Tax Base Broadening

TAX BASE BROADENING

1 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

Research Folio 33

By M. Muneer Qureshi DG (DOT)(DT)

T

he mobilization of tax revenue has a direct nexus with the number of taxpayers participating actively in the system set up to levy and collect taxes. In the case of Income Tax the number of persons filing periodic ‘Returns’ vis a vis the total population of the country, is a key indicator of the ‘Tax Base’ for the direct taxation of income earned by individuals and other entities including corporate entities recognized as ‘persons.’ Over the years Pakistan’s (Income) Tax Base has been more or less stable at 1% or less of the total population. In the United States, 72 million Returns of Income are filed annually with the I.R.S which, given a population of 300 million, translates into a tax base of just over 24%. In Malaysia, the tax base is about 20%. In Turkey, 5%. In India, 2%. The ‘tax to GDP’ ratio has a direct correlation with the tax base size and Pakistan’s poor tax base therefore means a poor tax to GDP ratio [ 10%] which ofcourse means poor tax revenues. In fact Pakistan is placed at the lower end of the ‘T2gdp’ spectrum whereas those at the higher end – typically, the Scandinavian countries led by Sweden and Denmark- score well over 40%. What are the reasons for this dismal tax base picture? To begin with, the largest single sector of the Pakistan economy, agriculture, generating 22% of GDP , occupied by 50% of the total population [ ie 80 million plus] and 42.5% of the total labor force [ ie 20 million] pays zero income tax to the federal exchequer because it is ‘exempt’ from payment of income tax under the statute ie the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001 – in fact this sector has been ‘exempt’ since 1947 and the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001 is the third income tax statute to ‘renew’ the exemption originally available for agriculture in 1947 when the Income Tax Act 0f 1922 was adopted as the Income tax Statute for Pakistan. Secondly, Pakistan’s huge and burgeoning ‘Informal sector’ – also known as the ‘black economy’ and the ‘parallel economy’- appraised variously at 35 to 55% of formal GDP- and employing some 20 million out of the total labor force of 47 million. Thus between them, these two sectors, take away 110 million out of the total population of 165 million from the ‘tax net’ leaving barely 55 million to bear the burden of tax on income. It is to be noted that in Pakistan there are some 24 million bank account holders. This means in effect that after accounting for the 1.7 million who do file Returns of Income annually, more than 22 million do not do so. Why? Is their ‘Income’ Exempt? Is is below the taxable limit? No body seems to know. The banks ofcourse have all the relevant data regarding these account holders but the department of Income Tax has no authority to demand these details ‘en masse.’ Nonetheless this data base is there and is a veritable treasure trove of information that could have a direct bearing on the income earned by the account holders. Thirdly, inequalities in the distribution of Income. On the universally recognized ‘Gini Index,’ Pakistan scores a poor 41. This means that a very large segment of the population remains impoverished with income levels below the threshold of taxability. If we are to succeed in augmenting income tax revenues significantly then we have to address the core reasons for the narrow tax base pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. Strictly on merit it is neither fair nor logical to make a distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural incomes for purposes of taxation. A distinction so made arbitrarily amounts to creating a preference for one class of income over the other. Instead of creating such a preference for

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

2 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

which there appears to be no economic justification, it is suggested by the counter exemption lobby that just as business and salary incomes below a certain level are exempted from income tax, the same principle should be extended to agricultural cultural income. This would take care of the subsistence farmers who would be automatically excluded. Levy of income tax on agricultural income is also recommended to reduce the evasion of income tax in Pakistan which is by all accounts, considerable. The availability of statutory exemption for agricultural income has resulted in the systematic exploitation of this exemption by those enjoying non agricultural income. Through the simple expedient of attributing part of their income to agricultural activity they are able to secure substantial tax benefits. In reality of course such people are not actually significantly engaged in agriculture at all. However since they have purchased agricultural land-which may be marginal land or even wasteland (banjar) for all they care- it is not too difficult to hoodwink the federal tax authorities on the bonafides of the investments made by them and attributed to the earnings of their agricultural holdings.

