Free Reports

Mr Jaitley, Informal Economy Doesn't Necessarily Mean Black Economy

Mar 2, 2017

28

The finance minister Arun Jaitley has been at the forefront in trying to defend the demonetisation or notebandi decision of the Modi government.

He recently said in London: "Demonetisation was a move to change the Indian normal... a new normal had to be created. A predominantly cash economy has now to be substituted with a digital economy, which will bring more money into the banking system and lead to better revenue generation; the integration of the informal economy with the more formal one is now taking place... The post-demonetisation regime is actually going to generate a far bigger GDP in the long run." He also said that the arguments being made in favour of the cash economy were absolutely trivial.

There is much that is wrong with the above statement, but in this column, I would like to just concentrate on the part that I have marked in red in the above paragraph. Before we get into anything else it is important to define the meaning of the term "informal economy". Here is a basic definition. It is that part of the economy which is not really monitored by the government and hence, it is not taxed. But there are several nuances to this as well, which we shall see during the course of this column.

In Jaitley's binary world, the formal economy is good because it brings in tax to the government, and the informal economy is bad, because it does not bring in tax to the government. Demonetisation has managed to create a cash shortage which Jaitley believes will force a large section of the informal economy to move towards becoming formal and allow the government to tax them.

The trouble is economics is never so straightforward. As economist Jim Walker of Asianomics wrote in a research note: "There is nothing intrinsic that says that the informal economy is a less effective or beneficial source of activity than the formal economy." Allow me to elaborate on this.

Advertisement
  The First Step Towards Notebandi 2.0...  
   
  If you believe that Notebandi is over...you're mistaken.

In fact, in my view, the government has already taken the first step towards Notebandi 2.0.

It was a small step, 'hidden' in this year's budget...

But it's something that could have a huge impact on your life!

So, don't delay...

Click here to know all about Notebandi 2.0.
 

Ritika Mankar Mukherjee and Sumit Shekhar of Ambit Capital wrote in a recent research note: "India's informal sector is large and labour-intensive. The informal sector accounts for ~40% of India's GDP and employs close to ~75% of the Indian labour force." The point is that the informal sector forms a significant portion of India's economy and employs three fourths of India's workforce. There are other estimates which say that the informal sector employs more than 75 per cent of India's workforce.

Hence, notebandi has ended up disturbing 75 per cent or more of India's labour force. The cash crunch that has followed has severely disrupted the informal sector. As Mukherjee and Shekhar write in a recent research note: "Panipat in Haryana is the textile hub of North India. It is a ~Rs 31,000 crore industry with Rs 60,000 crore worth of goods being exported. It employs ~350,000 labourers. Whilst our interviews suggested that the export-focused units were largely unaffected, the domestic component of the industry saw business fall by 40-80% as this component of the business is more cash-reliant. As a result, almost half of the 350,000 labourers employed in the region have been temporarily laid off as demand has collapsed in the domestic market and there is no cash to pay the wages." Similarly, in Tirupur, another textile hub, "the units are running only three days a week (compared to 7 days before demonetisation) due to the lack of demand," the analysts point out.

This is something that cannot and should not be taken lightly. Jaitley in his London speech said that notebandi will lead to better revenue generation for the government. This means that the government will end up collecting more taxes.

The assumption here is that informal sector does not pay taxes. This is not totally correct. As I said the argument is slightly more nuanced than this. As I write in my new book India's Big Government-The Intrusive State and How It is Hurting Us: "The National Manufacturing Policy of 2011 estimated that the number of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in India stood at over 26 million (2.6 crore) units. They employed around 59 million (5.9 crore) people. This means that any SME, on an average, employed 2.27 individuals. The Boston Consulting Group estimated that 36 million (3.6 crore) SMEs (or what it calls micro-SMEs) employ over 80 million (8 crore) employees. This means that any SME, on an average, employs 2.22 individuals."

What this clearly tells us is that the size of an average Indian SME is small, in fact, very small and it is a part of the informal sector. They employ around 2.2-2.3 individuals on an average. These firms basically employ the owner and one more person, on an average. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of these firms are own-account enterprises without any hired workers.

The contention is that these people who are a part of the informal economy do not pay any taxes, this includes income tax. The question is do they need to pay an income tax? Let's look at some data. Take a look at Figure 1. It shows the money being made by different categories of people.

