Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:08:34.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equity versus Ease in Indian Land Tax Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

J. F. J. Toye
J. F. J. Toye
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the central choices that confronts designers of direct taxes is that of the precise combination of equity and administrative ease. Both equity and administrative ease are normally accepted as desirable objectives in the design of taxes. But the objectives conflict with each other. Equity requires a tax sufficiently flexible to adjust the size of the tax payment to the individual taxpayer's ability to pay. Administrative simplicity, by contrast, requires a tax where the due payment can be quickly and simply calculated, and promptly and conveniently collected. Thus tax designers face the painful dilemma of being able to achieve improvements in equity only by increasing the difficulty of tax administration, or, alternatively, of being able to reduce these difficulties only by accepting additional inequities.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 285 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bird, Richard M., Taxing Agricultural Land in Developing Countries (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1974), pp. 221, 282–6.Google Scholar

2 Report of the Committee on Taxation of Agricultural Wealth and Income (Chairman: Professor K. N. Raj), Government of India, Ministry of Finance (New Delhi, 1972).Google Scholar

3 Bird, Taxing Agricultural Land, p. 294.Google Scholar

4 Joshi, T. M., Anjanaiah, N., and Bhende, S. V.Studies in the Taxation of Agricultural Land and Income in India (Asia Publishing House, London, 1968), pp. 197–212.Google ScholarCf.Angrish, A. C., Direct Taxation of Agriculture in India (Somaiya Publications, Bombay, 1972), pp. 224–9.Google Scholar

5 Little, I. M. D., ‘Tax Policy and the Third Plan,’ in Rosenstein-Rodan, P. N. (ed.), Pricing and Fiscal Policies (Allen and Unwin, London, 1964), pp. 66–8.Google ScholarCf. National Accounts Statistics 1960–61—1973–74, Government of India, Central Statistical Organization, New Delhi, February 1976, p. 12 (Table 4) and p. 67 (Table 26).Google Scholar

6 Report, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., p. 9.

8 Ibid., p. 8. Cf.Raj, Krishna, ‘Intersectoral Equity and Agricultural Taxation in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Special Number, August 1972.Google Scholar

9 Raj, K. N., ‘Direct Taxation of Agriculture’, Indian Economic Review, Vol. VIII (New Series), No. 1 (April 1973), p. 5.Google Scholar

10 Bird, , Taxing Agricultural Land, p. 221.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., pp. 63–4; Report, pp. 19, 39.Google Scholar

12 Bird, , Taxing Agricultural Land, pp. 209–10.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Best, M. H., ‘Political Power and Tax Revenues in Central America’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1 (March 1976), p. 61, note 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 E.g., Garg, J. S., ‘Resource Mobilization in the Agricultural Sector: Tax on Agricultural Income—An Appraisal’, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XXX, No. 3 (July–September, 1975), p. 62.Google Scholar

15 Thavaraj, M. J. K., ‘Raj Committee Report’, Social Scientist, Vol. 1, No. 10 (May 1973), p. 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Raj, , ‘Direct Taxation of Agriculture’, p. 9.Google Scholar cf. Rao, C. H. Hanumantha, ‘Agricultural Taxation: Raj Committee's Report’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. VII, No. 48 (25 November 1972), p. 2346.Google Scholar

17 V. Siva Rama Krishnan and G. S. Oka, ‘Feasibility of a Switch-over to Agricultural Holdings Tax: A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab’, Discussion Paper (I.E.S. Training Programme, Batch VIII, Seminar 3) Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, 18 February 1976, p. 5.

18 Report, p. 9.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 40.

20 Ibid., p. 11. Cf.Appu, P. S., Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (New Delhi, 1972), pp. 62–6.Google Scholar

21 National Accounts Statistics, p. 16 (Table 5).Google Scholar

22 Report, p. 43.Google Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., pp. 19–20.

25 Ibid., p. 40.

26 Sen, A. K., ‘An Aspect of Indian Agriculture’, Economic Weekly, Annual Number, 1962.Google Scholar

27 Lipton, M., ‘The Theory of the Optimising Peasant’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3 (April 1968), pp. 327–48.Google Scholar

28 Cf.Bird, Taxing Agricultural Land, p. 219,Google Scholar and Ecklund, G. N., Financing the Chinese Government Budget (Edinburgh University Press, 1966), pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

29 Cf.Bird, , Taxing Agricultural Land, p. 221.Google Scholar

30 Cf.Peston, M., ‘Incentives, Distortion and the System of Taxation’, in Crick, B. and Robson, W. A., (eds), Taxation Policy, Penguin Books (London, 1973), p. 59.Google Scholar

31 Ecklund, , Financing the Chinese Government Budget, pp. 36–39.Google Scholar