Thursday, November 30, 2023

Income Tax Data Reveals That Increase in Compliance Is Marginal | Arun Kumar

 (This article appeared in The Wire on Nov 27, 2023)

The income tax data released recently points to the highly skewed nature of income distribution in the country, with only about 0.68% people paying effective taxes.

Few direct tax payers

Income tax is paid by a minuscule percent of the population. Official data shows that 7.4 crore individuals filed tax returns in FY2022-23 and 6.75 crore in FY2020-21. In this earlier year, there were also 2.1 crore people who did not file a tax return but paid Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). So, in FY2020-21, effectively there were 8.85 crore people in the tax net – which was 6.6% of the population. Since we do not have corresponding data on those not filing tax return but paying TDS for FY 2022-23, we do not yet know the total number of entities in the tax net in 2022-23.

Anyone paying income tax or filing a tax return has to have an income above the income tax exemption limit and therefore has to be among the top income earners in the country. What is their distribution?

The exemption limit for determining tax liability is now Rs 3 lakh but has been Rs 2.5 lakh, with some concessions for senior and super senior citizens. With a standard deduction of Rs 50,000 and rebate under Section 87A, till now an individual did not have to pay any tax up to a taxable income of Rs 5 lakh. Of India’s per capita annual income at current prices of Rs 1,50,007 in 2021-22, this is 333%. From the current financial year, tax will have to be paid at income of above Rs 7.5%, 414% of the likely per capita income of about Rs 1,81,000. So those in the tax net are in the tail of the income distribution.

With so much concession, for FY2020-21, out of 6.76 crore e-returns filed, 4.46 crore paid nil tax (67.3% of the total). The 2.1 crore who did not file a return but paid TDS must have had an income below Rs 2.5 lakh, otherwise they would have had to file a return. Adding these two numbers, effectively, 6.6 crore returns out of a total of 8.85 crore (73.4%) were filed by those with low incomes. 91 lakh (10.3% of those in the tax net) had taxable incomes above Rs 9.5 lakh and who can be called well-off in the Indian context. About 2.15 lakh declared income above Rs 1 crore and maybe characterised as wealthy.

In brief, people in top rung of the income ladder in the country were those who were in the income tax net (6.6% of the population) even if they did not pay income tax. Out of these, only 0.68% of the population were the really well off who effectively paid income tax. Further, 0.016% declared an income above Rs 1 crore and had a share of 38.6% of the taxable income.

Caveats

This picture of the well-off, characterised by those who effectively pay income tax, is incomplete. Two additional factors need to be taken into account. First, the rich families split up their incomes. This enables them to take advantage of concessions on each of the returns filed and each of the incomes may then fall in the lower income bracket on which a lower tax rate may apply. Second, the well-off resort to black income generation by not declaring their true income.

The first point implies that the 0.68% people who paid significant amounts of income tax belong to an even smaller percent of the families. So, the actual family income of the well-off is much higher. Since the poor face unemployment, under employment and joblessness, their family income is not much higher than what a poor individual earns. The implication is that the gap in family incomes between the well-off and the poor would turn out to be much larger than gap in incomes shown by the data on individuals paying tax.

Further, black incomes are generated by the well-off, who have substantial incomes. Those who have an income below the taxable limit don’t need to hide their income. They do not have to file a return or declare their income to the tax authorities. Those who have a taxable income of, say, up to Rs 9.5 lakh, need pay only a few percent of it as tax, if they take advantage of deductions under 80C, 80D, 80TTA, etc. So they will hardly benefit from hiding their income and will not be generators of black incomes.

It is the well-off, especially businessmen and professionals who declare a lower income to tax authorities so as to pay a smaller portion of their income as tax. Some of them completely escape the tax net by not filing a return or by showing an income below the taxable limit.

All these factors lead to the official data underestimating the skewedness of income distribution in the economy.

Has compliance increased

The organised sector has higher incomes and contributes most to direct taxes. It produces 55% of the GDP. Its share of GDP would have risen during the pandemic, which disproportionately hit the unorganised sector. The GDP was Rs 1,98,00,914 crore in FY 2020-21, the Covid year. So, Rs 1,08,90,000 crore should have been captured in the tax net from the organised sector. Some more should have come from the few well-off businesses in the unorganised sector.

