The budget in its entirety

[FunkyGen]

and hence the reason for 20 billion exports for country of 200 million people, it is really shameful, tax the fcukers so they get up their asses and start working, tax the damn agriculture land by the size of the land so those lazy farmers grow two or three crops instead of just one.

nope roti kapra makaan she said...

 

[Dubious]

I haven't been to a lot of villages but the ones i've been to it's usually it's a donkey family, where they have two donkeys in a family one is the actual one while the other is a guy (read father) who is literally looking out for tens of people while these people free load in one way or the other... but that's my observation only...

And taxing that poor 1 father is going to benefit him how?

What about taxing those super rich who only have 1 son and enough money to send him to oxford (do you know the fees for oxford for non British nationals / non EU nationals) but have no money to pay our govt tax?

I am sorry you want them to eat dirty food,

OMG ....how old are you son? By taxing giants you will make them increase the price of the food which they can store in their fridge while this will make people eat FRESH FOOD from peddlers who wont have to see their food get dirty or rot!

the same giants you talk about are the ones who make sure the gdp of that country stays sky high and the trickle down effect reaches to the common man...

How much are these giants paying when every budget shows them getting relief??

btw your two highlighted points are in contradiction to each other.

Do you think "super clean" food is ALWAYS available? They market it as super clean hence I used that word....but there are bacterial out breaks every now and then from food cans, milk, eggs....and the list goes on....Seriously, how old are you?

nope roti kapra makaan she said...

When did I say that? Just coz you dont understand doesnt give you the right to assume and make up your own crap!

20 billion exports for country of 200 million people

whose fault was it that we didnt fix the electricity prob when it was building up due to which industries shut down?

Whose fault was it that dams were not allowed to be built in some province?

 

[NaMaloom]

What a pro-rich budget.. alas! Was to be expected from patwari league that runs on the backing and money of Punjabi industrialists. Noora League don't want to antagonize their friends, now do they?!?! This is the kind of budget that Republican party in the U.S would come up with.

 

[Viper0011.]

I own miles of land, and have enough to buy tractors, but the darned sales tax is killing me... I mean who pays these pesky taxes anywhere.. Since my friends and I all sit in the assemblies let us ask the minister to reduce taxes.. Rather then implement land reforms, we shall make the process more mechanized and push the few people who do work the land for the Chaudry sab, to the cities.... And then complain about the urbanisation of Pakistan..........
But yes the poor benefit, how else could they ever so many tractors up close, and maybe if they are lucky and work hard they can drive one when they grow up...


Where does it define what a small grower is in any budget, any land owning person can claim this and make tube wells. Solar tube wells will reduce the cost for the farmers, who already are getting subsidised rates of electricity, and you want to give them solar panel tube wells to top it off..... another great step towards helping the poor... Tube well water is the swimming pool of the poor, and if the Chaudry saab is nice, maybe they can have some water to themselves also.

Ok that was the first section of the budget, and it has exactly nothing for the poor. The main agricultural powers in this country are those who are making the laws. They own SUV's and a few white corollas, and they are exempt from any direct taxes. Is the income of these agriculturalists different from those of other people...
They have their own homes, compare that to a person who earns 50 thousand a year and lives in a rented home in the city, and the city dweller will be paying more direct taxes while the land owner pays no rent
The city dweller buys food from the market at mark ups while the land owners have food from their own lands
seriously I could go on with the list but the fact is meat packaging factories, cold storages and ware houses are not the poor, people who sit in our assemblies do not need rebates to get farming equipment, and those who own acres of lands are better off then a person who earns 5 hundred thousand rupees in a year. There is nothing for the poor and the middle class in this section of the budget, while our agriculture is not taxed we are going to end up over taxing the rest of the sectors and contracting our budget in sectors it really matters.
This budget is a very depressing one in its entirety and has no real focus on ground realities other then benifiting those who already have enough to pay taxes and exempting them, while increasing taxes on items of every day use and more GSTs and sale taxes, Part two I will work on later.......
@Slav Defence @WAJsal @Armstrong @Nihonjin1051 @Akheilos @Horus @WebMaster @Viper0011. @Leader @Jazzbot @araz @TankMan @syedali73 @xyxmt @Zarvan @Hyperion @farhan_9909
MY ONLY Request is that we go from sector to sector working our way down and behave civilly... Any meaningful argument will be respected, trolling will not...

