[Stribog]

Originally Posted by rjainv

I think you are missing that these 33% still consume commodities transported using same fossil fuels, hence would pay higher price for consuming the same.

Fuel is such a basic essential commodity today that it directly or indirectly impact 100% of population.

I purposely left this out as I knew this would be coming. Okay let's look at the CPI basket to see the impact of fuel.

14% is the component including Power. Fuel alone for around 90% of the pop forms approx maybe 6-7%.

Food inflation is completely under check, esp for the poor who use PDS subsidies.

Fact is very simple, DATA and only data says that these price rises affect not even 2% of the population, the richest 2% and to put it bluntly it is the same set that cry crocodile tears about the poor and migrants on one hand, spend 10's of thousands on car accessories, similar amounts on road trips for joy and then turn around and cry about how the govt is harassing the poor (themselves). This is pure hypocrisy combined with a solid dose of illiteracy on just who the real poor of the country are.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I am not sure how amortising the cost over a period of n years makes it any better. It does not take away the fact that it is still a massive expense for a majority poor country. How is this project going to improve the life of an ordinary citizen, in any way? To put it in perspective, the phase 3 of the Delhi metro with 28 underground stations, 2 new lines and 11 route extensions, totaling 167.27 km cost $4.9 billion.

It is also the same government which had to ask World Bank for a measly $1 billion loan to fight COVID, a once in a lifetime pandemic which has broken the back of informal economy and its workers. The same government did not have any money to send millions of its most vulnerable and poor citizens to their homes when they in their infinite wisdom decided that it is okay to lock down a country of more than a billion people on a notice period of 4 hours. I still can't put the image of a child, sleeping riding on a suitcase while her mother dragged the suitcase on the road to her home hundred of kilometers in searing heat, away.


Every drop counts. They are elected leaders who should be setting an example. Majority population already have no means what so ever and are barely surviving. Again, government is not the victim. It can never be.

Where do you think the money will go? Into construction companies, into companies that manufacture cement, iron and steel, it will employ 1,000's of labour for years, at govt fixed wages.

Or do you think some fat babu and neta pockets 90% of the cost?

Let me repeat, the Indian parliament needs more MP's our current number is abysmally low, our current parliament is clogged and needs expansion.

The project will funnel money back into the ecosystem from ordinary labour to large companies.

This creates a multiplier effect.

Infra construction is not done on computers.

And the "migrant" argument eh?

40% of the budget goes directly to the poor segments. Another 30% indirectly.

By arguing against the fuel hike are denying the govt funds of approx. 1.2l crores. Proportionally this means by saying this is unfair and anti poor,c you are denying the poor about 50k crores directly.

You can't have it both ways, you either care for the poor, in which case you will realise the govt needs all sources of revenue to fund it's social welfare schemes or you can argue for your (the generic you here) own pocket and welfare but then please don't talk about the poor.

If it's the later then you don't care about the poor having food (PDS), fertiliser, piped water, basic toilets.... This is okay but let's not pretend to be on both sides of the table at the same time.

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

Please don't put your words into my mouth.

Let me clarify: The govt is an elected one, but that doesn't mean all the decisions it takes is as per the people's wish. There are many decisions which is not.

What I said as "constitutional" is the right of the people to disagree - disagree with the govt or other people.

Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Gandhiji said: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained."

These words may not be of value to all. It all depends on whether you believe in their ideologies.

I didn't put "any words in your mouth".

A fascist govt precludes any form of choice or agency.

A democracy has a Constitution and guarantees rights

You logically can't use these two diametrically opposite terms to describe one entity. It is like saying someone is an ugly handsome person.

And finally, just because A govt, takes a decision you don't like, doesn't make them Fascist. A word of advice, if you want to be taken seriously, drop this hyperbolic verbiage. We are a Democracy, and if enough people don't like the decisions of A govt, any govt, they can and will be voted out.

[Stribog]

Originally Posted by Slick

I personally do not agree to the price hike, I also see that it is probably the only easy money source for the current Government. The economy is in a bad shape, was there way before Covid hit us.
Covid, though having it's effects, will act as a shield for the Government to justify poor performance, and yes also China. The martyred soldiers have already been termed as Biharis by media, with the Bihar elections near.

