One of the most asked questions in interviews and such is 'what do you bring to the table'? The common answer is a mix of experience and enthusiasm or just the simplicity of 'willing to learn'. For there is no table. It's just another way of saying 'why should we hire you'. There is another view and it goes 'what value addition do you add'? Then, of course, the whole world of value addition comes under the microscope.
Right or wrong, the taxman has imposed through a combination of surreptitious, hard-nosed bluntness and political backing, definitions of value addition that defy the imagination. One of these was a new advance income tax (AIT) on car fitness, slipped in quietly, hit the more affluent and laughed silently for a while till being reformed in to fees and value added tax (VAT). Needless to say, unlike information technology (IT), this invisible value addition can't be clawed back. In a previous piece, this scribe has compared the British VAT system that is exemplary in considering consumer convenience. Home electricity has a lower VAT rate than commercial electricity, the per unit cost being different as well. Cold takeaway food doesn't attract VAT as opposed to hot meals. The infamous new VAT law that has to be implemented as per World Bank stricture, has to kick in from fiscal 2019. Businesses are wary and individuals, no clue as to how exactly that will impact. Whether the government is discussing some more isn't clear though if the past is anything to go by, not too much is left for discussion.
Essentially, the cost of living, especially in urban towns and cities has become punishing. No matter what growth statistics say, income levels are not increasing beyond inflation meaning people are less well-off. With more people biting in to the same cake, there has been a spread of income but not at levels demanded of by living even frugally. As always, in spite of increased government salaries, very few public sector employees are earning enough to meet ends. The unbridled increase in spend, however is suggestive that many are benefiting from 'black money' income. VAT at the retail sector is never popular but if the inevitable can be made less bitter, the medicine may go down reluctantly.
There's a similar situation in the UK, though the base scales are significantly different. Britain is now facing the concept of families having to choose between more debt or a cut in living standards. That's what was promised by the Conservatives when they won elections some eight years ago and what was believed to be in the best of everyone's interest by voters. With the years rolling by, patience wears thin and yet the government still suggests there isn't enough money to either raises pay, make major investments and is reluctant to raise taxation. One of the most intriguing factors is that the government, instead of considering a flat or minimum level of corporation tax in the face of continuous falling profits by multinationals, is instead toying with the Trumponomy idea of cutting the rates. Not too many are in agreement whether such cuts will lead to more investments and jobs. For a change, unlike anywhere else the British aren't complaining about joblessness; their gripe is over pay above inflation.
Take eighty billion (eighty-thousand crore) is the stated sick loan number, almost half of the annual budget. The inability or unwillingness to recoup losses through asset taking over and the ever astonishing Hallmark scam, is leaving a big deficit hole that hasn't impressed development partners. One after another loan-scam surfaces, makes the headlines and is then swept under the carpet. Between the process and the courts, time flies by in a land of short-memories.
There is, thankfully time before the new VAT law comes in to play. Given the gravity of the situation, think-tanks, economists and businesses must come together to thrash out a workable alternative for a government and bureaucracy that seems to have run out of ideas. 'How will the country run without taxes?' they ask. How will the people pay and from where is perhaps a saner question to ask. That less than half of the available spectrum was bought by the telecom operators for 4G operations makes a compelling argument.