I have no idea where you are bringing in this logic from......I have a ton of friends who own plenty of land around different states across the US. Guess what? The agg exemption is applied here in the US also. People with acres of land pay so little tax as if its peanuts. And there is serious logic behind it, and reasons as to why taxation treats agriculture differently in majority of the globe.

1) Your agriculture related people are the ones who traditionally come under lower educational bracket. Second, farm land, provides for food and other items, which, if you import, would get very expensive. And you want to grow your food growing base as much as possible as its the cheapest when farm supplies to its neighboring city. You also want to encourage people to live in those areas and grow crops, otherwise, you'd drive them all up to the city and who'll grow crops, foods and vegetables? Those would have to be imported, resulting in some serious cost increases, which would force inflation like crazy!!! You should know how all this works before just pouring your heart out about agriculture taxation, without understanding its basic role.

2) Farm land creates more jobs locally, without the government having to either deal with high inflation in rural areas and provide welfare money; or deal with putting in expensive infrastructure in small towns which may not pay off over the next 30 years (which means pure loss of money and opportunity, which if invested elsewhere, might have started a lot of industry).

3) Living on one's own land and farms are MUCH cheaper. So someone owning acreage for agriculture use can build a farm house on it, which would be minimal tax compared to the city. So living on land is cheaper from a house / farm house construction's standpoint. Then, the farm house is still giving out jobs to local people. Food and daily groceries for a family living on a farm house are much cheaper also. Majority of the stuff they eat, is what they grow or raise like Cows, Chicken, etc, etc. So they are probably paying 15% of what someone in a bigger metro city would pay. Its the same as you can build a house in a city by yourself, 40-50% cheaper than a builder if you could do all the work by yourself.

4) Infrastructure component: Farm houses, whether in the West or East, (and majority of them) are away from urban cities and pretty much have basic infrastructure (and sometimes no infrastructure at all). So people living there don't get government' infrastructure investments the way an urban area gets them, transportation, highways, local streets, hospitals, shopping, etc, etc. So living in rural areas has its own downfall that you are away from the urban necessities that you need. Because the State, City or the County isn't investing too much into these rural areas, they don't expect to tax these people either as people living there are way behind compared to an urban modern city, and majority of them make little compared to the opportunities which exist (and are usually funded by local cities and counties in terms of business parks, better schools and universities, electric generation, schools, healthcare and other services). So there is very well defined logic behind why the agriculture exemptions are in place across the globe.

5) Taxes are applied in relation with business, economy and services that an area provides and after significant government investment into a specific area. I don't think you understand that. Historically under developed areas, like villages and rural areas, don't get 10% of the funding that the urban business districts get, so why tax people who are already living in poverty??

It seems as you are upset about some landlords with heavy acreage. Taxes aren't applicable to "people", they are applicable to areas and based on policies. If you tax an urban area, you might bring two landlords under heavy taxes, but what about the 100,000 people who make their living off of working in the fields and growing crops? How do you think they'll survive if they make like $ 100 - 200 per month and pay 25% taxes out of that????

Remember, owning land doesn't mean that its worth hundreds of millions of dollars in rural areas. If you want acreage, you can have it at $ 5000 per acre in some areas within the US. But you may have to sit on it for 25-40 years or so, for it to go significantly higher in price in a rural area where there may be one street connecting you to the city. If one can still manage to get profitable and grow financially, there is nothing wrong with it. But why put the same taxes on rural areas which don't have 1/10th of an urban area's facilities and infrastructure???