Though, I see that there will come a day when those justifying the price hike, defending the lack of transparency will also join the increasing chorus for transparency and accountability.

This quote is brilliant and that is what happens when the any Government tries to be Fascist, It need not mean that they have successfully banished democracy, it can also mean they silence criticism, silence independent media, avoid being accountable. The general direction.


The current Government is a democratically elected Government and hence accountable to the citizens and open to criticism, which is what we are seeing on this thread, essentially a criticism of their fuel pricing policy.

God knows I have said a lot of trash about the last Government and the last PM, whom I revere now.
The criticism in this thread is not at all demeaning in any personal way to the current Government or any particular member. I do not see a reason for offence. If a particular post offends you, feel free to report to the mods.

- Slick

Criticism - this decision is stupid, this govt is stupid, the PM is a moron etc etc

Hyperbolic FUD mongering - this govt is Fascist.

Big difference between the two.

You don't seem to understand the difference also between nation and party and personality.

I said, it demeans our entire nation, by projecting a lie (that the govt is Fascist) upon what's in reality a vibrant and thriving Democracy.

Unlike many in this current thread, I take an objective issue based stance, maybe something difficult when people don't consider data and go by "but the migrants" rhetoric.

If someone actually studies the union budget they will realise 70% goes to the poor and farmers directly and indirectly and the money being raised by fuel duties will in large portion go back to the poor.

I find it funny that people cry fake tears about the poor but in the same post will want their fuel prices reduced on their personal bills.

You can't have both, you can either be for the poor and pay the duties or be selfish and think only about the self.

[moralfibre]

Mod note: Discuss the price hike and keep politics for the forums that let you discuss them. Thanks!

[Sree]

Originally Posted by kiku007

Ahem, that's insightful. I thought the primary reason was the country lacked enough people making money to be paying taxes in the first place.


Intriguing. Just out of curiosity, could you please care to let us know how you ended up with the 1% figure?

https://www.financialexpress.com/eco...claim/1867332/

[rahul4321]

Originally Posted by Stribog

You can't have both, you can either be for the poor and pay the duties or be selfish and think only about the self.

You sir - indeed have a lot of patience to present your research and explain to people who generalize (often without facts) the financial linkages of the budget, its allocations and how the money being spent is once again infused into the economy via monetization of assets which inturn generates revenue versus the direct transfusion of cash into the hands of people without any accountability.

Very often - the concept of the earnings of Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes and its negative repercussions on the personal finances of an individual vis-a-vis the finances of a country are not understood properly which then gives rise to the sweeping statements of the media who are poised at the petrol pump like vultures asking everybody- how their personal economic situation will be adversely affected by an increase in the price of petrol / diesel - with the "adversely" already embedded into the question which does not give the responder a fair chance to answer the question the way he would like to.

Bashing the economy and the Government has also become a sport of sorts these days I feel. It is very fashionable to do so. Mind you - there are no parallels to be drawn, no comparisons to be made as a similar Pandemic hasnt ever happened before when Previous Governments have been in rule but it still does not stop people from announcing the verdict of the measures of the Government being a failure in absolute / relative terms. If you try and defend the Government - you are instantly labelled as a Bhakt or a Pseudo-Patriot. The irony on me is not lost that I did not even vote for them. Its only that I grudgingly acknowledge what they are up against, their stellar resolve and the steps they are taking to navigate this.

Exchanges like the ones on this thread do make me contemplate as to whether I should just stick to the Motorcycles Section as I generally do - and not really wander around on general debates if my opinion is not the popular opinion.

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by Stribog

I purposely left this out as I knew this would be coming. Okay let's look at the CPI basket to see the impact of fuel.

14% is the component including Power. Fuel alone for around 90% of the pop forms approx maybe 6-7%.

Food inflation is completely under check, esp for the poor who use PDS subsidies.

The 14% or 6-7% figure that you are quoting would be the direct impact of fuel increase on CPI.