On another and more subtle plane, the "phantom" flow of funds from agricultural to non agricultural business contrived artificially through the creation of "ghost" liabilities, has provided legal cover to substantial investments funded by accumulations of untaxed "black" money. Had agricultural income been subjected to income tax then it would not have been so simple a matter to create such liabilities as the affairs of the agriculturist would have been as much subject to scrutiny as the person engaged in business. So far however, the income tax authorities have no direct record of the agricultural activities. Only sketchy information of dubious origin is relied upon to decide on the bonafides of a reported liability shown as owing to the agriculturist. Again, since bank accounts are as a rule not reported to the tax authorities - only those accounts are reported that "suit" the taxpayer, the cash flow of funds constitute an added impediment in this context as these cannot be monitored. Thus if incomes generated through agriculture were made taxable, the "facilities" presently available through the "devices" mentioned above, for securing huge unwarranted tax benefits, would be effectively neutralized. The feasibility of mobilizing revenues from the agricultural sector through direct taxation of income generated there is also apparent from the fact that the agricultural income tax would be more income elastic than land revenue. With a greater yield per acre, higher procurement prices and mechanization, incomes in the agricultural sector have risen considerably, but yield, in terms of direct taxes on agriculture, has lagged behind appreciably. To illustrate the point, it is pointed out that between 1972 -73 and 1978 -79, the yield from the direct taxation of agriculture (land revenue and irrigation charges) increased by 78%, while value added in agriculture, at current factor cost, increased by 157%. There is every reason to say that this trend continues to this day. That the taxable capacity of the larger farmers (who constitute the rural elite) has improved over time is evident from the considerable increase in consumption expenditure of the rich farmers. According to Alavi, even when there are adverse changes in the terms of trade for agriculture, the rural elite enjoy considerably enhanced real incomes. The conspicuous consumption of the rural elite is not only an indication of the steadily increasing affluence of the rich farmer but it is also a pointer to another evil - that of accentuating differences in income distribution in the agrarian sector. Progressive rates of income tax, if applied to the income of this rural elite, could, over time, alleviate this malady, the persistence of which can only bode ill for the social stability of agraria and for the politico economic well being of the country in general. However one looks at it, there appears to be little justification for a blanket exemption for agricultural income. There is no denying that the small farmer with a limited landholding may not be able to bear the burden of additional taxation. However barring such exceptions, levy of an income tax would appear to be fully justified and even necessary if the negative perception in the other sectors of the economy of such blanket exemption from levy of income tax for the agriculture sector is to be corrected. It is now acknowledged that one of the important reasons for tax evasion in Pakistan in the other sectors of the economy is this ‘unjust preference’ for agricultural income which provides a justification for tax payers enjoying non agricultural income to justify and rationalize tax evasion on their part. In a historical context too, in the case of post Meiji era Japan in the 1880’s when the drive to modernize the country was launched aggressively, taxation of agricultural income was the principal source of revenue to fund the industrialization drive. Paradoxically, the taxation of agricultural income

