Food bill: will it be passed today by Parliament?

[The Outsider]

Because no one here was whining about prices of phones going up.

Yeah, so I combined what I heard outside ICF with posts here to make my point and when asked made the demarcation clear. Which norm of a discussion does it violate?

That's some lame excuses. Maybe you could mention the recent afforable care act when talking about similar scale which the CBO estimated wouldn't hurt the deficit as there were penalties and other taxes for the minor sake of paying for it. The Americans don't go about throwing something as fundamental as foodgrains to two-thirds of their population as a legal right, forget even the accounting or the fact that almost half the country pays income tax and a lot more pays many other taxes. Get that taxpayer percentage to single digits and let me know how well all those benefits work.

So, your point is that while America offers many social services to it's population, including heavily subsidizing agriculture it is a model capitalist economy and because India subsidizes food to feed it's poor it becomes USSR incarnate? I honestly don't have a response to that.

[Clarke]

Yeah' date=' so I combined what I heard outside ICF with posts here to make my point and when asked made the demarcation clear. Which norm of a discussion does it violate?[/quote'] Disgusting lies. You muddled up some news channel garbage when asked for specifics on who you accused as tax evaders and subsidy moochers. Same old illogical garbage. Go look up your W2 once and read the various sections in there. Social services like medicare/SS with specific taxes to cater for them isn't anywhere close to a law to feed minimum 800 million people without paying for it, forget throwing it on a few million people in the near future.

[The Outsider]

Disgusting lies. You muddled up some news channel garbage when asked for specifics on who you accused as tax evaders and subsidy moochers.

Do I have any knowledge of the finances and specifics of posters on ICF? Quite obviously no, so basic application of logic would have told you that I was referring to the middle class in general.

Same old illogical garbage. Go look up your W2 once and read the various sections in there. Social services like medicare/SS with specific taxes to cater for them isn't anywhere close to a law to feed minimum 800 million people without paying for it, forget throwing it on a few million people in the near future.

Employees — the Social Security tax rate is 6.2 percent on income under $113,700 through the end of 2013. The Medicare tax rate is 1.45 percent of all income; Employers — the Social Security tax rate is 6.2 percent. The Medicare tax rate is 1.45 percent; and Self-employed —the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent on income under $113,700 through the end of 2013. The Medicare tax rate is 2.9 percent.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings Are you telling me that the Food Subsidy bill is going to cost more than the above? And why are you running shy of the tens of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidies that US farmers get?

[Clarke]

Do I have any knowledge of the finances and specifics of posters on ICF? Quite obviously no, so basic application of logic would have told you that I was referring to the middle class in general.

Except that I'm calling you out on your lies. You decided to claim the moral high ground by accusing others here of being leeches and produced the TV excuse when asked to produce evidence.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/social-security-and-medicare-tax-rates%3B-maximum-taxable-earnings Are you telling me that the Food Subsidy bill is going to cost more than the above?

I'll try and explain how rubbish an argument you're making: One hundred and sixty three million individuals pay their social security & medicare taxes. I repeat, all of the effin working population of the United States, one hundred and sixty three million contribute to it. I didn't hear Soniaji or you advocate a few hundred million contributors to the food security act. Try and figure the bloody difference between a food handout every single year and a service post retirement for which you contributed all of your working career, roughly 35-40 years.

And why are you running shy of the tens of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidies that US farmers get?

Those subsidies are analogous to the subsidies our farmers get, fertilizer/bijli et al. How that figures into free foodgrains for 800 million is beyond common sense.

[Crookbond]

Clarke - Do you have a problem with food subsidy? From what I understand, food subsidy existed even before the Food Security Bill, 2013.

[Clarke]

Clarke - Do you have a problem with food subsidy? From what I understand' date=' food subsidy existed even before the Food Security Bill, 2013.[/quote'] As a legal entitlement to 800 million, I absolutely have a problem. Having it as a part of annual budget by choice is very different, you do what you can. As a law, you have to count that first for whatever number of people (800 million now, a billion plus maybe soon) along with other essential expenses like the armed forces and then figure what's left for infrastructure, public transport etc.

