Centre collects revenue from south, spends on north: Andhra Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu

[manlion]

Hariyana & Delhi roughly contribute more to north indian states then south India.pooer states get funds because they need to develop. Ofcourse a false flager like yourself won't care anyway

the top 3 tax contributing states are Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana and Tamilnadu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_tax_revenues

You cant use poor as an yardstick , why is it that only the Hindi speaking states reap the benefit of South Indian states tax ? What about the NE states are they rich in comparison ? South laborers (Malayalis, Tamils) slog in ME and Far East (Singapore-Malaysia etc ) to feed lazy Indian cow belts. You are penalizing the hardworking south to feed bums to produce more babies

you can remain a sucker forever blinded by fake nationalism, thats your choice.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Let's not forget that their population is also bigger. The population of South India is 250 million while UP alone is 207 million.

Sir, pls stop makeing statues in UP and other north Indian states. They are worth 1000 of crores and money down the drain.

Also there is a concept called population control. Making 10 children and saying god will provide them with livelyhood is the main reason we are a middle income group till now. Everyone wants quality life. We are not cattle class people.

 

[SrNair]

The rules are the same for the other
Out of the Rs 6,928 crore cost, the Centre will fund Rs 1,300 crore in the form of equity and subordinate debt.

This is what Jaitley has been arguing about and he's right. Only the special status states get 90% centre funds, and this is what Naidu wants for AP.

Also you forget that while our states submitted to the British, it was some of the poorest states today that fought against British rule. That's why they did not receive any economic aid during British times, and that's biting them now. We are merely ahead because we took advantage of our servitude to the British. The same with Punjab.

The world over weaker economies are helped by stronger economies. That's why Poland gets a surplus of funds compared to their EU contribution while the UK has a deficit. The WTO too expects stronger states to sacrifice for the weaker ones.

You also have to consider that with our states with better industries, the richer the highly populated, underdeveloped states get, the more we can sell to them due to the open door policy we have with other states. They are our captive markets. If you let them develop more slowly, then they will capture our industries and start selling to us due to the rising labour cost difference between the rich and poor states. The labour cost difference shouldn't get larger than it is today.



India is divided into 6 zones. North, South, East, West, Central and Northeast.

The West (Guj, Maha and Goa) and South are the richest. The rest are the poorest. If you divide the country between these two regions, then the GDP of the west+south is $1.35T and the rest of India is $1.2T. So it's more or less the same.

Wrong . When we got the independence,
Kerala,TN etc was the most poorest states.
UP,Bihar etc was richest states.
Thanks to their own behaviour now it is totally upside down

 

[itachii]

Naidu is making the mistake of his life...

he seems to be of the opinion that BJP is the same party of Advani & Atal.
He has not grasped at the blunder he has done. He should have a quiet talk with Nitishwa before he makes a blunder he cannot recover from.

You s houpd realise that AP is no Bihar. Let me know when BJP can win a ward member here.

Let's not forget that their population is also bigger. The population of South India is 250 million while UP alone is 207 million.

Stop this already. Population is bigger bcz they are breeding like rabits.

For ex: MP was just 30% more populatedd over kerala during the time of Independence. Today MP makes up 210% of kerala population. Even today the TFR in all SI states is below 1.8 while it 3.1 and 3.3 for UP and Bihar.

Wrong . When we got the independence,
Kerala,TN etc was the most poorest states.
UP,Bihar etc was richest states.
Thanks to their own behaviour now it is totally upside down

Not to forget the way south Indians were humilated by NI. The attacks on SI in mumbai. Even today you find people in north dissing against us.

 

[ashok mourya]

Can some one share statewide revenue collected by centre and distribution. Kashmir in north getting unfairly high central fund without giving much revenue.