 

[WAJsal]

Apparently the economy depends on us sending meat outside the country or in the country through industrial scale factories. The good old concept of cattle eating grass and walking around is too artsy for those who those who want to mechanise and store meat while hoarding it in all probability.
Who benefits:-

• People who can store build warehouses and cold storage plants(remember building is also cheaper for the next few years) and store their meat (in tons) but these people need tax relief because well, they are the poor and middle class.

Who loses: -

• remember the shop with the butcher in every neighbourhood, the one who sells you fresh meat( fresher then frozen) and has a family who depends on his income. Well these butchers are the ones who will suffer. When the big warehouses have all the cows which the buy in bulk these neighbourhood vendors will disappear one by one. Poor friendly budgets are not for you, local ghoost bechnay wala guy.... Need a path forward, Open a factory and the government can help you out

Very informative, thank you.

Wow, something every meat company does already, but again the poor packaging companies need the relief, they are the real suffering parties.... Wonder which logic this is but apparently the poor will benefit. Again the muhalay wala qasaai needs to be asked how friendly this is for him.

Ishaq dar must hold a grudge against one of these fellows to have targeted them, repeatedly. Again seems very unfair.

The rice mills, who took a crop Pakistan was world famous for, introduced cheap packaging, reduced the quality, and to save a few bucks per bag are suddenly not getting orders.. Seriously, I wonder why that would be??
Rather then fining the companies (who fines oneself) you are giving them tax relief. But more power for the industry, I mean poor.....

Pro-rich-budget. These mills should have been fined, instead they are being given a relief. What a joke.

Where does it define what a small grower is in any budget, any land owning person can claim this and make tube wells. Solar tube wells will reduce the cost for the farmers, who already are getting subsidised rates of electricity, and you want to give them solar panel tube wells to top it off..... another great step towards helping the poor... Tube well water is the swimming pool of the poor, and if the Chaudry saab is nice, maybe they can have some water to themselves also.

Schemes like these only help the rich-landlords, this way they could get huge number of tube wells installed, in terms increasing their profit.

Ok that was the first section of the budget, and it has exactly nothing for the poor. The main agricultural powers in this country are those who are making the laws. They own SUV's and a few white corollas, and they are exempt from any direct taxes. Is the income of these agriculturalists different from those of other people...
They have their own homes, compare that to a person who earns 50 thousand a year and lives in a rented home in the city, and the city dweller will be paying more direct taxes while the land owner pays no rent
The city dweller buys food from the market at mark ups while the land owners have food from their own lands
seriously I could go on with the list but the fact is meat packaging factories, cold storages and ware houses are not the poor, people who sit in our assemblies do not need rebates to get farming equipment, and those who own acres of lands are better off then a person who earns 5 hundred thousand rupees in a year. There is nothing for the poor and the middle class in this section of the budget, while our agriculture is not taxed we are going to end up over taxing the rest of the sectors and contracting our budget in sectors it really matters.
This budget is a very depressing one in its entirety and has no real focus on ground realities other then benifiting those who already have enough to pay taxes and exempting them, while increasing taxes on items of every day use and more GSTs and sale taxes, Part two I will work on later.......

Very well put together, thank you for all taking away all the confusion i had. Very informative.
In this country the rich gets richer, while the poor get's poorer. Why doesn't the government work on increasing it's tax collection by going after the big fish. Just a fact for you, Muhammad Hafeez paid more tax than out beloved prime minister. Instead the government has promised the IMF and others that they would privatize specific sectors and impose more tax on items, to satisfy IMF. If the government truly goes after the big fish, i would confidently say we would collect more tax than we should, this way not only the state would prosper and so would the poor.
Take an example of US, they collect most of there taxes through rich and powerful. Don't know the exact figures. But most of the tax is paid by the rich. And in our case.........don't ask.

 

[Al Bhatti]

i. Least burden on poor and middle class

What is new in this part?

This is being said each and every year since years and years.

 

[Gufi]

I have no idea where you are bringing in this logic from......I have a ton of friends who own plenty of land around different states across the US.