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

3 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

in Japan did not ‘ruin’ Japanese agriculture as many had predicted. Rather, once the agriculturist realized that agricultural income would ‘have’ to suffer tax, the agriculturist made concerted efforts to increase agricultural productivity by systematic use of natural and chemical fertilizers, use of insecticides and pesticides, better crop rotation, use of improved quality seed , improved water management, use of machinery – the tractor and harvester- , all of which resulted in greatly increased productivity and consequentially, sharply increased income for the farmer which increase made it possible for him not only to pay tax but also left him with a healthy surplus. Part of this surplus was then used to improve the farmers standard of living and quality of life. It is clear that this improvement in agricultural productivity would not have been possible had there been no ‘slack’ in the agriculture sector. Prior to the modernization drive launched in Japan in the 1880’s, agriculture was entirely feudal in it’s organization and structure and absentee landlords owning vast tracts of land let out to harshly exploited tenant farmers had little impetus to increase agricultural productivity. All this changed dramatically once reforms were introduced and taxation levied on agricultural income. In Pakistan, after almost sixty years of independence, there has been little ‘real’ change in the traditional, feudal complexion of our agriculture. True, land reforms have been introduced – but these have been largely cosmetic. The powerful feudal families owning much of the rural land have succeeded in making a mockery of the land reforms by resort to phoney land re-distribution on paper with the active connivance and collusion of the provincial revenue authorities whose parasitic dependence on the ‘largesse’ of the feudals has made them more than willing partners in this reactionary enterprise. As in pre Meiji era feudal Japan, these feudals have little interest in pressuring the tenant farmers to augment land productivity. All they want is their ‘ share’ and once they have received that they call it ‘quits’ and return to their comfortable lives. They know that they will suffer no tax on their income and this adds to the ‘surplus’ that is available to fuel a cycle of conspicuous consumption. That there is a considerable ‘slack’ in the agricultural sector in Pakistan is quite evident from the available statistics [– Source: F.A.O ]. Thus, (in 2004) with a total land area of 0.9% under cultivation, Pakistan’s agricultural production index is pitched at 109 [base year 1989-91=100]. With an identical land area under cultivation, Brazil has a production index of 125. Egypt with 0.5% land area under cultivation has a production index of 109 – the same as Pakistan’s but with far less land under cultivation. Russia has just 0.1% of land area under cultivation and it’s agricultural production index is 114. In the case of aggregate cereal production [wheat, rice, maize], Pakistan is ranked 18th in the world [33 mill tons] while in yield it is ranked 87th in the world [2423 kg per hectare]. Similarly, in the case of cotton production Pakistan is ranked 4th in the world [6.6 mill tons] but in yield is ranked 27th [1935 kg per hectare]. Again, in sugarcane production Pakistan is ranked 5th [57.4 mill tons] and in productivity is ranked 58th [49576 kg per hectare]. The above indices clearly show that there is considerable scope for improvement in agricultural productivity in Pakistan and relying on the historical experience of post Meiji era Japan, there is every reason to expect that the right set of policies – including taxation of agricultural income- will increase agricultural productivity significantly and will enable the farmer to not only pay tax on his significantly increased income but to also improve his own standard of life – as has admittedly happened in the case of Japan – one of the outstanding success stories of our times. Coming now to the informal sector, compulsory (statutory) documentation of all economic transactions is probably the single most important step that can make a significant impact in reducing the size of this sector. A beginning has been made [after 60 years!] and the new income tax ordinance of 2001 now makes it mandatory for all businesses to maintain ‘prescribed’ accounts. However much more needs to be done especially in the case of the large ‘illegal segment’ of this sector where smuggling /hoarding /profiteering and widespread ‘underground manufacture’ and sale of spurious and counterfeit goods with brazen violation of copyright laws generate huge profits on which no tax is paid. A great deal of deterrence will have to be built into the tax code by enactment of appropriate punitive laws. High profile tax evaders need to be taken to task and prosecuted aggressively. Their successful incarceration in a State penitentiary for a protracted period is essential if the criminal elements in the informal sector are to be deterred effectively. With regard to reducing inequalities in the distribution of income, the traditional reliance on the so called ‘progressive’ tax rate structure alone does not appear to have been very successful and much more needs to be done by re-introducing Wealth Taxation and also by direct state intervention to help and facilitate the disadvantaged and underprivileged members of society through better education facilities and healthcare and easier access to institutional credit so that they are able to

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

4 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

compete and improve their economic standing. We have to realize that economic prosperity must ‘trickle down’ to the under privileged sections of society and if the existing institutional arrangements and market forces do not facilitate such a ‘trickle down’ then the State must intervene and ensure that the fruits of prosperity do flow to all sections of society and do not remain concentrated in a few hands. Given greater sectoral equity with regard to levy of tax on income, meaningful reduction in the size of the informal sector and reduction in income inequalities in the distribution of income, there is no reason why the tax base should not be greatly enlarged in size and scope so that we have not only many more taxpayers who file Returns of Income regularly but also declare significantly higher levels of income and eventually when all is said and done, it is these two aspects that will bring about the quantum jump in revenues that is presently, only a distant dream.

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

5 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

6 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

According to researchers and government statistics, in Pakistan 40% of the richest landowners own 70% of the arable land

1-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DENSITY (PERSONS PER SQ KM) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2001) Rank

Country

1 Singapore 2 Djibouti

Value 1,063,967 166,795

3 Kuwait

34,032

4 Bahrain

28,145

5 Andorra

23,310

6 Brunei

12,396

7 Iceland

10,396

8 Malta

10,153

9 Maldives

8,632

10 Oman

8,384

13 Japan

6,879

16 Egypt

5,361

18 Bangladesh

4,284

33 United Kingdom

2,714

41 China

2,168

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

7 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

61 Pakistan

1,694

71 India

1,562

76 Saudi Arabia

1,435

83 Italy

1,357

99 Iran

1,116

111 Mexico

953

128 Malaysia

772

135 Afghanistan

723

141 Brazil

673

142 Turkey

666

169 Sudan

495

176 United States

417

182 Russia

298

186 Canada

176

187 Australia

98

. 2-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION INDEX (INDEX 1989-91=100)

SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 Qatar

144

2 Benin

133

3 Brunei

133

4 Burkina Faso

132

5 Tajikistan

131

6 Brazil

125

7 Romania

125

8 Kuwait

125

9 Nicaragua

124

10 Morocco

122

18 China

118

25 Sudan

115

26 Indonesia

115

30 Russia

114

31 New Zealand

114

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

8 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

40 Iran

111

52 Pakistan

109

55 Egypt

109

59 Saudi Arabia

108

62 Mexico

108

74 United States

107

89 India

105

93 Bangladesh

105

95 Turkey

105

117 Canada

102

136 France

100

146 United Kingdom

98

153 Sri Lanka

97

159 Italy

95

3-ARABLE LAND PER 1000 PEOPLE (HECTRES PER 1000 PEOPLE) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2001) Rank

Country

Value

1 Australia

2,598.7

2 Canada

1,454.2

3 Kazakhstan

1,287.1

4 Argentina

901.4

5 Russia

851.4

6 Lithuania

811.5

7 Latvia

771.8

8 Guyana

688.5

9 Ukraine

667.8

10 United States

630.1

35 Turkey

358.0

39 Brazil

337.4

46 France

309.8

51 Afghanistan

295.0

65 Iraq

246.4

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

9 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

66 Mexico

243.4

76 Iran

215.8

99 Saudi Arabia

158.2

100 India

157.0

105 Pakistan

148.6

109 Italy

141.7

127 China

112.3

133 United Kingdom

99.2

137 Indonesia

89.7

144 Malaysia

81.0

151 Bangladesh

61.6

160 Sri Lanka

46.2

164 Egypt

41.1

187 Singapore

0.2

4-AREA, TOTAL (INCLUDES INLAND WATER AREA) (Source: INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY STATISTICS BUREAUS) Rank

Country

Value (Sq. Miles)

Value (Sq.kms)

1 Russia

6,592,770

17,067,8

2 Canada

3,855,103

9,980,4

3 United States

3,794,083

9,822,4

4 China

3,695,500

9,567,2

5 Brazil

3,300,171

8,543,7

6 Australia

2,966,200

7,679,1

7 India

1,222,243

3,164,2

8 Argentina

1,073,518

2,779,2

9 Kazakhstan

1,049,200

2,716,2

10 Sudan

967,490

2,504,7

13 Saudi Arabia

864,900

2,239,1

14 Mexico

758,452

1,963,5

15 Indonesia

735,359

1,903,7

17 Iran

636,300

1,647,3

29 Egypt

385,229

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

10 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

35 Pakistan

307,374

36 Turkey

300,948

57 Iraq

169,235

66 Malaysia

127,320

70 Italy

116,341

77 United Kingdom

94,251

91 Bangladesh

56,977

192 Vatican City

0.17

795,75

5-CROPS, CEREAL PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 China

465,835,830

2 United States

427,032,700

3 India

249,486,120

4 Russia

82,083,611

5 France

76,804,642

6 Indonesia

71,054,053

7 Brazil

70,844,274

8 Germany

56,009,539

9 Canada

55,286,644

10 Ukraine

46,117,398

11 Bangladesh

43,245,877

13 Australia

38,859,229

14 Turkey

37,441,855

16 Mexico

33,345,896

18 Pakistan

32,681,325

24 Italy

24,653,192

25 United Kingdom

24,623,430

26 Iran

24,372,103

27 Egypt

22,134,251

44 Afghanistan

6,102,395

52 Iraq

4,506,800

69 Sri Lanka

2,801,381

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

11 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

73 Malaysia

2,489,746

77 Saudi Arabia

2,181,474

6-CROPS, CEREAL YIELD (OF ARABLE LAND) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value Oz/Acre

Value (Kgs/Hectre)