The increase in transportation/food/services part of it due to fuel increase is the indirect impact. Hence we still have to look at overall CPI if that's the data you want to look at.


It is not an instantaneous measure. Give it some time, and it will reflect the picture accurately.

[Slick]

Originally Posted by Stribog

You don't seem to understand the difference also between nation and party and personality.

Ohh I do Understand, Believe me. I stop here for our forum rules.


I do not agree with the fuel hike, though I understand that is the only option left.

I will be tracking the retail price once the crude oil prices go up to see what impact it has on the increased taxes.

- Slick

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Stribog

I find it funny that people cry fake tears about the poor but in the same post will want their fuel prices reduced on their personal bills.

I'll quote that bit so that it echoes off of the walls here. It really needs to be heard again and again

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Stribog

Where do you think the money will go? Into construction companies, into companies that manufacture cement, iron and steel, it will employ 1,000's of labour for years, at govt fixed wages.

I think I have heard this argument before. I know where now. When this government spent thousands of crores on making a statue. Unlike the statue though this cant even be used for tourism. In a dire economy with “official” unemployment rate at 25% you really want argue the case for this largesse. And if the government has this kind of money to spend on a whim, why do we then have to ask World Bank for a measly $1 billion loan to fight a once in a lifetime pandemic? I wish every government could have citizenry like this.

Originally Posted by Stribog

Or do you think some fat babu and neta pockets 90% of the cost?

And how are you so sure that in this case it isn’t the case? Is this going to create millionaire daily wage workers? Or perhaps a brand new middle class? What exactly are they building for 20,000 crores or approx $3 billion in today current currency. Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world in a landscape not made for high rise buildings cost $1.5 billion. What exactly are we building for twice the cost of the tallest building in the world?

Originally Posted by Stribog

Let me repeat, the Indian parliament needs more MP's our current number is abysmally low, our current parliament is clogged and needs expansion.

Are you making a case for an even larger parliament or an expense we are making now to have a larger parliament which may or may not happen because quite frankly this is the first time I am reading someone say this. What makes you think that we need more MP’s? If anything we need systems and procedures to make sure the one’s we have are accountable. Can’t believe that you think the way to get of the current rut is having more MP’s! What about our fat bureaucracy? Some more of that please as well and no accountability please.

Also curious what are the current occupancy rates in the parliament? No facts number figures just plain old, “Because I say so”?

Originally Posted by Stribog

And the "migrant" argument eh?

Unfortunately yes. They are living breathing humans who work for their money the hardest for little or no rewards and no citizen rights either.

Originally Posted by Stribog

40% of the budget goes directly to the poor segments. Another 30% indirectly.

And yet majority of the population is still poor even after 70 years. Perfect case for a fatter parliament aka government.

Originally Posted by Stribog

By arguing against the fuel hike are denying the govt funds of approx. 1.2l crores. Proportionally this means by saying this is unfair and anti poor,c you are denying the poor about 50k crores directly.

I am not arguing against fuel price hike per se. I am concerned where the money is going. If my government does not have a few hundred crores for the poorest most vulnerable population including children, some born, some not and leaves them to suffer and die on the roads without care on their own and then spends 30,000 crores on VIP jumbo jets and upgrading their already lavish houses and workplaces, I think I have the right to ask questions.

[rjainv]

Originally Posted by Stribog

Where do you think the money will go? Into construction companies, into companies that manufacture cement, iron and steel, it will employ 1,000's of labour for years, at govt fixed wages.

Or do you think some fat babu and neta pockets 90% of the cost?

Let me repeat, the Indian parliament needs more MP's our current number is abysmally low, our current parliament is clogged and needs expansion.

The project will funnel money back into the ecosystem from ordinary labour to large companies.

This creates a multiplier effect.

Sorry for multiple posts, editing on phone.

If that is the justification for the central Vista project, then creating many more AIIMS like hospitals throughout India, or kendriya vidyalaya would be much more effective use to help everyone especially the poor who cant go to private hospitals or schools.

What makes you feel we need more MPs ? Is there any objective way to support this ?

