Pradeep Gyawali's objection to the imposition of taxes on education, health and electricity

Kathmandu, 17th June. CPN-UML Deputy Secretary General Pradip Gyawali has expressed his disagreement with the additional tax imposed on education, health and electricity in the budget of the financial year 2083/24 brought by the Balendra Shah-led government.  In the budget presented by Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle yesterday, he also opposed it after imposing an additional 3 percent tax on education equalization fee and health equalization fee and 5 percent on electronic consumers.

Commenting on the budget, he said, 'The issue of borrowing by the government which was formed by creating a commentary on borrowing yesterday is contradictory.' His comments on the budget are as follows:   Opposition to the budget presented yesterday - In the first budget of the government, which stood on the foundation of the comment that the country was drowned in debt in the past, it managed 6 trillion 57 billion of external debt of 92 trillion 47 billion and internal 4 trillion 10 billion.  

- By proposing 20 percent capital expenditure of the total budget, 7 percent economic growth has been envisioned, which seems impossible.   - The government, which has promised to free people from the burden of taxes, has made a new arrangement to levy VAT on electricity tariffs for household purposes and ride sharing. In the name of education equalization fee, it has been announced that 3 percent education tax will be collected from parents who send their children to private schools and 3 percent health equalization fee from patients treated in private hospitals, not from school or hospital management. Looking at the recent removal of health insurance from private hospitals, health care will become very rare for the public.

  - Many attractive concessions for the middle and upper class, including raising the minimum limit of income tax exemption to 10 lakhs and lowering the maximum limit to 29 percent, this budget has not brought forward any concrete relief except for some abstract terminology for the 20 percent more poor citizens who have to live on an income of less than 2 dollars a day, daily wage earners in the unorganized sector and those who work in risky jobs abroad. - There is no long-term thinking in the budget about connecting the economy of Nepal with the economy of the neighboring countries through physical, digital and economic connectivity and benefiting from their achievements. The conflict in West Asia, the global trade tension, the crisis in the world system and its effects, the rapid development of science and technology displacing human labor, the budget also seems absolute about the contraction it can bring to foreign employment.

- There is no concrete plan to increase employment in the country in the government's budget, which is based on the comment that the old parties forced the youth to go abroad. Instead, foreign employment seems to be promoted more. 9 The government's priority is to deliver passports door-to-door.0   - It seems that no attention has been paid to promoting farmers who do agricultural business on a small piece of land or to protect indigenous agricultural produce from foreign competition.

  - Even if the size of the budget increases, the returns will be low and the budget efficiency ratio will remain weak. The analysis of economist Dr. Resham Thapa and the comments made by Shivprasad Dhungana that the budget is based on supply-side economic principles that feed the elites seem to be objective.   - Certainly, the continuation of the large infrastructure under construction, the cancellation of unnecessary structures, the promise to make the customs duty of raw materials lower than that of ready-made goods, and the simplification of taxes seem to be positive.