[Crookbond]

As a legal entitlement to 800 million' date=' I absolutely have a problem. [b']Having it as a part of annual budget by choice is very different, you do what you can. As a law, you have to count that first for whatever number of people (800 million now, a billion plus maybe soon) along with other essential expenses like the armed forces and then figure what's left for infrastructure, public transport etc.

What is the difference? I would like to discuss this seriously so I will keep posts short and to the point.

[Clarke]

What is the difference? I would like to discuss this seriously so I will keep posts short and to the point.

The way I understand it, its a big effin deal. For instance, LPG subsidy is also a part of the budget. When the debt for a particular financial year is higher than manageable, the govt can increase the price per cylinder, reduce number of subsidized cylinders per household, which is very much required. Hypothetically, the govt introduces a fuel security act in the election year wherein two thirds of the country is guaranteed a cylinder of LPG for Rs 20 per month :phehehe: You see the difference between the two ? Do you fancy the govt tweaking the latter like it does in the earlier case ? Its forced to give out the LPG at throwaway prices by law, will they change the law ever so frequently ? Edit: I'm ignoring the effects on the market price of LPG, the govt budget in general paying for the fuel security act.

[Crookbond]

The way I understand it, its a big effin deal. For instance, LPG subsidy is also a part of the budget. When the debt for a particular financial year is higher than manageable, the govt can increase the price per cylinder, reduce number of subsidized cylinders per household, which is very much required. Hypothetically, the govt introduces a fuel security act in the election year wherein two thirds of the country is guaranteed a cylinder of LPG for Rs 20 per month :phehehe: You see the difference between the two ? Do you fancy the govt tweaking the latter like it does in the earlier case ? Its forced to give out the LPG at throwaway prices by law, will they change the law ever so frequently ?

Clarke - Like I said, I am in for a informed discussion not a debate competition (I will avoid smileys as well). I want to know your problem with the bill. Is it the cost or the implementation? What is the core issue of contention for you? It seems to be the cost - am I right? It would be better if we can stick ourselves to 5 lines or less, if that is possible from your side.

[Clarke]

Clarke - Like I said, I am in for a informed discussion not a debate competition (I will avoid smileys as well). I want to know your problem with the bill. Is it the cost or the implementation? What is the core issue of contention for you? It seems to be the cost - am I right? It would be better if we can stick ourselves to 5 lines or less, if that is possible from your side.

The cost is a major problem for me, no doubt about it. The precedent it sets is also worrying. Fiscally disastrous healthcare or housing acts are not impossible now. Going by the extent of the population its supposed to cover, I'm somewhat against it in principle as well. 800 million people should not have to be fed by free foodgrains in any nation by law. I am for the lowest section of society being fed by the govt within manageable amounts, not 2/3rds of it. You may reach deep down the wallet in calamities, not every single day.

[Crookbond]

The cost is a major problem for me, no doubt about it. The precedent it sets is also worrying. Fiscally disastrous healthcare or housing acts are not impossible now. Going by the extent of the population its supposed to cover, I'm somewhat against it in principle as well. 800 million people should not have to be fed by free foodgrains in any nation by law. I am for the lowest section of society being fed by the govt within manageable amounts, not 2/3rds of it. You may reach deep down the wallet in calamities, not every single day.

Thanks or the clarification. You have a valid point on precedents of an "entitlement based scheme" particularly in the Indian context. Let us examine in the costs in actual figures. The estimate of extra-cost is Rs. 25,000 crore - marginal increase over the food subsidy. The numbers are similar for food grains as well. Is it the cost or are you worried about the PDS leakages?

[The Outsider]

Except that I'm calling you out on your lies. You decided to claim the moral high ground by accusing others here of being leeches and produced the TV excuse when asked to produce evidence.

How can I accuse others here of being leeches when I don't have any information about their personal lives?