[Stribog]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I think I have heard this argument before. I know where now. When this government spent thousands of crores on making a statue. Unlike the statue though this cant even be used for tourism. In a dire economy with “official” unemployment rate at 25% you really want argue the case for this largesse. And if the government has this kind of money to spend in a whim, why do we then have to ask World Bank for a measly $1 billion loan to fight a once in a lifetime pandemic?

Unfortunately yes. They are living breathing humans who work for their money the hardest for little or no rewards and no citizen rights either.


And yet majority of the population is still poor even after 70 years. Perfect case for a fatter parliament aka government.


I am not arguing against fuel price hike per se. I am concerned where the money is going. If my government does not have a few hundred crores for the poorest most vulnerable population including children, some born, some not and leaves them to suffer and die on the roads without care on their own and then spends 30,000 crores on VIP jumbo jets and upgrading their already lavish houses and workplaces, I think I have the right to ask questions.

Let's address each of the fallacies 1 by 1,

1) India did not ask for"covid aid" - as a part of the developing member countries, the WB and ADB are rolling out support packages. India officially stopped accepting aid during the UPA period itself.

2) does India need more MP's - your feelings aside, data suggests we need a 1,000 MP's at a minimum for effective governance

Article 81 of the Constitution lays down that MP seats will be in proportion to the population of said state. Yet Indira Gandhi in 76 passed the 42nd amendment that locked this proportion to our population in 1971.

Since then every govt has been kicking the can down the road but our MP pop ratio is stuck in 1971. Our population in 1971 was 560 mn. It is 1.3bn now.

Proportional increase in line with the Constitution would have had our MP's at 1,200 by now, yet it has artificially been capped.

Now the southern states have their own arguments on this and I will not get into those as it is off topic but even keeping the same proportion but to account for the pop increase you need 1,000 MP's minimum.

The Constitution also guarantees 1 man / woman 1 vote. Yet today the average UP MP is elected to govern 45 lakh people while a Kerala MP will be at 15 lakhs. In other words the average UP voter is disadvantaged (Constitutionally) to the Kerala voter.

The average Democracy has 1 MP : 1.5 lakh people, India is at 1 MP : 15 lakh people, a 10 fold increase. Now you can't have 5,000 MP's, that would be a challenge to manage, but 543 is abysmally low.

Why now? The current extension passed by the UPA is only till 2026, the govt then would need to expand (at least marginally) but our current parliament is abysmally cramped.

So your assertion that India doesn't need more MP's is an emotive claim belied by the Constitution, global averages and Indian numbers.


3) the Majority of the population is poor 70 years after 47 - an absolute whopper.

Let's just look at the topline numbers,

In 47,

Poverty rate was 90%, absolute poverty was 70%, literacy rate was 12%, average life expectancy was 32 (yes, 32 years)

In 2020,

Poverty rate is 20%, absolute poverty is 11%, literacy rate is 70%, average life expectancy is 65 (yes, 65 years)

Our GDP per capita has risen 21 times from 1960 alone, and 30 times from 1947

Your assertion is utterly baseless.

You sir need to stop this rhetoric, and first open your eyes.

If you hate a political party, that's your prerogative, and indeed you Constitutional right, but if you are going to make arguments on Economic policy, then please use data points and form a cogent argument. The former is personal, the later is objective.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Stribog

Let's address each of the fallacies 1 by 1,

1) India did not ask for"covid aid" - as a part of the developing member countries, the WB and ADB are rolling out support packages. India officially stopped accepting aid during the UPA period itself.

From the horses mouth.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...a-protect-poor

India did not say "No" to the loan either.

Originally Posted by Stribog

2) does India need more MP's - your feelings aside, data suggests we need a 1,000 MP's at a minimum for effective governance

Article 81 of the Constitution lays down that MP seats will be in proportion to the population of said state. Yet Indira Gandhi in 76 passed the 42nd amendment that locked this proportion to our population in 1971.

Since then every govt has been kicking the can down the road but our MP pop ratio is stuck in 1971. Our population in 1971 was 560 mn. It is 1.3bn now.