Wow first of all you comparing us with the US..... We have no technological sector to compare to the US, we have no industry that can make up for the decreased taxes for agriculture. You see we are what you call an agricultural economy, we try and earn money from our cash crops. Business 101, tax your centre stone of earning to get highest returns.

1) Your agriculture related people are the ones who traditionally come under lower educational bracket.

Actually that is not true in Pakistan, there are poor farmers but we have MPAs and MNAs who own cars worth more than 100000 dollars and their income is tax free because they earn from agriculture. I would love for you to explain this. They own land encompassing several kilometres and earn more then 10 million rupees in a year. Yet a person earning 0.5 million rupees in a city is taxed. Yet some how you justify this. Party politics may be good, but basic humanity is also a requirement.

2) Farm land creates more jobs locally, without the government having to either deal with high inflation in rural areas and provide welfare money; or deal with putting in expensive infrastructure in small towns which may not pay off over the next 30 years (which means pure loss of money and opportunity, which if invested elsewhere, might have started a lot of industry).

Oh yes Chaudry saab pays less then the minimum wage, and at times just the food and basic requirements of the house are met At the same time they treat these people like slaves and interfere in every aspect of their lives. Pakistan is bigger then the few villages in Punjab where things have improved for the common man, it is more then one tehsil and you forget that many people live under the poverty line in these villages while the land owners are profiteering.
Read the assets of the MPAs and MNAs from Pakistan and see how many benefit directly because they are land owners Instead of Land reforms which should have been chased being a simple majority with a amicable opposition there is a position of stale mate being seen.

Living on one's own land and farms are MUCH cheaper. So someone owning acreage for agriculture use can build a farm house on it, which would be minimal tax compared to the city. So living on land is cheaper from a house / farm house construction's standpoint. Then, the farm house is still giving out jobs to local people. Food and daily groceries for a family living on a farm house are much cheaper also. Majority of the stuff they eat, is what they grow or raise like Cows, Chicken, etc, etc. So they are probably paying 15% of what someone in a bigger metro city would pay. Its the same as you can build a house in a city by yourself, 40-50% cheaper than a builder if you could do all the work by yourself

Visit one of these farm houses, with their marble floors and their massive halls, the farm house you are picturing are a thing of the past This all is done in the dera, while farm houses are signs of wealth and prestige, with hardly any agricultural activities going on there. Like I said things have changed.

4) Infrastructure component: Farm houses, whether in the West or East, (and majority of them) are away from urban cities and pretty much have basic infrastructure (and sometimes no infrastructure at all). So people living there don't get government' infrastructure investments the way an urban area gets them, transportation, highways, local streets, hospitals, shopping, etc, etc. So living in rural areas has its own downfall that you are away from the urban necessities that you need. Because the State, City or the County isn't investing too much into these rural areas,

Taxes are from net incomes, not where you live. If you live in a village and earn above 1 million in an year, and most farmers do, there should be a tax on your income. Remember 5 lac( 5 hundred thousand) is where the tax starts on salaried individuals who pay more for food, rent, and utilities. That makes salaried people worse off. And if you keep investing more money on transit systems, you can not invest in rural BHUs, schools and other basic requirements, another debate for another thread.

5) Taxes are applied in relation with business, economy and services that an area provides and after significant government investment into a specific area.

Taxes are applied for net income, or else rich areas would not pay taxes, we manage our own roads rather then waiting for the government to do a shoddy job, we manage our own health care rather then trusting the hospitals run by the government, we even do not use government schooling, nor can we depend on government security because we have our own neighbourhood gaurds. As for business and all, we have to have our back up generators, we need tanks to store water because it is variable at best, and we have to install cctv cameras because security is not great. We have increased expenses compared to the farmers by many fold and use less utilities.

It seems as you are upset about some landlords with heavy acreage. Taxes aren't applicable to "people", they are applicable to areas and based on policies. If you tax an urban area, you might bring two landlords under heavy taxes, but what about the 100,000 people who make their living off of working in the fields and growing crops? How do you think they'll survive if they make like $ 100 - 200 per month and pay 25% taxes out of that????