I'll try and explain how rubbish an argument you're making: One hundred and sixty three million individuals pay their social security & medicare taxes. I repeat, all of the effin working population of the United States, one hundred and sixty three million contribute to it. I didn't hear Soniaji or you advocate a few hundred million contributors to the food security act. Try and figure the bloody difference between a food handout every single year and a service post retirement for which you contributed all of your working career, roughly 35-40 years.

It was not meant to be a one to one comparison. The point was made to inform you that the most capitalist nation on the planet indulges in collective subsidies. Yes, one hundred sixty three million people pay social security but the rich pay more than the poor, whereas when it's the turn to get it back everyone gets back the same amount. How is that not rich subsidizing the poor?

Those subsidies are analogous to the subsidies our farmers get, fertilizer/bijli et al. How that figures into free foodgrains for 800 million is beyond common sense.

Yes, I know. So you don't have a problem with those subsidies?

[Clarke]

Thanks or the clarification. You have a valid point on precedent. Let us examine in the costs in actual figures. The estimate of extra-cost is Rs. 25,000 crore - marginal increase over the food subsidy. The numbers are similar for food grains as well. Is it the cost or are you worried about the PDS leakages?

That's a govt claim, there's various estimates on the extra cost and its almost guaranteed to cost much more than that. Annual revenue ~ 10 lakh crore rupees. Annual expenditure ~ 15.4 lakh crore rupees. Add an additional 50 thousand crores for the bill and the expenditure rises to ~16 lakh crore rupees. Deficit was always a big problem, its been increased by 10 percent now. Leakages come in much later during implementation. I am simply against any such expansion for reasons mentioned earlier.

[Clarke]

How can I accuse others here of being leeches when I don't have any information about their personal lives?

To occupy the moral high ground, you certainly are capable of doing so. I'm saying that by experience of course when you accused me of targetting someone based on that poster's religion.

It was not meant to be a one to one comparison. The point was made to inform you that the most capitalist nation on the planet indulges in collective subsidies. Yes, one hundred sixty three million people pay social security but the rich pay more than the poor, whereas when it's the turn to get it back everyone gets back the same amount. How is that not rich subsidizing the poor?

Well you'd have to be blind as a bat to not see the gigantic differences between so called collectivism. All of the working population contributing towards retirement services vs 3% of the population providing for 67% of the country with foodgrains besides everything else. This lumping and skipping the details is very convenient but paints an extremely distorted picture.

Yes, I know. So you don't have a problem with those subsidies?

That would depend on how much those subsidies help lower the cost of food vs fatten the wallet of a farmer. I repeat the question: How exactly does the farm subsidy figure into free foodgrains for 800 million ?

[Crookbond]

That's a govt claim, there's various estimates on the extra cost and its almost guaranteed to cost much more than that. Annual revenue ~ 10 lakh crore rupees. Annual expenditure ~ 15.4 lakh crore rupees. Add an additional 50 thousand crores for the bill and the expenditure rises to ~16 lakh crore rupees. Deficit was always a big problem, its been increased by 10 percent now. Leakages come in much later during implementation. I am simply against any such expansion for reasons mentioned earlier.

Actually, not just the government's claim - some few good economists have actually suggested similar figures as well. A key point to remember is that the eligibility of supply of grain per person has gone down from 7.9kg to 5 kg ( a fact largely gone unnoticed).

[The Outsider]

To occupy the moral high ground, you certainly are capable of doing so. I'm saying that by experience of course when you accused me of targetting someone based on that poster's religion.

Well, that was not my intention and upon being asked I immediately tried to clear the confusion, but you keep accusing me of lying. And I did apologize for that religion statement to you, it's another matter that you proved that it could yet be a possibility a few days later when you made statements implying Muslims voted on the basis of terrorist sympathetic statements.

Well you'd have to be blind as a bat to not see the gigantic differences between so called collectivism. All of the working population contributing towards retirement services vs 3% of the population providing for 67% of the country with foodgrains besides everything else. This lumping and skipping the details is very convenient but paints an extremely distorted picture.