Proportional increase in line with the Constitution would have had our MP's at 1,200 by now, yet it has artificially been capped.

Now the southern states have their own arguments on this and I will not get into those as it is off topic but even keeping the same proportion but to account for the pop increase you need 1,000 MP's minimum.

The Constitution also guarantees 1 man / woman 1 vote. Yet today the average UP MP is elected to govern 45 lakh people while a Kerala MP will be at 15 lakhs. In other words the average UP voter is disadvantaged (Constitutionally) to the Kerala voter.

The average Democracy has 1 MP : 1.5 lakh people, India is at 1 MP : 15 lakh people, a 10 fold increase. Now you can't have 5,000 MP's, that would be a challenge to manage, but 543 is abysmally low.

Why now? The current extension passed by the UPA is only till 2026, the govt then would need to expand (at least marginally) but our current parliament is abysmally cramped.

You are making a case for more MP's neglecting the total lack of accountability from the current one's which is only going to create more horses for trading. If you are going to make a case for more MP's you also have to make a case for scaling up education, healthcare, policing proportional to the population in an average democracy. The population did not suddenly rise from 560mn to 1.30 bn

Originally Posted by Stribog

So your assertion that India doesn't need more MP's is an emotive claim belied by the Constitution, global averages and Indian numbers.

You do not apply global data selectively to selective argument. There is much broader and bigger argument to be made to scale our services and make those in power accountable than having more unaccountable people in power.

Originally Posted by Stribog

3) the Majority of the population is poor 70 years after 47 - an absolute whopper.

Let's just look at the topline numbers,

In 47,

Poverty rate was 90%, absolute poverty was 70%, literacy rate was 12%, average life expectancy was 32 (yes, 32 years)

In 2020,

Poverty rate is 20%, absolute poverty is 11%, literacy rate is 70%, average life expectancy is 65 (yes, 32 years)

These numbers are meaningless unless you define what the is poverty line is. This is an article from 2015 but I am pretty sure the range has changed much or if at all since. The poverty line for an urban poor is 47 rupees and a rural poor is 32 so you are not deemed poor if you earn 48 rs and 33 rupees respectively. To put it in perspective, a packet of milk is 55 rupees.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/...an-india-45134

Originally Posted by Stribog

Our GDP per capita has risen 21 times from 1960 alone, and 30 times from 1947

Your assertion is utterly baseless.

You sir need to stop this rhetoric, and first open your eyes.

GDP figures are skewed because the divide between the ultra rich, the middle class and the poor is massive in India. The richest 10% of Indians hold more than 80% of the wealth. I am sure these numbers are still not 100% correct because a majority of our economy and employment is informal.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/india-extre...uality-numbers

Originally Posted by Stribog

If you hate a political party, that's your prerogative, and indeed you Constitutional right, but if you are going to make arguments on Economic policy, then please use data points and form a cogent argument. The former is personal, the later is objective.

Please start thinking beyond allegiance to political parties. This is their modus operandi.

Even if I were to take your argument as gospel and that we will have 1000 MP's in the parliament after 2026, assuming it actually happens, why is the need of the hour not more schools, hospitals and social services for the people even if it is at the "cost" of a "slight inconvenience" to 1000 people sitting more closely together in a grand airconditioned building which exists already. The need of the thousand vs the need of a billion.

[avishar]

My country is cornered on all sides from neighbours who wish to see it fall. Our Armed Forces have hit back at one of the aggressive countries who is now sitting on our doorstep with all its might. If my country needs to increase taxes, fuel prices, commodity prices by 10-20%, I have absolutely no problems. The sorties in the Air do not come cheap. The consumables of the Fighter Planes do not come cheap. The Heavy Troop Movement and Artillery movement to forward bases do not come cheap

It is an illogical arguement. The Air Force's revenue expenditure is over to 40% of the Air Force's budget. For the Army is a staggering amount, over 75%.


Anyhow, I thought this might be interesting. I was checking the consumption of petrol and diesel in the country and where we stand. One can see how we went from normal consumption in Feb, to a dip due COVID and now recovery.


