Desi Cartman Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 What's your point ? I don't understand. Bottom line is taxes fund free stuff. If you disagree that this scheme should only be for very very poor and rest of the funds should go on education, infrastructure building and creating more jobs then I don't understand how to explain. Ration cards, subsidies on diesel etc have been in place forever and how has that worked out so far ? Even going by your logic it's the same crap in a different pack so pls explain why this will work ?
randomGuy Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 1. For one last time, My point is to debunk the following type of thinking - I find is almost amusing when a country where almost no one pays taxes' date= starts these programs giving free things. It's basic math, if you have 0 or for that matter even 10, then you can not give away 80. If people and sarkar think that going the USSR way is the right approach where govt distributes bread then only god can help.~45% children under the age of 5 are under-weight? You have avoided your own point where you showed hopelessness about isolating the deserving beneficiary. 3. About 2/3rd population coverage - because nearly 830 million people are already covered under the current PDS schemes, mid day meal schemes etc as per Arun Jaitley's speech included in the last post. because everyone pays taxes as shown in my last post. 2. How will you isolate very very poor when its very very difficult? Plus when poverty is such that
Crookbond Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 What's your point ? I don't understand. Bottom line is taxes fund free stuff. If you disagree that this scheme should only be for very very poor and rest of the funds should go on education, infrastructure building and creating more jobs then I don't understand how to explain. Ration cards, subsidies on diesel etc have been in place forever and how has that worked out so far ? Even going by your logic it's the same crap in a different pack so pls explain why this will work ? Desi - What is your definition of very very poor?
saneindian Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Aadhi roti, khayenge, Congress ko layenge purana nara hai [We will eat half roti and vote for the Congress is an outdated slogan] Aaj ka naya nara hai: poori roti khayenge, sau din kaam karenge, muft dawai lenge aur Congress ko layenge [We will work 100 days, on a full stomach, get free medicines and vote for the Congress] After ruling India for nearly 60 years, imagine the audacity to give such slogans!
Desi Cartman Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Desi - What is your definition of very very poor? Unemployed and homeless.
Desi Cartman Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 1. For one last time, My point is to debunk the following type of thinking - because everyone pays taxes as shown in my last post. 2. How will you isolate very very poor when its very very difficult? Plus when poverty is such that ~45% children under the age of 5 are under-weight? You have avoided your own point where you showed hopelessness about isolating the deserving beneficiary. 3. About 2/3rd population coverage - because nearly 830 million people are already covered under the current PDS schemes, mid day meal schemes etc as per Arun Jaitley's speech included in the last post. Dekhi Bhai simple points: * these GST and VAT are there because enough people don't pay taxes. So we are now taxing the poor as well to feed the poor. Great scheme ? Countries where majorities pay taxes and there is still GST, even they struggle to support their poor. VAT is also not supposed to be on essential goods and I don't think many poor go to buy luxury goods. So try as much as you want reality is that most people in India do not pay any income tax, GST vat actually make them even poorer and they are also not suppose to be implemented for essential commodities like milk, vegetables etc. 2. Supporting people when they are down and out is not a sin. The way they are identifying 80% of janta as deserving of these schemes they could have selected the lowest 10-20% only and invested in infrastructure which would create jobs, which will help in feeding the poor, sending their kids to school so in 15 years time they are not dependent on the sarkar to feed them. This vs sarkar feeding and saying work for 100 days a year only are 2 very different ideas. 3. So what was the need for the new scheme ? I don't think our posts are going to get anywhere as I believe in govt enabling people to become employable and invest in infrastructure to create jobs, make opening businesses easier so people themselves grow out of the hole. You are looking at the humanity part of it and I believe think that we should feed our poor because we afford it. All I'm saying is that not 80% of janta is dying of hunger in India and there are ways to help the dying public by providing food but for the majority of these 80% govt needs to help them become employable by education and by helping private and public sector create jobs because in the long run these schemes will come to bite the govt in its ass and people will still remain poor but with a little bit of food on their table. That's all.
