Re: No new university in Hyderabad
^ No need to get personal bro. I need not write a book on economics. What I wrote has already been established in economics literature. It is well-established that income and wealth in-equalities create social ills. Taxation is considered a tool for redistribution of wealth, with a goal to increase welfare and development , reduce economic inequalities and create a cohesive society. The basic idea of progressive taxation (practiced in almost ALL developed countries) today is to take relatively more from the rich and give relatively more to the poor. I suggest you read up on it.
Bhai-jaan, I am really sorry if you thought that I got personal. Actually, I do not know if I misunderstood you or you really have novel idea that I never came across, hence I was appreciating your idea that I believe would be nice to put on papers, hence book.
Here is what I understood from what you wrote, especially in reply to what I wrote.
We were discussing about opening University in Hyderabad. I wrote that since Hyderabad is big city and give much more taxes than most other cities in Sindh (other than Karachi), they should have university (using public fund) first before government thinks of starting university elsewhere (at present, Hyderabad has no University).
Thus, I linked population and tax payment to right of having university over other areas that have lower population and lower tax payment. I did not say that all taxes should be spent on people who pay taxes, but what I said was that tax-payers have first preference over what they paid, though it does not mean government should not start universities in deprived areas … something government can do once requirements of tax-payers are covered … at least reasonable requirements if not all requirements.
You disagreed and wrote that government should not take into account tax contribution, rather use tax to make facilities for people who are deprived to get them at par, and thus it would be better if government spends tax-payer money to open Universities in deprived areas of Sindh. Your idea was new to me, that I found illogical though that may have some logic to you what I could not understand, so I asked you to write book on this new idea, as maybe people would understand you better.
Now, please do not claim that what you wrote happens in western democracies. I live in United Kingdom, where I had most of my education and also worked many years. I know what is practiced in UK (what I believe must be same throughout developed world), and that is what I wrote, plus I gave logical reason for that too. To me, what you wrote was not only illogical but disastrous policy if government follows. Actually, I believe Pakistan government has followed such policies over time, and it has harmed the country (that I mentioned in my post too).
Actually, most of the time, all governments follow the principle I mentioned, to an extent. UK has local government and for the purpose government has given taxation power to local government that local government spends on local area. Local government taxes are quite high, especially taxes they collect from businesses in the area (I know businesses who are paying £15000 To £25000 a year to local government as tax). On top of that, each household on average pays around £2000 a year to local government as council tax. National government also helps local governments in this respect. Local government can also generate money using various other means (traffic fines, car-parking permits, car-park charges, rent from shops and houses they own, etc).
Thus, you can see that when people pay taxes in UK, a large portion of that get used within the area they live. Actually, such taxes could be much more than income tax for most household (if not all). As for local government, they also spend more within area under their control, from where they expect to collect more taxes, by making that area more liveable than other areas.
Result: If you visit areas where rich and resourceful people live, you will find much more facilities then if you visit areas where poor and deprived live. Even within London, Chelsea, Westminster, Harrow, Richmond etc are much better place to live with better facilities then Hackney, Walthamstow, Forest gate, Brixton, Stratham, etc. Actually, many people with children move from deprived areas to affluent areas within London (if they can afford) just because schooling at affluent areas are much better with better facilities than schooling in run down deprived areas.
Anyhow, British national government collects income tax and National Insurance from people. But then British national government pays many benefits from that tax and national insurance to anyone who qualifies across the country (no area specific). Some benefits are universal that all get (rich and poor), regardless of their financial status. If income of a person is low then National government also helps in paying local government tax (council tax) for that person, as local government tax is not linked with income and all have to pay (or government pay to local government on their behalf). National government also pays for health and education (in most cases). British government also uses the revenue they collect on national expenditures, and thus, even though British government collects taxes from rich and helps poor, still, that is very limited in nature. Effectively, most of the money tax-payers pay gets spent in area they live.
So, it all shows that in UK (and I believe same is all over western democracy), most taxes government collects (local and national) are spent at place where that tax got collected.
[quote]
Cities like Faisalabad, Multan, Rawalpindi, etc are not really far behind Lahore in economic development and people from all over do not migrate to Lahore like crazy. The difference in situation between even Karachi and Hyderabad is huge, forget about cities and towns in interior Sindh. And yes, I would suggest spending more on Bhakkar, Lodhran, Rajanpur, toba-tek Singh and less on Lahore, Multan, or Pindi. That would eventually benefit everyone, including people from larger cities. As of now, almost all big landlords of interior Sindh have a house in Karachi and their children get educated in Karachi. They have no interest in developing their own areas.