All figures in '000 Metric Tonnes

MS (Motor Spirit/Petrol)

• February 2511
• March 2156
• April 973
• May 1769

HSD (High Speed Diesel)

• February 7160
• March 5651
• April 3250
• May 5495
  

So, as you will notice, diesel consumption (which is a good indicator of economic production) has reached almost 80% level of what it was compared to the pre-COVID era. The other observation to make is that on an average the country consumes almost 3 times more diesel than petrol, because obviously diesel is used for private, good transport & industry.

This is also an important reason why rising diesel prices should be handled with care by the government, because it will only hurt the economic recovery of the country. Inflation pressure will start and will start cutting margins for an already bruised and battered MSME sector.

Source

[rahul4321]

Originally Posted by avishar

[list]

It is an illogical arguement.
[*]February 7160 [*]March 5651[*]April 3250 [*]May 5495


Source

It is not an illogical argument when you dwelve deeper. The June Numbers will be the true results - the 80% you speak of about May is made up of two effects

(1) Negative Effect of utilization because of Lockdown which was still in effect: Lockdown 4.0 ended on 31st of May I believe
(2) Positive Effect of utlization because of Movement of Heavy Troops: The scuffle started on May 5 after which the Movement of Heavy Troops Started

So a negative effect and a positive effect show a combined 80% comparative to the normal numbers

In June, the negative effect of utlization would have gone away as the Lockdown opened up. The Positve effect of utilization would still be there as the heavy troops movement is still being undertaken.

June I believe would be around 100%-110% of the normal average as per my calculations - we will know shortly.

[Stribog]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

From the horses mouth.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...a-protect-poor

India did not say "No" to the loan either.


You are making a case for more MP's neglecting the total lack of accountability from the current one's which is only going to create more horses for trading. If you are going to make a case for more MP's you also have to make a case for scaling up education, healthcare, policing proportional to the population in an average democracy. The population did not suddenly rise from 560mn to 1.30 bn



GDP figures are skewed because the divide between the ultra rich, the middle class and the poor is massive in India. The richest 10% of Indians hold more than 80% of the wealth. I am sure these numbers are still not 100% correct because a majority of our economy and employment is informal.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/india-extre...uality-numbers


Please start thinking beyond allegiance to political parties. This is their modus operandi.

Even if I were to take your argument as gospel and that we will have 1000 MP's in the parliament after 2026, assuming it actually happens, why is the need of the hour not more schools, hospitals and social services for the people even if it is at the "cost" of a "slight inconvenience" to 1000 people sitting more closely together in a grand airconditioned building which exists already. The need of the thousand vs the need of a billion.

Let me ask you, what do you think the govt is doing with this 1.2l crores annual increase in revenues?

There is a severe shortfall of tax revenues these two quarters, how do you propose the govt raise funds?

Or is your proposal abandon all budgeting and to each to his / her own? (because you think no matter what every single paisa goes into private pockets)

The poverty line is adjusted for PPP and is currently at Rs 90 / person / day.

The same measures applied in 1947.

To argue that 90% poverty levels and 32 years of life expectancy in 47 is the same as the current poverty rate is misleading and misinformed.

When I speak of poverty rates, I speak for all govts past and present not only the present dispensation.

If one went by your understanding of poverty rates, then you want the govt to forsake an increased revenue stream (coming mostly from the richer classes) to forsake the poor.

Like I said before your argument is rooted a misunderstanding of how politics, Economy and policy making works.

Regarding Your argument about MP's being held accountable, a study of history will tell you how presently advanced democracies worked.

Simple question though to end this discussion from my side:

1) what do you think the govt is doing with the revenues thus raised?

1a) how exactly do you think the govt is to fund all its social welfare schemes?

And oh all our budgets have scaled up:

The expenditure in the 71 budget was 2,400 crores.

The expenditure in the 19 budget was 2,70,000 crores.

There has been a more than proportional increase in our expenditure in all the headings you mentioned.

Unless you think our budgets are still less than a $1bn, you seem gravely mistaken.