very essential whenever the government is selling a public asset. It goes a long way in controlling crony capitalism. Coal auctions are worth all the trouble just for this one reason.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Feb 20, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Finance Commission got it right: GDP grows better when state govts spend more

yv reddyThe 14th Finance Commission led by former Reserve Bank of India(RBI) governor, Dr Y V Reddy, has recommended that the states’ share of central taxes be increased to 42%, from the current 32%. As the report points out: “increasing the share of tax devolution to 42 per cent of the divisible pool would serve the twin objectives of increasing the flow of unconditional transfers to the States and yet leave appropriate fiscal space for the Union to carry out specific purpose transfers to the States.” 

The Narendra Modi government has accepted the recommendations of the Finance Commission. In a letter to the chief ministers Modi said: “This Government is…committed to the idea of empowering states in all possible ways. We also believe that states should be allowed to chalk out their programmes and schemes with greater financial strength and autonomy, while observing financial prudence and discipline.”
“It is in this context that we have wholeheartedly accepted the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission…The 14th FC has recommended a record increase of 10% in the devolution of the divisible pool of resources to states. This compares with the marginal increases made by previous Finance Commissions. The total devolution to states in 2015-16 will be significantly higher than in 2014-15,” the Prime Minister wrote.
The recommendations of the Finance Commission are in line with one of Modi’s pet themes of “cooperative federalism”. Also, giving more money to the state is only fair given that the taxes also come from the states.
Having said that, it also makes more sense for state governments to spend money rather than the central government.
When state governments spend money the multipliers are higher in comparison to when the central government spends money. What this means is that expenditure carried out at the state government level is more efficient and adds more to the gross domestic product (GDP) than in comparison to the central government.
In a September 2013 research paper titled
Size of Government Expenditure Multipliers in India: A Structural VAR Analysis, Rajeev Jain and Prabhat Kumar of the Department Of Economic And Policy Research of the RBI, make this point. As they write: “In the case of India, one per cent increase in total spending by the Central government leads to 0.04 per cent increase in GDP…In contrast, one per cent increase in aggregate expenditure by the State governments has an incremental impact of 0.11 per cent…Higher expenditure multipliers found in case of State governments than the Central government may reflect the quality of expenditure which is found to be better in case of former than the latter.
The RBI researchers also point out a reason for this: : “Lower expenditure multiplier at the Central level perhaps confirms the argument made in the literature that local government spending generates higher expenditure multiplier as investment projects are of relatively smaller scale, and are managed locally and, therefore, have lower gestation lags than projects of higher level of government.” Further, it is easier to keep track of projects at the local and state levels, than from New Delhi.
What helps further is the fact that expenditure happening at the central level is “thinly spread over a large number of programmes and large areas of the country.” On the other hand expenditure happening at the state level is more focussed.
The researchers also found that when states carry out capital expenditure, it is more growth inducing than when the central government does the same. But ironically, “even though the States’ capital outlay has the highest multiplier effect on GDP, its share in combined expenditure is only 6.7 per cent (an average of 1980-81 to 2011-12).” Hopefully, this anomaly should be set right in the years to come. The multiplier is also higher at the state level in case of development expenditure. What all this tells us is that there is a clear case of decentralization of government expenditure. The Modi government accepting the recommendations of the Finance Commission is a right step in that direction.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Feb 26, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Express your ‘mann ki baat’ Modiji: BJP needs to go all out on land acquisition act debate

