View: Punjab-Haryana’s top 200,000 farmers want to remain among the top 8% of all earners in India


It is for policymakers to decide whether a ‘fair’ guaranteed income to the top 200,000 farmers of Punjab Haryana — remember, MSP is not subject to market forces and is like a price set by a monopolist — is to place them among the richest earners in India.

Synopsis

The Punjab farmer has the lowest cost of production, about 75% of average for wheat, and 59% of all-India average for paddy. The yields are also higher, with the net result that the Punjab-Haryana large farmer (farm ownership over 4 ha) earns Rs 1.25 lakh a year per ha from cultivation of wheat and paddy.

Inequality has been a major concern for societies, and has caused revolutions, and upheavals, now for close to 200 years. The farm protests in India have garnered international attention, and concern has been expressed about the exploitation of farmers via the new farm laws — laws that guarantee more freedom for farmers to buy and sell their produce in markets other than government-regulated mandis.If a farmer chooses to go the old route, he can

  • GIFT ARTICLE
  • FONT SIZE
  • SAVE
  • COMMENT

Sign in to read the full article

You’ve got this Prime Story as a Free Gift

Already a Member?

Why ?

  • Sharp Insight-rich, Indepth stories across 20+ sectors

  • Access the exclusive Economic Times stories, Editorial and Expert opinion

  • Clean experience with
    Minimal Ads

  • Comment & Engage with ET Prime community

  • Exclusive invites to Virtual Events with Industry Leaders

  • A trusted team of Journalists & Analysts who can best filter signal from noise



Thanks for checking this article involving International and Indian news and updates titled "View: Punjab-Haryana’s top 200,000 farmers want to remain among the top 8% of all earners in India". This story was brought to you by My Local Pages Australia as part of our Australian news services.

#View #PunjabHaryanas #top #farmers #remain #among #top #earners #India



Source link

Tax cuts for high income earners slammed


The government claims controversial tax cuts included in Tuesday’s Budget will save the Aussie economy – but critics say it will do little more than reward the rich.

In his 2020-21 budget speech, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg confirmed that more than 11 million taxpayers will get a tax cut backdated to July 1 this year, claiming the policy would generate “billions” of economic activity, create 50,000 new jobs and help small business stay afloat.

The hotly-anticipated budget measure will provide tax relief of up to $2745 for singles and up to $5490 for dual income families compared with 2017-18 as Stage Two of the government’s legislated tax cuts are brought forward by two years.

The 19 per cent threshold will also be lifted from $37,000 to $45,000, and the 32.5 per cent threshold from $90,000 to $120,000.

RELATED: Budget winners and losers

“In last year’s Budget we promised the Australian people tax relief so that they could keep more of what they earn. We delivered,” Mr Frydenberg said on Tuesday night.

“Putting more money into the pockets of hard working Australians strengthened our economy to respond to this economic crisis. Tonight we go further again.”

But the tax cuts have dominated headlines for days now – and generated massive backlash from critics who claim wealthier Australians will benefit while those who are genuinely in need will miss out.

THE BACKLASH

Australian Council of Social Service CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie has been one of the most vocal critics of the plan.

ACOSS has long argued for the government to permanently raise the JobSeeker rate, which is due to revert back to its pre-coronavirus level of just $40 a day in 2021.

Dr Goldie voiced the tax cuts could fail to boost the wider economy, and that raising JobSeeker would have been far more beneficial for vulnerable Aussies and Australia’s finances alike.

“People without paid work will see no benefit from the income tax cuts brought forward in (the) budget, which mainly go to people who are lucky enough to have jobs, with the largest amounts going to people on higher incomes,” Dr Goldie said after the Budget was announced.

“The country’s leading economists have been telling the Government that an adequate JobSeeker rate is far more effective than income tax cuts in generating the economic stimulus we need to rebuild out of recession.

“While people on higher incomes can choose to save, people on low incomes are living week-to-week and have no choice but to spend in the real economy on the basics, boosting business recovery.”

The topic also sparked debate on Q&A on Monday night, with Deloitte Access Economics economist Nicki Hutley announcing she was “not in favour” of tax cuts and health expert and former head of Australia’s Finance Department Jane Halton questioning their effectiveness.

“We know people on lower incomes, if you put money in their pocket, they will spend it. We know that if you put money in the pocket of people on higher incomes, they’re more inclined to save it,” she said.

‘MAKES SENSE’

But The Tax Institute’s tax policy and technical director Andrew Mills told news.com.au while a lot of the criticism focused on the idea of high income earners being rewarded, it was actually designed to benefit middle income earners in the $90,000 to $125,000 income bracket the most.

“These are nurses, teachers, police and public servants – people who are around 10 years into their career who are in their early 30s with a mortgage who are starting to raise a family,” he said.

“They are going to get a tax cut and they have been described by some as wealthy, but I consider them to be ordinary, everyday Australians.”

Mr Mills said while people who earned above that threshold would still benefit from the tax cuts, the reward would be smaller, as the cut was capped at a flat rate for those earning more than $125,000 and no longer increased according to income.

