Why Does Economic Survey Not Talk About Subsidy on Stocks? - Vivek Kaul's Diary
Free Reports

Why Does Economic Survey Not Talk About Subsidy on Stocks?

Feb 29, 2016

28

I know this piece is not going to go down well with a section of readers. Nevertheless, I think this is an important point and needs to be made.

In January 2016, the prime minister Narendra Modi during the course of a speech had said: "Why is it that subsidies going to the well-off are portrayed in a positive manner? Let me give you an example. The total revenue loss from incentives to corporate tax payers was over Rs 62,000 crore... Dividends and long-term capital gains on shares traded in stock exchanges are totally exempt from income tax even though it is not the poor who earn them."

Not surprisingly, the Economic Survey released on February 26, 2016, under the leadership of Arvind Subramanian, the chief economic adviser, has a chapter titled Bounties for the Well-Off, dedicated to the implicit subsidies on offer to the rich.

The Economic Survey focuses on "seven areas: small savings schemes, kerosene, railways, electricity, LPG, gold, and aviation turbine fuel (ATF)," and calculates the implicit subsidies available to the rich. The total cost of the implicit subsidies works out to Rs 1.03 lakh crore, as per the survey. Now that's a huge number.


Advertisement
  Missed The Conference?  
Let The Conference Come To You...
   
  The Equitymaster Conference 2016 was a grand success!

This year, we had some of most valued members join us from more than 20 cities across India and from international destinations like United Kingdom, UAE, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia too.

However, if due to any reason you missed out on joining us at The Taj...

Allow us to bring The Complete Equitymaster Conference 2016 to you!

Yes, here's your opportunity to get online-access to the complete Equitymaster Conference 2016 - The Modi-fied India Story.

Right from the welcome address to the concluding remarks...and everything in between.

Watch Ajit Dayal and Bill Bonner deliver their keynote addresses...Vivek Kaul reveal the true Modi-fied India Story...Asad & Apurva reveal the future of trading...Rahul Shah & Tanushree decode the Indian Consumption Story... and more.

All from the comfort of your home!

Click here to reserve your online access...
 

One of the investment avenues that the Economic Survey calculates an implicit subsidy on is the public provident fund (PPF) scheme in which an individual can invest up to Rs 1.5 lakh every year. While calculating the taxable income, the amount invested in the PPF scheme can be claimed as a deduction. Further, the amount that the investor gets on maturity is also tax-free. This pushes up the effective returns on PPF.

As the Economic Survey points out: "The effective returns to PPF deposits are very high, creating a large implicit subsidy which accrues mostly to taxpayers in the top income brackets. The magnitude of this implicit subsidy is about 6 percentage points - approximately Rs 12,000 crore in fiscal cost terms."

Along similar lines, the subsidy on the cooking gas cylinder is also captured by the rich. As the Survey points out: "LPG consumers receive a subsidy of Rs 238.51 per 14.2 kg cylinder7 (as in January 2016), which amounts to a subsidy rate of 36 per cent (ratio of subsidy amount to the market price). It turns out that 91 per cent of these subsidies are accounted for by the better-off as their share of consumption of LPG in the total consumption is about 91 per cent; while the poor account for only 9 per cent of LPG consumption and hence only 9 per cent of subsidies go to them."

What Subramanian doesn't talk about in the Economic Survey, are the issues on which Modi talked about in January i.e. the implicit subsidy on there being no tax on dividends earned through shares as well as no long-term capital gains tax on selling shares. The reason for that is obvious. It was said that prime-minister Modi was wrongly briefed on the issue at that point of time. And that is largely correct.

Companies distributing dividends, do pay a dividend distribution tax (DDT) to the government. Hence, to that extent the dividend is not tax free in the hands of the investor. If there was no DDT, the shareholders would have received a higher dividend. Nevertheless, the tax is just a better way for the government to collect tax, than collecting it from the investors who earn dividends and then hoping that they declare the divided while filing their tax returns and pay a tax on it.

As far as long term capital gains on shares are concerned, currently there are no taxes to be paid, if the investor sells shares, after holding them for a period of one year or more. The government collects a securities transaction tax (STT) every time an investor buys or sells shares, through a stock exchange.