1 Belgium

121,049

8,480

2 Netherlands, The

118,871

8,327

3 France

107,006

7,496

4 Ireland

104,663

7,332

5 Egypt

103,367

7,241

6 United Kingdom

101,941

7,141

7 Germany

99,768

6,989

8 United States

97,367

6,821

9 New Zealand

93,562

6,554

10 Japan

90,084

6,311

18 Italy

75,690

5,302

19 China

74,021

5,185

27 Indonesia

60,915

4,267

50 Bangladesh

47,745

3,345

55 Malaysia

46,392

3,250

57 Sri Lanka

46,079

3,228

60 Brazil

45,197

3,166

67 Canada

41,693

2,921

72 Mexico

39,310

2,754

84 Iran

34,953

2,449

86 Turkey

34,644

2,427

34,591

2,423

33,669

2,359

104 Australia

27,932

1,957

106 Russia

27,315

1,913

112 Afghanistan

23,836

1,670

8,718

611

87 Pakistan 89 India

163 Iraq

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

12 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

7-CROPS, COTTON PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 China

19,841,603

2 United States

13,655,807

3 India

4 Pakistan

7,936,641

6,613,868

5 Brazil

3,993,872

6 Uzbekistan

3,891,159

7 Turkey

2,832,940

8 Turkmenistan

2,425,085

9 Australia

1,304,034

10 Greece

1,212,542

12 Egypt

826,733

24 Iran

341,717

29 Mexico

205,192

42 Afghanistan

61,178

47 Bangladesh

49,604

57 Iraq

21,605

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

13 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

8-CROPS, COTTON YIELD (OF ARABLE LAND) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value Oz/Acre

Value (Kgs/Hectre)

1 Israel

63,687

4,461

2 Syria

57,099

4,000

3 Turkmenistan

57,099

4,000

4 Australia

55,007

3,853

5 Spain

53,168

3,725

6 Turkey

50,602

3,545

7 Niger

47,582

3,333

8 China

45,079

3,158

9 Brazil

44,822

3,140

10 Greece

41,872

2,933

11 Mexico

41,725

2,923

13 Egypt

39,653

2,778

16 United States

33,046

2,315

18 Bangladesh

32,118

2,250

26 Iran

27,658

1,938

27,629

1,935

44 Iraq

17,844

1,250

63 Afghanistan

13,918

975

70 India

11,814

828

27 Pakistan

.

9-CROPS, SUGARCANE PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 Brazil

453,060,950

2 India

269,845,810

3 China

102,735,410

4 Thailand

5 Pakistan

70,225,246

57,364,280

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

14 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

6 Mexico

49,743,451

7 Colombia

40,895,749

8 Australia

40,666,468

9 Philippines

30,864,716

10 United States

30,315,005

11 Indonesia

27,116,858

17 Egypt

18,006,255

20 Iran

7,165,024

21 Bangladesh

7,147,387

50 Malaysia

1,322,774

81 Iraq

71,650

10-CROPS, SUGARCANE YIELD (OF ARABLE LAND) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank 1

Country St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Value Oz/Acre 5,286,989