Detailed data for FY 2020-21 shows that the taxable income declared by all return filers was Rs 69,59,552.48 crore. This is about 35.15% of the GDP and about 63.9% of what should have been shown as declared incomes by the organised sector. On this declared income, the tax collected was Rs 9,47,176 crore. The tax to GDP ratio was a very low 4.78%. If black income generation were taken into account, it would be even lower.

In FY2021-22, GDP recovered from its low during the pandemic, and became Rs 2,36,64,637 crore. The direct tax collection increased to Rs 14,12,422 crore, so that the direct tax to GDP ratio rose to 5.97%. In 2018-19, this figure was even higher at 6.02%. But, even this figure is low compared to many developing economies.

The government claims that more and more people are filing tax returns and presents this as an indication of better tax compliance and a reduction in the black economy. According to the data just released, the number of people paying direct taxes has risen from 7,42,49,558 in FY2016-17 to 9,37,76,869 in FY2021-22. This is impressive, but the catch is that most of the people entering the tax net declare nil income or a low income, as pointed out above.

A reduction in black income generation would have meant that many more of the individuals with high incomes would have come into the tax net, and the direct tax to GDP ratio should have risen sharply instead of hovering between 5.5% and 6% since 2014-15.

The increase in the number of tax returns is due to the constancy of the income at which a tax return needs to be filed remaining unchanged at Rs 2.5 lakh, while incomes have risen due to inflation. The per capita net national income, which tells us how much an average citizen is earning, is 30.1% higher in 2022-23 than it was in 2019-20.

Thus, someone with an income of Rs 2 lakh in FY2019-20, pre pandemic, would be earning Rs 2.6 lakh in FY2022-23. In 2019-20, she would not have had to file a tax return while in 2022-23 she would have to file a return. Thus, the number of tax return filers would automatically rise. But the tax they pay would not rise, so their entry into the tax net does not impact the tax to GDP ratio.

Conclusion

The income tax data released recently points to the highly skewed nature of income distribution in the country with only about 0.68% people paying effective taxes. The percentage of families they belong to would be even smaller. If tax manipulations by the wealthy and black income generation are taken into account, then the income distribution becomes even more skewed. Finally, the increase in the number of tax filers is due to inflation but this has hardly led to an increase in the direct tax to GDP ratio since most new entrants in the tax net file either nil return or are exempt from tax. So, tax compliance in the country has hardly changed.

Arun Kumar is the author of Understanding Black Economy and Black Money in India.

Sunday, November 26, 2023

Critics are priceless and not unreasonable | Arun Kumar

 (Published earlier in The Leaflet, November 26, 2023)

A brief but powerful meditation on the politics of reasonableness and unreason.

IS it not reasonable to expect reasonableness in discourse?

A doctor friend set me thinking when she commented that such and such person is reasonable. In TV debates, after a critical comment, the anchor often asks the panelist, is there one thing that the policy maker has done right? In heated conversations, often it is said: be balanced— which is similar to saying be reasonable.

What does it mean to be reasonable? The dictionary meaning is ‘in accordance with reason’ or ‘moderate’. But aren’t these subjective categories? What is ‘in accordance’ with reason or ‘moderate’ is not agreed to by all in society.

Often, it depends on the individual’s situation in society or on society’s stage of development and the dominant discourse set by the ruling elite. Here, the focus is on the economic aspects but this analysis could also be extended to social and political aspects.

System’s idea of reasonableness

In a feudal society, the landlord holds the land and extracts rent from the farmers. Being reasonable might mean not being too exploitative lest it leave the farmers destitute.

Even if moderate, exploitation persists. In this system, any talk of eliminating landlords and giving land to the tillers would be considered unreasonable. But, with the advent of capitalism, (Adam) Smith and (David) Ricardo characterised landlords as wasteful and argued for ending their dominance. Were they being unreasonable? In the old framework, yes, but not in the evolving framework.

What does it mean to be reasonable? The dictionary meaning is ‘in accordance with reason’ or ‘moderate’. But aren’t these subjective categories? What is ‘in accordance’ with reason or ‘moderate’ is not agreed to by all in society.

Capitalism is even more wasteful than feudalism. Enormous waste is generated by consumerism deliberately promoted by advertisements and the example set by the corporate culture and government. The result is environmental damage, climate change and extreme weather events. But, would the ruling elite accept this as a reason to eliminate capitalism and go for, say, a Gandhian alternative? Undoubtedly much needs to be fleshed out about such an alternative, especially, given the technological changes that have occurred since M.K. Gandhi’s time.