narendra_modiThe spin-doctors of the Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) are normally very good at spinning things. Nevertheless, the entire debate on land acquisition seems to have gone out of their hands.
No government in this country has ever made an effort to explain economic reform to people. Economic reform has always happened by stealth. This is something that needs to stop.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi
 has asked his party MPs to go to the people and explain to them that the new land acquisition law is in their interest. This, if executed well will be a great move. The BJP can also use the prowess of its back-room boys to explain to its MPs in a very simple way what the issue is all about and how it should be communicated to the people. The trick is to make things simple but not simplistic (as often happens when politicians take over).
Prime Minister Modi should also explain the entire issue to the people of this country directly on his radio programme 
mann ki baat. If required there is no harm in speaking to the people directly on Doordarshan as well.
It is important that the BJP does not back down on the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. It needs to go directly to the people and explain why this legislation is in the interest of the nation. If the party backs down here, it will become more and more difficult to push any economic reform in the days to come.
Before we go any further, it is important to go back a little. Until 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This Act survived all the years of socialism as well as socialists that governed the country.
 A 1985 version of this Act stated: “Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.”
In simple English, this British legislation allowed the government to seize any land that it wanted to. It survived for close 66 years in independent India. Governments often used this Act to acquire land and then sell it on to crony capitalists who made a killing in the process (and so did the politicians). Farmers lost out.
This has led to a scenario where people are skeptical about selling their land. The trust required for such a transaction to take place has totally broken down and will not be easy to repair. The Congress party ruled India for a large part of this period and they are basically responsible for the mess that prevails. The 1894 Act was eventually replaced by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013,
 which went to the other extreme and bought all land acquisition to a standstill.
One of the major provisions of the Act was that private companies acquiring land would require the prior consent of at least eighty percent of the affected families. In case of public-private partnerships(PPP) the prior consent was required from at least seventy percent of the affected families.
This has brought all land acquisition to a standstill. Companies have till date been used to governments arranging land and handing it over to them on a platter. They are still trying to get used to this new way of doing things. The BJP government brought in The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, which made a few changes to the 2013 Act. The ordinance was signed by President Pranab Mukherjee
 on December 31, 2014.
In the ordinance the requirement of getting prior consent from those affected has been done away in certain cases. Anand Ranganathan in a brilliant column on www.newslaundry.com writes that: “Projects relating to national security or defence, including preparation for defence, defence production; rural infrastructure including electrification; affordable housing and housing for the poor people; industrial corridors; infrastructure, social infrastructure and PPP projects where government holds the land, there is no longer any need to obtain prior consent of 80% (for private projects) or 70% (for PPP projects).”
This is clearly a step in the right direction. Land required for the defence, electrification, affordable housing, industrial corridors etc., needs to be made available as soon as possible.
The trouble here is with the phrase “social infrastructure,” which wasn’t there in the original 2013 Act and has been inserted only in the ordinance. This phrase needs to be clearly defined to tell the people  that it hasn’t been introduced to provide a back-door entry for corporates.
Further, the 2013 Act had clearly stated that “no irrigated multi-cropped land shall be acquired under this Act.” Such land could only be acquired “subject to the condition” that it was “being done under exceptional circumstances, as a demonstrable last resort.”The 2014 ordinance does away with this. This is another thing that the BJP needs to explain to the people of this country. In a country where half of the land area is arable, it is very difficult to get hold of non-agricultural land, close to the cities, most of the time. Further, there is no shortage of land for agriculture in India, even if some of it goes towards urbanization and industrialization. (As I explain in this piece).
Further, the general impression that has been communicated about the 2013 Act (as well as the 2014 ordinance, given that there has been no change on this front) is that those affected will be paid a compensation by the appropriate government of four times the market value of the land that is being acquired. This is not actually true. This was first done by the Congress when it was in power. And is now being done by the BJP over the social media.
The 2013 law(as well as the 2014 ordinance) is slightly more complicated than that. For rural areas the minimum compensation promised is anywhere between two to four times the market value of land along with the value of the assets on that land. For urban areas the minimum compensation promised is two times the market value of land along with the value of the assets on that land.
This is to be determined by state governments. Hence, state governments are in a position to pay only twice the market value of the land that is being acquired in rural areas. In fact, this has already happened.
As a report on NDTV.com points out: “at least two BJP led states – Haryana and Madhya Pradesh – have fixed as compensation of two times the market value of the land for both rural and urban areas.” But there are other states which are paying more. Nevertheless, this is an anomaly that needs to be set right. If land is being acquired for a certain purpose, the government should be following a similar ratio throughout the country.
The BJP is on a strong wicket in this case. It needs to bat accordingly. It needs to tell the people of this country that it was the Congress party which forcefully took over their land over the years. It also needs to tell the people that more than a million Indians are entering the workforce every year. Jobs need to be created for them—and how will jobs be created without the creation of more physical infrastructure and new industry.
In fact, Arun Jaitley made a fantastic speech in the Rajya Sabha yesterday defending the land acquisition ordinance. “Don’t create an environment where infrastructure and industry become bad words,” he said.
More such performances are required for the BJP.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Feb 27, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)  

Economic survey: Are stalled projects at Rs 8.8 lakh crore or Rs 18 lakh crore?