Clarke Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Again, I don't see why I should have to justify the PM's comments then or now. I am perfectly willing to discuss the bill, which I am doing. Kaise punish karoge? Resources kahan se laaoge itna mass scale tax ki dhaandhli ko rokne ke liye? Middle class is ignoring itself by not honestly paying taxes. 0 fecks given to them till they do so. Dude, when the import duty on most things is in the 20-40% range you don't find having a 2% import duty on Gold ridiculous and appeasement of the middle and upper class? And no, basic economics will tell you that such a ridiculously low import duty on products which the country does not produce enough to cater the demand means a huge currency outflow and devaluation of the currency. Yaar ye kya baat hui ? I'm willing to differentiate between Social Security, Medicare & Food Security when you bring the earlier ones. Why can't you differentiate between the ruling PM's opinion on a one time grant vs an annual never ending largesse ? All other discussion is on the sidelines. The fact is either the PM was right then and wrong now or vice versa.
randomGuy Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Desi Cartman, I have contradictory views with your point#1 and #2, but frankly I am not inclined to discuss these further. My basic belief is following and that is where you and me differ - I believe tht besides the expenditure on education, health, infra, India will always require a substantial chunk of expenditure for social security. The gov's means of doing so is via subsidies(on food, fuel, fertilizers, MNREGA etc) and my belief is to go for cash handover using biometric validation, plus the abolition of most subsidies. Never mind the ways of spending for the time being, the point is - we must always spend a substantial chunk of expenditure for social security. The reasons are - 1. India is huge country. The gap between rich and poor is huge. Many of the poor are extreme poor. Most work in unorganized labor sector where there is zero job security and exploitation is huge. 2. In coming years (further ahead in future), with automation, more people are gonna be jobless. So the gov will need to support them. I will try n anwser your last point and end the post. 3. So what was the need for the new scheme ? Gov wants to standardize the PDS systems by setting provision for 50% urban and 75% rural population because some states have very good PDS and some have PDS in very bad shape. Bad PDS states may be lacking in funds, so they will get funds through this bill. There are also states like Andhra which has more ration card holders than households, so they will want to correct their system as well.
surajmal Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Resident Messiahs, here's some food for thought. Socialism Kills: The Human Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India As the world approaches the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism, it is worth investigating the costs borne by countries like India that did not become communist but drew heavily on the Soviet model. For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production. These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too. Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year. It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade. What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators? This paper seeks to estimate the number of “missing children,†“missing literates,†and “missing non-poor†resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators. It finds that with earlier reform, 14.5 million more children would have survived, 261 million more Indians would have become literate, and 109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line. The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy. It drives home the point that India’s socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither. http://www.cato.org/publications/development-briefing-paper/socialism-kills-human-cost-delayed-economic-reform-india Read the whole thing.
Crookbond Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Unemployed and homeless. Hang on, if someone has a home and can barely make ends meet - why shouldn't any subsidy be extended to him?
The Outsider Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Yaar ye kya baat hui ? I'm willing to differentiate between Social Security, Medicare & Food Security when you bring the earlier ones. Why can't you differentiate between the ruling PM's opinion on a one time grant vs an annual never ending largesse ? All other discussion is on the sidelines. The fact is either the PM was right then and wrong now or vice versa. Well, if it's so important for the discussion I think the PM was wrong then. There is nothing in the Food Security Bill which makes it economically unsustainable in the long run, IMO. Of course, there is a premise that more of the Indian middle class becomes honest.
Desi Cartman Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 Hang on' date=' if someone has a home and can barely make ends meet - why shouldn't any subsidy be extended to him?[/quote'] I meant "or" so people who have no shelter or food. The reason I'm against serving majority is that it is not sustainable. I rather give food to people who desperately need it and spend rest of the funds in creating jobs. Again I don't want to come up with lame schemes guaranteeing 100days of employment a year. Their slogan suggests "world for 100 days, we give u food and healthcare", it's a very slippery slope.