Also read: How viable is Gandhi’s village today?

Talk of a Gandhian alternative to create a better world is considered unreasonable by the current ruling elite. They are already well off and not sure that in the new world their privileges will survive.

So, in their self-interest, they are status quoist and would characterise talk of alternatives as not only utopian but unreasonable. Clearly, reasonableness is associated with individual and class interest and not societal interest.

Gandhi in Hind Swaraj critiqued British parliamentary democracy. He argued that political parties work for narrow interests and not for society as a whole. He argued that leaders work for their self-interest and the PM for the narrow interest of his backers.

Further, the members of Parliament do not have the freedom to represent public interest since they have to follow the party whip. So, politics is all about exercising power to serve the interests of the financiers of the party. This is visible in post-Independence India where politics is controlled by black money and vested interests.

So, the current ruling dispensation would characterise Gandhi as unreasonable. But not openly. He was striking at their interests. He was asking people to reject the present set of rulers— not through violence since he believed in non-violence. He propagated change through making people conscious about who they should choose as their representatives. In today’s circumstances, this would even be termed as seditious.

Individual’s idea of reasonableness

The ruling elite identify with the existing system since that has given them privileges that they may lose in an alternative. Thus, they would term any major change as unreasonable and would work against it.

Since the elite set the public discourse, critics of the system are in a minority and overwhelmed by the dominant narrative. It requires courage for critics to stand against the tide since they have to pay a price for their defiance.

Also read: GDP growth: The gap between reality and rhetoric

But workers in a capitalist system would not consider the critique to be reasonable? For workers, there is a daily struggle for survival while for the well-off, the goal would be to preserve and advance their gains.

Because of low wages, the elite can afford servants, drivers, gardeners and office peons. Life is comfortable. For the workers, a higher salary or wage is essential to improve the prospects of their family. This proposition is not unreasonable for workers but the elite would consider this as unreasonable. But the workers do not set the agenda of the public debate and get marginalised and so do the critics.

In a feudal society, the landlord holds the land and extracts rent from the farmers. Being reasonable might mean not being too exploitative lest it leave the farmers destitute.

In brief, the individual’s viewpoint on reasonableness depends on her situation in society. Some members of the elite may accept the need for an alternative but such critics of the establishment comprise a tiny minority and are branded as unreasonable by the ruling elite.

Critics of policy

Should not the policies that sustain rapacious capitalism and lead to growing inequalities be critiqued? Can this be termed as unreasonable? In public debates, the critics are often asked, is there not something right that is being done by a policy?

A trick question that sidesteps the important time dimension. Namely, over what time frame is the policy under discussion being analysed? While in the short-run, a policy may appear to be necessary, but over the long-run, they may lead to growing problems, like environmental decline and growing inequality.

The role of policy is to make things better. Even if the government does not do much, the economy has its own momentum. Technology is changing and new and better products become available.

Automatically, there will be transition from typewriters to word processing and landlines to mobile phones. The role of policy should be to optimise change, enhance people’s welfare and resolve society’s problems.

By definition, governments justify their actions. Using selective data, they present their policies in a positive light and downplay the negatives. A phalanx of media, politicians and favoured experts rise to reinforce the government’s views. The government spends enormous resources to create a climate of acceptability in society.

Also read: Technological challenges to becoming a developed country by 2047

In contrast, critics who point to alternative facts or faulty official methodology and hold a mirror to the policy makers are branded as unreasonable.

Since the elite set the public discourse, critics of the system are in a minority and overwhelmed by the dominant narrative. It requires courage for critics to stand against the tide since they have to pay a price for their defiance.

What is needed is data-based critique of policy pointing to its long term consequences for society. This has to be theoretical since it is about the future for which data has not been generated yet. Only projections from the past are possible.

Hence, one is talking of a hypothetical change. A critique then helps devise better policies or prevent society from going astray. After all, many ‘solutions’ proposed by policy makers from which some sections gain materially have turned out to be ‘non-solutions’ leading to growing social problems.

Consider the completely misconceived policies of demonetisation and Goods and Sales Tax (GST). The problems these policies have led to in the long-term were ignored for short-run considerations. In the short-run they seemed to be rational and reasonable to the ruling elite but critics pointed to the problems that will follow in the long-run. Were they unreasonable?