 

[randomradio]

Wrong . When we got the independence,
Kerala,TN etc was the most poorest states.
UP,Bihar etc was richest states.
Thanks to their own behaviour now it is totally upside down

Kerala was under a kingdom, that's why Kerala's HDI was high. TN was nowhere near poor because of Madras Port. The Nizam of Hyderabad was the richest man in the world and his kingdom was also rich. So was the Mysore Kingdom.

UP and Bihar were agrarian states and were extremely poor. Their participation in the First War of Independence sealed their fates there.

Sir, pls stop makeing statues in UP and other north Indian states. They are worth 1000 of crores and money down the drain.

Also there is a concept called population control. Making 10 children and saying god will provide them with livelyhood is the main reason we are a middle income group till now. Everyone wants quality life. We are not cattle class people.

South Indian states also produced babies at that pace. It's come down only since the last 10-20 years.

Kerala's TFR came down to 2.1 in 1988 and TN's in 1993. But AP's came down only in 2004 and Karnataka's in 2006.

But the north's greater population is an advantage for us. They will eventually get richer and will become a much more advanced market for us.

Think about it this way. Even if all of South India leaves the rest of India, even then the population of India will be bigger than a billion people. That's the market size up there. We should count ourselves lucky to have received such a huge market all for ourselves.

Can some one share statewide revenue collected by centre and distribution. Kashmir in north getting unfairly high central fund without giving much revenue.

It's a special status state.

These are the parameters to qualify to be one:
1. Hilly and difficult terrain
2. Low population density
3. Strategic location along the borders of the country
4. Backward economy and infrastructure
5. Non-viable nature for state finances

Not to forget the way south Indians were humilated by NI. The attacks on SI in mumbai. Even today you find people in north dissing against us.

We attack North Indians and Northeast Indians in South India.

By 1951 census, Tamilnadu population was larger than Bihar, by 2011 Bihar is over 1.5 times Tamilnadu and expanding. So it would seem you also fault Tamilnadu for not producing enough babies as Bihar did, right? We cannot compensate states for overbreeding. Tamilnadu with smaller families progressed faster. Similar is the case with all other south states.

If you are to provide for more funds to populated states provide condition based aid. Provide for further aid only if they live up to those conditions. Why would south want to compensate for lazy north?

I see it as an advantage for TN here. As long as Bihar's population increases, TN's market also increases. Sell them cars when they are ready for it.

Either you do not understand what is going on or you pretend not to understand.

Yes, UP population is more. So they should pay more taxes and get more from centre. That does not happen. They pay less tax but get more from centre.

Tamil Nadu gets back from India Rs. 45 for every Rs. 100 it pays in taxes. If everything is fair, UP should also get the same ration. But UP gets back from India Rs. 179 for every Rs. 100 it pays in taxes. That is not fair.

Poorer regions pay less taxes because their base is lower.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

Kerala was under a kingdom, that's why Kerala's HDI was high. TN was nowhere near poor because of Madras Port. The Nizam of Hyderabad was the richest man in the world and his kingdom was also rich. So was the Mysore Kingdom.

UP and Bihar were agrarian states and were extremely poor. Their participation in the First War of Independence sealed their fates there.



South Indian states also produced babies at that pace. It's come down only since the last 10-20 years.

Kerala's TFR came down to 2.1 in 1988 and TN's in 1993. But AP's came down only in 2004 and Karnataka's in 2006.

But the north's greater population is an advantage for us. They will eventually get richer and will become a much more advanced market for us.

Think about it this way. Even if all of South India leaves the rest of India, even then the population of India will be bigger than a billion people. That's the market size up there. We should count ourselves lucky to have received such a huge market all for ourselves.



It's a special status state.

These are the parameters to qualify to be one:
1. Hilly and difficult terrain
2. Low population density
3. Strategic location along the borders of the country
4. Backward economy and infrastructure
5. Non-viable nature for state finances



We attack North Indians and Northeast Indians in South India.



I see it as an advantage for TN here. As long as Bihar's population increases, TN's market also increases. Sell them cars when they are ready for it.