Most MPAs and MNAs in Pakistan have agricultural land as their base income . Please justify to me the lands the Bhuttos have, the Chaudrys have, the Saiens and Wadaras have, and tell me why they own the people that live for them What is their earning if not taxable, it goes into the millions, while those salaried classes which top 45000 is taxed. If they were providing basic needs of the people we would not be seeing record migration towards the cities. Nor would there be gross human rights violations in the areas that these people live.
you have raised valid points but all of them apply to a different setting. America does not depend on its agricultural base to provide income, rather it subsidies it to run its mammoth industries in the food sector, and you mainly talk about corn which goes into everything. We sir are an agricultural economy, we need to tax our base to make sure we have money to spend for infrastructure, we have money to develop a proper healthcare system, we have money to build a proper police, and most importantly we have money to educate our youth. Remember crime and terrorism are a direct root of the injustices with the poor, the ability to buy people because they have nothing good from the state, all they know or will know is poverty . This budget has in the agricultural section, disappointed those who wanted to see real change in the budget towards a more balanced payment system, where the rich land owners are taxed with the salaried class, where even 1 million income for farmers got taxed instead of the base line of 4 lac for salaried class, where instead of massive subsidies to the rice mills they would be punished for ruining the name of Pakistani Basmati rice, for not branding and keeping proper quality checks has robbed us of the money we could have earned, where meat packaging is preferred to giving money to NACTA, that is when your nation needs a rethink.

- you own miles of land, but do you pay taxes? no you dont
but you also want a tractor free of tax too, I am sure you want fertilizer and petrol free of tax too...but you want relief to poor.

basically you are anti-tax pro relief.

That really sums you up, YOUR government has MNA's and MPA's who own miles of lands but do not pay taxes. IT is your government which wants reduced taxes on Tractors, you know now you just proved how big of a farce this budget is Now I would like you to condemn this policy

 

[Gufi]

As far as the budget is concerned i believe this a substantial improvement from what we had earlier... the 1 % has been "supertaxed" as far as i've read and they should be...

They have been taxed but sir the issue is they have been exempted from paying any tax for agriculture, any tax for their meat processing plant, any halal certification company can claim tax exemption, who owns these companies but the super rich. Remember taxing the super rich on one side but reducing the things they are taxed for on the other side, and you are left with a net saving for these super rich.

and hence the reason for 20 billion exports for country of 200 million people, it is really shameful, tax the fcukers so they get up their asses and start working, tax the damn agriculture land by the size of the land so those lazy farmers grow two or three crops instead of just one.

wow what a back flip, yes Zardari and his agricultural lands are tax free, the lands of dollar millionaires are tax free, and you talk about the poor farmer. you are a blind follower with no logic, you just went against your first post, logical people I respect, you just debate with the IQ of a gold fish and the memory span of one also.

This is being said each and every year since years and years.

The issue sir is people believe this...

 

[mr.robot]

I don't know about budget or whatsoever. All I know is that PMLN's government has been a curse for Farmers traditionally and PPP's has been beneficial. It is also somewhat related to policies but somehow the nature also plays a part. Yield decreases in PMLN's era and increases in PPP's. Many won't believe it but that has been true in 90s as well. That is what I have heard from elders regarding 90s and witnessed myself since 2008.

 

[Dubious]

I have no idea where you are bringing in this logic from......I have a ton of friends who own plenty of land around different states across the US. Guess what? The agg exemption is applied here in the US also. People with acres of land pay so little tax as if its peanuts. And there is serious logic behind it, and reasons as to why taxation treats agriculture differently in majority of the globe.