Crookbond Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 I meant "or" so people who have no shelter or food. The reason I'm against serving majority is that it is not sustainable. I rather give food to people who desperately need it and spend rest of the funds in creating jobs. Again I don't want to come up with lame schemes guaranteeing 100days of employment a year. Their slogan suggests "world for 100 days' date= we give u food and healthcare", it's a very slippery slope. You mean to say people who have either one of shelter or food are not poor? :dontknow: Forget about the slogans they make not reflect the reality - we are talking about actual schemes here. The serving of majority "not sustainable" is not true else the PDS system would have broken down completely over the last decade - it has only improved. I have posted some numbers earlier - you may want to look into it. I understand your skepticism but the solution you are suggesting is not viable either.
Desi Cartman Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 You mean to say people who have either one of shelter or food are not poor? :dontknow: Forget about the slogans they make not reflect the reality - we are talking about actual schemes here. The serving of majority "not sustainable" is not true else the PDS system would have broken down completely over the last decade - it has only improved. I have posted some numbers earlier - you may want to look into it. I understand your skepticism but the solution you are suggesting is not viable either. I guess I just don't see the things as some of the FSB supporters do. I want jobs to enable people to become self sufficient and have a free market and some people here think that's harder than supporting majority of population by giving almost free food forever. If in your opinion this scheme is a better long term solution then I have nothing else to add.
Crookbond Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 I guess I just don't see the things as some of the FSB supporters do. I want jobs to enable people to become self sufficient and have a free market and some people here think that's harder than supporting majority of population by giving almost free food forever. If in your opinion this scheme is a better long term solution then I have nothing else to add. Desi - These are not either/or solutions. You actually need both - subsidized basics along with a free job market like you suggest. In the next 50 years (or so), this too should meet i.e. the job markets trend curve should go up and the PDS requirements should go down (this is actually happening - let me know if you want some stats). There is only one thing which stops the free market/local jobs manufacturing sector - corruption.
randomGuy Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 You mean to say people who have either one of shelter or food are not poor? :dontknow: Forget about the slogans they make not reflect the reality - we are talking about actual schemes here. The serving of majority "not sustainable" is not true else the PDS system would have broken down completely over the last decade - it has only improved. I have posted some numbers earlier - you may want to look into it. I understand your skepticism but the solution you are suggesting is not viable either. And as most of us already know, its not free meals as being said in some posts- its only near-free rice,wheat(not wheat flour?) and millet. People still gotta buy cooking oil, ghee, milk, vegetables, lentils, spices etc and bear the cooking cost like the way they have been doing till now.
randomGuy Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Aadhi roti, khayenge, Congress ko layenge purana nara hai [We will eat half roti and vote for the Congress is an outdated slogan] Aaj ka naya nara hai: poori roti khayenge, sau din kaam karenge, muft dawai lenge aur Congress ko layenge [We will work 100 days, on a full stomach, get free medicines and vote for the Congress] After ruling India for nearly 60 years, imagine the audacity to give such slogans! Arnab asking some congressi now - pet bharke kya khaenge? - khaali chawal khaenge? freaking hilarious.:cantstop:
Number Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Arnab asking some congressi now - pet bharke kya khaenge? - khaali chawal khaenge? freaking hilarious.:cantstop: Daal is just a state of mind.
randomGuy Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 India home to a quarter of the world’s hungry: Global Hunger Index report - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-home-to-a-quarter-of-the-worlds-hungry-Global-Hunger-Index-report/articleshow/24171694.cms Interactive map for Global Hunger Index 2013 - http://www.ifpri.org/tools/2013-ghi-map
zumi Posted October 15, 2013 Posted October 15, 2013 India home to a quarter of the world’s hungry: Global Hunger Index report - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-home-to-a-quarter-of-the-worlds-hungry-Global-Hunger-Index-report/articleshow/24171694.cms Interactive map for Global Hunger Index 2013 - http://www.ifpri.org/tools/2013-ghi-map thanks exclusively to the last 10 years of plunder and incompetent Congress
Recommended Posts