Cellular Subscribers Pay 30% Taxes, But Why? [LTE]
From the Blog ProPakistani: Cellular Subscribers Pay 30% Taxes, But Why? [LTE] - Cellular Subscribers Pay 30% Taxes, But Why? is a post from: ProPakistani Today we got a letter from annoyed telecom user. She insisted us not to reveal her real name or writing, instead, she wanted us to highlight this issue for her and millions of other cellular customers. Letter said that this cellular subscriber is using a post paid connection, which costs her Rs. 2,000 as monthly rental fee. But, after adding taxes she has to pay over or around Rs. 2,650 each month. Here's how she calculated her taxes: Monthly Rental: Rs. 2,000 Sales Tax (19.5 percent): Rs. 390 Withholding Tax (10 percent after adding sales tax): 239 Total Bill: Rs. 2,629 Now, she's paying additional Rs. 629, on average, every month in the name of taxes. In this situation she has got 2 pleas: Plea to Government: When will you stop looting this country? Are you not fed up yet? What are you giving us against whatever tax you collect? We don't have Gas, Electricity, pure water (and yes I am talking about major cities, not the rural country side area). Will you ever spare us from this hefty tax rate? Plea to Cellular Companies: All the goods we use in our life come with a price. I agree till here! But ever you heard of a home appliance, a doctor fee or anything advertised as Rs. 2,000 but ultimately you will have to pay Rs. 2,629 to buy it? Why do you falsely advertise prices? and not communicate us rates after including all the taxes? You ever heard a term called ethics? Thank you! This very short letter poses very serious question marks over the the business models of government and the cellular companies. ——————————————————— Letter written to ProPakistani reflect readers thoughts, feelings and experiences. ProPakistani may or may not, partially or fully, agree with content of these letters. ProPakistani bears no responsibility in any manner of the content produced in these letters/emails. You can write to us by visiting this page or email us here: letters propakistani.com (remove spaces and replace with @ ) Related posts: Pakistanis Pay Heighest Taxes for Telecom Services in the Region VAT will Reduce Tariffs for Telecom Subscribers Telecom Sector trembled in July 2008 Due to Increased Taxes Celluar Users Will Pay Rs. 31 out of Rs. 100 card as taxes from July 1, 2008 Government Should Lower Taxes on Telecom Services: Cellular Companies Copyright © 2010 ProPakistani.PK . Read Full Post
Rights of the few
From the Blog PkColumnist.com: Rights of the few - ON Dec 13, 2010, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the Berkeley School District in Illinois alleging that it had failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious rights of a Muslim teacher named Safoorah Khan. According to a press release issued by the department, Ms Khan had requested leave in 2008 so that she could perform the Hajj pilgrimage. Her request was denied because the purpose of her leave was found to be unrelated to her professional duties and she lost her job. The United States government, on behalf of Ms Khan, is asking the school district to adopt a policy that respects "the religious observances, practices and beliefs of employees and prospective employees". Ms Khan is also seeking reinstatement to her position, compensatory damages and back pay. Ms Khan's case is notable for several reasons. The decision by the US Department of Justice, a federal body, to fight school authorities for the rights of a Muslim plaintiff reveals an emerging divide between Islamophobia at the state and local levels, and US constitutional commitments to religious equality and freedom. As soon as the Department of Justice issued its release on Ms Khan's case, a tirade of headlines denouncing the decision and accusing the department of 'enforcing Sharia law' appeared on right-wing blogs and conservative talk shows. The ensuing outcry from the American far right was hardly an isolated incident; efforts to ban Sharia law have since popped up in several conservative states. Indiana, Texas and Louisiana are all expected to follow the lead of Oklahoma where a ballot initiative to ban Sharia law passed with a rousing majority last November. Despite the volley of hate federal judges in the US court system have suddenly found themselves faced with, they must take up the task of enforcing constitutionally mandated religious freedoms against the mandate of electoral majorities. The most popular instance of this dynamic occurred in Oklahoma where in Nov 2010, voters voted to amend the Oklahoma state constitution and enable a ban on Sharia law. On Nov 29, federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma city issued an injunction that would prevent the Sharia ban from being enforced and also said that the proposition did not satisfy the demands of the United States Constitution. In her decision, Miles-LaGrange pointed out that the effort to ban the religious law of one particular group went against the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, which prevents the federal government from favouring one faith over another. A targeted ban on a particular faith, she argued, would seem inherently and inevitably to violate this intention. The decision was issued in response to a case filed by an Oklahoma Muslim man who had alleged that his rights to religious freedom were being violated by the proposed ban. Numerically, the US is a predominantly Protestant Christian country with over half of Americans identifying themselves as such. At the same time, the First Amendment of the US Constitution mandates a separation between church and state. The dynamics of this separation are defined by twin clauses that create a particular balance. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favouring any one religion, even if it is the religion of the majority of its citizens. In effect, this means that public schools cannot have prayer, courthouses cannot post the Ten Commandments and government offices cannot display Christmas trees or Nativity scenes despite the fact that a vast majority of those accessing these venues are in fact Christian. Where the Establishment Clause enforces a separation between state and faith, the Free Exercise Clause preserves the right of every individual to practice their faith and is, along with the Civil Rights Act, the basis for demands for accommodation such as the one made by Ms Khan, who asked for leave to perform Hajj. It is also the basis through which Muslim women cannot be forbidden from wearing the hijab or Sikhs from wearing the turban. In a democracy, this dynamic between a legislature that is governed by the wishes and fears of the majority and a judiciary that must stand for the rights of those who can never win at the ballot box is crucial. Without the latter, any democracy, however old or young, can become a tyrannical system where fundamental rights are guaranteed only by those who form majorities and can control the ballot box. Mobs, whether they are in Pakistan or the United States, can easily be goaded into hating silent and scared minorities that can easily be forced to cower. As both the Illinois and Oklahoma cases demonstrate, the judicial system of the United States has emerged as a venue where American Muslims, a numerically paltry minority, can claim their rights to freedom and equality in matters of faith. American Muslims, being as they are a religious minority in a Christian nation, are a mirror image of non-Muslim minorities in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yet despite this parallel, few of those eagerly claiming their rights as American Muslims seem interested in speaking out about the necessity of similar respect for religious minorities within Islamic countries. While the American Muslim sphere is crowded with rights awareness programmes and the global ummah is a term familiar to all, not a single programme exists to push Muslim states to recognise and enforce minority rights. In recent months, as Copts have been persecuted in Egypt and Christians and Ahmadis in Pakistan, few American Muslim scholars or organisations have directed their attention towards formulating theological arguments against such injustices. This silence paints American Muslims in particular and Muslims in general as opportunists who are quick to extol the virtues of tolerance only when they seek to reap its dividends, but abandon them when they wield the powers of a majority. . Read Full Post
0 comments :
Post a Comment