1) Your agriculture related people are the ones who traditionally come under lower educational bracket. Second, farm land, provides for food and other items, which, if you import, would get very expensive. And you want to grow your food growing base as much as possible as its the cheapest when farm supplies to its neighboring city. You also want to encourage people to live in those areas and grow crops, otherwise, you'd drive them all up to the city and who'll grow crops, foods and vegetables? Those would have to be imported, resulting in some serious cost increases, which would force inflation like crazy!!! You should know how all this works before just pouring your heart out about agriculture taxation, without understanding its basic role.

2) Farm land creates more jobs locally, without the government having to either deal with high inflation in rural areas and provide welfare money; or deal with putting in expensive infrastructure in small towns which may not pay off over the next 30 years (which means pure loss of money and opportunity, which if invested elsewhere, might have started a lot of industry).

3) Living on one's own land and farms are MUCH cheaper. So someone owning acreage for agriculture use can build a farm house on it, which would be minimal tax compared to the city. So living on land is cheaper from a house / farm house construction's standpoint. Then, the farm house is still giving out jobs to local people. Food and daily groceries for a family living on a farm house are much cheaper also. Majority of the stuff they eat, is what they grow or raise like Cows, Chicken, etc, etc. So they are probably paying 15% of what someone in a bigger metro city would pay. Its the same as you can build a house in a city by yourself, 40-50% cheaper than a builder if you could do all the work by yourself.

4) Infrastructure component: Farm houses, whether in the West or East, (and majority of them) are away from urban cities and pretty much have basic infrastructure (and sometimes no infrastructure at all). So people living there don't get government' infrastructure investments the way an urban area gets them, transportation, highways, local streets, hospitals, shopping, etc, etc. So living in rural areas has its own downfall that you are away from the urban necessities that you need. Because the State, City or the County isn't investing too much into these rural areas, they don't expect to tax these people either as people living there are way behind compared to an urban modern city, and majority of them make little compared to the opportunities which exist (and are usually funded by local cities and counties in terms of business parks, better schools and universities, electric generation, schools, healthcare and other services). So there is very well defined logic behind why the agriculture exemptions are in place across the globe.

5) Taxes are applied in relation with business, economy and services that an area provides and after significant government investment into a specific area. I don't think you understand that. Historically under developed areas, like villages and rural areas, don't get 10% of the funding that the urban business districts get, so why tax people who are already living in poverty??

It seems as you are upset about some landlords with heavy acreage. Taxes aren't applicable to "people", they are applicable to areas and based on policies. If you tax an urban area, you might bring two landlords under heavy taxes, but what about the 100,000 people who make their living off of working in the fields and growing crops? How do you think they'll survive if they make like $ 100 - 200 per month and pay 25% taxes out of that????

Remember, owning land doesn't mean that its worth hundreds of millions of dollars in rural areas. If you want acreage, you can have it at $ 5000 per acre in some areas within the US. But you may have to sit on it for 25-40 years or so, for it to go significantly higher in price in a rural area where there may be one street connecting you to the city. If one can still manage to get profitable and grow financially, there is nothing wrong with it. But why put the same taxes on rural areas which don't have 1/10th of an urban area's facilities and infrastructure???

Just 1 question do you pay the same amount of tax (that is if you do) as compared to a taxi driver and as compared to say Bill Gates? Just answer that much...and you will get your answer to why America and Pakistan cant be compared

 

[Slav Defence]

Dear government of Pakistan,

Before imposing annual budget,kindly reduce your excess parliament and senate members.
Slap Ayan Ali and throw her like a tennis ball-after playing squash with her head,she will possibly tell you "real story" to catch real faces behind money laundry scam.Then it will be easy for you to make some good budget which may benefit us


I believe that taxes must be imposed according to the capacity of companies/payer:

1)For mill owners and land owners having millions of rupees,the tax must be 15%

2)For class earning above 50,000 tax could be imposed with 5%
3)For individuals earning below 20,000 the tax must be 2%
4)For vegetable and fruit sellers ,tax could be 1.5%

Regards

 

[OrionHunter]

The bottom line is that billionaires like Nawaz don't pay a dime in taxes! To improve the economy, they should volunteer to do so. But.......

 

[Viper0011.]