Conclusion

In brief, calling something unreasonable is relative to one’s position in the system and is often determined by the self-interest of the ruling elites. In spite of all the ‘social progress’ since Gandhi’s times, we now recall what Gandhi cautioned us about and the alternative he proposed is becoming more relevant.

Society needs critics who look at the long-term perspective since they point to the pitfalls and the correctives required. There are perks for being with the system so it is costly. But critics come for free— they are priceless.

Society needs critics who look at the long-term perspective since they point to the pitfalls and the correctives required. There are perks for being with the system so it is costly. But critics come for free— they are priceless.

Arun Kumar is a Retired Professor of Economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is the author of `Demonetization and Black Economy’ (2018, Penguin Random House). He blogs at http://arunkumarjnu.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Video: Gandhian thought's relevance today

 


MSMEs in India: Nation’s Progress Depends on Them | Arun Kumar

Published in ’Communique’ Pp.35-39 Annual. September 2023. (Magazine of Apex Chamber of Commerce and Industries of NCT Delhi) also reproduced in Mainstream Weekly (November 11 & November 18, 2023)

 o o

Introduction: Diverse Economy

Indian economy is the most diverse in the world. The usual sectors primary, secondary and tertiary are there but these are further sub-divided between public and private and organized and unorganized sectors. The primary, secondary and tertiary sectors are further sub divided into agriculture, manufacturing, finance and so on. So, there are roughly 27 sectors to contend with.

Beyond these sub-divisions there are the large, medium, small and the micro sectors in non-agriculture sector. In agriculture there are the large, medium, marginal farms and the landless. The technologies they use and the productivity they have are also vastly different so that the incomes differ widely across sectors. The divides are also between the rural and urban areas and backward and advanced states.

The largest sector in GDP is the tertiary sector, then the secondary and lastly the primary sector. Agriculture provides 46% of the employment but only contributes 14% of the GDP. Since it is largely in rural areas, they have a much lower income than the urban areas. Unorganized sector of which agriculture is an important part employs 94% of the work force but contributes 45% to the GDP. Thus, incomes here are very low compared to the organized sector where 6% of the workers work and produce 55% of the output.

Agriculture has a large amount of disguised unemployment since work on the farm is declining with mechanization in agriculture. More use of tractors, harvester combines and threshers are displacing labour. Such labour has nowhere to go since non-farm employment is not available. Unorganized sector in non-agriculture is often a residual sector because those who do not find work resort to some kind of self-employment to sustain their family.

Unorganized Sector: Issues

The share of employment in the unorganized sector has hardly changed in the last 30 years. This is a result of the increasing mechanization and automation in the modern organized sectors. While most of the investment goes there, it generates little work. So, people remain stuck in the unorganized sector. In this sector to, while investment is low it is also mechanizing, like, in agriculture. So, employment generation here is also inadequate.

The unorganized sector consists of the small and the micro sectors. The average employment in a micro sector unit is 1.7 workers. In agriculture every small farm (below 5 hectares) has the entire household involved. Consequently, there are no scale economies and they mostly depend on low technology, resulting in low productivity. They also do not have the wherewithal to upgrade technology. They also lack marketing and finance. Often, they have to borrow at high interest rates from the informal money markets. The result is high costs and low profits. To increase profits, they have to squeeze wages.

The unorganized sector producers supplying to the large and medium scale businesses do not pay them in time and squeeze the sector, resulting in working capital shortage. It could ultimately lead to closure of the unit.Automatic word wrap
In brief, the unorganized sector constitutes a low profit and low wage island in the economy. Due to the low per capita income, they consume very little. This reduces demand in the economy. The impact is substantial since it employs the vast majority. That slows down the economic growth.

Role of Education and R&D

Imports from China are impacting the market for both the organized and the unorganized sectors. This is because the Chinese are able to produce at scale and their labour is highly productive so that they are able to produce cheaply. Not only are they producing high technology goods like APIs but also India’s cultural symbols, like Ganesh statues and Diwali lights.

Technological up gradation and entrepreneurship depend on the quality of education. The vast majority of children get poor education. This is testified to by the ASER reports since 2005. Many businesses say that youth is unemployable. According to NHFS-5 literacy has risen in the country to about 80%. Most children are in school but teaching and infrastructure are poor so that very few enter higher education and its quality is found wanting. The definition of literacy needs to be changed to `capacity to absorb modern technology’ and not just ability to read and write.