Poorer regions pay less taxes because their base is lower.

The big population equals big market holds true if education and as a result job opportunity increases. If we increase our per capita income then we are in a position to dictate, otherwise these young population will become a burden on the country. We cannot subsidise those who have not for a long period. The trick is to make them educated and increase income through job or business.

If you keep on subsidising them, then as you know, WE are the masters of Sab chaltha hair....

 

[randomradio]

The big population equals big market holds true if education and as a result job opportunity increases. If we increase our per capita income then we are in a position to dictate, otherwise these young population will become a burden on the country. We cannot subsidise those who have not for a long period. The trick is to make them educated and increase income through job or business.

If you keep on subsidising them, then as you know, WE are the masters of Sab chaltha hair....

We have no choice but to subsidize poor regions. The best case is income equality in all states, which is unrealistic. But the faster the poor regions grow, the better it is for us.

But the majority of the country being poor has also helped richer states. It's because the bigger, poorer states bring down the overall economic and HDI figures of the country and the richer states get a trade advantage because of that. If it wasn't for the poorer states, our overall economy would be much higher and we would get treated differently according to the WTO rules. For example, we will have to lift most of our high import tariffs if we move into middle income status.

The unity further helps, because that makes India look larger and powerful than it really is and this helps cement partnerships much more easily. We are more important because we are bigger. The EU works on the same concept. The US wouldn't be treating us as good as they are today if we were not united. Even South India would be treated like Japan, which isn't an upgrade.

Anyway the poorer states have been on an upward trend. They are growing at the rates we were 10+ years ago, so they will come up to our level today in 10 years's time. So that market is blossoming.

 

[kvpak]

We have no choice but to subsidize poor regions. The best case is income equality in all states, which is unrealistic. But the faster the poor regions grow, the better it is for us.

We the south "Indians" are subsidizing Hindi belt for 70 years. Enough is enough.

Hin-dians have learned that why work in the field or factory during the day, all you have to do is work on producing children at night. Then with higher population, you can plunder non-Hindi states.

You say "We have no choice but to subsidize poor regions." There is a way. Separate from India and form your own country or 4 countries. Singapore or Malaysia or Burma are not subsidizing Hind-ians. Why should south "Indians"?

 

[randomradio]

We the south "Indians"

You are from Northwest India.

Hin-dians have learned that why work in the field or factory during the day, all you have to do is work on producing children at night. Then with higher population, you can plunder non-Hindi states.

You say "We have no choice but to subsidize poor regions." There is a way. Separate from India and form your own country or 4 countries. Singapore or Malaysia or Burma are not subsidizing Hind-ians. Why should south "Indians"?

Northwest Indian proven.

 

[protest]

We have no choice but to subsidize poor regions. The best case is income equality in all states, which is unrealistic. But the faster the poor regions grow, the better it is for us.

But the majority of the country being poor has also helped richer states. It's because the bigger, poorer states bring down the overall economic and HDI figures of the country and the richer states get a trade advantage because of that. If it wasn't for the poorer states, our overall economy would be much higher and we would get treated differently according to the WTO rules. For example, we will have to lift most of our high import tariffs if we move into middle income status.

The unity further helps, because that makes India look larger and powerful than it really is and this helps cement partnerships much more easily. We are more important because we are bigger. The EU works on the same concept. The US wouldn't be treating us as good as they are today if we were not united. Even South India would be treated like Japan, which isn't an upgrade.

Anyway the poorer states have been on an upward trend. They are growing at the rates we were 10+ years ago, so they will come up to our level today in 10 years's time. So that market is blossoming.

Of course you have choice, change the policy of economic distribution. Let the centre maintain only defense and foreign affairs. Collect minimal central taxes for the same and allow states to formulate their own strategies to develop themselves. Progressive states can address their local needs better when they have the means. No more 'one size fit all' central schemes. Promote cooperative competition not subsidization. Set up annual developmental targets. States that don't live up to targets should have their developmental schemes monitored by either an independent committee or a committee from centre. Do this, things will change with in a decade. Add accountability to governance and we could be China.