The STT is collected in lieu of there being no long-term capital gains on selling of shares. In 2014-2015, the government collected close to Rs 6,000 crore through the STT. Also, like DDT, STT is just an easier way of collecting tax, in comparison to the long-term capital gains tax.

Nevertheless, it still does not explain why Subramanian did not calculate the implicit subsidy on there being no long-term capital gains tax on selling shares. A calculation would have told us whether the long-term capital gains tax that could have possibly been collected is more than the amount that the government is collecting through STT.

If the difference is substantial, then the government needs to look at taxing long-term capital gains as well, in the years to come. Obviously, this move will not go down well with the rich who benefit from this implicit subsidy. As David Foster Wallace writes in The Pale King: "We've changed the way we think of ourselves as citizens. ... We think of ourselves now as eaters of the pie instead of as makers of the pie."

Also, it needs to be pointed out that many stock market investors do not like the idea of a long-term capital gains tax on stocks. They also justify the short term capital gains tax at 15%. This rate is much lower than the highest rate of 30% that needs to be paid on all other kinds of income.

The logic is as follows. Stock market investment is risky in comparison to other forms of investing where the amount of money invested is more or less guaranteed. Also, through the stock market entrepreneurs raise capital and investors need to be encouraged to invest in new businesses, and hence, there is no long-term capital gains tax on stocks.

While this may have been valid in the twentieth century, it is worth asking whether this continues to make sense. As the celebrated British economist John Kay writes in Other People's Money-Masters of the Universe or Servants of the People? : "The first companies to obtain listings on modern markets were companies like railways and breweries, with large requirements for capital for very specific purposes. Building a railway is expensive, and once you have built it the only thing you can do with it is run trains. You cannot use a brewery except to brew beer. Early utilities and manufacturing corporations raised large amounts of money in small packets from private individuals."

But does that continue to hold good? Do entrepreneurs continue to use the stock market to raise capital for new ventures? As Satyajit Das writes in The Age of Stagnation: "The nature of stock markets has been changed by alternative source of risk capital: the high cost of a stock market listing, particularly increasing compliance costs; increased public disclosure and scrutiny of activities, including management remuneration; and a shift to different forms of business ownership, such as private equity."

What this means is that more and more entrepreneurs are now raising money through other routes, in the initial stages of their business. This becomes clear in the Indian context from the fact that the number of initial public offerings have come down over the years. But entrepreneurs continue to raise through other routes like private equity, venture capitalists, debentures etc.

The stock market only comes into the picture when these initial investors want to offload their stocks in the firm. As Kay puts it: "Stock market is not a way of putting money into companies, but a means of taking it out."

Hence, all the logic about investors needing to be encouraged to invest in new businesses doesn't really hold anymore because most of the time, companies now come to the stock market only when they are looking for an exit option for their big initial investors.

In fact, Subramanian and his team could have done some analysis around this issue and told us what portion of the initial public offerings over the last few years raised fresh capital and what portion was investors trying to exit. This is something that the chief economic adviser clearly needs to look at in the next Survey.

And as far as risk of investing in the stock market is concerned. That still remains. But that is the choice that the investor investing in the stock market is making. Why should the government compensate him for it? Beats me.

Vivek Kaul is the Editor of the Diary and The Vivek Kaul Letter. Vivek is a writer who has worked at senior positions with the Daily News and Analysis (DNA) and The Economic Times, in the past. He is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. The latest book in the trilogy Easy Money: The Greatest Ponzi Scheme Ever and How It Is Set to Destroy the Global Financial System was published in March 2015. The books were bestsellers on Amazon. His writing has also appeared in The Times of India, The Hindu, The Hindu Business Line, Business World, Business Today, India Today, Business Standard, Forbes India, Deccan Chronicle, The Asian Age, Mutual Fund Insight, Wealth Insight, Swarajya, Bangalore Mirror among others.

