In order to provide entertainment to women and to enable them to acquire General Knowledge for the Social and Economical development of the State, the Government of Tamil Nadu have announced that all the households in Tamil Nadu State who do not have Colour TV sets would be provided with a Free 14” Colour Television set from State funds. It is envisaged that around 7.5 million families would be benefited from this scheme. The Government expenditure would be around Rs.2500 Crores towards the implementation of this scheme during a 5 year period. The project would be implemented in a phased manner over a period of 5 years.Rs. 25,000,000,000! At Rs. 42.60 per dollar, that means the Government of Tamil Nadu will be spending US$ 586,854,460 on colour television sets for all those poor people who can afford to see pictures in colour in their idiot box near their home. Somewhere along the line, the famous roti, kapda, makaan has metamorphosed into roti, kapda, makaan, tv! And honestly, I will not be surprised if in a few years time, we'll have cars and bikes added to that list of basic necessities!
This brings me to one discussion I had with my friend, Mr. Animesh Agarwal (here), on the predicament of the disbursement of income tax. Stated below are the two sides of the coin that shown during my conversation with Animesh. Now, this coin is by no means a two-sided one, and there will be plenty of you who have a very different take on the whole issue. Do pen down your thoughts either in the comments section, or email me (which I will append at the end of the blog entry, with your name, etc).
Kedar said...
There are innumerable times when I feel the whole concept of income tax is pure larceny! Why should I pay a third of my hard-earned money for something like colour televisions or the social upliftment of a village a thousand miles from my home? If I pay a lakh a year to the government, should I not get something back in return? I don't have any grandiose requests, but it frustrates me when I have to drive on roads that have potholes the size of lunar craters.
Instead of me paying my money to the government, isn't it much better if I spend that money on improving my surroundings? Instead of giving it to the government, whose modes of expenditure of public moneys are dubious more often than not, won't there be far more social welfare if I spent that money improving my milieu? And the most wonderful part of this solution is that I will be able to see the benefits it brings. If my money goes into building decent roads, building a clean hospital so that someone sick can avail good healthcare, building a good school, etc, it would make me much happier than giving the money to the public exchequer.
I am not advocating not paying tax. I am not of the opinion that a government structure can survive without some form of tax. But, I question the whole concept of being forced to give money to a government whose election or impeachment I have no control over. Everyone should set aside some amount of money (a third is a fairly reasonable amount), but they should have the power to spend it the way they deem prudent.
Animesh said...
The idea proposed by Kedar is too idealistic. It works on the concept that the people in the smaller groups that form are infallible, and will be in concord on the disbursement of the moneys collected as tax.
If people are given the power to decide how their money is spent, everyone will choose to spend money in a manner that will benefit them and the people around them. This will only increase the economic divide in society, leading to an uncontrollable surge in unemployment and crime.
The reason the government should be the one overseeing the distribution of public moneys is because it is its responsibility to be in the know of the socio-economic needs of the people of different parts (geographic, economic and social) of the country. Thus, they are the best accoutered to make a well-informed choice as to where the money should go. And, there might be no doubt that the manner in which they handle public moneys is dishonest, there is no guarantee that smaller groups will not indulge in the same wrongdoings due to the pecuniary lust.
If, at this point, the rich try to take more control of the manner in which public funds are spent, there is a threat of being reduced to anarchy, where there is no value for money, and only the mob rules the land.
The interpolation done by Animesh and me to the situations we describe might be highly exaggerated, I believe that the principle behind those examples are very legitimate.