[/quote]
I would not like to comment, as when someone says that Multan is as good or not really far behind Lahore in development than my brain stop working. Probably, that is the reason people in Pakistan would always going to stay exploited, politicians would do what they like with taxes (and also with the people who they treat as slaves), and those who have opportunity leave the country, not because they do not like the country, but they do not like injustice, lies, plundering, exploitations, and especially bigotry of people in position.
[quote]
I would always be a proponent of developing smaller cities to reduce the burden of migration on bigger cities and the cost of doing business in smaller towns.
[/quote]
This is one thing I would agree with you. Only difference is about how government could achieve that, as to me, government cannot do that by robing one to feed others, rather government has to do that by good governance, eradicating corruption, and creating opportunities all over country fairly.
[quote]
About universities, most of the major US universities are located in smaller towns or suburbs, away from big cities. Please check the populations of the towns where top US universities are located and how many of them are in 10 biggest cities of USA. I would say that only one-third of top 20 US universities are in BIG cities. I wonder if they got it all wrong.
[/quote]
Again, you have some misunderstanding here. Without going into detail, I would give you an example of how richness of a city that generates high taxes for the country gets many provisions, facilities and infrastructure. My example would be London, that generates most revenue for UK and city I know.
I can tell you that of all UK cities, London has most provisions, facilities and infrastructure. It is not just because London is capital of UK, but reason is simple, that is, London generates most taxes for British government and thus gets provisions, infrastructure and facilities for their contributions in taxes. I may not be able to put all what I can, but would give you some examples.
Before mentioning what London gets for their contribution in taxes to UK, I would like to tell you that city of London (one square mile) is considered as the richest part in the world. If a child is born in city of London, city of London gives that child a welcome gift (that I do not think happens anywhere in the world). In mid 1990s I was working in the city (at Kings College) and once read in ‘local paper’ that city of London at the time was giving £500 gift to baby born as resident of London city (one square mile with post code ‘EC or WC’). I believe that ‘city of London’ must be giving such gift even today and amount must have gone up. Anyhow:
Let see few things that London has (or got for their riches), something no other UK cities can rival.
London has more than 45 Universities and higher educational colleges, most are world class in facilities and ranking. These higher learning institutes are separate from number of highly equipped and well facilitated graduate and under-graduate colleges teaching various subjects, that one can find in all areas around London. Further, there are affiliated colleges too.
UK has 4 Universities amongst top 6 world Universities (2012 ranking). Two of them, UCL (4[SUP]th[/SUP]) and Imperial, (6[SUP]th[/SUP]) are in London. Other two are Cambridge (2nd) and Oxford (5[SUP]th[/SUP]).
London has around 15 medical related Universities and Colleges. 5 of them teach Medicine at degree and post-graduation level (though, the number could be more that I do not know). All of these Universities are world class institutions. They are:
UCL
Imperial
Kings
Barts
St Georges.
Many top British Schools are in London, especially in Harrow and Richmond. Some top boarding schools are in and around London.
River 'Thames' flows through London. So there are beautifully built and well maintained, at least 33 bridges over Thames, all separate in looks and designs, to facilitate people living in London and wanting to cross the river. Actually, they are like few hundred yards apart and all are beautiful.
There are many other unique things in London that one could not find anywhere in the world, like Kew garden, 100s of Museums (including Natural history museums, Science Museum, Victoria and Albert Museum, Royal Museum, British Museum, London Museum, London Transport Museum, etc), London zoo, London aquarium, Madame Tussauds, Royal Opera house, London Eye, Trafalgar Square, London castle, tower of London, etc.
5 international airports serve London.
Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
City
Luton
London is the only city in UK that has extensive underground transport facilities, covering most of London. London busses are very extensive and cover whole city quite effectively. London has number of big shopping centres and sports complexes (government owned). There are hundreds of well stocked Libraries in London, most within miles from each other. One can find 100s of creational facilities, green areas, parks, clubs, restaurants, hotels, etc across London at various places. And so on.
There are number of hospitals in London and almost all major UK specialised hospitals are in London.
London has 366 heavily used railway stations (not underground but rail stations). 13 of them are major railway stations. They are:
Blackfriars
Cannon Street
Charing Cross
Euston
Fenchurch
King’s Cross
Liverpool Street
London Bridge
Marylebone
Paddington
St Pancras
Victoria
Waterloo
And you know what? … Other than London being capital of UK, one major reason for London to have so much is because London contributes most to UK economy in taxes. So, why you think UK government, considered to be mother of all democracies, is doing nothing to make other British cities comparable with London in terms of provisions, facilities, and infrastructure?