Just 1 question do you pay the same amount of tax (that is if you do) as compared to a taxi driver and as compared to say Bill Gates? Just answer that much...and you will get your answer to why America and Pakistan cant be compared

The answer is no, and that's the answer you'll get from everyone else. Companies like Dell, GE and others, pay almost 0 to no tax at times, and these are billion dollar companies. The legal tax laws are designed in every country to make sure anyone participating in a Healthy economic activity, producing jobs, gets certain tax brakes if they legally qualify. Bill Gates and a person who may own a bunch of Taxis, may somehow come under the same salary brackets, and the same percent of taxes are applicable, but what they pay at the end, are dramatically different (not I said salary, not income as Bill obviously had billion worth of income through Microsoft). If GE invests $ 5 billion in a new business or acquiring a company, this investment means they now have to pay hundreds of people's salaries and benefits, buildings they need, machinery they'll buy and all. Overall tax income will go down by a large volume as their business operational expense is very large for a few years, and they may even show loss at times. But the IRS would see their tax and would also see where the money was spent. Were the execs from Dell or GE renting Ferraris and jets for their girlfriends? That's illegal obviously. But were they involved in creating 2000 more jobs for this new business? Yes, that's a part of a healthy business and economic activity so they have a legal right to write off those expenses.

You guys don't understand taxation, and then you have cricketers and then religious and illiterate politicians, who have no clue how taxes work. If I have a business and it gives me $ 2 million a year for example, in income, and I have salaries, benefits, insurances, rent and all to pay, including business use vehicles, etc, then I take all that out of the $ 2 million. Resulting taxable income may be $ 100K left out of $ 2 million. But in Pakistan, they refer to as "NS has billions of worth, he pays a few hundred thousands in taxes. That's because you have to eliminate his business expenses from sheer net "income". There are people running his businesses and they get paid by him, and get benefits, etc. So NS's personal income would be much lesser than the net worth. Same is applicable on GE or Bill Gates or the rich Taxi Driver.

Wow first of all you comparing us with the US..... We have no technological sector to compare to the US, we have no industry that can make up for the decreased taxes for agriculture. You see we are what you call an agricultural economy, we try and earn money from our cash crops. Business 101, tax your centre stone of earning to get highest returns.

Actually that is not true in Pakistan, there are poor farmers but we have MPAs and MNAs who own cars worth more than 100000 dollars and their income is tax free because they earn from agriculture.

I am going to cut the remainder of your post as the above are the only two valid points. I just wrote to another friend of your, who, for no reason wants to criticize the current government, without having basic sense of agriculture laws. Before I start, note the taxation laws were created when Pakistan came into being, and these were primarily derived from the British government system.

So instead of bashing at NS or anyone for Agg exemptions, how about you ask for political leaders to go to the Parliament and put in a resolution to change these, or challenge them in the Supreme Court if you think they are wrong. Its your legal right, why do propaganda when the Supreme Court of Pakistan is available to you ???? But, the reality is, you are just doing propaganda to bash the current government and this is the topic of the week. Senseless, illogical and silly to say the least.

The taxation laws are the same in their basic context, whether you are the US, or the UK or Pakistan. Whether your economy sucks or its 20 trillion, laws don't change. Certain policies change to accommodate growth and temporary tax brakes, but laws don't change until a Parliament of a Supreme Court changes those. So brushing off the issue I explained by saying I am from the US and Pakistan is smaller, makes no sense. It just tells me how little you people know about stuff.

Again, agriculture has benefits, people in the US buy land for retirement and they get agriculture benefits, whether they are millionaires of make $ 50,000 a year. Its just how it is. If you don't like it, instead of playing internet warrior, go to the supreme court and tell your stupid anchors at ARY and other places to invest into a good lawyer and present the case to the court that its unfair. If you get the decision you want.....GREAT for people with your mentality. If the SC strikes it down....well..... for the people with agriculture land and then you should stop silly arguing about taxation laws!!!