Then increase the 3% to a more realistic number, which maybe around the 10% range and you won't have the deficit problem, right? IIRC, the Indian tax to GDP ratio is around 10%. Increasing it to 10.5-11% will take care of the extra expenditure of the food subsidy bill. Is that an unreasonable expectation to have of the collective middle class and government to start paying their taxes honestly?

That would depend on how much those subsidies help lower the cost of food vs fatten the wallet of a farmer.

What is it currently - in the US and India according to you?

I repeat the question: How exactly does the farm subsidy figure into free foodgrains for 800 million ?

It doesn't and I never claimed it does. Every country has it's own specific needs and subsidies are designed to address those needs, and even the most capitalistic of all countries indulges in multiple subsidy programs across multiple sectors to address those needs. That was the point being made.

[Clarke]

Well, that was not my intention and upon being asked I immediately tried to clear the confusion, but you keep accusing me of lying. And I did apologize for that religion statement to you, it's another matter that you proved that it could yet be a possibility a few days later when you made statements implying Muslims voted on the basis of terrorist sympathetic statements.

After multiple members poked you for your disgusting lie, you come up with a phony apology and another excuse to retract it. The latter topic never was about muslims voting for terrorism, it was about a percentage of them living in denial and I stand by it. You conveniently shifted the goal post there as you have done here, talking about xyz means to fund this soviet style plan.

Then increase the 3% to a more realistic number, which maybe around the 10% range and you won't have the deficit problem, right? IIRC, the Indian tax to GDP ratio is around 10%. Increasing it to 10.5-11% will take care of the extra expenditure of the food subsidy bill. Is that an unreasonable expectation to have of the collective middle class and government to start paying their taxes honestly?

None of this is part of the food bill. Its like the govt deciding on a ludicrous military programme and its blind supporters like you coming up with excuses to cover for its expenses.

What is it currently - in the US and India according to you? It doesn't and I never claimed it does. Every country has it's own specific needs and subsidies are designed to address those needs, and even the most capitalistic of all countries indulges in multiple subsidy programs across multiple sectors to address those needs. That was the point being made.

Not once have I said subsidies need to be eliminated altogether. There are certain "red" lines that cross into strictly failed socialist areas and this definitely is one of them.

[Crookbond]

Since the scheme will go off next year - how is it impacting the fiscal deficit this year? :dontknow:

[The Outsider]

After multiple members poked you for your disgusting lie, you come up with a phony apology and another excuse to retract it. The latter topic never was about muslims voting for terrorism, it was about a percentage of them living in denial and I stand by it. You conveniently shifted the goal post there as you have done here, talking about xyz means to fund this soviet style plan.

Well, we've already discussed the topic in another thread and don't want this thread to meander into the same discussion, so you can have the last word, but for what it's worth the apology was genuine.

None of this is part of the food bill. Its like the govt deciding on a ludicrous military programme and its blind supporters like you coming up with excuses to cover for its expenses.

Why would making the tax net better be explicitly mentioned in the food bill? :dontknow: Import duty on gold has already been increased and that itself will provide an additional revenue in the Rs. 30,000 crore range. I am not a blind supporter of the bill and there is much room for improvement in it, specially with regards to the proposed distribution and storage network.

Not once have I said subsidies need to be eliminated altogether. There are certain "red" lines that cross into strictly failed socialist areas and this definitely is one of them.

What makes you so certain? There are economists on either side of the discussion.

[Clarke]

Since the scheme will go off next year - how is it impacting the fiscal deficit this year? :dontknow:

Why does the FM need to come out with this statement ?

Chidambaram further said the fiscal deficit would be contained at 4.8 per cent of the GDP even after doling out subsidies for the implementation of the Food Security Bill. "(Fiscal deficit of) 4.8 per cent of GDP and the absolute number indicated in the Budget is a red line and the red line will not be breached... We have provided enough money for the cost of the food security programme for the remainder of the current fiscal," he said.