R&D is not only weak, investment in it is small by world standards. Consequently, we mostly import technology. That further sets back R&D in the country. It leads to a) inability to absorb modern technology, b) innovate, c) weak entrepreneurship and d) lack of employment. There is also `Jugad’ and poor quality production.

Mechanization and Artificial Intelligence are already posing a challenge to the unorganized sector. Due to their small scale of operations, they cannot afford to adopt it even if they had the skill to do so. This challenge is only going to grow in the coming years and one needs to prepare for it from now.

Policies

Of late, this sector has been hurt by policies. First, demonetization in 2016, then structurally faulty GST in 2017, NBFC crisis in 2018 and the sudden lockdown in 2020. Each of them damaged the unorganized sector while favouring the organized sector. It has not recovered from these shocks. Unfortunately, this decline in the contribution of this sector to GDP is not measured. It is assumed fallaciously that the unorganized sector is growing at the same rate as the organized sector. That may have been true prior to the shocks but not after that. The methodology of measurement of GDP needed to be changed but it has not happened. The result is that the contribution of the unorganized sector is overstated.

Since GDP growth is overstated it looks good. Consequently, the government has not taken special steps to boost the unorganized sector. The result is that this sector is marginalized in data and therefore in policy. Not only this, Government’s focus in on boosting big industry and businesses. That shows in the rise in stock markets which have become the barometer of the health of the economy. The unorganized sector is not represented in the stock market which consists of only a few thousand companies. The unorganized sector has 6 crore entities.

As demand shifts from the unorganized to the organized sector, it is like colonization by the organized sector. The result is the narrowing of the base of the economy’s growth. Consumption and private investment slow down. The economy then gets dependent on the other two engines of growth – net exports and public expenditures. These two helped in achieving high growth between 2003 and 2008. After that there is has see-sawed due incorrect policies.

Consequences of Neglect of Unorganized

The growth of the organized sector at the expense of the unorganized sector has huge consequences. Because the latter employs 94% of the workers, its decline has led to growing unemployment. Even before the pandemic, official data showed that unemployment had reached a 45 year high. Labour force participation rate is abysmally low. 190 million individuals in the relevant age group have stopped looking for work. The position of women and educated youth is particularly worrisome.

Consequence can also be seen in the dramatic rise in inequality in the economy with a large number of billionaires in a poor country. India is at 139 position in the world rankings of per capita income. The result is economic, social and political instability which spoils the investment climate. The government argues that the UN, IMF and Moody’s also certify that the economy is doing well. But these are not data gathering agencies. Their analysis is based on the official data and they replicate the errors in the official data.

Reforms required

The above points to the linkage between the various problems facing the economy and the decline in the unorganized sector. Most of these problems are policy induced. So, there is urgent need to change policies and support the unorganized sector. Currently policy is promoting the organized sector and doing little for the unorganized sector.

There is need to support the unorganized sector by promoting access to finance, technology and marketing. Cooperatives need to be formed to enable this to happen. Government’s steps in this direction are rather inadequate. Expenditures on education and R&D need to be sharply increased. GST is a last point tax. So, it should be collected at the last point only and not at each intermediate point of production and distribution. That will simplify the tax without causing any loss of revenue. As Arun Jaitley used to say 5% of the units pay 95% of the GST. The complications associated with ITC, e-way bill and so on will then get eliminated, business climate in the country would improve and the unorganized sector will revive.

(Author: Arun Kumar, is a retired Professor of Economics, JNU, New Delhi, and is the author of ’Ground Scorching Tax’. 2019)

Thursday, November 9, 2023

Four Videos in Hindi on -- Economy & unorganised sector, Indian Agriculture, Demonetisation & Politics

 1.    Video in Hindi on Issue of the state of the economy with reference to the unorganized sector. 


https://youtu.be/5HIOr7gW0RE?si=nYWf_dbgSmAazxej  
 
2.    Video in Hindi on the problems of Indian agriculture and Reforms needed.

https://youtu.be/rUeTt1IuF0U?si=FdPsOFHkpfNq4n6Z  
 
3.    Video in Hindi on Policy Induced Crisis - demonetization and GST. And, Is population a burden?

https://youtu.be/LFz9npG9ZVw?si=W26P83CgK0UPP3hP
 
4.    Video in Hindi on why Freebies are a result of loss of credibility of politicians and parties.

https://youtu.be/qAJjCJ2Bu8k?si=U7lbPD9VBKXjzFrX

TEDx talk on Truth and Facts | Arun Kumar