India-Real-Estate-Market 

Vivek Kaul


Good decision making is also a function of access to good data. The quality of economic data in India has improved significantly over the years, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. Allow me to explain.
In the Mid Year Economic Analysis released by the ministry of finance in December 2014 it was stated: “There are stalled projects to the tune of Rs 18 lakh crore (about 13 percent of GDP) of which an estimated 60 percent are in infrastructure.”
The Economic Survey which was also released by the ministry of finance today states: “The stock of stalled projects at the end of December 2014 stood at Rs 8.8 lakh crore or 7 per cent of GDP.” The Economic Survey number is lower by Rs 9.2 lakh crore.
The question is how did the stock of stalled projects change so much in a matter of little over two months? The Mid Year Economic Analysis was released on December 19, 2014. Both these documents would have been authored by the Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian. Guess, only he can tell us why there is such a big difference in the stalled projects data between the two documents.
Nevertheless, if we were to ignore this huge difference and concentrate just on the number put out by the Economic Survey, there is some good news on the stalled projects front.
The Economic Survey defines stalling of projects as a “a term synonymous with large economic undertakings in infrastructure, manufacturing, mining, power, etc.”
The stalling rate of projects has gone up over the last few years. In 2008, the stalling rate was 4% i.e. for every Rs 100 worth of projects under implementation, Rs 4 worth of projects were stalled. For the private sector the stalling rate was 5%.
As of the end of December 2014, the overall stalling rate was 10.3%, whereas the number for the private sector stood at 16%. Hence, for every Rs 100 worth of projects under implementation, Rs 10.3 worth of projects have been stalled. For the private sector Rs 16 worth of projects out of Rs 100 worth of projects under implementation have been stalled.
Interestingly, “the data shows that manufacturing and infrastructure dominate in the private sector, and manufacturing dominates in total value of stalled projects even over infrastructure. The government’s stalled projects are predominantly in infrastructure.”
This has been the “leading reason behind the decline in gross fixed capital formation”.
As investopedia.com points out: “Capital formation refers to net additions of capital stock such as equipment, buildings and other intermediate goods. A nation uses capital stock in combination with labour to provide services and produce goods; an increase in this capital stock is known as capital formation…Generally, the higher the capital formation of an economy, the faster an economy can grow its aggregate income. Increasing an economy’s capital stock also increases its capacity for production, which means an economy can produce more. Producing more goods and services can lead to an increase in national income levels.”
Hence, if economic growth has to return (as per the new GDP series it already has) the stalling rate of projects needs to fall, so that it leads higher capital formation and better incomes. The Economic Survey points out that things may have already started to improve on this front. “The good news is that the rate of stalling seems to have plateaued in the last three quarters. Moreover, the stock of stalled projects has come down to about 7 per cent of the GDP at the end of the third quarter of 2014-15 from 8.3 per cent the previous year,” the survey points out. The stalling rate has fallen from around 11% in December 2013 to 10.3% in December 2014.
While this is good news, the stalling rate still needs to come down dramatically before a substantial impact is seen on economic growth. In fact during the period 2006 to 2008, the stalling rate varied between a little over 2% and 4%. It needs to be brought down to that kind of level.
Further, the question is why have so many projects been stalled? The Economic Survey provides the answer: “It is clear that private projects are held up overwhelmingly due to market conditions and non-regulatory factors whereas the government projects are stalled due to lack of required clearances.”
The government clearances can come thick and fast, if the government wants them to. As the Survey points out: “Clearing the top 100 stalled projects will address 83 per cent of the problem of stalled projects by value.”
Nevertheless, there is not much hope for the private sector. What has not helped the private sector is the fact that it is terribly over-leveraged (i.e. it has taken on a massive amount of debt in comparison to the equity that it has). “An unambiguous fact emerging from the data is that the debt to equity for Indian non-financial corporates has been rising at a fairly alarming rate,” the Survey points out. This is something that cannot be set right overnight.
The declining stalling rate of projects offers some hope on the economic front, but the larger mess still remains.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Mar 3, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the writer of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Budget 2015: Goodies only for corporates. Why no personal tax cuts, Mr Jaitley?

