I want money to spend of West Bengal 

The average annual per capital income in West Bengal is a little less than one lakh and eleven thousand rupees.  How low is the figure?  Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Telangana, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh account for less than half of the per capita income in the state.  The per capita government expenditure is also much lower than in these states.  Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, government spending in West Bengal averaged 16.7% of the state's annual.  The all-India average was 16%.  During the same period, when the per capita government expenditure in Gaeta was 21,500, the figure in West Bengal was 1,600.  The per capita GSDP of this state is low, in fact, West Bengal was tenth in the country in terms of per capita during this period.  But, per capita government spending was lagging behind;  In third place.  Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are the two most backward countries in the country.  However, there were seven states during this period, where the per capita income was lower than that of West Bengal, but the per capita government expenditure was higher.

 To find out why the amount of government expenditure in West Bengal is so depressing, it is necessary to look at the financial situation of the state.  West Bengal's own tax collection is not even seventy percent of the all-India average.  Non-tax revenue collection is even lower than other states.  The amount of revenue collected, including the central allocation, is close to seventy-five per cent of the average all-India average.  West Bengal lags far behind the all-India average in terms of allocations due from the Center.  Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, the central allocation per capita in West Bengal was Rs 750;  The all-India average was 6316 rupees.  So naturally there were a lot of questions about the decision of the Fourteenth Finance Commission.

 The 15th Finance Commission submitted its report last November than the state.  This year it has been officially adopted.  The commission has recommended that 41% of the central tax, the divisible pool of revenue, be distributed among the states.  There is a formula for determining how much money a state will receive.  The formula of the Fourteenth Finance Commission is slightly different from the formula of the Fifteenth Finance Commission.  The most important criterion in the distribution of money is the per capita income distance - the difference between the average per capita income of a state and the per capita income of the richest state in the country.  The greater the gap in the state, the greater the allocation to the sector.  The weightage of this criterion was 50% in the Fourteenth Commission;  In this phase, it has decreased by five percent.  The importance of the population has also decreased from 26.5%.  15%.  The size of the state is important at 15 percent.  Unchanged;  The importance of the amount of forest in the state has increased slightly;  Yag has been low.  The importance of the birth rate, and the importance of the role of the state in tax collection.

 At the time of the Fourteenth Finance Commission, the per capita budget allocation of several GSDP states, including West Bengal, was lower than the all-India average.  Changes in the importance of the two criteria in this phase will have a negative impact on state allocation per capita income distribution, and a decrease in the importance of the state's population.  Allocations will be further reduced.

 West Bengal ranks third in the country after Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in terms of revenue collection from the state, including central allocations.  The Fifteenth Finance Commission's distribution formula will further reduce the allocation to these states.  The point is that in states where per capita income is lower, the average cost of providing public services is lower.  In other words, the money spent by the government to provide public services in Kerala is less than what is spent in West Bengal.  If the word is true, then how much is the difference?  According to the 14th Finance Commission's allocation, Kerala's per capita central allocation is 70 per cent higher than that of West Bengal.  The cost of providing public services certainly cannot be so high.

 The real objection of the rich states, and the strongest argument is actually elsewhere.  The richer states objected to the proposal for a relatively equal share of the central government's tax revenue to be distributed among the states, saying that more taxes were deposited in the central treasury from their states, but less in their share of power, because the poorer states would be paid more.  Heavy injustice.  Even if the word seems to be acceptable, it needs to be broken.  First, the goods and services produced in the relatively richer states are not only sold within the borders of those states — they are also traded in the markets of other states.  As a result, it is difficult to accept that only the rich state has the right to that money.  More importantly, such an argument runs counter to the federal structure of the country.  If more money is allocated to the richer states, they will become richer;  Poor states will be poorer.  The interstate gap in per capita income will continue to widen, even if the amount of income is calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity or purchasing power parity.  Wealthy states may say they should not be punished for being economically well off.  Even if that is to be accepted, some new measures are needed - for example, to increase income in the state as well as inequality, whether it is a lotus, it is necessary to allocate importance to it in terms of distribution.  Wealthy states have another advantage, which is often overlooked.  If the fiscal deficit is tied to three per cent of the GSDP ratio for all states, the higher the GSDP, the greater the fiscal deficit in that state.  In other words, the state will be able to spend more than the poorest states on revenue collection.  Even so, in rich states, the amount of tax and non-tax revenue is much higher than in poor states.  All in all, per capita government spending in rich states can be much higher.  From 2016-17 to 2018-19, the per capita government expenditure in Kerala was more than Rs 32,000;  In West Bengal it was a little less than Rs 16,600.

 According to the statistics, the rulers of West Bengal are responsible for keeping the fiscal deficit within the limits set by the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act.  They have reduced spending by reducing the amount of revenue collected in the state, but have not allowed the fiscal deficit to increase.  In the current unprecedented financial situation, it is better not to be so careful about the fiscal deficit.  Forget about the FRBM Act, let the government spend even if it borrows.  It will reduce the unemployment rate, the health of the economy will return relatively quickly.  In addition, by allying with other low-income states, West Bengal can make a claim not as a proportion of GSDP, but as a fixed amount of the state's fiscal deficit.  If this demand can be realized, the opportunity to spend in the hands of the state will increase, as well as the opportunity to create demand in the market will increase - as a result, the state will be relieved from the problem of demand deficit.  Income inequality will also be reduced from state to state.  According to West Bengal, it is impossible to restore the financial health of the state without making arrangements so that the government can spend even in the poorest states.