With assumptions running around, there is a need to revisit the facts on taxation
There are bits of the direct part connected with expenditure, wealth, gift and estate duty, but those aren’t quantitatively significant.

Tax/GDP ratio is partly a function of the year. In a good year, interpreted as a year in which growth is good, it touched 12% of GDP, almost 6% direct and the rest indirect. The direct part is divided into a shade over 2% for personal income tax and a shade below 4% for corporation tax. The indirect part consists of customs, excise and service tax. There are bits of the direct part connected with expenditure, wealth, gift and estate duty, but those aren’t quantitatively significant.
Read the figures
Two figures are often bandied around. First, only 35 million people pay income tax. Second, only 42,800 people have annual income more thanRs 1 crore. Both involve minor misstatements: 35 million is the number of people who submit income-tax returns. In a pedantic sense, they may or may not pay income tax. Even if they do, tax paid could be marginal.
And that Rs 1-crore figure for 42,800 is taxable income. There are 78.9 million urban households in India. Half of them can be expected to be below the threshold. Indeed, there is some multiplicity: in a single urban household, there can be more than one individual who submits income-tax returns.
But the illustrative point remains. Since rural households are outside the ambit of income taxes, 35-40 million is the maximum income tax base we can get. Why are we so shocked that just 3% of the population pays personal income tax?
Ask the questions
Depending on what GDP figure you take, all those exemptions, direct as well as indirect, amount to anything between 5% and 5.5% of GDP. That 12% figure doesn’t include all statelevel or local-body taxes. If you include those too, the tax/GDP ratio would be around 17%. However, if all exemptions were to go, tax/GDP ratio would be in excess of 22%.
Also, if all subsidies, Centre as well as state, explicit as well as implicit, are included, subsidies amount to 14% of GDP. Before considering abolition of a tax, we, therefore, need to ask questions. Where will the revenue come from? Which expenditure item will be slashed on a continuing basis, not as a one-shot revenue realisation from asset sales (such as privatisation)?
Second, as long as there are exemptions, compliance costs cannot be reduced significantly. One needs to pin down the expression compliance costs. Does it mean administrative costs of collection? Does it mean costs to taxpayers, including harassment and bribes? And does it include other social costs?
For income tax, administrative costs aren’t actually that high. For everyRs 100 collected, it’s around 60 paise. Through the large taxpayer unit, it’s around 4.50 paise. That’s today. Studies done 10 years ago suggest if all compliance costs are included, compliance costs are 49% of personal income-tax collections and the system is regressive. Of course, there’s an argument for simplification. DTC was meant to do that, but has deviated from original intent. And, yes, one should simplify the appellate and refund process.
If income tax is scrapped, what will replace it? Every economist should argue direct taxes are superior. If income tax is scrapped, it can’t be scrapped only for personal income, retaining it for corporate taxation. So, there will be a transition from direct to indirect taxation.
While actual revenue numbers depend on elasticities, we need a rough doubling of indirect tax rates, which are inherently regressive. The only argument in favour of indirect taxation is that it’s easier to enforce. Since we can’t or won’t tax rural income, let’s do it via the indirect route. This isn’t a new idea either.
For those who are advocating an abolition of income tax, there also seems a presumption that compliance costs will be zero under the new framework, whatever that new framework is. The argument that there are countries with no personal income taxation won’t wash either. Those are either tax havens or those with large natural resource bases. Besides, a precedence is no argument. Just because Peter the Great taxed beards, should we?
The writer is consulting editor, ET
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.