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010Vivek Kaul

As far as goodies for the common man are concerned, there was nothing much there in the budget presented by the finance minister Arun Jaitley today.
The tax deduction allowed on the payment of health insurance premium was increased to Rs 25,000 from the current Rs 15,000. This will lead to tax savings of Rs 1,010-Rs 3,030, depending on which tax bracket you fall into. For senior citizens this limit was increased to Rs 30,000 from the current Rs 20,000 per year.
Also, for very senior citizens of the age 80 years or more, who are not covered by health insurance, a deduction of Rs 30,000 per year has been allowed on expenditure incurred on their treatment. For expenditure incurred towards specified diseases of serious nature, very senior citizens will now be allowed a deduction of Rs 80,000, in comparison to the earlier Rs 60,000.
The one good development has been an increase in the limit of deduction allowed on investing in the National Pension Scheme(NPS) to Rs 1.5 lakh from the current Rs 1 lakh, under Section 80CCD.
In fact, Jaitley has also proposed an extra deduction of up to Rs 50,000 for investing in the NPS, over and above the Rs 1.5 lakh.
Oh, and the transport allowance exemption has been increased from the current Rs 800 to Rs 1600. That should be a huge help indeed.
Hence, net-net the budget does not have much to offer to the middle-class taxpayer. The question that arises here is that why should the budget have goodies to offer to the middle-class taxpayer every year? Ultimately, a stable income tax policy is also very important.
That is indeed a fair point. Nevertheless, when the government is working towards bringing down the tax rate for corporates, why shouldn’t something be on offer to the middle-class tax payers as well? That’s a question worth asking.
The finance minister
Arun Jaitley in his speech said: “The basic rate of Corporate Tax in India at 30% is higher than the rates prevalent in the other major Asian economies, making our domestic industry uncompetitive. Moreover, the effective collection of Corporate Tax is about 23%.”
Along with bringing down the tax rate for corporates, Jaitley also said that “we do not get that tax due to excessive exemptions. A regime of exemptions has led to pressure groups, litigation and loss of revenue. It also gives room for avoidable discretion.” The suggestion here was that along with income tax rates coming down, the exemptions that are allowed to corporates will come down as well. The idea seems to be that at lower rates more corporate taxes can be collected.
Along with the budget every year, the government also releases a document called the statement of revenue foregone. “The estimates and projections are intended to indicate the potential revenue gain that would be realised by removing exemptions, deductions, weighted deductions and similar measures,” the statement points out.
As can be seen from the above table, the revenue foregone number of the central government for this financial year is Rs 5,89,285.2 crore. This is higher than the fiscal deficit of Rs 512628 projected for this financial year.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the revenue foregone number is based on certain assumptions. “ The estimates are based on a short-term impact analysis. They are developed assuming that the underlying tax base would not be affected by removal of such measures…The impact of each tax incentive is determined separately, assuming that all other tax provisions remain unchanged. Many of the tax concessions do, however, interact with each other. Therefore, the interactive impact of tax incentives could turn out to be different from the tax expenditure calculated by adding up the estimates and projections for each provision.”
So the revenue foregone figure needs to be looked at with these limitations in mind. Having said that, the government of India is losing out on revenue because of the exemptions and deductions. There is no denying that.
As can be seen from the above table, corporate India is a major beneficiary of all the exemptions and deductions. If one adjusts for personal income tax, the revenue foregone for the central government still comes in at a whopping Rs 5,48,850.6 crore for 2014-2015. While this number maybe notional, there is clearly no denying that corporates benefit immensely out of the deductions and exemptions that have crept into our tax laws over the years.
In fact, bigger the corporate the more deductions and exemptions they take. Corporates which make an operating profit within the range of Rs 0-1 crore have an effective tax rate of 26.89% Those in the Rs 50-100 crore range have an effective tax rate of 24.29%. Whereas those making a profit of greater than Rs 500 crore have an effective tax rate of 20.68%.
The overall rate is 23.22%. Jaitley wants to push up this rate of “actual tax” paid by bringing down the corporate tax rate to 25% from the current 30%, over the next four years. The hope also seems to be that at lower tax rates more taxes will eventually get paid.
The question is why can’t the same logic be applied to individual tax payers? Around 3% of Indians pay income tax. If more corporates are likely to pay more tax at lower rates, can’t the same assumption be made for individual tax payers as well? Further, like the corporates income tax laws, can’t the personal income tax laws simplified as well?
This is something that the finance minister Arun Jaitley needs to answer. May be he will in the days to come.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Feb 28, 2015 

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)