 

[Gufi]

I am going to cut the remainder of your post as the above are the only two valid points. I just wrote to another friend of your, who, for no reason wants to criticize the current government, without having basic sense of agriculture laws. Before I start, note the taxation laws were created when Pakistan came into being, and these were primarily derived from the British government system.

So instead of bashing at NS or anyone for Agg exemptions, how about you ask for political leaders to go to the Parliament and put in a resolution to change these, or challenge them in the Supreme Court if you think they are wrong. Its your legal right, why do propaganda when the Supreme Court of Pakistan is available to you ???? But, the reality is, you are just doing propaganda to bash the current government and this is the topic of the week. Senseless, illogical and silly to say the least.

The taxation laws are the same in their basic context, whether you are the US, or the UK or Pakistan. Whether your economy sucks or its 20 trillion, laws don't change. Certain policies change to accommodate growth and temporary tax brakes, but laws don't change until a Parliament of a Supreme Court changes those. So brushing off the issue I explained by saying I am from the US and Pakistan is smaller, makes no sense. It just tells me how little you people know about stuff.

Again, agriculture has benefits, people in the US buy land for retirement and they get agriculture benefits, whether they are millionaires of make $ 50,000 a year. Its just how it is. If you don't like it, instead of playing internet warrior, go to the supreme court and tell your stupid anchors at ARY and other places to invest into a good lawyer and present the case to the court that its unfair. If you get the decision you want.....GREAT for people with your mentality. If the SC strikes it down....well..... for the people with agriculture land and then you should stop silly arguing about taxation laws!!!

Your reply to a lack of taxation of the rich is go to the supreme court. You know your being from the US or not is doubtful, but your close mindedness is not. You did not answer one thing using any principle of business, or logic. Grow up

 

[Dubious]

The answer is no, and that's the answer you'll get from everyone else. Companies like Dell, GE and others, pay almost 0 to no tax at times, and these are billion dollar companies. The legal tax laws are designed in every country to make sure anyone participating in a Healthy economic activity, producing jobs, gets certain tax brakes if they legally qualify. Bill Gates and a person who may own a bunch of Taxis, may somehow come under the same salary brackets, and the same percent of taxes are applicable, but what they pay at the end, are dramatically different (not I said salary, not income as Bill obviously had billion worth of income through Microsoft). If GE invests $ 5 billion in a new business or acquiring a company, this investment means they now have to pay hundreds of people's salaries and benefits, buildings they need, machinery they'll buy and all. Overall tax income will go down by a large volume as their business operational expense is very large for a few years, and they may even show loss at times. But the IRS would see their tax and would also see where the money was spent. Were the execs from Dell or GE renting Ferraris and jets for their girlfriends? That's illegal obviously. But were they involved in creating 2000 more jobs for this new business? Yes, that's a part of a healthy business and economic activity so they have a legal right to write off those expenses.

You guys don't understand taxation, and then you have cricketers and then religious and illiterate politicians, who have no clue how taxes work. If I have a business and it gives me $ 2 million a year for example, in income, and I have salaries, benefits, insurances, rent and all to pay, including business use vehicles, etc, then I take all that out of the $ 2 million. Resulting taxable income may be $ 100K left out of $ 2 million. But in Pakistan, they refer to as "NS has billions of worth, he pays a few hundred thousands in taxes. That's because you have to eliminate his business expenses from sheer net "income". There are people running his businesses and they get paid by him, and get benefits, etc. So NS's personal income would be much lesser than the net worth. Same is applicable on GE or Bill Gates or the rich Taxi Driver.

I just browsed through the rant....

So what you are talking about is what MULTI MILLION DOLLAR companies pay irrespective of what the law says (it says 35% - which is very high), right? At least if you have smart lawyers and IRS you could get these people....

Well, we in Pakistan are having the law WRITE it down so that no one can jiggle them ...Note the difference!

Same is applicable on GE or Bill Gates or the rich Taxi Driver.

When anyone reads this they can already deduce your mentality