This is the first of a two-part series of articles on the Indian budget and comparisons with Pakistani budgets. Part one focuses on revenue generation while part-II will focus on expenditure.
Arun Jaitley, India's Finance Minister, presented what is being widely hailed as a pragmatic 2016-17 budget on Monday 29 February. The very first element that a Pakistani analyst is compelled to note is not only the straightforward display of budgetary data but its synchronicity in all documents in marked contrast to the way Pakistani finance ministers have presented their budgets, particularly the incumbent Ishaq Dar.
What would perhaps be of most interest to a Pakistani taxpayer is the source of revenue of the Indian government which has traditionally enjoyed a much higher tax to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio than Pakistan. Income tax accounts for 14 percent of total Union revenue for 2016-17, the same rate as in the year just past. Or in other words the Indian government has not raised income tax rates while reportedly Pakistan's Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) in an internal meeting has agreed to raise reliance on withholding taxes as a component of direct taxes to 75 percent in the forthcoming year - a tax largely levied in the sales tax mode as it is applicable on consumer items/services including education rather than on sources of income (the definition of direct taxes in economic theory).
Corporation tax as a source of revenue is estimated at 19 percent of total revenue in the latest Indian budget, envisaging a decline of one percent from the year before, implying a pro-business decision.
Customs considered as a means to not only generate revenue by successive Indian governments but to limit imports (especially of the large number of items that are being manufactured in the country after strict adherence to five year development plans with the over arching objective of achieving self sufficiency and minimising the need for consumer imports) is budgeted to generate 9 percent revenue in the forthcoming year like in the year just past. In Pakistan customs duty is levied to generate revenue - Dar levied a one percent across the board customs duty in 2014-15 and raised it to 2 percent in the budget for the current fiscal year. Failure to meet his unrealistic budgeted revenue for the current year led to raising customs duty across the board to 3 percent in December 2015. The bulk of collections under customs duty are from those items that are not produced in the country and which are purchased by the middle and lower middle income earners. This fact accounts for the hefty customs collections this year.
Indian budget estimates excise duties as generating 12 percent of total revenue as opposed to 10 percent in the year past. Service and other taxes would remain constant at 9 percent of total revenue generated in the current year.
Indian government estimates non-tax revenue at 13 percent of the total, a rise of 3 percent from the previous year reflecting the government's intent to improve performance of state owned entities and non-debt capital receipts are budgeted to generate 3 percent of total revenue, a decline of one percent from the year before. In this context it is relevant to note that Dar's 2.5 billion dollar Eurobonds and half a billion dollar sukuk issuances are not non-debt capital receipts but debt capital receipts.
Borrowing and other liabilities are clearly marked in the Indian budget as accounting for 21 percent of total revenue envisaged to decrease from 24 percent from 2015-16.
Pakistan's budget documents show a tendency for obfuscation rather than clarity. First, there is no longer any section on where the rupee earned by the government comes from and hence to calculate it one is required to undertake the challenging task of first identifying where the data is located in more than half a foot thick budget documents. External borrowing data is placed separately from FBR taxes, other taxes and non-tax revenue. Dar went one step further than his predecessors and diverted several items placed under non-tax revenue as other taxes to show a higher tax to GDP ratio than before. Second the mark-up on foreign and domestic debt is in the current expenditure while budgeted domestic debt, which has been rising significantly, is a challenge to locate. Annual budget statement reveals that domestic permanent debt estimated at 80 billion rupees in the revised estimates for 2014-15 will be raised by a whopping 474 billion rupees in the current year. However, these are indicative figures and actual figures could go a lot higher with none the wiser at the time of the budget speech.
The Indian budget envisages 79 percent receipts from domestic sources and only 21 from borrowings. A given is the traditional reliance of Indian governments' on domestic borrowing rather than foreign borrowing. In 2014-15 reliance on borrowings was higher at 24 percent. Or in other words the intent is to reduce reliance on borrowing and liabilities. There are no such comparable figures in Pakistani budgets.
It is noteworthy that the Indian budget 2016-17 revenue targets are considered realistic at 11 percent growth. It is unfortunate that our own budget estimates invariably err on the side of unrealistic optimism whose price is paid by the common man through mini-budgets. Dar inexplicably contends that revenue has increased by several multiples of an increase in GDP which explains why he has to announce mini budgets periodically to meet his own unrealistic revenue targets agreed with international donor agencies.
The Indian government calculates the fiscal deficit as the difference between revenue plus non-debt capital receipts and total expenditure. Unfortunately in Pakistan, the fiscal deficit is defined as revenue plus debt bearing capital receipts and total expenditure. Be that as it may, the Indian government has budgeted a fiscal deficit of 3.5 percent, down 0.4 percentage points from the revised estimates of 2014-15, and there is speculation whether the government would be able to generate the estimated 16,000 crore rupees from disinvestment given that it failed to generate 50 percent of what was budgeted from this source in 2014-15. In Pakistan the process of privatisation is highly controversial especially given the attempt to sell Heavy Electrical Complex and of course it has been slower than budgeted given the state of the global as well as the domestic economy.
Given the impact of taxes on the stock markets it is relevant to note that the outcome of the Indian budget 2016-17 on its stock markets was positive. On Wednesday, the day after the budget was announced the Sensex advanced 464 points and gains were also witnessed in the bonds market and the rupee value indicating bullish sentiments. In Pakistan, the rupee is overvalued as is, one of the main reasons for declining exports, and the stock market is small enough to be manipulated through Dar's decision to delay implementation of the gradual rise in tax rates agreed between the brokers and Dr Hafeez Sheikh in 2010.