“The idea is that this money is going into the pockets of a lot of people in that middle income bracket who will actually spend it – they will need it to pay their mortgages and child care and many may be on reduced hours and not earning as much,” he said.

“For me it makes sense – it was designed to get more money circulating in the economy and I think it will do that.”

RELATED: What the Budget means for you

Mr Mills pointed out that the tax cuts were not a surprise as they had already been legislated and were supported by Labor.

And he said there were other measures which had specifically targeted lower income earners and those on benefits.

However, Professor Geoff Kingston from Macquarie Business School’s Department of Economics told news.com.au there was one key risk associated with the new Budget.

“This budget proposes bold spending rises and tax cuts. Fingers crossed that it all works out as intended,” he said.

“The risk is that our tax base may not recover over the next few years to the extent needed to avert further downward pressure on our national credit rating.

“Already, in May this year, Standard and Poors has announced that our credit rating has been downgraded to ‘negative outlook’.”



Source link

Proposal to bring forward income tax cuts in Federal Budget criticised as benefitting high income earners


Former Reserve Bank officials and senior bureaucrats are among a group demanding Treasurer Josh Frydenberg look towards more social spending rather than bringing forward legislated income tax cuts.

The Federal Budget is due to be handed down on October 6, with the nation staring down its largest deficit on record and the Federal Government considering a spending program of a scale not seen since the end of the World War II.

Mr Frydenberg has floated the idea of bringing forward planned income tax cuts by two years, in a bid to kickstart spending by putting “more money into people’s pockets”.

Bernie Fraser, who served as Reserve Bank governor in the early 1990s, and Michael Keating, former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, argued such a plan would not stimulate the economy as hoped because most of the beneficiaries would simply keep the money in the bank.

“Because they’re so biased in favour of high income earners, the proceeds are very likely to be heavily saved, much more heavily saved than usual.”

The Coalition has locked in three stages of income tax cuts. The first round delivered around $1,080 in tax relief for average income earners last year.

Stage two is due to come into effect from 2022, and would cut taxes for people earning between $90,000 and $120,000 a year, as well as raising the threshold on the lowest tax rate.

The final stage kicks in two years later, and will result in people earning less than $200,000 a year paying no more than 30 cents for every dollar they earn.

Mr Keating believed the only legitimate reason for bringing forward the tax cuts would be that they were already legislated.

“If you’re going to do it anyway, in a couple of years’ time, there’s an argument that it does less damage to the budget in the long run if you do it now, rather than wait two years,” he said.

“But on the other hand, I don’t think they’ll achieve much out of it, in terms of their immediate objective, which is to increase demand and create jobs.”

Mr Keating and Mr Fraser are among 40 political, economic and social policy luminaries backing a campaign by progressive think tank The Australia Institute.

“Those demanding tax cuts today will be demanding service cuts tomorrow,” an advertising campaign rolling out from Monday said.

Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty and Australian Council of Social Service chief executive Cassandra Goldie are also part of the campaign.

IncomeTax cut from 2018-19Tax cut from 2022-23Tax cut from 2024-25
$30,000$255 per year$255 per year$255 per year
$60,000$1,080 per year$1,080 per year$1,455 per year
$90,000$1,215 per year$1,215 per year$2,340 per year
$120,000$315 per year$2,565 per year$4,440 per year
$150,000$135 per year$2,565 per year$6,540 per year
$180,000$135 per year$2,565 per year$8,640 per year

Mr Frydenberg said Australians would have to tune in to his budget night speech on October 6 to learn what the Coalition’s tax policy would be.

“But certainly we are focusing on lowering the tax burden for Australians,” the Treasurer said.

Budget should have a strong focus on social spending

Mr Fraser told the ABC he was hoping Mr Frydenberg’s second budget would have a strong social conscience.

“Pensioners aren’t getting any pension increase from the usual adjustment mechanism — pensioners are a pretty deserving people, and spend the money they get,” he said.

Mr Fraser is wearing an open necked shirt and looking to the right of frame. He has a lanyard around his neck saying "visitor".
Former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser said the Federal Government should focus on social infrastructure in the Budget.(ABC News: Ian Cutmore)

On Saturday, Social Services Minister Anne Ruston said there would be more support for pensioners announced in coming weeks.

Mr Fraser said spending on infrastructure, other than roads and transport projects, should be a priority.

“I was interested the other day when the Prime Minister was saying that ‘look, if the private sector is not going to jump in and provide a gas-fired power station, the Government’s going to do it’,” he said.

“Well, the private sector’s not providing any social housing either.

“And yet, providing social housing would be a tremendous economic stimulus, and would also do lasting benefit of the social kind, given that it would be occurring in a situation of sharp shortages of social housing and increasing homelessness throughout the whole community.”

The Federal Opposition has said Labor would consider any proposals to bring forward the tax cuts, but has argued the October Budget would need to clearly spell out a plan for job creation.