Disclaimer: The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Recent Articles

Trump Takes a Beating August 18, 2017
Donald J Trump, a wrasslin' fan, took a 'Holy Sh*t!' blow on Tuesday.
Which Gods Will Bring Down the US Empire? August 17, 2017
Mr Trump is in the White House and the gods are in their heavens; what's not to like?
Will They Haul Off Trump's Statue, Too? August 16, 2017
All across the country, the old gods become devils. New, gluten-free gods take their places...
Farm Loan Waivers: Why Bad Economics Makes for Good Politics August 14, 2017
It is because the negative effects of the waivers aren't clearly visible.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Why Does Economic Survey Not Talk About Subsidy on Stocks?". Click here!

7 Responses to "Why Does Economic Survey Not Talk About Subsidy on Stocks?"

Prashant

Mar 2, 2016

--"...Dividends and long-term capital gains on shares traded in stock exchanges are totally exempt from income tax even though it is not the poor who earn them."

On dividend part - How come dividend become taxable at shareholder hands?. Isn't it a double taxation? Companies pay dividend to its shareholder (owners) out of net income after paying for all taxes at applicable corporate tax rate. Thus this dividend must come in hands of investors tax free naturally (also collecting dividend tax from companies is more efficient).

Over and above this, there is DDT (Dividend distribution tax) on dividend which doesn't seem logical at all when dividend is paid out of net income (post tax) by companies? Where is question of poor vs rich or any subsidy in this? I see even DDT a double taxation on dividend let alone exploring further taxation at hands of investor?


Pl explain if I am missing something?

Like 

KIRIT SARAIYA

Mar 1, 2016

you have already replied.let me tell you why dividend need to be subsidies. At your leisure please make total of capital shareholders have lost so far in debentures, vanishing of corporations. investing in corporation in initial years without any return,
Probably more number of share holders have lost not only interest but capital too in companies than gainers. should one not think for this sacrifice when company becomes healthy?.

Like 

SATHYAMURTHY

Feb 29, 2016

I don't agree with u Mr. Kaul. While the govt. collects direct taxes, we also bear the brunt of indirect taxes. And pay for the govt's extravaganzas. What is needed is prudent fiscal management. I always tell my collegues one thing-while people try to cheat their govts. govts. try to loot their people.

Like 

rajiv salarpuria

Feb 29, 2016

You give all the answers yourself , and then you refute them yourself , rather funny I'm inclined to beleive . In lieu of chasing every investor and collecting tax on dividends from them (many of whom have income below taxable limit) , the govt. collects much more , and more easily too , by way of dividend distribution tax . In lieu of tax on long term capital gains (for the same reasons mentioned above) , it collects STT which incidently is more , much more , than long term capital gains ever collected . The short term capital gains tax of 15% , doesnot , repeat doesnot , compensate even to a small extent , the risk taken by an investor risking his hard earned money in short term trades . And yet u talk about subsidy on stocks , betraying a total lack of understanding of even rudimentary elements of stock market investing . I have been reading your articles for some time now , and sadly , have found no material furthering my knowledge .

Like 

sethu

Feb 29, 2016

now you should be happy.Dividend above rs. 10 lakh is Taxed.STT has also been raised.

TDS untouched.

Like 

DrHA!

Feb 29, 2016

The points discussed by Vivek Kaul regarding subsidy on stocks have to be well taken by those enjoying the subsidy. Let us think on the lines of Philosophy and Spiritualism/Spirituality. They have to do deep thinking and meditate on the logic put forth by Vivek Kaul. Netas and Economic Advisers in the Ministry of Finance need not wait till the next(2017?) Economic Survey for an analysis of the points discussed by Vivek Kaul. Will someone (can be even Equitymaster) able to bring this write-up) to the attention of the concerned authorities so that the powers be able to think and do survey. There may be ways to implement it earlier to next budget.You know, they know better to administer.

Like 

Vikas

Feb 29, 2016

An excellent analysis. As always Vivek hits it right on the head. Our 'venerable' economic institutions and 'experts' on economic analysis should really take many a page out of his book and use them in the pursuit some sensible economic pathways going forward.

Like 
  
Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Why Does Economic Survey Not Talk About Subsidy on Stocks?". Click here!