Figure 1:

Take a look at the self-employed (remember two-thirds of small and medium enterprises in India are own-account enterprises without any hired workers). 96 per cent of self-employed earn an income of up to Rs 2,40,000 per year. Individuals come under the tax bracket only if they earn more than Rs 2,50,000 lakh per year.

Almost 100 per cent of the casual labour which works in the informal sector earns an income of up to Rs 2,40,000 per year. Hence, a major part of the individuals who work in the informal sector do not need to pay income tax. Given this, even if the government was in a position to collect income tax from these individuals, it wouldn't be able to do so. The point being informal economy does not necessarily mean black economy.

Also, it is worth mentioning here that when these individuals who form a bulk of the informal economy spend the money they earn, they do pay indirect taxes which are built into the products being sold. Over and above this, the money they spend is an income for companies and individuals who are a part of the formal economy and pay income tax. Long story short-the situation is not as simplistic as Jaitley wants us to believe.

Having said this, it does not mean that the entire informal sector is kosher. There are individuals and enterprises who need to pay tax but they aren't. It is these individuals and enterprises that the income tax department should be going after.

Also, more revenue for the government and going cashless doesn't necessarily mean a good thing. As Walker puts it: "There is every reason to worry about the fact that moves towards a cashless economy will benefit banks (transactions cost) and governments (more taxes). The apologists for demonetisation were keen on the fact that it might prove to be an easier way for government to collect revenues. Governments come and governments go and one thing is for sure, they do not all spend money wisely. Giving them more access to individuals' money is demonstrably not unequivocally a 'good thing'."

And that is something worth thinking about.

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

Janet Yellen's Kangaroo Exit Interview November 23, 2017
Janet Yellen, has announced her own retirement. So the race is on for how she'll be remembered... Nick Hubble digs into the central bankers; quarrels.
What the Media Is Missing About Roy Moore November 23, 2017
"I'M WITH THE PERV," screams today's New York Post headline. The accompanying photos show Donald J. Trump...
How the Deep State Squeezed America's Wealth November 22, 2017
Salvator Mundi, said to be by Leonardo da Vinci, is the world's most expensive painting. Last Wednesday...
One Example of How a Good and Simple Tax Should Work November 21, 2017
The filing of the GST needs to be simplified.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Mr Jaitley, Informal Economy Doesn't Necessarily Mean Black Economy". Click here!

14 Responses to "Mr Jaitley, Informal Economy Doesn't Necessarily Mean Black Economy"

Manvendra Kachole

Mar 2, 2017

1. Indirect taxes take care of the taxation part of the informal economy.
2. Use of brute force in this exercise not acceptable under any circumstances.
4. Activities of the state resulting into destruction of assets and forcing people to alter their choices is barbarian.

Like 

Prasanna

Mar 2, 2017

Hello Vivek,

fantastic narration, as usual, help me clarify, [let me play devil's advocate] is the FM/Govt so ill advised that their views are so grossly opposite to yours, or do you see a deliberate design or strategy by the Govt to achieve something which is not transparent, if so as per you what is that hidden agenda ? for example one of the thoughts by the political pundits earlier was that the govt wanted to flush out the prevailing black money from the market to disable money play during the UP elections also the strategy was to STOP funding the Terrorists, please share your views on the same do you think the Govt has achieved this purpose effectively, what is your thoughts ?

BR
Prasanna

Like 

KRISHAN CHANDER ANAND

Mar 2, 2017

There is an economy which consists of receiptless transactions. This economy of receiptless transactions has been impacted adversely, Govt has tried to bring some of the receiptless transactions into receipt transactions through digital transactions. Whatever has been the loss in the receipt transactions under notebundi has been compensated by the digital transactions which used to take place under receiptless transactions. There is no way to show that the receiptless transactions are not black money transactions. The real size of the GDP in Indian economy would be known when all transactions are recorded. Please do not fool the people by your analysis of receiptless transactions. These receiptless transactions are part of the black money which the minister Jaitly calls an informal economy.

Like (3)

RAJIV SALARPURIA

Mar 2, 2017

I think GST is the best thing to have happened to India for a long time . Should GST prove successful , scrap the Income Tax Act altogether - so there'll be no more black-white , ek number-do number , formal-informal .

Like (3)
<<Prev   
Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Mr Jaitley, Informal Economy Doesn't Necessarily Mean Black Economy". Click here!