Value (Kgs/Hectre) 370,369

2 Egypt

1,727,259

120,999

3 Senegal

1,588,079

111,249

4 Honduras

1,562,297

109,443

5 Swaziland

1,543,229

108,108

6 Zambia

1,511,458

105,882

7 Malawi

1,498,861

104,999

8 Zimbabwe

1,464,089

102,564

9 Chad

1,447,880

101,428

10 Burkina Faso

1,427,487

100,000

15 Iran

1,325,523

92,857

16 Australia

1,268,985

88,896

26 Brazil

1,075,523

75,343

27 Malaysia

1,070,615

75,000

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

15 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

32 China

1,010,956

70,820

33 United States

1,008,808

70,670

34 Mexico

1,008,003

70,613

852,314

59,707

58 Pakistan

707,692

49,576

70 Bangladesh

566,140

39,660

86 Iraq

309,289

21,667

88 Afghanistan

271,223

19,000

46 India

11-CROPS, WHEAT PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 China

100,674,380

2 India

79,432,552

3 United States

64,905,597

4 Russia

46,517,537

5 France

43,696,722

6 Germany

27,939,182

7 Canada

26,965,070

8 Australia

24,802,004

9 Turkey

23,148,537

10 Ukraine

22,279,585

11 Pakistan

21,789,387

12 United Kingdom

17,312,901

14 Iran

15,432,358

19 Egypt

7,912,231

21 Brazil

6,653,000

28 Afghanistan

4,807,180

35 Mexico

2,755,778

43 Saudi Arabia

1,763,698

48 Bangladesh

1,381,196

12-CROPS, RICE PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

16 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 China

205,834,590

2 India

137,127,530

3 Indonesia

58,532,845

4 Bangladesh

41,788,621

5 Vietnam

39,132,051

6 Thailand

27,778,245

7 Myanmar

25,353,160

8 Philippines

15,652,820

9 Brazil

14,722,800

10 Japan

12,566,349

11 United States

11,274,396

12 Pakistan

8,344,497

14 Egypt

6,613,868

18 Iran

3,747,858

22 Sri Lanka

2,766,581

24 Malaysia

2,407,073

38 Australia

589,737

41 Afghanistan

477,301

43 Turkey

440,925

55 Mexico

211,137

59 Iraq

165,347

13-CROPS, MAIZE PRODUCTION (TONS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2004) Rank

Country

Value

1 United States

328,745,710

2 China

145,350,770

3 Brazil

46,238,657

4 Mexico

22,046,226

5 France

17,353,687

6 India

15,432,358

7 Romania

14,584,714

8 Argentina

14,330,047

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

17 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

9 Indonesia 10 Italy

12,521,208 12,478,164

13 Canada

8,889,369

22 Turkey

3,306,934

32 Pakistan

1,984,160

.

14-EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE AS SHARE OF TOTAL (PERCENT) (Source: INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION – DIFFERENT YEARS) Rank

Country

Value

1 Bhutan

94

2 Burkina Faso

92

3 Rwanda

92

4 Uganda

90

5 Guinea

87

6 Mali

86

7 Guinea-Bissau

85

8 Tanzania

84

9 Chad

83

10 Mozambique

83

27 Afghanistan

70

33 India

67

38 Bangladesh

62

52 Pakistan

48

53 China

47

57 Indonesia

44

65 North Korea

38

69 Turkey

33

75 Egypt

30

89 Iran

23

95 Brazil

21

105 Mexico

18

106 Malaysia

18

129 New Zealand

9

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

18 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

148 Italy

5

150 Australia

5

163 Denmark

3

164 Germany

3

165 France

2

170 Canada

2

172 United States

2

174 United Kingdom

1

15-LAND USE, AREA UNDER PERMANENT CROPS AS SHARE OF TOTAL LAND AREA (PERCENT).

SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2002) Rank

Country

Value

1 Kiribati

50.7

2 São Tomé and Príncipe

49.0

Micronesia, Fed. States of

45.7

3

4 Tonga

43.1

5 Marshall Islands

38.9

6 Grenada

29.4

7 Maldives

26.7

8 Samoa

24.4

9 Comoros

23.3

10 St. Lucia

23.0

13 Malaysia

17.6

15 Sri Lanka

15.5

29 Italy

9.4

37 Indonesia

7.3

38 New Zealand

7.0

52 Israel

4.0

55 Turkey

3.4

59 Bangladesh

3.1

63 India

2.8

95 Mexico

1.3

96 Iran

1.3

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

19 of 20

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

98 China

1.2

107 Pakistan

0.9

109 Brazil

0.9

116 Iraq

0.8

130 Egypt

0.5

144 United Kingdom

0.2

145 United States

0.2

152 Afghanistan

0.2

162 Saudi Arabia

0.1

163 Russia

0.1

16-POPULATION, AGRICULTURAL (THOUSANDS) SOURCE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS (Year 2003) Rank

Country

Value

1 China

851,028

2 India

556,592

3 Indonesia

92,596

4 Bangladesh

77,387

5 Pakistan

75,883

6 Ethiopia

57,319

7 Vietnam

53,797

8 Nigeria

37,977

9 Myanmar

34,278

10 Congo (DRC)

32,602

14 Brazil

26,471

15 Egypt

24,977

18 Mexico

22,442

19 Turkey

20,630

22 Iran

17,253

23 Afghanistan

15,761

25 Russia

13,890

54 United States

5,944

89 Germany

1,804

90 France

1,736

2/12/2009 7:43 PM

TAX BASE BROADENING

20 of 20

105 United Kingdom

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/maq/Desktop/Taxbasebroad.htm

1,001

110 Australia

859

114 Canada

728

2/12/2009 7:43 PM