Vipul wrote:In return for its contribution of 73,000 Crores in Tax money, Bombay gets this
The Union Finance Ministry has categorically refused to provide Rs650-crore viability gap fund for the Mumbai Metro project, thus rejecting the Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâ€™s public commitment made to Mumbaikars last year. Its high time Bombayites revolt against being taken for granted and exploited.
Bombay should expect returns commensurate with its actual output of products and services. While services output may be significant, its manufacturing industry has been gutted, or is significantly in the unorganized (black) sector, such as in Dharavi. Just because corporates choose to HQ in Bombay and file returns there does not mean Bombay generates all of their output.
Suraj wrote:Vipul wrote:Going by that logic, very very few cities would be able to get any money for development.Of course Bombay qualifies for that by any yardstick(howsoever narrow it may be).
and most important how would you explain Delhi getting money to the tune of Thousands of Crores every year for its "Infrastructure needs" ?
Do you mean Bombay should receive greater grants on account of its size and importance, or just that it happens to be a reporting place for taxes from a large number of companies ? The former is perfectly fine, the latter, not necessarily so. The article you posted argued the latter. Sure Bombay needs significantly more public investment, as a general statement. No one disagrees with that. It shouldn't argue on the basis of being the tax reporting place for most Indian companies. In any case, the current revenue sharing and urban development investment model is not really going to generate the funds to modernize our cities quickly enough. I've already suggested someone create and provide an initial thrust to an "Urban Development and Public Policy" thread. Would you mind doing that ? Bombay would be as good a case study to begin with as any.
In order for a city to spend on its own infrastructure it needs a degree of financial autonomy to deploy its tax revenues within, rather have a vast hinterland to support as well. Delhi is essentially a city state. Bombay answers to all Maharashtra. The demographic block of non-Bombayite Maharashtrians ensure than Bombay receives less of its own revenues than might otherwise be the case. Sometimes a visionary leader can focus on the big city, but he will end up paying when the whole state votes, e.g. Chandrababu Naidu in AP. In contrast, the big Chinese cities are autonomous municipalities or special administrative regions. Bombay would do very well if administratively forked off in such a manner in order to provide it greater fiscal autonomy. What are the chances of that ? This is a very important subject, and needs its own thread.
Please use this thread to continue discussions.