And you keep saying UP being bigger population we get their market. Whats the use of the market if they remain poor. They remain so because we are assisting to their laziness. Stupidity is when we keep doing the same expecting a different result. If the present distribution continue we will be half purchasing our products to north forever.

And imo you are being way too generous where it isn't required. What we all been saying is the truth and our constitution provided us with the rights to question the wrong.

 

[SrNair]

Kerala was under a kingdom, that's why Kerala's HDI was high. TN was nowhere near poor because of Madras Port. The Nizam of Hyderabad was the richest man in the world and his kingdom was also rich. So was the Mysore Kingdom.

UP and Bihar were agrarian states and were extremely poor. Their participation in the First War of Independence sealed their fates there.



South Indian states also produced babies at that pace. It's come down only since the last 10-20 years.

Kerala's TFR came down to 2.1 in 1988 and TN's in 1993. But AP's came down only in 2004 and Karnataka's in 2006.

But the north's greater population is an advantage for us. They will eventually get richer and will become a much more advanced market for us.

Think about it this way. Even if all of South India leaves the rest of India, even then the population of India will be bigger than a billion people. That's the market size up there. We should count ourselves lucky to have received such a huge market all for ourselves.



It's a special status state.

These are the parameters to qualify to be one:
1. Hilly and difficult terrain
2. Low population density
3. Strategic location along the borders of the country
4. Backward economy and infrastructure
5. Non-viable nature for state finances



We attack North Indians and Northeast Indians in South India.



I see it as an advantage for TN here. As long as Bihar's population increases, TN's market also increases. Sell them cars when they are ready for it.



Poorer regions pay less taxes because their base is lower.

Kerala was under Kingdom ,except in some social reforms .There was no money here .Hdi ridiculous
Literally poverty from top to bottom.
You can check in google .
When we got independence it was around bottom 3,Kerala.We migrated to North India especially in Mumbai and they attacked us.
Then in 60s ,70s Gulf boom begun.

It was literally exodus to the ME deserts for helping families in Kerala.One generation melted in that deserts ,so we Keralites have this boasting HDI .
Neither Centre nor State gives anything .
Still relying on NRI also.

Where is the proof bro ?
This practise of funneling the money from hardworking states(both South,West) to Hindi belt is continuing around one decade .
Education very poor with a lots of cheating .Nothing on ground ,illiteracy.Ever increasing population with total unskillness,corruption.
Practical absence of rule of law .etc .
Especially Bihar,UP.
No development .If India faces a brutal gangrape case then that would be possibly from there .

 

[pothead]

You s houpd realise that AP is no Bihar. Let me know when BJP can win a ward member here.

BJP won MP seat from AP...
In fact in 89, BJP had nearly 20% vote share in AP. People, especially kids have short memories.

Naidu is still thinking the current BJP is of Ata;'s mould. May be he realized that this is Shah's BJP where they kicked out Left from Tripura in 1 year.
You think BJP can't repeat the same in AP?

dear sir, AP politics is all about caste.
Caste rules in AP. Get few regional caste satraps on your side and see how TDP and YSR crumble.

 

[manlion]

BJP won MP seat from AP...
In fact in 89, BJP had nearly 20% vote share in AP. People, especially kids have short memories.

Naidu is still thinking the current BJP is of Ata;'s mould. May be he realized that this is Shah's BJP where they kicked out Left from Tripura in 1 year.
You think BJP can't repeat the same in AP?

dear sir, AP politics is all about caste.
Caste rules in AP. Get few regional caste satraps on your side and see how TDP and YSR crumble.

at the moment its in his favour

 

[pothead]

at the moment its in his favour

Sure it is now but one year is a life time in politics.
It took BJP less than one year to capture Tripura. Don't forget that fact.....EVER