Source link

Early tax cuts would be windfall to high income earners but ‘ineffective stimulus’, report says | Australia news


Bringing forward the next phase of income tax cuts will deliver a windfall to high-income earners, with 91% of the benefits going to just 20% of taxpayers, according to The Australia Institute.

The progressive thinktank released research on Monday that suggested the bottom half of taxpayers would gain just 4% of the revenue from the second phase of income tax cuts. The institute challenged the government and Labor to find a fairer form of stimulus.

The Coalition’s tax cuts, which were legislated with Labor and crossbench support, will lift the upper threshold of the 32.5% tax rate from $37,000 to $45,000 and the 37% bracket from $90,000 to $120,000, replacing the low and middle income tax offset in the second phase from July 2022.

The Australia Institute paper found that the second phase tax cuts “will only benefit 40% of taxpayers” – mostly in the top three income deciles – and a small group earning between $37,000 and $48,000. Most taxpayers (60%) would receive “no benefit”.

Someone earning a very high income of $200,000 would receive a $2,430 a year tax cut, while a person on the median income of $60,000 gets nothing, and a minimum wage earner on $40,000 receives $110.

“The top 20% of taxpayers will get 91% of the benefit and the top 10% will get 52% of the benefit.”

In the third phase, tax rates are flattened on incomes between $45,000 and $200,000 from 32.5% to 30% from July 2024.

If both the second and third phases are brought forward to 2021-22, a person on a very high income will receive a tax cut of $11,505 a year, while a person on the median income receives $380 and a person on the minimum wage gets $110.

The top 20% of taxpayers will get 79% of the benefit of the two phases combined, while the bottom half of taxpayers receives just 3%.

The Australia Institute paper, by senior economist Matt Grudnoff, concluded that bringing forward the income tax cuts was an “ineffective stimulus”.

He cited the “simple fact of economics that high income earners are more likely to save or pay down debt with the tax cuts, rather than spend the extra funds to help stimulate the domestic economy”.

“A more effective way to stimulate the economy would be to invest heavily in direct employment programs or focus on supporting those who are doing it tough by maintaining or increasing the current rate of the jobseeker supplement.”

After Australia officially entered recession on Wednesday for the first time in 30 years, the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, held out tax relief as a fresh form of stimulus to be delivered in the October budget.

Business groups including AiGroup and the Business Council of Australia have both called for tax cuts to be brought forward to boost the economy.

When it helped pass the tax cuts in July 2019, Labor supported the second but not the third phase.

The shadow treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said on Wednesday that Labor has offered to “keep an open mind” about the second phase because it understands “middle Australia needs help now”. But rather than a hard proposal the government had offered only “smoke signals”, he said.

On Friday, Scott Morrison refused to buy into speculation that the stimulus will bring forward the already legislated increases.

Asked if the government should restructure the tax cuts or else high income earners will bank $11,000 while low income earners receive $255 a year, Morrison told reporters in Canberra the question was “speculative”.

“I understand what the current legislative program is and that is the legislative program, and any changes we might make to that will be announced in the budget, and that’s in October.”



Source link

Russia Will Raise Taxes on Top Earners, Putin Announces


Russia will hike taxes for the country’s top earners from next year, President Vladimir Putin announced in a speech to the nation Tuesday afternoon.

In a lengthy address in which Putin discussed Russia’s fight with the coronavirus and hailed the success of the country’s health system in mobilizing for the epidemic, Putin announced the surprise move to scrap Russia’s flat 13% income tax system from next year.

As of Jan. 1 2021, Russians earning more than 5 million rubles ($73,000) a year will pay 15% tax on all income above that level.

Rumors of a possible tax hike first emerged last week, but were downplayed by Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov who insisted no decisions had been made. Speaking on Friday, Central Bank governor Elvira Nabiullina said she had not been involved in the discussions and that the bank had not factored a potential tax hike into its forecasts or policymaking.

The move will generate 60 billion rubles ($875 million) in extra revenue for the government, Putin said, proposing to ring-fence the proceeds towards treating children with severe and rare diseases.

The introduction of the flat income tax was one of Putin’s first flagship economic reforms, introduced in 2001 in a bid to reduce tax evasion and secure a more steady stream of income for the Russian budget.

The announcement comes one week before Russians head to the polls to vote in a nationwide referendum on controversial constitutional changes that would pave the way for Putin to stay in power until 2036.

In the 50-minute address Putin also announced Russia will extend a number of other benefits for households and businesses which have been introduced since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

Families will receive a 10,000 ruble ($145) payment in July for every child under the age of 16, and another 100 billion rubles ($1.5 billion) will be dished out in government-backed cheap business loans for companies to pay employees — loans which can be written off if firms don’t cut employee numbers.

Russian IT companies will benefit from a new ultra-low tax regime, Putin announced, with a so-called “tax maneuver” to cut social security obligations on technology firms from 14% to 7.6%, and slash profits tax from 20% to 3%.

Shares in Yandex and Mail.Ru — Russia’s leading domestic technology companies — climbed higher on the news. Nasdaq-listed Yandex was up more than 3%, while rival Mail.Ru, which is listed in London, added another 2% in afternoon trading. 



Source link